Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2 May 4 >

May 3

[edit]

Template:Bullshit

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted; in the future, just tag obvious cases like this one with a speedy tag and save us all some time. This falls well within the range of administrator discretion on what can be deleted on sight. --Cyde Weys 02:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bullshit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deleted once before — see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:bullshit. Using this template in articles would be inappropriate and unencyclopedic, and we have much better templates already for POV disputes, original research, uncited claims, and so forth. *** Crotalus *** 23:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Voting templates yet again

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as recreation. >Radiant< 11:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed them at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/June 2005#Template:Support and Template:Object and Template:Oppose and they were deleted. We discussed them again at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/November 2005#Template:Vote and all derivatives and they were deleted again. This bad idea has now resurfaced for a third time, and is just as bad an idea as it was before, for all of the very same reasons discussed at length before (q.v.). Uncle G 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - AfD isn't a vote, but these help organize and categorize opinions. We might as well ban boldface text of "keep" or "delete" if we're going to prohibit the use of these. These templates do not meet any of the criteria for deletion. - Chardish 18:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Allows for a good summary of a comment. Also per the boldface text issue brought up by Chardish. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you responding to a TfD with a TfD? That gives me a little bit of a chuckle on an otherwise headache-filled day. JPG-GR 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best if the only reason a vote should stand out is because of its content, not its form. That makes voting less reckless. (Hey, look at my !vote x20) GracenotesT § 19:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the difference between "Keep" and "Delete" is clear to me. They're both of different lengths, so these templates are useless to me, and can result in a slip-shod appearance of XFD debate pages. For more arguments in favor of deletion, RTFD (where D = Debates) GracenotesT § 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's kind of FUD to suggest that these templates will lead to more people interpreting XfD discussions as votes. If people can't RTFG (where G = guidelines for XfD discussions), they shouldn't be participating in XfD to begin with. And the administrators are all smart enough to understand that these opinions aren't votes, right? Maybe from now on, when I make really compelling points in XfD discussions, I should just bold those points, because it's the content that should stand out.- Chardish 20:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XfD is not a vote, and if you can't be bothered to type delete/keep/whatever and back it up with something and instead just want to slap on one of those templates... no, we don't need this. CharonX/talk 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Iamunknown and I am deliberately not using any words that are bolded in a typical discussion at one of the deletion processes. I do not like this templates because I think that they encourage voting where, most definitely, such discussions are not polls. Thus I recommend that they be disposed of by an editor who maintains a sysop flag. Regards. --22:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, resources, plaintext easier for newcomers, unnecessary, instruction creep, overemphasis on categorical vote rather than reasoning. ∴ here…♠ 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete; I agree that xFD shouldn't be a vote, but these clearly do serve some important need, or they wouldn't have been independently re-created three different times by different people each time. I suggest that these all be redirected to an essay on why voting templates are a bad idea, and that any other voting templates that appear in the future be redirected and protected. *** Crotalus *** 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging each comment with an icon looks ridiculous and is unnecessary, especially when the content isn't boilerplate. –Pomte 04:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: I created the templates. And, Gracenotes, I really do understand your position and I kind of sympathize with it - I think the biggest problem with XfD, though, is poor arguments or votes based on personal opinion rather than application of Wikipedia policy. I just think these images are in the same spirit as boldfacing the text of the !vote - it helps with categorization. Also, per Crotalus above, I think the fact that they have been created time and again shows that perhaps there might be a greater consensus outside the context of the TfD-watching crowd that might want these images to stick around. What say we close this discussion and bring it up at the Village Pump? Comments? - Chardish 04:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:European art music eras

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European art music eras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template has been made redundant by Template:History of European art music. Not currently used by any article. Pax:Vobiscum 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Library of Congress

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Library of Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There's nothing inherently fair use about Library of Congres's images. That would be a source tag not a licensing tag. Apparently, the template was recreated one day after being deleted Abu badali (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely delete — This tag creates a dangerous confusion between source and license. Frankly, the source of where a specific book is obtained is largely irrelevant. Yeah, it could be found at the Library of Congress, or a university library, or your local library, or whatever. Books can be found in many places. Whether a specific book or other item used as a reference in Wikipedia happened to be located from the Library of Congress doesn't matter. What does matter in terms of copyright status is who owns the rights to book, i.e. which author, publishing company, etc. That's what we really care about, and unfortunately, information that we're less likely to get anytime someone sees this template and thinks the actually desireable information is unimportant. --Cyde Weys 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, use Template:LOC-image as a source template, claim fair use of non-free images using Template:Non-free fair use in when (1) the copyright holder is known, (2) our use of the non-free images meets the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and (3) a non-free fair use rationale is provided. --Iamunknown 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - should be deleted on sight, along with any images linking it. ∴ here…♠ 23:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:100,000e

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deleted by Cyde. –Pomte 04:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:100,000e (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is practically identical to Template:User 100 000e. This particular version isn't used anywhere on WP [1] and the creator has twice reverted my declaring the template deprecated because it's better with a comma; this is the English WP where we use commas [2]. I recommend the template be deleted. — JPG-GR 08:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, of interest: Template talk:User 50 000e JPG-GR 08:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm creating these boxes with commas instead of without, as these numbers are commonly written with commas in English-speaking countries to the best of my knowledge. No need for deletion. If you want to delete one, you can delete the one without a comma; or better still, keep both. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:History of Taiwan

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Will replace instances of template with Republic of China (Taiwan) topics. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Taiwan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics. I presume that template to which this one is redundant shall be kept (it is currently the object of a deletion debate). If not, then this should probably not be anyway, for whichever reason {{Republic of China (Taiwan) topics}} is deleted. GracenotesT § 02:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Tim Q. Wells 02:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think they both should be kept (which is the way similar articles are) since it is a concise template ready for readers and not at the bottom of the page like {{Republic of China (Taiwan) topics}}. Tim Q. Wells 02:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are assuming most readers want to see it. I hate it, and I happen to believe most people don't need it. If you are going to have any templates they need to balance those needs, which means being as small and unobtrusive as possible by default but expandable with a click. --Ideogram 03:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I may note, this template is rather short for a navigational box. I am mostly sure that it can be merged into Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics. GracenotesT § 04:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC) --WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vancouver Canucks seasons

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vancouver Canucks seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Housekeeping. Both this template, and {{Edmonton Oilers seasons}} have been incorporated into newer templates: {{Vancouver Canucks}} and {{Edmonton Oilers}}, making the older versions redundant. — Resolute 00:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both per nom. --Djsasso 00:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both per nom. --Pparazorback 00:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. --myselfalso 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Detete both per nom. --GoodDay 18:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cliche delete both per nom. CattleGirl talk | sign! 00:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, +unused. --Qyd 15:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_3&oldid=1259728740"