Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 3

< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

CSD T1 templates

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete all --Magioladitis (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-t1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) as well as

Template:Db-divisive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) as well as

Template:Db-divisive-notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating these templates for deletion in light of criterion Templates 1 being repealed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, following wide advertisement and consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Removal_of_T1_redux. A redirect isn't suitable because some of the templates formerly deleted under T1 may be deletable under other CSDs, whereas others will need to be taken here to TfD. Some of these I deleted during the previous, less widely-advertised trial, and I've restored them for this discussion. Dcoetzee 09:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can hear the crowds coming...PSNMand (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment It also says in your userpage you are a administrator on Wikipedia so I see no reason why you had to make a request.Provide verifcation just be be safe PSNMand (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the request because another admin asked me to do so and I want to solicit wide feedback at every step to establish firm consensus on such a controversial matter. Dcoetzee 10:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If the criterion is no longer valid, there should no longer be a template to invoke that criterion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it make more sense to redirect them to {{db-g10}} since that criterion is replacing T1 rather than just deleting them? --B (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it would - the original rationale for deleting T1 is that anything genuinely deletable under its language should be deletable under G10. Redirecting is the way to go; otherwise, it might break undeletion of speedily deleted content. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. T1 was originally designed and mostly used for content that did not meet G10. "I am a pedophile" is not an attack on anyone. The consensus at WT:CSD was that such content should not be speedy deletable. I think that redirecting to G10 might imply that that criterion should be interpreted to include deletions made under T1 and that is not correct. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether T1 is codified or not, a userbox with that text is horribly inappropriate, and would be speedied on sight and, I take it on faith, any admin restoring it would be desysopped again, just like three years ago. Anything that really is "divisive and inflammatory" should be speedied anyway. The problem with T1 was always that you had "rouge" (intentional misspelling) admins deleting anything they didn't like and calling it "divisive and inflammatory". The most notorious example was a userbox that said "this user is a Christian". There was a set of admins that made deleting it their personal project. It was always resoundingly overturned at DRV. Then, a few weeks later, they delete it again. ("This user is" any other religion was just fine, only Christianity was divisive.) The problem wasn't with the rule - it was with its application by abusive administrators. If a template really is divisive and inflammatory (not just "some admin doesn't like it") then it can be deleted under some other criterion anyway. Just deleting the tag outright rather than redirecting it is pointless. --B (talk) 07:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, not all former T1s are valid G10s; some of them may be deleted unilaterally, but still others should be brought to TfD for discussion because they're ambiguous. If you look at Hut's survey you can see many examples of templates that should have gone through a full discussion process; for example, one says "This user dislikes ponies," and in one infamous case a template indicating a position on a controversial policy was T1ed. The point of deleting the T1 templates is to ensure that no templates are mistagged as "attacks" when they are not in fact attacks and require the due process of TfD to consider fully. Dcoetzee 10:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This user dislikes ponies" was not a valid T1. Whoever deleted that was taking it upon themselves to delete whatever the heck they felt like. Userboxes aren't supposed to even be in template space any more, so why should this even be an issue? --B (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, T1 was repealed in large part because it was defunct; regardless, I think we can agree that not all former T1s are G10s, and so a specific redirect is inappropriate and would create confusion among people who use the tag without awareness of the policy revision. All the other speedy deletion tags would still be available for tagging, according to the specific template at issue. Dcoetzee 19:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the criterion has been removed (and so the template is useless and may cause people to think they can still delete things under T1). A redirect is not appropriate because the fact that something is divisive does not mean it attacks anyone, so the fact that something could be deleted under T1 does not mean it can be deleted under G10. Hut 8.5 15:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect to db-g10. With the criterion removed the templates are defunct and not all (former) T1 candidates are G10 candidates. It might be good to link to the depreciation discussion in the deletion summary. Guest9999 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per CSD T2, since the policy has changed this now misrepresents it.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2009 (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:Aap

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted - the author has already been indeffed and only his socks want to keep the thing. Speedied as G6/G3 cleanup. --B (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aap (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template seems rather arbitrary, and quite threatening. It implies a policy (that Wikipedia articles REQUIRE pictures) that does not really exist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a on going habbit to the users of Wikipedia but I didnt intend it of threatening anyone.PSNMand (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This also applies to a guideline called WP:IMAGES PSNMand (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That guideline only indicates HOW to use images if an author chooses to do so. It does not imply that there is any requirement, or even recommendation, to include images in articles. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its basicly like a notice to show visual proof of its target's existence but IT DOES APPLY to WP:IUP PSNMand (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This only applies to WP:IUP but I will agree that it does not apply to WP:IMAGES JamieAhoy (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)— JamieAhoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I can't see how this template applies to WP:IUP. That policy only states what rules to follow when adding images to Wikipedia. It does NOT state any requirement or recommendation to use images in articles, as this template implies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While your at it lets change the topic to polices and guidelines instead of deletion of templates.And HOW IS IT threatening? PSNMand (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue of policies and guidelines was raised by PSNMand (talk · contribs) as a reason for keeping the template. My discussion has only been an attempt to refute those claims in relation to this template, not to change WP policies in general. And the template is threatening in its use of the words "failure to comply may result in this template being added again". Admittedly, it's not a HUGE threat (like having one's account blocked), but it is a fairly commanding tone. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion This template is useless there are already template for requesting pictures for a page and they go in the talk page not the article it's self and the way the template is, is way to strong a bright green color in a large box at the top of an article will just take away from it. Kyle1278 (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC

There are already templates for asking for pictures this one seems over the top no person who has created and article wants there to be a bright green box at the top of the article. and the part where it says failure to comply may result in this template being added again" unneeded and my be precived as a threat to block. Kyle1278 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This template can apply to WP:UPIMAGE. Attguylol (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats with the username? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSNMand (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it duplicates Template:Reqphoto, except that Template:Reqphoto has a name that makes sense, isn't a blindingly bad color, and isn't confrontational. --B (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, upon further review, I'm just deleting the thing. The creator is a mostly vandalism account who is partying with socks. Deleted. --B (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2009 (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:Bareilly

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all. They could be speedy deleted as test pages as well. --Magioladitis (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bareilly (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also:

Template:Shahjahanpur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Badaun (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rampur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pilibhit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only contain the same word as the template title, no transclusions, pointless as using the template uses more characters than typing the words out manually! Richard ⁰⁶¹² 16:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete There is no point what so ever unless hes trying to make some sort of secret message. PSNMand (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of any use for these templates. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 02:05, 5 February 2009 (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:B.SC- Mathematics for Life-Sciences

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete G2 --Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:B.SC- Mathematics for Life-Sciences (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content shouldn't be in template space, and I doubt that this warrants inclusion anyway, in the template namespace or otherwise. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G2 Obvious test page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:18, 3 February 2009 (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:(c) Md. Fazlul Haque, Lecturer in English, Kurigram Govt. College, allows to use under GNU Free Documentation License

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete --Magioladitis (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:(c) Md. Fazlul Haque, Lecturer in English, Kurigram Govt. College, allows to use under GNU Free Documentation License (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It'd be easier to simply type in the template's one line of text when (if?) needed rather than use this. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bazj (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creation of this template was probably an error. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it isn't even used in mainspace. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:37, 9 February 2009 (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:Totally-disputed-section

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 05:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Totally-disputed-section (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant with {{articleissues}} with the "disputed" and "POV" options, per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 22#Template:Totally-disputed. Rogerb67 (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the template's third nomination; many apologies if I haven't set it up quite right. There is no intent to deceive. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant per nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for no reason LOL PSNMand (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User has been indefinitely blocked. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Not redundant with articleissues, unless there's a version of that called {{sectionissues}} 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is your only objection, then the closing admin should disregard your "weak keep". See my explanation below.--Cerejota (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The template appears redundant. Also, since the {{totally-disputed}} template is deleted, this should as well. --Aude (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not redundant with {{Article issues}} any more then say, {{Refimprove}}. However please include {{Totally-disputed-lead}} in this discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 23:56 7 February 2009 (UTC).
Delete as per deletion of {{totally-disputed}}. My bad I didn't include it in my TfD for that. {{articleissues}} documentation clearly states that it can be used in sections too: Use section=y if placing the template in a particular section. There is no technical limitations. This should be speedy if we had such a baby for templates. It also reveals the age of {{totally-disputed}} that it needed a separate {{totally-disputed-section}} template instead of the modern "section" parameter that is now used. :P--Cerejota (talk) 07:01, 9 February 2009 (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.