Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 February 27

< February 26	February 28 >

February 27

Template:Humor

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 keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template conveys the wrong message, namely, so long as a web page within project namespace contains material that is considered humorous, it is kept. In a broad sense, project namespace pages are kept because they are helpful or useful in building the encyclopedia and/or provide a sincere and genuine effort to improve the encyclopedia. We should not be sending the message that project namespace pages are kept because they are considered humorous. Humor does play an important part in building the encyclopedia and in encouraging improvement of the encyclopedia, but that role is only secondary to Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. In addition to conveying the wrong message, this template often is added to a project namespace merely because an editor considers the material humorous and without there being a discussion consensus that concludes that the material in the page is kept because it is considered humorous. A consensus discussion conclusion can be conveyed by an admin on the project namespace talk page such as through Template:Oldmfd. Template:Humor should be deleted. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep template indicates that the projecgt page conveys its message through humour. Many pages use humour to get their point across, but without a heads-up, people might think the page is serious. --- c y m r u . l a s s ^{(talk me, stalk me)} 07:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. In many instances, humour is vital to grease the wheels of communication and collaboration; it can get an unpalatable message across in an acceptable way, too. ThatPeskyCommoner (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Cymru. — Novice7 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Highly useful template which indicates that the material in the page isn't to be taken as fact. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep per above. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It lets us know that a particular page contains humor (see here for an example). It would be sad to see it go. Just keep it!--The Master of Mayhem 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept because it contains things that are consider humorous by the community, and for quick navigation. Phearson (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but maybe reword to "material that is considered humorous"? I think I'll just change it and see if anyone objects at the talk page. Ab e g92contribs 23:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the consensus is clear at this point, but I say keep as well. I've seen this template around for years and never thought there was anything wrong with it. With serious and policy-related content in the Wikipedia namespace, it's important to explicitly identify a humorous page for what its intention is. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per above and beyond. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used, and we need this template to warn the users not to treat the content seriously. Hey Mid (contribs) 13:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep because we have to tell people what to think through a template instead of letting the writing in the page convey its content? That is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on censorship/disclaimer templates and a sorry excuse for an organization dedicated to prose writing. This is just like templates having a spoiler alert, or a warning that this page contain pornography, or medical. If someone paternalistically thinks that others need a heads-up or a warning or an explanation as to intentions or to get an unpalatable message across, they can improve the page or post something on the talk page. Any navigation can be handled by the talk page. If the above posts are correct, then the use of this template would justify another template requesting that the humor in the page be improved. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello? Outside of mainspace. --Highspeedrailguy (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to make that point: this template is not designed for articles, in which humor is probably not appropriate anyway. Many user and project pages are there strictly for the lulz, but without warning, might be erroneously submitted for deletion (it's happened before). bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the nominator missed the point; this template doesn't attempt to modify policy or establish a criteria for keeping a silly page, it merely identies pages that are not meant to be taken seriously. If the page needs to be deleted, this template isn't going to save it. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per above. It's just an identifier that the article is humorous. It also makes it easy to identify and categorize, and it isn't a guideline. And really, on Wikipedia, if something is going to be deleted, not even God himself (or God with a template) will prevent it. ArDavP 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArDavP (talk • contribs)
Keep same as Cymrulass. Everyone says keep, so why don't we just close the discussion? Onyx321 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2011 (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:Non-free British Columbia traffic sign

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free British Columbia traffic sign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All images have been tagged as {{di-orphaned fair use}} as they have been replaced by PD eligible markers on Commons. Both this template and its associated category can be deleted. Admr Boltz 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of housekeeping maintenance as a result of the new PD images being created. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unneeded now. Imzadi 1979 → 22:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some background discussion on the replacement SVG images (and rationale on copyright status) can be found at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Canada_Roads#SVGs_of_BC_Highway_shields. I'm no copyright expert but I take on trust that all the statements made concerning licensing of the SVG images are valid. RedWolf (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2011 (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.