Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12

Template:TDL Dartbox

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TDL Dartbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Created in January and it's orphan. No idea where it can be used. Editor created this and never edited again. Moreover, it's a copy of Template:Infobox darts player. Speedy delete applies fine for it. Magioladitis (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More like someone taking the piss. By inventing a fake darts organisation. Wheelchair drunk (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not quite "fake": the Tuns Darts League does indeed exist, but it's just a student thing in Wales. Given the distinct lack of secondary sourcing for anything this template covers, along with the obvious redundancy, we can definitely live without it nonetheless. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:44, 14 July 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:Shades of chartreuse

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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shades of chartreuse (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See TFD for Template:Shades of spring green below (11 July)...uncommon search term, only a few shades, should be merge to Template:Shades of green and Template:Shades of yellow. Also had a no-consensus TFD last year Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per:

all arguments listed here
at shades of spring green 2nd tfd
and all my arguments thereCurb Chain (talk) 00:32, 13 July 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:Promotional Singles

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Promotional Singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete. Undefined and not utilized. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no links on article space, and doesn't workCurb Chain (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - broken and apparently has been since creation. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:08, 17 July 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:Like

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Along with {{dislike}}. Wikipedia is WP:NOTFACEBOOK! (expanded thoughts below) Swarm ^X 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as obvious violation of WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do these template act as a personal website, blog, wiki, etc. and so violate WP:NOTFACEBOOK? --RA (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is essentially a method of +1'ing or -1'ing somebody's comment, and it will not be useful in a discussion. (Imagine what would have happened if I had merely responded with

Dislike to this reply.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, leaning towards speedy delete per criterion T2. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do these template misrepresent policy per CSD T2? --RA (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:NOTFACEBOOK is policy. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and Keep) Wikipedia is not Facebook, yet we have templates for barnstars, smiley faces, facepalm, thanks, you're welcome, thumbs up, thumbs down, great ... there's even one to hit someone in the face with a trout (or to be asked to be hit in the face with a trout!). Indeed, built in to the Wikimedia software now is a button to "Post a message to this user showing your appreciation". It shows a heart any time we visit a user page, whereby we can post a template of a cheese burger or a kitten to show our love. The like (and dislike) templates are no more than WikiLove templates. They are as useful and useless as barnstars, smiley faces, cheese burgers or kittens — and last time I checked WP:IDONTLIKEFACEBOOK was not a reason for deletion. --RA (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked WP:OTHERSTUFF was not a reason to keep. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless. 28bytes (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think RA hits the nail on the head. It's a fun little template, causes little harm, and as the original creator pointed out, it is a good way to express appreciation for something in a pithy way. I find the reason elucidated by Swarm to be unconvincing. hare j 20:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Theo10011 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikilove is a far more extensive use of Wikipedia in a social networking role. Agreed with Rannpháirtí anaithnid. Killiondude (talk) 21:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Theo10011 (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If ever there were a glaring example of why we don't want this template, it's Theo10011's comments above. Proliferation of this would be an Extraordinarily Bad Thing™. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With a great template comes great responsibility. I don't support Theo's overuse of it but I support it when used by responsible people in moderation. hare j 20:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wholly unconvinced by the nominator's rationale. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Says the person who altered the template to match facebook's design? Swarm ^X 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, says the person who altered the template to match Facebook's design. Whether or not I have mad template editing skillz (and the Good Lord knows I do), your rationale here seems to be that Wikipedia is not Facebook. I can't argue with that; it's true: Wikipedia is not Facebook. But I can argue that your deletion rationale was and is without merit or virtue. Oh, and thanks for the notification of this deletion discussion! xoxo, --MZMcBride (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like Mad skillz!!! Theo10011 (talk) 07:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It's necessary for Wikipedians to think about their Wikipedian culture and try out experiments regarding tools for interaction. The motive for creating the template was the same fundamentally reasonable motive that drove the development of the recently-rolled-out mw:WikiLove extension to MediaWiki. But I also recognize that one doesn't necessarily have to keep using the first iteration or implementation of a concept once later ones have come along. I feel the pain of those who have reservations about too much facebookization creeping into the way that Wikipedians cultivate and manage their Wikipedian culture. I realize that they aren't against metapedian socialization entirely—just against Facebook-flavored variants of it. As for whether (1) delete-it-now or (2) allow-it-to-languish-in-relative-disuse, I'll leave it to the process to determine. Thanks for listening. — ¾-10 22:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless fun, never intended to be used in article mainspace. This template is intended for humorous interaction on talk pages, per comments by RA, 28bytes, Harej and Killiondude. If you want to start deleting silly talk page templates, there are literally dozens that have existed since the project was started. Let it go. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Rannpháirtí anaithnid. Diego Grez (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there no copyright violation? Considering how these icons are identical ... Curb Chain (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe a generic thumbs-up icon is not original enough to not be public-domain. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - {{PD-shape}}. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WikiLove. Wait, I already turned that off. Keep! Even though it's the stupidest thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia, there's really no reason to delete it. --Openmouth (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Return to prior version, delete this one. This appears to be a derivative work of an "image" whose copyright status is not clear, and as such does not belong in any of the places it is currently used. Prior version worked and looked fine. Trout user who hijacked the prior version. Risker (talk) 03:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the image. Feel free to start a deletion request if you think this icon (17x17 pixels, roughly) is not PD-ineligible. I don't think the deletion of this template hinges on the file's copyright status, to be honest. I believe it's disingenuous of you to imply so. Killiondude (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It looks like this could be a violation of copyright. The icons are identical. Why should we use this here?Curb Chain (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wants to keep See? It even works here! And also, we have barnstars, {{thank you}}, and a personal favorite of mine, {{facepalm}}. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you people all really that out of the loop? Or is this actually a conscious effort to bring Facebook into Wikipedia? To the former, this is a blatant copy of Facebook's "like" icon, ergo, it's the most blatant violation of the concept "Wikipedia is not a social networking site" I've ever seen. It has nothing to do with deleting "Wikilove", or "all silly templates", or "all fun", etc., and yes, it's "harmless" but it's a blatant importation of a social networking feature. Swarm ^X 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copy? The icon itself is sourced to Facebook. (LOOK WHAT WE'RE HIDING!!!) The rest is wikicode. Killiondude (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. This is not "WikiLove", which is supposed to be a simpler interface for barnstars and the like: it's just a way of encouraging people to add pointless "+1" comments rather than having to express themselves like adults. This wholly promotes "me too" comments, which are completely against the spirit of WP:NOTVOTE. and several dozen barrels of trout for anyone who has been lazy enough to actually use it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Killiondude. I hate wikilove, love this. Theo10011 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Totally harmless and in the correct spirit. Warburton1368 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As long as policies are being cited left and right up in here, I submit these ones: WP:No personal attacks and m:Don't be a dick. Thus claiming that people must be drooling idiots if this template doesn't make them want to vomit [to paraphrase some of the discussion points] can be wikilawyered against just like anything else can. — ¾-10 03:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that they "must be drooling idiots", but we strongly discourage pointless "me too" comments in discussions as it is and this template does the exact opposite. Editors should be strongly discouraged from cookie-cutter comments in favour of expressing their own opinions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As with the facepalm comment, keeping this would encourage trollish comments. I am assuming good faith here, and I am sure comments with such icons are good faith as well, but the style is very trollish.Curb Chain (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Never mind WikiLove, barnstars and the like (omg pun!). The question is: does this template hurt anyone, or hinders writing an encyclopedia? The answer is clearly no. The template is harmless; if you don't like it, don't use it. It's a fact that people with different mindsets constitute this community. Some prefer to think of it as srs bzns, some prefer to have fun while writing the encyclopedia. This deletion request appears to be an attempt from the former group to prevent the latter from doing what they do. Which is pointless; people are who they are. Everybody needs to accept that and move on. guillom 08:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly isn't "clearly no". I actually thought Theo10011's two "like" comments in the above discussion were intended to highlight how annoying this would be if used broadly. This template strongly hints at the usage in question, which will massively reduce the signal to noise ratio of discussions on here to the project's significant detriment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not used broadly; it's just a bit of fun. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template has only existed in its current form for two months, and (ironically) until this TfD pretty much nobody had heard of it. Given that it's been misused to the point of annoyance in this TfD already, I can see taking this back to TfD again within a couple of months if it actually takes off. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others above. Totally harmless. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree this template is fairly harmless and not very problematic, but it is slightly misleading. The first time I saw it I thought it was a genuine Facebook 'like' button and instinctively tried to click it... I guess that's the point, but I can imagine newbies making the same mistake. However, as long as it's not overused (or used in articles), I don't have a problem with it. Robofish (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - completely harmless and adds a little fun. As harmless as the trout template. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not like we're adding a like button to articles. It's not even a functioning like button - TIS IS KNOT SRS BISKNESS!. --Addi hockey 10 ^e-mail 06:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — This is completely harmless. Having a template for a like and dislike button in no way shape or form violates WP:NOTFACEBOOK. ℥^nding·start 02:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must change my !vote to delete. Per thumperward's comments, I don't want to see this icon used for "facebooking" and time wasting. I can see in the extrapolation where people will use this icon for thumperward's predictions. We are building an encyclopedia, not a facebook.Curb Chain (talk) 11:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on its own, it doesn't seem all that harmful, but it does in fact violate the spirit of WP:NOTFACEBOOK. It's a blatant imitation of a major social network feature and serves no useful purpose to an encyclopedia. That is the real litmus test for anything on Wikipedia. Does it further Wikipedia's goals as an encyclopedia? If it doesn't, it is at worst harmful but even at best completely unnecessary. From my point of view the potential for damage exists, as it will only serve to create further misunderstanding about the nature of wikipedia, and will embolden future "social" efforts on Wikipedia. Keeping the wiki focused on its goal and limiting templates and activities to those that help accomplish that are critical steps to maintaining the credibility of the site as an information source. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:28, 19 July 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:County of Isle of Wight

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:County of Isle of Wight (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant to another navbox Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be the same as another 2 navboxes. Wheelchair drunk (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it the county navbox?Curb Chain (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; should be covered by Template:Infobox settlement. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 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:User-Cold

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-Cold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned userbox in template space B (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete jokeCurb Chain (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While ordinarily I'd suggest simply userfying it, that the creator is banned from the project suggests that wouldn't be useful. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:38, 12 July 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:Orbital launches in 1969

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, with no prejudice toward recreation when it can be properly populated. JPG-GR (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Orbital launches in 1969 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely useless G W… 00:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a project that never got started. Swarm ^X 08:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repair -- looks like part of a series that is used. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. This should look like {{Template:Orbital launches in 1965}} and its brethren, but at the moment it is nothing of the sort. Better for someone to recreate it when they are ready to populate it as a proper navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 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.