Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 25

< February 24	February 26 >

February 25, 2006

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 OUT OF SCOPE. -Splash^talk 03:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kurdistan-stub

debate moved to SFD where it belongs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 22:49, 25 February 2006 (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 page.

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 moot - speedy deleted by Raul654. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PotentiallyDisturbingImage

Delete: Wikipedia is not censored and this application of this template is somewhat POV, who is to say what some may find disturbing? Pagra shtak 20:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pagrashtak. Chairman S. | Talk 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pag _→AzaToth 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pag. Postdlf 23:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep I don't understand how this template equates to censorship? The idea of a template to warn users seems reasonable, although the use of such a template will always involve making value judgements which can always be label POV. (However, that same labeling can also be applied to anything that relies on subjective criteria, such as what is encyclopeadic...) – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to keep since although I don't have a strong opinion, I think the arguments for deleting on the basis of POV or "who decides" are using a false premise. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if an encyclopedia article has a particularly disturbing image (such as a graphic image of war injuries or medical conditions), I think it is perfectly reasonable to warn readers with a template like this. Enchanter
Keep as per Enchanter. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-NPOV. Who decides what's "potentially disturbing" and what isn't? Angr/talk 15:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, better be safe than sorry. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And who decides what is encyclopeadic or not? Anything that isn't completely lacking in controversy requires consensus, which isn't exactly a foreign concept on WIkipedia. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bogdan 19:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have difficulty seeing this as a POV or censorship issue. It does not remove the image or imply that there is anything "wrong" with the image. I think it falls under a similar category to the discussions that went on in the "Lolicon debate" (see Talk:Lolicon, Talk:Autofellatio for more) that concluded that some images should have warnings even if they are to be on Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As to the argument that it's censorship: per Cuiviénen, I simply don't see why a simple warning can be construed to be censorship. There are plenty of people out there who would be disturbed by, for example, the images in Lynching in the United States, where this template is most appropriately used, and they can decide whether to continue. It is letting readers know that if they think they might be upset by the images not to read the article -- it isn't telling them they can't. This is somewhat like the spoiler warning template in that it might be good for the person reading to heed the warning, but it is totally up to that reader.

As to the argument that it's not NPOV: Per Bell, I've seen many an article deemed "not encyclopedic" on ten times more "opinion" than it takes to say that an image contains things that might seriously upset someone. Can anyone deny that the images in Lynching in the United States wouldn't disturb someone? And of course, some places it would be arguable whether "This article contains images that some people may find disturbing," but that can be fixed by discussing the template's use on that page's discussion and removing it there if necessary, not by deleting the enitre template and removing it wherever it's used. That is simply ridiculous. Bobburito 03:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV is not a very good argument, and censorship is even worse. But, we have discussed this very many times and have consistently decided to avoid using such templates and warnings. In articles where potentially disturbing images are really required (and thus likely expected by the reader), they can be put lower in the article, to give people who are not comfortable with a topic the chance to go elsewhere after reading the intro. Zocky | picture popups 09:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Enchanter. Metamagician3000 14:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost verbatim recreation of template:offensive. Speedily deleted per CSD criteria 4 Raul654 20:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone provide a link to the TfD deletion discussion for template:offensive; I'm having trouble finding it, and would be interested to have a read (the problem with this type of template is not obvious to me). Enchanter 23:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/October 2005#Template:Offensive. Angr/talk 12:58, 1 March 2006 (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 page.

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. -Splash^talk 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chile-Educational-Use

Template:Chile-Educational-Use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template and the category associated with it seem to have derived from a misunderstanding of Chilean law. It is being used to tag images but the law seems to apply only to text. The talk page of the template has details. We should de-popluate the category and delete it too. Most of the images are probably reasonable to keep under fair use. Zeimusu | Talk page 15:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if the template's wording was correct, we don't allow images that can only be used for educational use, and it seems to be dealing with Chilean copyright law, not U.S. copyright law which is the one that's applicable to Wikipedia. JYolkowski // talk 15:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Commons:Licensing: "The copyright of the nation where the image was first published gets applied to that image (and this country-specific law decides if we consider the image as public domain in general or not).", so your last argument is incorrect. —Cantus…☎ 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the creator of this template: User:Yakoo clarified in my Talk page that this only applied to written work. This does not apply to images. He also clarified that images made by Chilean state agencies are NOT in the public domain. —Cantus…☎ 15:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article 38 of Chilean Intellectual Property Law not apply to images. Most of the images are probably to keep under fair use --Yakoo 07:46, 27 February 2006 (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 page.

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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 03:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mars confectionery products

I do not want this template on WIKIPEDIA! I would use a sockpuppet of mine - Hartnell on WHEELS!! - to wipe it's contents off the Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedist with a difference. 14:09, 25 February 2006 (Vertigo).

As stated below, please keep in mind that the person who nominated this template is a vandal who continually vandalizes the template, adding Dr. Who contents and website links. Also, it is possible that this vandal is a sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels, since he refers to himself as "Hartnell on WHEELS" in both his vandalism and here on TfD --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 11:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see what's wrong with it. --Tone 19:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Category:Mars brands renders this unnecessary. This does not contribute to information organization at all. Postdlf 23:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category:Mars brands categorizes all Mars brand products, whereas Template:Mars confectionery products focuses primarily on Mars' confectionary products. Also, please note that the person who nominated this template for deletion, an anonymous IP who calls himself "Hartnell on WHEELS" (a possible sockpuppet of Willy on Wheels), has been vandalizing this template multiple times using different sockpuppets .--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note, this template was vandalized with the "Torchwood" logo, and the name "Harnell on WHEELS" is a likely reference to William Hartnell (First Doctor), of Doctor Who, which "Torchwood" is related to. 68.39.174.238 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only reason this template is here at all is because a constant and continuing vandal nominated it. The template is succinct and a useful navigation aid. The Category:Mars brands is quite different, and less directly accessible. Simmyymmis 13:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it lacks true encyclopedia value, it still is useful in navigating through the Mars pages. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks useful to me. Pagra shtak 23:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful. Royboy crashfan 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but get rid of the logo. Zocky | picture popups 09:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, Zocky, that was a fair use image clearly used for decorative purposes. I've removed it. Pagra shtak 01:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep makes sensible connections in the huge Wikipedia universe 亮HH 23:57, 27 February 2006 (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 page.

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 NO CONSENSUS. This doesn't seem to reach any of the usual standards of consensual deletion, although Moe Epsilon's pure vote is not helpful in such circumstances. Still, the case isn't here either numerically or debaterally to delete this at present. -Splash^talk 03:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Singularitarian

Template:User Singularitarian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I know nominating a userbox is stepping into a firestorm, but this one is unused save by the creator (who has two dozen various userboxes) and has nothing at all to do with actually creating an encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire

Subst and Delete - Obviously a userbox with appeal so limited that no more than one or two users will ever want it. In that way, deleting it is just like deleting a template created for a single article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not at all obvious; there are a large number of singularitarians in some groups from which Wikipedians tend to be drawn. Whether they would use this spelling is another question, but the article does. Septentrionalis 17:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until there is a policy agreed, I oppose deleting userboxes like this. I'm now reluctantly supporting the proposed policy, but think there should be a moratorium on deleting harmless statements of belief like this one. Why are such userboxes even being nominated when there is the possibility of reaching agreement on a policy about this sort of thing? Metamagician3000 02:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moe ε 03:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No problem with deleting unused userboxes.--God of War 08:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, not needed in Template: space since it's never going to be used much. JYolkowski // talk 15:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete per above, not likely ever to be used by more than a few people --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 09:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's more interesting to know about such beliefs than a zodiac. It's more meaningful to group people with interest in particular areas than to group something popular, which can be easily found around even without the need of such groups (eg., Firefox users, Microsoft users,..) Inyuki 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On this basis many other popular Userboxes could also be proposed for deletion, but they are not. I suggest keeping until there is policy on this.
  - We do have relevant policy. Templates used in only one page are substed into that page and deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 1 March 2006 (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 page.