Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 January 13)
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13

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 templates's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected two of the three templates onto the third. That one should be reasonably unoffensive, but feel free to improve the wording. Radiant_>|< 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vfdsock

edit

A clear violation of WP:BITE. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:23, 13 January 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. -Splashtalk

Template:Background

edit

Disambig-style statement that doens't actually disambiguate. The template does what the introductory text should do. What horrible writing style Raul654 20:58, 13 January 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. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Creator:Benjamin West

edit

Unused. Created last June and not edited since. Nothing links to it. - TexasAndroid 20:49, 13 January 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. Not even clear whether it should be merged/redirect to what or where. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties & Template:UK ties3

edit

Not used. Replaced by Template:UK ties2. CG 19:50, 13 January 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. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kamic A'kota

edit

Template:Kamic A'kota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Kamic said this was a test [1]. It consists only of [[Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin|Kamic A'kota]]. It links only to Kamic's userpage, and that is easily fixed. Fang Aili 18:17, 13 January 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. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Note JapanRailwaysFormat

edit

Template:Note JapanRailwaysFormat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This is a weird one from Wikipedia:Templates with red links - unused, unconventional, and unedited since mid '04. BD2412 T 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- I'm sure it covered a need back when I first created it, probably replacing repeated content, but if it's obsolete by now then it's time to delete. Aris Katsaris 06:15, 13 January 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, I guess, although I note it's been moved and rephrased. I'm not especially happy declaring any kind of consensus on userboxes at present. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User antiracist

edit
Err, this was nominated by Dtasripin - Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your logic is impeccable. A regular Descartes, you are. We are all humbled. -Silence 09:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ActiveSelective adds: and after this template is finally awarded a 'keep', i suggest a temporary Lock On Nominating This Template for at least a few months. Otherwise we have to do this discussion all over again, and again, and again, since it is a fettish object for conservative crusaders.
  • ActiveSelective adds: No Merge with the MLK template. Both MX and MLK were against racism, but their backgrounds and antiracist tactics and strategy were different, as well as some other world views. It is perfectly fine for people to use both userboxes!
Lie: "The image used of Malcom X is fair use."
Truth: → It's a public domain image, not fair use. Like the description of the image plainly says and has always said.
Lie: "Malcom X was a racist"
Truth: → Quote from him: "I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color." It is true that he did say a lot of racist things towards white people early in his life (example, "Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to black people") however he changed a lot in his later life after leaving the racist organization Nation of Islam, who later assassinated him for rejecting their mixture of religion and extreme bigotry.
I hope people read this and understand before writing Malcom X off as a "racist" and replacing the template with the Martin Luther King one. He did a lot of good things in combating racism and Martin Luther King actually said one of his inspirations was Malcom X. No merge, no delete, keep. Read the Malcom X article if you want confirmation of what I say here. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:40, 14 January 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, I guess, although I note it's been moved and rephrased. I'm not especially happy declaring any kind of consensus on userboxes at present. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User true antiracist

edit

The drift I get is that we are going to sterilize User Talkpages of anything other than "I support", "I consume", or "I like" messages in userboxes. So I say no one should be able to state their non-support, or opposition to(!) anything. Somebody's feelings might get hurt, and we would never want anything to cramp the rights of people who use English Wikipedia not to have to think or question themselves. And good Lord in Heaven forbid, that anyone use of the image of either one of these unrepentant lawbreakers - it might make them inclined to violate policy! --Daniel 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete: WP:POINT doesn't apply. I've changed my mind - it's part of the beauty of having one and the freedom to express what's on it. So since we are getting rid of inflammatory userboxes, we may as well get the ones that offend a good number of English-speaking Wikipedia users out of the way. --Daniel 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all userboxes until the userbox hunt ends. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored.[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic delete'. "Anti-racist" could be interpreted as a personal attack against racist people. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ACtually, that's not a bad point. It's also disingenuous to have the templates named "antiracist" when the content of the template makes it clear that the user is opposed to racism, not just to all people who happen to be racist. So, in addition to my above recommendation that the caustic and pointed name "true antiracist" be moved to "antiracist2", I now feel that the two templates should be named: (1) antiracism, and (2) antiracism2. By the way, I also happen to feel that these are some remarkably silly templates (what's next, anti-rape templates? anti-genocide? anti-suffering? anti-ignorance? oy.), but then again, lots of our userboxes are, and they still get used, so I see no problem with bringing these ones up to snuff for those people who do want to use them, for one reason or another. -Silence 07:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's silly to think that there are racists on Wikipedia. It's so uncivil to say such a thing like they need to be opposed! --Daniel 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, such masterful Ciceronian persuasion as in the edit you quote necessitates fierce resistance indeed. EldKatt (Talk) 15:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, and then Name Change -- leave out the 'true' in 'true antiracist'. I suggest to leave the other antiracist template with the same name, and rename the 'true antiracist' into 'antiracist MLKing' because: (1) it has to be renamed anyway, (2) it has less users using it. -- ActiveSelective 10:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ActiveSelective adds: No Merge with the MX template. Both MX and MLK were against racism, but their backgrounds and antiracist tactics and strategy were different, as well as some other world views. It is perfectly fine for people to use both userboxes!
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, apparently, although the case for any kind of consensus on userboxes is very weak. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User vandal

edit

Apparantly created only to make a point in the discussion below. Not used. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly looks like an attack template, if you arn't up on university sport's team's names in the US. Excuse me if we in the rest of the world are not. Avoid systematic bias, and keep in jokes to userspace please. --Doc ask? 17:12, 13 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_13&oldid=1138690529"