Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 30

< November 29	December 1 >

November 30

Template:WolverinesCoach

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 debate was KEEP. -Splash - tk 20:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new Template:Michigan Wolverines Football covers this.. michfan2123 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles such as Frank Crawford, Frank Barbour, William McCauley, William Ward (football coach), Gustave Ferbert, Langdon Lea, George Little (football coach), Harry G. Kipke, and Fritz Crisler do not need the full Michigan football template at the bottom, but this template. This is because they coached at other schools too, and do not need the full template at the bottom. Coaches that were exclusively at Michigan could have the large template, but others shouldn't. Hopefully we will be adding Les Miles to this template. =D. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 03:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Malinaccier. JPG-GR 04:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whoa... Template:Michigan Wolverines Football is longer than some stubs that I see... --Howard the Duck 08:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I'd be inclined to delete the other template before this one. For a template of that size, may I suggest using {{Navigation with collapsible groups}}?↔NMajdan•talk 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Clean, concise, and easily understandable, this template follows the style of templates for college football head coaches, and does a good job. I'd suggest a collapsable condition for the other template. JKBrooks85 16:28, 4 December 2007 (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:Czechoslovakia Squad 1960 European Nations' Cup

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 debate was DELETE. Note that this leaves Titus Buberník without a corresponding template. -Splash - tk 20:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:FOOTY guidelines and consensus that only FIFA World Cup templates should be used. - Darwinek 15:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Vote. Where does it say that? ViperSnake151 13:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. - Darwinek 15:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per project concensus which has held up very well in the past. Neier (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2007 (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:Advert5

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 debate was KEEP. The move to delete so-called 'deprecated' templates is misguided as explained by Ned Scott. There is no reason to prevent people using what templates they prefer just because other people prefer other ones. Particularly when this one is intended always to be subst'ed, so you can't evaluate its usage. -Splash - tk 20:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and replaced by Template:uw-sblock per WP:UW. Suggest deleting template and its documentation and redirecting Template:Advert5 to new template. — Papa November 14:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom, as a deprecated template.--Kubigula (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Some users still prefer the use of the older templates to the newer ones. You cannot tell if something is deprecated when it is always subst'ed. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 5 December 2007 (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.

Austrian Districts

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 debate was DELETE ALL. -Splash - tk 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redlink-filled template created by an anon in 2005 for neighborhood-level geographic divisions which are likely too small to sustain independent articles (i.e. they would go in the title article anyway); transcludes nowhere but the title article. — BD2412 T 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

(combined into one discussion) Delete all unused red-linked templates that have little odds of ever being utilized. JPG-GR 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for combining - I was not sure if that would be the right thing to do. Cheers! BD2412 T 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete as deprecated/unused & probably unusable. SkierRMH (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2007 (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:Estate

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 debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan redlink-filled template created in 2004 and never put to use. Certainly could be better uses for this very broad title. — BD2412 T 14:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete as abandoned and not useful. Maralia 15:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unused & not useful. SkierRMH (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Maralia. JPG-GR 07:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Unused. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide} _(HI!) 21:29, 2 December 2007 (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.

Various variants of Template:Please leave this line alone (Sandbox heading)

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 debate was that those in the 'unused' and 'inflammatory' sections are already deleted, those in the 'possibly deprecated' section redirected as suggested and those in the 'not continued' section dealt with as recommended by Iceshark7. -Splash - tk 19:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Some "Please leave this line alone" templates which I think that they won't have a lot of purpose.

Unused

Suggest Delete - All are unused, the only links to these templates are search gathers by name.
- Speedily deleted as test pages (WP:CSD#G2). Kusma (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory

Speedy Delete - Because this was the only template I could find a criterion against it, so it could be deleted. WP:CSD#T1 because of the word WTF.

Possibly deprecated

Suggest Redirect - Copies of Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox talk heading) not being used at the moment.

Discussion not continued

These were listed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_February_22#Please leave this line alone (variants). However, no further discussion has been made, and even the TFD templates have been left in for two of these templates.

Suggest Delete for Template:Please leave this line alone. - possibly deprecated? No links except from the old TFD discussion.
Suggest Userfy for Template:Please leave this line alone (personal sandbox heading) because it's only being linked to User:Fortunecookie289/sandbox at the moment.

~Iceshark7 14:24, 30 November 2007 (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:Coups in the Philippines

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 debate was delete. matt br 10:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template (Template:RegchangeRP already exists). Also, it is utterly foolish to use Template:Coups in the Philippines on a predominantly civilian events (the First Quarter Storm? LOL...) Also the template creator replaced the instances of Template:RegchangeRP to this one without consensus. --Howard the Duck 07:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as misrepresenting Philippine historical events --Lenticel ^(talk) 13:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student riots and People Power are not historically considered as coups. Starczamora 14:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The author has removed all instances of this template from articles and the only links remaining are from this TFD. --Howard the Duck 08:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a similar template on some articles relating to attempts on regime change in the Philippines, so this one's redundant. Second, per Lenticel, this template reflects a lack of understanding of the subject matter itself---since when did student activists stage a coup d'etat a la Gringo Honasan?!?!? And third...knowing who created this template, why am I not surprised? --- Tito Pao 04:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as now deprecated & redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2007 (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:R-phrase and all the other templates in Category:R-phrase templates and all the templates in Category:S-phrase 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. The reasons given for deletion do not fall into the normal criteria for template deletion listed at the top of this page. A simple review of the templates would have shown that any alleged accessibility problems would need to be dealt with by a change in the behaviour of class="abbr" in MediaWiki, and are therefore not a topic for discussion here. That the nominator did not conduct the most simple research before nominating these templates for deletion is shown here: the fact that the TfD notice was not included within <noinclude> tags led to the disruption of over 5000 articles, something which the nominator could have prevented had he thought to used simple discussion before even contemplating bringing the matter here. The disruption was completely predictable, given that the nominator chose to nominate more than 200 templates at once. The speedy keep does not imply any judgment on the accessibility questions raised in the discussion, which should be addressed in more appropriate fora. Physchim62 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 126 R-phrase templates in Category:R-phrase templates, and 74 S-phrase templates in Category:S-phrase templates, and they all do nothing more than print an R- or S-phrase (e.g. "R1"), underlined and in blue. That is, these templates make R- and S-phrases look like wikilinks, but surprise! they don't do anything if you click on them. It did occur to me that the relevant standards might require them to be marked up in this strange manner, but no, it appears not. As far as I can tell this is simply a case of someone wanting to make R- and S-phrases look really cool. My position is that there is absolutely no reason to give these phrases their own special markup. The templates should be altered to print their phrases in plain old vanilla text, then all occurrences should be substed, and the templates and categories deleted. — Hesperian 03:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It has been pointed out that these template add more than just visual styling; they also add a tooltip. My position, then, is that tooltips violate principles of web accessibility, and are therefore recommended against by the Wikipedia:Accessibility guideline, so there is still no legitimate reason for these templates to exist. Hesperian 04:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how Wikipedia would be improved by removing them. The tooltips are a supplemental piece of information expanding the meaning of the abbreviation, the R-phrase template is still perfectly usable without being able to access it. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are removed, all uses of the phrases on Wikipedia will revert to vanilla text (an improvement), and explanations of the phrase, when needed, will be provided in the text rather than in a tooltip (an improvement). Hesperian 04:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to vanila text can already be done by editing the style attribute of the template, and if you'll check out the way this template is commonly used you'll see that it wouldn't be an improvement to include a full explanation with each one. They're used in infobox templates where space is at a premium. Bryan Derksen (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing it. If full explanations are unnecessary, then the tooltips are completely pointless. If full explanations are necessary, then we have a serious accessibility problem here, for necessary information is being presented inaccessibly. You seem to be taking a middle ground, where full explanations are a nice touch but not actually necessary. I'm not convinced. If I had accessibility difficulties, then [[List of R-phrases|R1]] would be useful to me but your tooltip markup would not. The former takes up no more room in an infobox than the latter. Hesperian 04:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what the R-phrases and S-phrases are, I doubt a flat-out deletion is a good idea at all. I suggest that they be adjusted to function as proper links, which direct the user to a page like the proposed [[List of R-phrases|R1]] but to still provide in tooltips the information they did before they got marked for deletion and vanished from the infoboxes completely. This has the advantage of making it unnecessary to reconstruct all the effected infobox sections completely -- which, as it stands right now, would be required by this -- and of letting users get the phrases defined without having to click through each and every link until they started memorizing them.71.76.230.103 13:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (nominator). Hesperian 03:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They do one other thing that's actually the core purpose of the templates; they provide a "title" attribute for the text that on most web browsers produces a tooltip explaining what the R-phrase means. I use Firefox and it works for me, try putting the mouse pointer over the displayed text of the template {{R1}} and see if the tooltip pops up for you. The visual styling is incidental, but thanks to my work on standardizing these things using a meta-template it's quite easy to change that without affecting the template's utility; it's all centralized in {{R-phrase}}. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I should mention that the S-phrase templates do the same thing. I just haven't got around to centralizing their styling in the same manner yet. If this TfD results in a keep I'll do that so that any changes that are ultimately made to R-phrase styling can be easily duplicated. Bryan Derksen (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be to create one single template for all R-phrases and one for all S-phrases, respectively. Have a look at the German versions here and here. There, the input is e.g. {{R-Sätze|7|12|39/23/24}}. --Leyo 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep These templates are in very wide use. I can concur that what the template is showing is a bit awkward (it could easily be repaired by slightly changing the layout. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep? Hesperian 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur, no, I did not. Still I think that this discussion should be closed, since the only reason here seems to be that they don't seem (they do) to be doing anything, and I don't like them, without trying to contact people who actually worked on these templates, or a project who might be involved. Deleting these templates will result in much disruption over a lot of chemicals pages. So voting Keep.

- REMARKS: This TfD is causing major disruption on almost ALL pages displaying chemicals!! I am reverting all the nominations, but leave this discussion open to see where it is heading! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Wikipedia is not an MSDS so an in depth discussion of each R and S phrase is not necessary nor desirable. Apart from German chemists, nobody memorizes R and S phrases. This makes the tooltip very helpful in knowing the exact risk/safety statement without needing to open a static list. I'm not sure about the lay public but as a practicing chemist, it is very useful. --Rifleman 82 15:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ever actually read Wikipedia:Speedy keep? Hesperian 04:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or rework. They do provide a useful addition vs just plain text in a place where that information is important ("what are these codes?") in a place where any more detail or more-descriptive link wouldn't work as well (cheminfoboxes are already huge). Maybe they shouldn't be colored the same as a "normal" wikilink (just bold-black might be fine?). The underlining looks different than a normal link, so I think it does serve to distinguish this tooltipified thing from normal text. I'm not sure having them as actual links to the List of R-phrases or List of S-phrases pages is useful here...these templates are used in a section of the infobox that is already labeled and linked to those target pages. Maybe they should link directly to their entries in the ListOf… pages (via named anchors or somesuch); I don't think specific phrases will ever amount to more than a single-line entry in them (i.e., no reason to have them as their own pages). Maybe what's really needed is broader than this TfD: a clearer way for the WP skins to indicate text that has a tooltip, or some other kind of link besides "open a new wikipage" (like a cartoon dialog or other pop-up transient window). DMacks 20:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Change the color or turn them into links if that makes them clearer. Whatever is done, it's a normal editorial matter rather than a matter for deletion. --Itub 08:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm changing the color as I speak. Would maybe a purple be good? (edit, I changed the R-phrases to use #990099 instead of Blue. Why we need seperate templates for S-phrases is out of my head since we can easily reuse the R-phrase template to form them) ViperSnake151 13:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, These templates have been a great benefit on the 3000 or so pages using the Chembox. If you delete them, we will go back to the days when newbies would try and turn Wikipedia articles into MSDS pages - to explain the same information you can get currently with one click or a mouse-over. Walkerma 16:28, 1 December 2007 (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:Gdansk-Vote-Results

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 debate was DELETE. I find two classes of comments below: (1) Those that consider the template, its benefit/detriment to the project and what might/not be achieved by retaining it and (2) Those that merely worry about the outcome of the 2.5-year ago debate. I find class (2) entirely unpersuasive since this TfD, and Template: space as a whole is not the right venue by a long way for resurrecting this long-running dispute. Among class (1) I see not a single editor wishing the template remain. I therefore conclude that all those who would retain the template [class (2)] would do so for the principal purpose of re-visiting the dispute in pertains to. This is not a viable, productive use of templates. These points dealing with the merit of the arguments coupled with what strikes me as a clear cut of the community wishing this one gone lead me to find a consensus to delete it. -Splash - tk 19:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I am neutral on the whole Gdanzkig business, I see no need to carry a constantly simmering edit war into template space. Even as a userbox it would be deletable due to its divisiveness. If the creator of this wants to make a point, then perhaps an editor-endorsable usersubpage essay would be a more approriate way to go than a template. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The template is a necessary component to a highly controversial interpretation of a two-and-a-half-year-old vote count while pointing the attention of uninvolved editors, like Grutness and others, to policies regarding the counting and discrediting of votes in a survey. The template is designed as an open letter meant to serve as supplement to a number or related articles, thus making it a lot more convenient for repetitious use. Moreover, the template was created partially in response to a new and intimidating template already criticised as ugly, by concerned editors. --Poeticbent talk 01:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete template serves no useful purpose to the encyclopedia as a whole. If necessary/wanted, userfy. JPG-GR (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would appreciate your help in finding the right answer. For me it's enough to see this template serve about a dozen articles related to the interpretation of the vote. Plus I care for the signatures of the editors below. --Poeticbent talk 06:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we ever need an example of a divisive template, we can resurrect it. Those who disagree with whatever may be the current state of the question here can find a more appropriate way to express it. DGG (talk) 02:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please elaborate on this? I wouldn't mind knowing what you meant by "more appropriate way to express" what question? The stance of the undersigned editors is of critical importance here in the face of a vote-count that was rigged two-and-a-half years ago and never questioned thereafter. There must be a solution found which is appropriate to the challenge. I'd like you to look into the vote results and help me find it. --Poeticbent talk 06:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Making content decisions by voting is wrong, but even if the Gdanskig consensus was arrived at through voting, it has held for several years. That it has been used successfully for so long shows that it is still accepted consensus, no matter who said what in 2004. The relevant guideline, WP:NC(GN) should probably be amended to stand on its own with respect to Gdansk; it is ugly that it depends on an age-old vote page to explain a choice of naming conventions when we do not vote on content. To dispute the vote count now is in any case pure wikilawyering. Kusma (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question what is the purpose of this template please ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 11:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intended purpose of this new template is to draw attention to the phenomenon of vote count interpretation, an issue worth revisiting among our practices. Please confirm, whether any self appointed moderator has the right to discredit a dozen votes to swing the outcome of a survey? I'm glad that this TFD nomination might have already helped raised that question. As it stands, the new template provides a much needed supplement to a Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice posted at a long list of related Talk pages proclaiming community recomendation, which was never there. I'm trying to encourage unaware editors to make their own mind rather than to take the old Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice at its face value. I don’t believe that the presence of this new template would in any way influence the constant edit warring, which is going to continue indefinitely one way or the other. --Poeticbent talk 16:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that votes of 1) unregistered users (IPs), 2) new users, 3) users with few edits only, 4) long inactive users with sudden vote, must be omitted from every vote, including move requests, deletion votes etc. This is my general opinion about the votes and has no relation to the current template. My other point is that votes, if proceeded, can be changed only by the next vote, if there are reasons to do it. Generally voting until expected result is won are not a good way for sure. Also, templates should not be used to propagate opinion of a partial group, or to discredit results of vote, or to push opinions against the consensus. This, as has been said many times, can be expressed by the userbox. If you are concerned about the excluded votes choose appropriate mechanism, turn to ArbCom and ask for open the case and review the vote results.
But my question has not been answered yet, what is the purpose of this template and what do you promise from its existence ? ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 16:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might have just given me the feedback I was looking for from the start. Perhaps turning to ArbCom and asking to reopen the case and review the vote results would be a better answer. Besides, I have never discredited the results of that vote and I do not propagate an opinion against the consensus. All I want is to honour the participation of all. I’m a Wiki democrat with a strong belief in giving credit. On the other hand, please give me an example of a one critical survey where the votes of users with few edits have been thrown out in large numbers. --Poeticbent talk 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In many AFD's, "votes" are often disregarded, especially those of users with few edits. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and for good reasons, one of them being that voting invites sockpuppetry and similar fraudulent techniques, against which disregarding votes is one possible way forward for those who do believe in voting on content. Kusma (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Votes of these simply cannot be taken under consideration at all. Because there is a high probability they are one-purpose only. That's not a speculation that's the fact. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 15:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Gdansk vote-count-interpretation looks suspicious enough to warrant further assessment. The swinging of the results was divisive, raising questions about the impartiality of the moderator who discredited 12 votes without the single proof of wrongdoing. Too many votes were thrown out in a single sweep, which is a glaringly red flag to me. --Poeticbent talk 18:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, divisive template that promotes wikilawyering and vote-counting. Kusma (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Poeticbent Space Cadet 13:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Some Poles can not stand the plain fact that Danzig was called Danzig before 1945, at least for 600+ years. Sockpuppeteers like Space Cadet have been active in the the vote, and now push this inflammatory template, an attempt to rally yet another posse. The few involved users should be issued a stern warning. User:Molobo had already been banned a year. -- Matthead DisOuß 14:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthead, the issue is NOT who might have owned Gdansk in the past. The issue - which I have raised - it whether twelve votes cast in a survey can be thrown out arbitrarily. Let me ask you a question. Would you like having your own vote thrown away one day, because of your previous and unrelated conduct, or perhaps because you follow the work of Wikipedia without a lot of editing? I bet, you wouldn’t. --Poeticbent talk 17:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Ludicrous. Serves no purpose except to protest a decision. A protest template does not belong on an article talk page or really anywhere except possibly in a userbox. This does not add to the encyclopedia. Maralia 16:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Is not useful, unencyclopedic, only incites future conflict. ViperSnake151 13:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. As much as the original vote and current template are problematic, this is not a standard way to deal with it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incidentally, one of the uncounted votes later turned out to be a sockpuppet of another editor. This editor also voted on the template here, including opposing its deletion above. Guess that guy really wants to have his sockpuppet votes counted, too. I wonder how many socks we missed. -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, divisive and inflammatory, per WP:LAME. >Radiant< 23:05, 3 December 2007 (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.