Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24

Template:Latinx

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) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deprecated for over two years. Only uses are in a few old sandboxes and talk page discussions. --RL0919 (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2010 (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:Mmuknr photo

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) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mmuknr photo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deprecated for over two years and largely unused. The three talk page and user sandbox transclusions can be substituted prior to deletion.
Delete Linking to specific sites for maps should be discouraged in favour of one of the numerous templates that provide a number of map sources Pit-yacker (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2010 (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:Abuse

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 No consensus. Relisting has not produced movement towards consensus, and has generated unnecessary disputation over process, so I'm closing this without further wait. There is a slight numerical advantage for the "delete" position, but there is not a clear advantage for either set of arguments, so I'm closing this as "no consensus". I would suggest that concerns about inclusion criteria and marginally-related items be brought up via editing of the template or template talk page discussion. If an editorial consensus can be formed around a template of clearly related items (probably not all the ones in the current template), then no further action should be needed at TFD. If no editorial consensus can be formed despite good-faith efforts to develop one, then that history can be used as evidence in a future TFD. RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was previously deleted in mid 2007 due to an TfD vote because it was overly broad and lacked any real inclusion guidelines. Well it was recreated in early November 2009 and its actually even broader and has even less guidelines. The 2007 version had 29 items. This monster has about 60. Some of the items are directly related to what we consider abuse but then we have ones like corruption and prejudice that really stretch the boundaries of acceptability. Just like in 2007 I think its too broad of a topic for a navigational box. 60 items just isn't real useful as a tool, especially when many of the items have nothing directly to do with abuse. User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 11:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong KEEP for plenty of reasons.

The situation is now completely different to 2007, as there is now a proper Wiki article on abuse not just a disambiguation page. The new article provides supporting rationale as to what should and what shouldnt be included in the template. The template and the article are in line with each other.
The 2007 abuse template was actually a prominent non-collapsible side template, much more prominent than the current collapsible footer abuse template. The old abuse side template was also called Template:abuse.
The vote in 2007 was a majority vote not a unanimous vote. I suspect that those who voted for deletion in 2007 didnt appreciate that there was much commonality between the different abuse types which i am aiming to explain in the new Abuse article.
There is a valid discussion to be had as to whether individual entries such as Corruption and Prejudice should be included as abuses but deleting the whole template is complete overkill, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and in my view would have various serious detrimental consequences. I would be happy to explain to you the rationale of why each entry is included.
Most people dont understand that there is quite lot to be explained about abuse as a collective concept. The individual abuse types are certainly NOT just a ragbag collection of unrelated phenomena.
The scope of abuse is wider than most people understand (and with respect i suspect that includes yourself) but that does not mean to say that there is always a distinct black and white dividing line between abuse and non-abuse. (In some cases it is up for discussion as to whether some things are or are not an abuse.) This is a big reason why I am writing the abuse article is to educate people.
I am not sure if you have familiarised yourself with the dictionary definition of abuse given at the start of abuse.
Deleting the template would seriously undermine the whole point of the abuse article and i may as well just give up and throw in the towel. The purpose of the abuse article isnt so much just to list all the different abuses, more to enlighten people about what the concept of abuse is as a totality and cover the underlying common features which have little to do with individual abuse contexts. There is, for example, plenty of common underlying psychology (such as the role of narcissism in abuse) to be explained which I will do in good time. I have already made a start on these common aspects of abuse in the last few sections. Some of the common features are apparent in the short descriptions of the individual abuses anyway, for example, there are quite a few cross links between the different types.
I think you have overlooked the fact that that many of the links on the template go straight to a section in the abuse article rather than straight to an individual Wiki abuse article, either because an article on that individual abuse hasnt been written yet or several related articles are lumped together as a single type of abuse in the abuse article. The abuse template is an important vehicle to enable readers to navigate to find this information.
Template:abuse is rather like Template:emotion-footer in that while there are many diverse emotions, there is still quite a lot that can be said about emotions collectively - but there is no agreed classification system for them so they need to be presented as a straight list.
The fact that there is visible clickable link on the Abuse template on each individual abuse article makes it likely that readers will access the Abuse article and learn that there are common features of abuse and about the diverse scope of abuse. Without this, the abuse article is in danger of getting overlooked.
It is widely accepted that, for example, not doing something (particularly in the form of neglect) can have as bad consequences as active abuse, that is why it can be argued that by simply having a particular attitude and then consequently not doing something as a result, could cause abuse as serious as active abuse.
There are often relevant existing articles on individual abuses but with a different slant such as legal or conceptual. For example "racial abuse" is a well known expression but there is only a Wiki article on racism which isnt quite the same but is still worth a link from abuse. Similarly there is a Wiki article on Human rights but not "Human rights abuses" and a Wiki article on police corruption but not "police abuse". This is not a problem with Template:abuse or abuse, more a problem of deficiencies of other articles.--Penbat (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets ALL inclusion guidelines for Wikipedia:Navigation templates (providing navigation between existing, related articles, clutter reduction) and meets NONE of the deletion guidelines under WP:TFD (violating template namespace guidelines, redundance to a better-designed template, not being used, or being uncivil). I do believe that this discussion may be prejudiced in favor of deletion by the fact that a template with an identical name was deleted. But the 2007 template is irrelevant in this discussion; all it shares is the name. It has been created and worked on by different people, and is otherwise different. Shaliya waya (talk) 19:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic of abuse, taken generally, is much too broad to form the basis for a proper navigation template, as I believe this template demonstrates. The concept of abuse encompasses, among other things, any "improper treatment or usage" and "application to a wrong or bad purpose", "maltreatment" (physical or psychological), and practices or customs that are considered "unjust, corrupt or wrongful". As a result, this template groups together such disparate acts and behaviors as terrorism and animal cruelty, rape and teasing, and neglect and persecution. The actions and behaviors grouped together in the template are unified by only one characteristic: they are perpetrated by one party upon another, usually for personal psychological or material gain, and cause psyhological, physical, or other harm to the victimized party.
While the improvements to the article Abuse deserve to be commended, I am afraid that an element of original synthesis has crept into the article, with reliably-sourced information about certain types of physical and psychological abuse being used to support a general, encompassing conceptualization of abuse, and this template seems to me to be an extension of that. The OR policy notes that we should not "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", which I believe is the case here. I cannot imagine any source on the topic of abuse(s) that would offer treatment of the topic of terrorism or political corruption alongside a discussion of teasing or dating abuse.
My suggestion is to delete this template and replace it with two or more narrowly-defined ones for psychological abuse, physical abuse (not including politically-motivated violence such as terrorism or war), and perhaps others. I believe that it is crucial to separate our treatment of the following: (1) abuse perpetrated and examined primarily at the individual level (e.g., verbal abuse) versus abuse perpetrated and examined primarily at the societal level (e.g., human rights abuse); and (2) abuse considered in a legal context (e.g., hate crimes and child sexual abuse) versus abuse considered in a moral context (e.g. prejudice and abuse of authority, which incidentally should not be pipe-linked to the more narrow topic of political corruption). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace per Black Falcon's suggestions. Much too overbroad of a template. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 08:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great template, but it needs categorization. Instead writing such detailed "delete" responses, you could actually contribute to categorization of the template and improve it. Why we waste so much time in AFDs over empty arguments. Kasaalan (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire point of my comment was that the very premise of a navigation template for the topic of abuse, taken generally, is flawed, and that improving the template while retaining its scope will not somehow make it viable. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then that makes your entire point wrong. Kasaalan (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion, which I can respect; however, a bare assertion is not a valid argument and fails, therefore, to be particularly convincing. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cant have it both ways, dismissing Kasaalans point as a "bare assertion" and at the same time not engage with my view when i waste my time going into a huge amount of detail trying to explain the finer points of the concept of "abuse" (which are widely misunderstood by the general public and that is precisely why i was motivated to do the abuse article to attempt to explain it properly in the first place). Incidentally the point you previously made that political violence (which the abuse article and template hardly covers) has a lot to do historical or cultural attitudes, does not in any way undermine my social psychological approach which is entirely compatible. I dont understand why you think it isnt. However this TFD is not the place for a lengthy discussion on the concept of abuse.--Penbat (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I did not engage with your view, then how do you account for the ~1,500 words of text that I wrote in response to your comments? Is that not "engagement"? There is a difference between engaging and agreeing: I did not agree with you, but we did discuss the issue quite a bit. I stopped engaging when you indicated that you were becoming "weary" of discussing and it became apparent to me that we had begun to go in circles, merely repeating what we had already said before. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you engaged in the sense of writing quite a lot of text, but I had written in total about 5 times more than you had. What wore me out was that you kept on missing the point, making a sweeping misconceived statement or not addressing many points I made and I ended up having to repeat some points about 3 times.--Penbat (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The relative length of comments is a poor measure of engagement as it fails to account for succinctness, repetition, and relevance. Moreover, not agreeing with your point is not the same as "missing the point", and I thought much the same ("making a sweeing misconceived" generalization and "not [directly] addressing many points I made") about your comments. Let's just agree on the following: (1) we disagree about this template; (2) neither one of us has managed to convince the other after substantial discussion; and (3) this line of discussion is not likely to change #2. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only responded again because you told User:Kasaalan that "a bare assertion is not a valid argument and fails" which contradicted the line you are using yourself and with me.--Penbat (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Black Falcon and Torritorri this demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the subject. But I am not singling you out as most of the general population dont understand it either. This is a motivation for me to write the abuse article. Most of the general population have various misconceived ideas about abuse.

{A} Wikipedia is great for articles on talking animals or animals with diplomas but it it is a startling omission that such a major serious topic such as abuse has been neglected. It would be completely futile for me to carry on if I have to work to artificial constraints and artificial classification systems that undermine and skew the substance of what I am trying to cover. If I dont tackle this subject you may have to wait another 10 years before anybody else does serious work on it. Rather like emotions, there are no clear simple classification system (taxonomy) for abuses. If there was I would have used it.

{B} Yes in some cases you can put individual abuse types into one category or another, but most straddle different categories. For example, some individual abuses relate to both a context and a type. If you look at many of the abuses such as domestic violence, teen dating abuse or institutional abuse you will see that the articles often explain the individual abuses in terms of other abuses such as physical abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse, sexual abuse, economic abuse and neglect. The concept of abuse is multi-dimensional, for example, there is abuse by context, abuse by style, abuse by characteristic and abuse by type. The different abuses are interrelated in many ways. The subject is further complicated by things like "proxy abuse" and "ambient abuse" which are not related to context.

{C} All abuses have at least a component of psychological abuse. Aside from the lack of taxonomy, imposing an artificial classification system seriously undermines the fact that the underlying psychological mechanisms are the same or similar regardless of the context of the abuse or the scale of the abuse. Abuse can happen in any context in which human beings interact and at any level. The underlying psychological mechanisms are the same or similar whether the abuse is trivial or severe.

{D} The underlying psychology has little to do with whether the abuse is psychological, sexual, verbal or physical etc - they are not the defining characteristics in the study of abuse. In many cases these abuses occur in combination anyway.

{E} As mentioned in my point 13, my work got skewed because of the limited existing range of Wiki articles that existed. I recently streamlined all "See alsos" to "Main articles" as it was difficult to be consistent, but it was probably a mistake so I will probably revert back. Really there needs to be a proper article on "political abuse" as it means various things. For now some of these short articles such as legal abuse, police abuse, political abuse are within abuse for now as short sections but in time ought to be written as proper separate articles. Political corruption is just one aspect of political abuse but it does not in itself define what political abuse is.

{F} I already made the point that there is a discussion to be had whether some individual abuses should be in the template and in the article but that has nothing to do with the validity of the template as a whole.--Penbat (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Kasaalan i am happy to have a constructive dialog about categorisation but it is far from an easy task. --Penbat (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I began categorising some of the entries, if anyone like to help it might be better.

Your main fault is you try to debate and solve the issue in AFD. Debates in AFD never actually work. So try categorising instead debating here, if I try to read and answer all of your points I would only waste time which I can edit and improve to solve issues with the template.

So categorise best you can, leave the rest categorized at the moment. Also you may put entries under more than 1 category. War rape is both a sexual abuse and a military abuse. You may put non-wikilinked entries under categories for future reference. Kasaalan (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There already is categorisation of a sort already within the abuse article, for example the Harrassment section within abuse in turn links to several different wiki articles on diferent aspects of harassment, similar with legal abuse, cyber-bullying, police abuse etc etc. Many individual abuses within abuse link to several different wiki articles and help to keep the templates size down. I had in many cases in the template linked to specific abuse sections which itself contained several links rather than go straight to single individual separate abuse articles.--Penbat (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to categorization version and Template:Abuse you or other editors may categorize and name the entries better than me. Kasaalan (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts.--Penbat (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat, please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to diminish the significance of your improvements to the Abuse article ([1] versus [2]) or suggesting that you carry on under any constraints except the standard constraint of adding content that is verifiable and does not constitute an original synthesis of published material. Also, please do not mix the distinct issues of coverage of the topic of abuse in Wikipedia and the existence of this particular navigation template. Abuse and Category:Abuse can and will continue to exist and grow in the absence of Template:Abuse.

I do realize that there is no clearly-defined taxonomy of abuse and that there is significant overlap between general classes of abuse depending on context. I am fully aware, for example, that war rape is an instance of physical abuse, psychological abuse (not only because of the psychological harm done to victims, but also because rape is generally motivated more by psychological factors than physical gratification), sexual abuse, and human rights abuse. If there is one thing that no one can dispute, it is that abuse is a complex topic of study.

What I do dispute is your assertion that the "underlying psychological mechanisms are the same or similar" for all types of abuse. While that may hold true for abuse perpetrated by individuals against individuals in a personal context (where the cause of the abuse can generally be traced to the psychological characteristics of the abuser), it does not hold true for abuse in a political context (such as political corruption, which often has only an economic motivation) or when comparing schoolyard taunting with genocide (surely genocide does involve "improper treatment", "physical or verbal maltreatment", and "unjust, corrupt or wrongful" action - quoted from Abuse).

As I wrote above, I realize that there is no single, clearly-defined taxonomy of abuse; however, what I suggested was not to organize different types of abuse into a taxonomy, but rather to divide abuse into a handful of general classes—an undertaking that is not without problems, but is far less demanding than developing a complete taxonomy. Let us not overlook the fact that this template, with its ~80 links, is still incomplete. Abuse, taken generally (i.e., with the definition that is currently used in the article Abuse), includes classes of behaviors and practices as varied and as general as genocide, slavery, crime, tyranny, and so on. A topic defined so broadly is a poor basis for a navigation template since, in the end, the only unifying characteristic will be that the behaviors and practices are perpetrated by one party upon another, usually for some form of psychological or material gratification, and cause psyhological, physical, and/or other harm to the victimized party. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have avoided putting material such as genocide, slavery, crime, tyranny in the template and the article. If I had put them in, the template and the article would be twice as long. Perhaps like drug abuse i should have a "See also" at the top to refer the reader elsewhere for crime etc. I have concentrated more on abuse ith at least a significant psychological aspect. The criminal and physical side is just too open ended.
You have put too much weight on political corruption as a reason to criticise my template. I have a little section in the Abuse article for political abuse covering some material that doesnt yet appear elsewhere in Wikipedia. Political corruption was only inserted as one of the links from that point as it happened to be a Wiki article that has already been written which is related. I cover this issue in my point 13 above. Corruption either means abusing the system in its abstract sense or it may actually involve abuse of one sort or another against a person. Corruption may also be a manifestation of narcissistic abuse - see below. As already mentioned I am quite happy to discuss deleting some entries from the template but the place for that is the template talk page not here.
You are mistaken in your assertion that the underlying psychology is not the same for the different abuses. Trying to explain the common aspects of abuse is the main reason why i started the abuse article in the first place - this point is so widely misunderstood. A large number of abuses are related in some way to personality disorders, narcissism or psychopathy - although there may just be a single ringleader in a group with one of these conditions. If i am given the chance to work on the latter sections of abuse you should better understand this when you get round to reading it. I was, for example, intending to write a section on narcissistic abuse. Narcissism is a powerful pervasive concept and explains the motivations behind a lot of abuse in conjunction with the defense mechanism projection. Narcissists are often motivated by greed, a feeling that they are special and normal rules dont apply to them, an exaggerated sense of entitlement and a belief that any means justify the ends, willingness to blame others for their deficiencies. Narcissism may also operate at the group level. Narcissism could manifest itself as economic abuse and/or abuse against a person. There is of course sadistic, proxy and controlling abuse as well. The mechanics may be the same or similar but the scale of the abuse may still vary from relatively tiny to huge. --Penbat (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have deliberately focused more on abuse with "a significant psychological aspect" and less on the "criminal and physical side", then that should be made explicit in the template (i.e., create {{Psychological abuse}} and do not include those types of abuse that are not primarily covered from a psychological perspective, such as political corruption and terrorism).

The reason I repeatedly cite the examples of political corruption and terrorism is because to me that's what stands out most in the template. I am only using those two examples (and a few others) as an indication of what I perceive to be the general blurring of lines between different classes of abuse and the broadness of the definition that is currently employed in the template.

My comment about the "underlying psychology ... for the different abuses" not being the same carried more nuance than just that. I did not suggest that the "underlying psychology" is different for each different type of abuse, but rather that it is different across particular broad classes of abuses. I disagree that schoolyard taunting, acceptance of a bribe by a politician, and genocide share essentially the same underlying psychological mechanism and differ only in the "scale of the abuse", and I am doubtful about the prospect that the general literature on abuse suggests otherwise.

Again, I can only commend you on your significant improvements to the article, where many different types of abuse can be discussed and placed into context, and my objection applies only to the template, where it is not really possible to provide much meaningful context. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What i should have said is that apart from including "physical abuse" as an abuse item, I am avoiding covering physical abuses in detail but that still includes sexual abuse, verbal abuse, psychological abuse etc and in most cases there is a combination of abuse types such as in domestic violence aka domestic abuse - where sexual, verbal, physical and psychological are often combined. I am still including physical abuse where it is typically combined with other abuses types.
You still misunderstand about the psychology. Do you want me to give you the full lecture here ? Of course the psychology of children differs in quite a few respects to adults and isnt equivalent. The psychology of children is usually more transient and temperamental than adults. Taunting on its own (especially if it is not sustained over a period of time) is unlikely to have much significance as an abuse. But it is often just one of an armory of abuses used at the same time and part of a pattern of behaviour which typically constitutes bullying and bullying is most certainly a form of abuse. I also explained that in many group situations there may just be a single dysfunctional person who creates dysfunctional social norms for a group of otherwise normal people. --Penbat (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be approaching the subject from different perspectives.

Your reply to my example of taunting versus corruption versus genocide suggests to me that you approach the matter from the perspective that abuse is perpetrated by individuals against individuals, and sometimes (in the context of group situations) because of the dysfunctional nature of other individuals. So, naturally, your focus is on the psychology of individuals. I recognize that this is the ideal approach when dealing with abuses that are carried out or led by one or a few individuals against one or a few other individuals (e.g., bullying, domestic violence).

However, when considering abuses such as human rights abuse, political corruption, and genocide—abuses that usually are carried out not by individuals acting separately but by one or more sectors of society acting in coordination—a different approach is needed, specifically one that takes into account societal and political factors. My concern is that the template seems to be treat such phenomena as resulting merely from the dysfunction of individuals acting separately or from "a single dysfunctional person who creates dysfunctional social norms for a group" without regard for the cultural, economic, historical, and political factors that underly them. And, of course, all of this is the basis for my original argument that the topic of abuse, taken generally (to include all classes and types of abuse), is too broad for a navigation template. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't make this clear up above. As Black Falcon stated, this debate is about the TEMPLATE not the article. Inclusion guidelines for an article and for a navigational box are not the same and they shouldn't be treated the same. We have many terrific articles which are or would be horrible as navigational boxes. Navigational boxes are supposed to aid in navigation of a subject. They are supposed to be closely related articles. I'm not sure how child abuse can have anything to do with police corruption. But my point is that the work done on the abuse article should be commended. But its simply not a very good navigational box. Also. We need to simply things here. I find it amusing that someone on the Keep side basically complained about the length of a delete post when the initial keep post has thirteen points to it. :) This isn't a dissertation. And honestly, I sort of regret bringing this up to begin with. It's not THAT big of a deal, folks. It's just a template. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that you have understood the points I was trying to make previously which were:

The template and the article are closely in line with each other
Deleting the template would seriously undermine the abuse article and seriously undermine the whole purpose of the article.
I have had to waste the last 2 days on this when I could have more usefully spent the time doing more research on the abuse article.
See also my reply to Black Falcon above.
The proper place for this discussion is the abuse article and template talk pages not here
This discussion of deleting the template is completely pointless and if it were to be deleted I would certainly throw in the towel and abandon work on the abuse article as deleting the template seriously undermines the existence and purpose of the article.--Penbat (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please clarify #2? The purpose of the article surely is to provide information about the subject of abuse in general and, in the process, to direct readers seeking more information to articles on specific types of abuse; the purpose of the navigation template is to facilitate navigation between articles. I do not dispute, of course, that the article and template are related, but why would deletion of the latter "seriously undermine the whole purpose of" the former? Thank you, –Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Black Falcon

Ref to your earlier point about individuals and society. I had already mentioned twice that concepts such as narcissism work at the group level and at all levels such as the societal level and not just at the level of an individual or a few individuals. Narcissists tend to impose new cultural norms on other people. It is social psychology, not just psychology. It is well understood that whole corporations or countries can be assigned psychological attributes normally assigned to individuals. There are, for example, sections on group narcissism and corporate narcissism in the narcissism article. You need to read up more on narcissism and other related concepts.
Ref Would you please clarify #2. I am getting very weary of this. I think i must have repeated many points explaining my position about twice. Would you like me to repeat everything i have already said using different words or what ? Do you really want yet another essay from me ? Havent I written enough already ? The explanations are already there in the text i have already written in this deletion log but if you persist on arguing the point i will obviously have to repeat much of what i have said already in different words. The fact that you dont understand what i have written so far suggests that you havent grasped the complexities from the navigation point of view and the subject matter itself. By its intrinsic nature, abuse is a diverse topic without any recognised taxonomy. As i have already said about 3 times i am up for a discussion about trimming on the talk pages. In my view the current arrangement is the least worst solution - I cant think of anything else that works. Deleting the template is like the nuclear option that would mean goodbye from me and the abuse article as it would be pointless carrying on and the abuse article will probably languish for the next ten years. It is not surprising that the abuse article has not been done in the past when the subject of "abuse" is so widely misunderstood. --Penbat (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are approaching these topics from the purely psychological perspective that political violence is a result of dysfunctional social norms without consideration for cultural, economic, historical, and political factors or for the significant portion of the extant academic literature that considers political violence (at the group level) to be a rational, calculated behavior.

I am likewise weary: not from conversing with you, but from your propensity to assume that disagreement with you is necessarily rooted in a failure to understand your points. I am fully aware that abuse is a complex topic without a clearly-defined taxonomy, as you again point out (and as I pointed out a few comments earlier), but that does nothing to address my question of why the navigation template is crucial to the article, particularly in light of the fact that most of the links in the template are contained in the text of the article.

In any case, you are correct that we have begun to repeat ourselves. So that we do not unnecessarily lengthen this already-long discussion and cause further frustration, I will stop here and defer to other editors to evaluate the template and the discussion. I have no desire to have the last word, so please don't take my comment as a suggestion that you should not reply if you feel a reply is necessary, appropriate, or useful. I also suggest collapsing our portion of the discussion with {{collapse}} to avoid TL;DR, but as a participant I will not do so myself. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead discussing over deletion why don't we improve the template

Both sides has some good arguments, however generally we all agree if there will be a good categorizing it would be nice yet it is not an easy task. I put some serious effort improving Non categorised and categorised it as a new Template:Abuse, yet it is still not complete. Instead wasting time over long discussions we can first collaborate on categorising together, then discuss if it is necessary. Kasaalan (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I wasted the last 2 days having to defend against the nuclear option when more reasonable options could have been discussed more profitably on the talk pages. I am up for categorization if possible but it makes no sense to categorize for the sake of it to force artificial packaging and constraints on it if it doesnt work. I am not aware of any academic who has managed to do it. Any split between individual and organisational abuse, for example, wouldnt work as organisations stretch from the family unit all the way up to countries. The concept of narcissistic abuse for example, and therefore abuse, is infinitely scalable.--Penbat (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the others who say this is something that needs to be discussed as opposed to being deleted. A template like this does meet inclusion guidelines. Yes, it may be out of hand because there is so much to say about a topic like abuse, but does Wikipedia delete articles because there is so much to say about them? Absolutely not. So why should Wikipedia delete templates on that basis. Instead, why not discuss and improve them? Shaliya waya (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "abuse" happens to be a big diverse subject which not surprisingly has a big diverse template. That is just the way it is and is hardly any justification for deleting it.--Penbat (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still I am the only editor who actually attempted to categorize the template. Categorisation doesn't need to be academically perfect, it will just help reader to access articles faster by better organization.

Also as the editor point out instead AFD, editors should have discuss this earlier. A considerable amount of AFD workload is unessential and nominated by editors who generally doesn't try to improve or contribute to the templates or articles they are complaining. Kasaalan (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point and I will check out your work on the template once this AFD is out of the way.--Penbat (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the template. Too broad subject for a navigation template. It is not likely that a reader of one of these articles are interested in the others. It also makes the articles larger and slower to load. I suppose it could be used on the article abuse, but not on all the other article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect you dont seem to know enough about the subject. I have already written a large volume of text in this log. There are many issues to consider. Have you really looked as this issue in detail as you have just made pronouncements on about 15 completely unrelated template subjects in this TFD log within about an hour. I will be abandoning any future work on the abuse article if the template is deleted as it is crucial for the development of the abuse article - they have a symbiotic relationship. It wouldnt surprise me if tha abuse article then languishes for the next 10 years. Your statement that "It is not likely that a reader of one of these articles are interested in the others" is a very sweeping statement and makes me despair and very angry. How do you know ? It is the reason why I recently spent weeks developing the abuse article - to explore and explain the commonalities and relationships between the different abuse types - most of the general population (and that seems to include yourself) doesnt understand about this. Some of the later sections exploring the commonalities are still under development but if you look at the individual abuse descriptions you will see a lot of cross links from one type of abuse to another. Do you actually know anything about the subject? It is little wonder that important subjects like this have been covered so badly in Wikipedia when they are subjected to misinformed opinion. Also as previously discussed it is a far more constructive idea to try to improve the template rather than use the nuclear option. Some of us are doing just that right now. I cant help it that it is a broad subject. It is important for readers looking at the individual abuse type articles to see the information in the template, appreciate what a diverse topic it is and be able to readily click a link to the main abuse article where the relationships and commonalities between different abuse types are explored. I have wasted enough of my time already on this log when i could have spent my time more profitably doing further research for the abuse article. There are also other considerations and reasons for the template such as the fact that about half the links go to a specific section in the abuse article and half go straight out to separate individual abuse articles. The template provides an important navigation role. Deleting the template is a ridiculous idea.--Penbat (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a matter of knowing the subject but rather a Wikipedia style issue. Can I ask you, why is this template so important? This is an encyclopedia after all, nobody is going to sit and read through every article about anything that could be called abuse, even if you would like them to. I have trouble understanding your motivation here. You do seem to take this deletion too personally. It isn't intended to be a slight on your work here in general. The actual articles certainly aren't going to be deleted. Anyway, I don't feel very strongly about this case. I am opposed to the over-proliferation of navigation templates in general. Wikipedia already has a category system, list articles and good search system that help readers find any article they are looking for. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had already touched upon the reasons but I will try and cover any gaps i may have missed. The bulk of the abuse article comprises a short description of each type of abuse. Each description typically contains many links to related individual abuse articles. However quite a few individual types of abuse dont have separate articles yet (such as legal abuse) and in other cases i have bundled some abuses together within a section in abuse to reduce the size of the template. So of course the abuse article is not designed to be read from start to end, the reader will generally just look at the relevant section navigated to by the template. In addition to these sections of individual abuses, i am also developing sections at the end covering features that are common to abuses collectively - they may be referenced from links within the individual abuse sections or accessed from the abuse TOC. As quite a few abuse types just have sections in the abuse article, categories just would not work as, as far as i know, categories only relate to whole pages and not sections and anyway dont have the flexibility and visibility i think is required in this case. Maybe Wiki has too many templates but personally i can suggest quite a few other templates that ought to be ditched rather than this one. Another point is that abuse is an extremely serious and important subject yet widely misunderstood. Wiki has well written articles on talking animals and animals with diplomas but the abuse article has languished as a DAB page for years - nobody has risen to the challenge. It is tough enough work anyway - especially covering the later sections on the commonality between abuses. The template is very helpful in many ways to compliment and support the abuse article and all the individual abuse type articles in terms of navigation, visibility and accessibility. Without it i think the abuse article would be seriously undermined and it would create a serious obstacle so i would just give up and it can languish for the next 10 years. It was actually the re-emergence of the Abuse template that inspired me to work on the abuse article in the first place. Also the template provides useful links to articles related to abuse.--Penbat (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just requested for a second time on User talk:Apoc2400 for User:Apoc2400 to respond to the above.--Penbat (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a reader and interested in the entries of the template. Moreover broad or not entries in the template are related. Pen instead answering in long style, try categorising the template better before AFD finishes. That is the point. AFDs are discussions where people generally waste time over explaining why a template should be deleted or keep for a number of reasons, instead spending their time to improve the points they criticize or defend. Kasaalan (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I 1000% agree. This has seriously diverted my time from doing further research on the abuse article and improving the abuse template. I dont feel motivated in doing any more work with the risk of the nuclear option being carried out. As i have already said, if the abuse template goes I go as well.--Penbat (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't particularly care either way about this. If the other people who edit the articles where the template is included don't mind it, then I don't mind either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor for any individual article containing the abuse template, could always argue for the removal of the template from that specific article but it hasnt happened yet.--Penbat (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion after relisting

Comment I have no strong opinion on this particular template. Reading through the discussion, it appears that there has been some substantial restructuring of the template since the discussion began. In particular, the larger in discriminant list has been split into subsections, and links to broader abuse topics have been added. A potential compromise, which has been mentioned, is that perhaps this template could be split into several smaller templates. This would help prevent it from growing uncontrollably, as there are many things which could be categorized as abuse. Reading through the discussion, there appears to be no argument about whether or not Abuse is a notable subject. It would be great if there could be some discussion regarding the feasibility of splitting the template into a "parent template" which would connect broader scoped articles (i.e., abuse subcategories), and several "children templates" which would interconnect the articles within each "abuse subcategory". Of course, if this is not a feasible solution, feel free to disregard this comment. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes me weep with despair to read User:Plastiksporks comments above. User:Black_Falcon accepts that there is no proper taxonomy for abuse and therefore the possibility of splitting the abuse template into several templates is not possible and in any case it would completely undermine the abuse article which is aiming to cover the common features between abuses. User:Plastikspork - we have already gone through all this about 3 times as discussed above. Also i am seriously shocked about your doubt about whether Abuse is a "Abuse is a notable subject". It is actually probably the biggest problem on the planet which tells me that you (like most of the general population) too dont understand the subject and have misconceived ideas which is precisely why i was writing the abuse article to explain it to the general population as a public service. The article is completely undermined without the template as explained about 3 times in the previous text. Do i have to repeat everything again a 4th time ? There are plenty of trivial articles and templates on Wikipedia about talking animals or animals with diplomas but abuse is 5000million times more important. I just cant believe that you thought it might not be notable. The abuse article has been languishing as a DAB page for years - i courageously write the abuse article and get a Barnstar award for it yet i get the rug pulled from under my feet by people who dont understand the subject by wanting to delete the associated template. Apart from another considerations it is essential from the navigation point of view. I have explained all this above about three times already.

As for "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached." it has been discussed ad nauseuem already. I think everybody is sick to death of all this. It is seriously demoralising for me and distracting me from painstaking research i was doing to develop the abuse article. If this template goes, i go and the abuse article with probably languish for the next ten years.

For Christ sake, does this nightmare ever end?--Penbat (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said that there is "no argument about whether or not Abuse is a notable subject". This discussion is not about an article. This discussion is about the utility of the navigation template. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misread that sentence in your comment. Yes we are talking about the template but its navigation role and relationship with the abuse article is important and happens to be closely linked in this case.

However, as i just mentioned, your other point about splitting the template into bits has already been discussed about 3 times and it was explained in a lot of detail why it is a non starter so i dont know why we are all wasting our time all over again going over the same ground for another 7 days over this ?--Penbat (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This template is basically a grouping of a large collection of disparate items which share some connection to the word "abuse", which is a general term used in widely varying types of human behaviour. There is no logic or navigational utility in having War rape linked to Passive–aggressive behavior, or Gay bashing linked to Satanic ritual abuse, or Corporate corruption linked to rape, or Stalking to political corruption.
Penbat's repeated "keep" argument that "deleting the template would seriously undermine the abuse article and seriously undermine the whole purpose of the article" strikes me as being a very good argument for deletion. The article should stand by itself, and if it relies on the template to make connections between unrelated topics, then Penbat is effectively defining the article as some sort of POV coatrack or synthesis. Penbat obviously has a strong interest in the topic, but should work on developing the article rather than relying on a template.
BTW, Penbat, you have already explained your views at huge length (and yes, I have read them all). At this point, rather than post yet another essay, would you like to consider sitting back a bit and see whether the relisting gives a chance for more fresh voices to come to the discussion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template is important for the navigational point of view. About half the links on the template go to specific sections within the abuse article because either because a separate abuse article has not been done yet or some abuses are lumped together rather than a template link going straight to a separate abuse article. The template is also important because readers of the individual abuse articles will be able to read about the commonalities that exist within abuses. I am specifically avoiding covering abuses which are purely or almost entirely physical (apart from "physical abuse" itself). If you look at the Effects and aftermath of rape article you will see that there are a number of psychological aspects to rape which are common to many other kinds of abuse. I did not put war rape in the template, User:Kasaalan put it in recently in his efforts to reorganise it. I am quite happy to leave it out. It only gets a mention in the abuse article as a variant of rape. There are several different psychological mechanisms relating to abuse which I was intending to develop in the later sections of the abuse article. I was intending to give a list of abuse styles (with their related psychology) and how they relate to each other. Corporate corruption is just one angle of corporate abuse and again i just intended to have the template point to a corporate abuse section within the abuse article which covered various corporate abuses including corporate corruption. As i previously explained, things have been distorted as i can only link to Wiki articles that currently exist even if they are not written from the abuse angle. However abuse is by its nature a diverse subject and there are a number of different strands that run through all the abuses but not the same strands in each case.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again. Even now, your reply is longer than the post you reply to, repeating points you have already made. Please, just stop trying to flood-out the discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — this is an absurdly broad scope, as has been well said above. It's entirely subjective, too. Anyone note the pun: Template-abuse ;) Jeers, Jack Merridew 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot help the fact that it is a diverse topic. I strongly resent your idea that inclusion is subjective. If i wasnt diverted to waste my time on this I would have be doing painstaking research studying OBJECTIVE academic sources on the underlying psychology and helping to tie the different strands together where possible. There is no one single psychological mechanism behind abuses but several. As i said several times most of the general public dont generally understand or know the science behind abuses. It is a challenging enough subject as it is without having the rug pulled out from under my feet. Incidentally substance abuse was not in the template because it is specifically not covered by the abuse article and this fact is made clear at the top of the article with navigation of where to go.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per BrownHairedGirl. Also there is far too much "discussion" on this. A 500-word response to each !vote is disruptive, and probably counter-productive in the long run. Scolaire (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have responded very well to BrownHairedGirls point so it is up to her to continue to argue her point if she can. The points I made to her also apply to you. Regarding length of responses, wasting my time here is the last thing in the world I wanted and I could have been doing plenty of constructive work on Wikipedia articles etc instead. Unfortunately abuse is a specialist subject requiring specialist knowledge to understand it and I may as well quit Wikipedia now if I have to waste my time constrained by people who dont understand the subject. My long answers were attempts to explain some of the intricacies of the issue. I have no control over intrinsic nature of the subject and resent having to work to artificial packaging constraints. --Penbat (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you are kidding yourself that the whole community is on tenterhooks, worrying about whether you will carry out your threat to quit, then maybe you should give it up. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit; nobody is indispensible. And nobody likes emotional blackmail. Scolaire (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep AFD nominating without discussing in talk page, without contributing or improving the article and wasting contributing editors' time with long delete rationales are actually what is counter productive in wikipedia. When did strong deleters ever contributed to abuse article or has any kind of expertise about abuse issues. How an abuse article might possibly be coatrack. You even claim COI in inderct way, is it another great custom of seasoned wikipedians to accuse inexperienced users who spent their countless hours on improving articles. "The article should stand by itself" is a very original deletion vote reason. The article stands alone since 2007, and template helps with easy navigation.
"Too broad" is a ridiculously personal reason for a template deletion. If it is too broad why don't you help better grouping or splitting it. If your answer is no it is simply because you don't have expertise, knowledge or intent to do so. You people insist on wasting others' efforts, even with the half of the time you spent on writing deletion reasons you could actually improve the template or the article. If the template isn't useful you may always chose not to use it. The template provides easy navigation for related articles. And war rape is a war crime and sexual abuse so it connects both aspects of the abuse. Electoral fraud is another kind of abuse of governments. Kasaalan (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has certainly wasted a lot of my time which could have been used much more constructively. I have had to do tons of work single-handedly on Wikipedia. Instead of constructive help from others I have had to fend off constraints from people who dont understand the subject, thus making it even harder for me. No wonder Wiki editors are rushing to the exit in droves.--Penbat (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You would find much less resistance if you wrote articles rather than templates. Nobody forced you to write a thesis in response to each comment at this deletion discussion, so any waste of time is entirely your choice. You should also remember to be civil and to assume good faith by not making offensive suggestions that editors who disagree with you do so out of ignorance. Your conduct at this TFD discussion border on disruption, because decisions are made by consensus and your flooding-out the discussion prevents a dialogue taking place between other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am torn on this one. Clearly a valid term and one with somewhat different lay vs psychology meaning. Extremely broad with a common linkage, yet the decision has been made to leave out substance abuse, which is a common usage of the term (understandably in terms of categorisation but even so, this is where we get the spectre of OR creeping into it). I need to think about this some more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substance abuse was in the original abuse template but removed partly to save space and also as it is a logically distinct area. There is a navigation pointer at the start of abuse explaining where to go for substance abuse. Lines have to be drawn somewhere for practical reasons. You could, for example easily argue, that all crime is abuse but that is a distinct area covered elsewhere.--Penbat (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An interesting topic area. Can be classified a number of different ways. This template may need to be improved but the general idea is definately needed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The template is just a synthesis and too prone to original research and much too broad of a topic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep As previously discussed. --Penbat (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as previously discussed. As I mentioned above, this meets NONE of the reasons allowed under WP:TFD for deletion, yet it meets all the reasons allowed for inclusion under various guidelines I cited. That alone should be grounds for keeping. I believe that most of the delete arguments come from the prejudice that a template that just happened to bear the same name in the past, but was different from this one, and probably a lot worse than this one, was deleted several years ago. Had that not been the case, this probably would never have been proposed in the first place. Given that this is a prejudiced discussion in the first place, it should probably be speedy closed as keep. Shaliya waya (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. It may not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, but speedy deletion is not being proposed here. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header#Reasons_to_delete_a_template says quite clearly that "Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here" ... and the question in this case is whether there is a consensus to delete this catch-all ragbag of a template.
  I was not aware of any previous discussion, and you should assume good faith and not try to sneer at other editors as if they were too goddam stupid to see the current template and understand that it's the one whose deletion so being proposed. If any speedy close is needed, it should be a speedy close as delete because of Penbat's persistent disruption of the discussion by flooding with repetitious essays. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very important statement on the validity of this TFD

As the result of obserrving the actions of Plastikspork and talking through the issues with him (see User_talk:Plastikspork#Please_tell_where_i_have_voted_twice_in_the_new_discussion_.3F) it has become apparent to me that not only is the relisting of this TFD unjustified, the basis by which the decision was made to relist this TFD was completely misguided. As the result of discussion in the first TFD, three editors User:Black Falcon, User:Woohookitty, User:Apoc2400 all effectively changed their views from delete to neutral. However it is apparent that Plastikspork and probably other administrators dont do much more than count the numbers of emboldened bits of text for both sides and dont check for any changes of view as the result of later discussion. The whole point of discussion is that minds may be changed. If the later positions of User:Black Falcon, User:Woohookitty, User:Apoc2400 had been read then it would have been clearly seen that there would have been no justification for relisting and the result would have been a clear KEEP. It also means that if i spend the next 7 days succeeding in talking round the current delete supporters in this new TFD, then it would be a waste of time as only their initial delete positions will be counted. So the whole purpose of any discussion in these TFD is completely undermined and made worthless and pointless. This is the straw that breaks the camels back for me and represents far more to me than just a template. I will certainly be saying goodbye t o Wikipeda for good if this template is deleted.--Penbat (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A relisted discussion is not a completely new discussion, but rather a continuation of the old discussion. It is perfectly valid (but not mandatory) to provide a restatement or reconfirmation of one's opinion after a relisting, but there is also absolutely no need to repeatedly bold your opinions. Plastikpork's only action after the relisting was to unbold your "Strong Keep", which is common practice at any deletion venue, so please stop dramatizing...

Also, although I can't speak for Woohookitty or Apoc2400, I most definitely did not change my opinion to "neutral". –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically had you in mind when I said effectively neutral not neutral which I think does not misrepresent your position. You have only addressed side issues not my main point anyway - that the basis for the relist is completely unjustified.--Penbat (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "effectively neutral" either. If anything, the discussion (and the examples that continue to be provided, such as Electoral fraud) has only reinforced my position in my view. As for your point about the basis for relisting... well, it seems to me to be based only on a questionable (and in at least one case, unquestionably incorrect) assumption about neutrality and an overly narrow interpretation of what relisting entails (see below). –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The other point about Plastikporks approach as it doesnt cater for the possibility that somebodies view might have changed from the first TFD to the second. Just suppose I changed my view to Delete in the second TFD, under Plastikporks system there is no way i can express it.--Penbat (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a method to change your opinion. You use the <s>...</s> tag. It's not my system, it's common practice. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Plastikpork did not unbold someone's changed view; he unbolded your re-statement of your original view. If your view changes to "delete", then of course you can and should indicate that, and your last statement of opinion would override any earlier ones. Or, you could strike through (~~Example~~) your original "Keep" comment. Or, you could indicate that you previously supported keeping, but now support deletion. Or... I think you see my point. There are numerous of ways to express a change in opinion and to ensure that such changes will be taken into account. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also i dont think you properly understand the background properly ref User_talk:Plastikspork#Please_tell_where_i_have_voted_twice_in_the_new_discussion_.3F --Penbat (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a link to the discussion in your original comment, and I read the discussion before replying to you here. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Prune (heavily) The template is waaaaaaaay too broad. I can't see how Satanic ritual abuse is anywhere near the level of importance to the "Abuse" concept that Rape is, and don't see why the template needs to have links for Denial or Lying, which are on the outermost periphery of the concept. A lot of stuff can very easily be removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have NOT "changed my vote to neutral". I still believe that the template is way too broad. That hasn't really been addressed. I just wish it hadn't snowballed into this mess. That doesn't mean I no longer want the template deleted. Please don't put words into my mouth. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 21:13, 25 January 2010 (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:IrishA

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) 20:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A random collection of links with no inclusion criteria most of which aren't even related to Anarchism Gnevin (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Scolaire (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - maybe consider being bold and fixing what you see as unrelated rather than delete it outright?. The links are not "random". The key ideas are some things that anarchist organisations work for. The organisations are groups that represent the anarchist movement, especially Organise and the WSM. The publications are all publications written by anarchists in Ireland and distributed in Ireland. All of the individuals listed are Irish anarchists, the inclusion criteria I guess being that they are notable to have their own article so they are notable enough to be feature in a sidebar. I'll go ahead and remove some of the articles that are a stretch but in general I do not believe that 'most aren't related to Anarchism'. Please be more specific in what is wrong or be bold and fix it yourself. LEKI (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. If you really want me to be bold and WP:SOFIXIT, I will use my tools and speedy this template as patent nonsense: if the inclusion criteria are simply that articles exist on a topic, then it's just a random link-farm. You may find that suggestion rather blunt, but when people criticise something for being conceptually flawed, then asking them to fix a broken concept is not a helpful response.
  My concern in this case is that the template is mostly an exercise in synthesis, an attempt to make anarchism appear to be a much more significant topic in Irish history than it really was. As the article Anarchism in Ireland says "Irish anarchism has little historical tradition before the 1970s, and as a movement it only really developed from the late 1990". Yet the template includes a whole lot of stuff which are at best only tangentially elated to anarchism: People's Democracy, Irish National Land League, Oscar Wilde, and so on.
  I am myself a borderline anarchist, and deeply regret that the tradition has gained so little traction in Ireland, squashed between the conflicting varieties of statism, but I am also a historian and I really dislike the way that templates such as this can be used on wikipedia to construct what amounts to a historical distortion, by giving completely undue prominence to minor aspects of the topics covered in articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of group of old templates that serve little use aside from cluttering up a clutch of articles apparantly chosen at random. The templates ape series templates but are nothing of the sort. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:53, 27 January 2010 (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:IrishM

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) 20:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A random collection of links with no inclusion criteria most of which aren't even related to Monarchism . Gnevin (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, except that I would say none of the links relate to monarchism, only (in some cases) to the monarchy. Scolaire (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snappy (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some of the links included in it are bizarre, such as Kevin O'Higgins, and most of the other people in it have at best a highly-tangential connection to monarchism. Isaac Butt? He was a unionist in his early days, but I don't see evidence that he was a monarchist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As anyone knowledgeable with Anglo-Irish relations in the 1920s knows Kevin O'Higgins advocated the creation of a dual monarchy joining Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State in 1926 and wanted the King crowned king of Ireland at a version of a durbar to be held in the Phoenix Park. (Higgins' ideas featured in a file now in the National Archives about creating a North-South dual monarchy.) The idea died with Higgins's assassination. Butt was a strong monarchist all his life who wrote about his devotion or monarchy and his desire that the Royal Family have a residence on Ireland. (He thought Killeen Castle would be an Irish Balmoral. He also wanted members of the Royal Family appointed to the Lord Lieutenancy rather than politicians.) But as usual on here instead of checking facts some posters jump to conclusions. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: FearÉIREANN is the pen-name of User:jtdirl, the creator of this template. Scolaire (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right about O'Higgins and Butt; I haven't checked my reference books. But since their alleged monarchism is not even mentioned in passing in the wikipedia article on them, it makes no sense to include them in a monarchism template, because a reader who follows the templated link there will have wasted their time.
  Even if the articles to have something on the subject, adding a bulky template like this to the articles on them gives undue prominence to a small aspect of their political careers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find this template useful and don't understand how deleting it would help. A sidebar is not exactly claiming to have the final word on 'who was "a monarchist"' or to what extent someone was interested in it. It's meant as a starting point for additional browsing and research, kind of a categorized 'See also'. If on an article about "monarchism" I place a link to an article about "the monarchy" in the See also section, it doesn't mean that they are both the same thing. If you feel that Isaac Butt does not belong in the same breath as monarchy, start a discussion on the template's talk page or be bold and remove it. If there is an issue, step one should not be TFD. --LEKI (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a discussion on the template talk page. As a direct result of that I was bold and removed all of the articles from the template, with nobody dissenting, because none of them belong. They were replaced only because TfD was considered the better course. The template has not been used on any of the organisations, "campaigners" or documents articles for some time, presumably because the editors of those various articles (not including me, by the way) did not think it was relevant or appropriate. Scolaire (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as above) part of group of old templates that serve little use aside from cluttering up a clutch of articles apparantly chosen at random. The templates ape series templates but are nothing of the sort. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:54, 27 January 2010 (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:LangWithNameNoItals

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 per T3 as there are no objections, already deprecated, and orphaned Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated and unused; redundant to {{LangWithName}}. +An gr 14:40, 24 January 2010 (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:Archive.org

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) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Archive.org (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without leaving a redirect, as unused and deprecated. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2010 (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:Cite web APA

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 per T3 as there are no objections, already deprecated, and orphaned Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web APA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 24 January 2010 (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:SFBAProject

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 per T3 as there are no objections, already deprecated, and orphaned. Project now uses {{WikiProject California|sfba=yes}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 24 January 2010 (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:Mapit-US-cityscale

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 after replacement with {{coord}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely seems that for the many US-census city pages this should be handled by the census-bot; definitely recommend go that route before trying manual replacements. --Chinasaur (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mapit-US-cityscale (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Template is protected, I cannot list it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have removed the <s>...</s> from your comment, assuming that your inability to tag it is the only reason for the striking of your nomination. If this is not the case, please let me know and we can withdraw your nomination. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused? I count several thousand transclusions... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very old template superseded by {{Coord}}. - Darwinek (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what I did here; template is used all over the place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Justin was obviously mistaken about it being unused (there are over 21,000 transclusions), but the template has been deprecated for going on two years and is entirely redundant. We don't need an item in the External Links section that says "Town X is at coordinates Y" when a simple {{Coord}} template with the "title" parameter puts the coordinates at the top of the article. This template just needs to be edited to remove the inline text and then substituted using AWB or a bot. The main barrier is the number of transclusions, but if a couple of people work on it, the task can be completed in a reasonable amount of time; I am willing to help with this if the outcome is "delete". --RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up to my own comment: It appears that simply replacing the template name and adding the "display=inline" parameter accomplishes the same result, and can be done easily with AWB. Since the template is already long deprecated, I've begun performing the replacements. Given the number of pages involved, I'm not going to be completing this task alone, but there doesn't seem to be any reason we can't get a head start. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the original creator, I am pleased that this has become redundant/obsolete. However, if there are many pages still using it, do we need to make an effort to migrate them to the modern version? I believe many of the old inclusions were from the census-bot, but I am not up-to-date with WP in general anymore to know how these things work nowadays. --Chinasaur (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely they should be updated to use {{Coord}}. Since this template already calls {{Coord}}, we should be able to substitute, although I would suggest first editing this template to remove the inline text display, since that aspect of the template is redundant. There are a lot of pages, but the more people who work on it, the faster it will be finished. Final deletion would not occur until all the transclusions were subst'ed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superseded, but someone needs to run a bot/AWB to eliminate all uses first. I followed a use to get here! Royal broil 06:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long since deprecated (but unfortunately enough are around that upgrading will be a task). Daniel Case (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a need for a low-key template to add coordinates to the bottom of an article, where geographical location is incidental. I have been using it. Racepacket (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why can't you use {{Coord}} for that? +An gr 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obsoleted by {{coord}} Pit-yacker (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2010 (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:WikiProject French communes

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) 20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject French communes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and thanks to the person who orphaned it. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2010 (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:JudgeBio

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 as deprecated, orphaned, and replaced by {{FJC Bio}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 24 January 2010 (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:Diving-stub

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 Withdrawn by nom Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diving-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Unused, deprecated. Deletion keeps it from being inserted in articles and then having them sorted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Comment I think that without this, they wouldn't be tagged at all, it'd be a {{stub}} or {{swimming-stub}} and then you'd have to stubsort that. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Should have been posted to the stub-types discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 29 January 2010 (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:Diving-bio-stub

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 Withdrawn by nom Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diving-bio-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

~~Unused, deprecated. Deletion keeps it from being inserted in articles and then having them sorted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Comment I think that without this, they wouldn't be tagged at all, it'd be a {{bio-stub}} and then you'd have to stubsort that. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Should have been posted to the stub-types discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 29 January 2010 (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:WikiProject American Samoa

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 as deprecated and orphaned Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject American Samoa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 24 January 2010 (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:China-road-stub

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 Withdrawn by nom Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Template:China-road-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)~~

~~Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn Should have been posted to the stub-types discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:33, 29 January 2010 (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:Boilerplate music cover fur

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 as deprecated and orphaned Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boilerplate music cover fur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 24 January 2010 (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:SPIconfirmedsock

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 Speedy delete per T3 and G7 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: this was an important template when I created it some two years ago, but its functions have since been absorbed by other templates—and accordingly, it can safely be deleted. AGK 13:01, 24 January 2010 (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:MedportalDYK

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) 20:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, deprecated, unused. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:54, 25 January 2010 (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:MCOTWcur

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 per T3 as there are no objections and the templates are both deprecated and orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:39, 24 January 2010 (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:MedportalSA

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) 20:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created it a long time ago but haven't used it for a while. I have to agree with the deletion. NCurse _work 18:14, 26 January 2010 (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:Kosmos

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 Speedy delete per T3 and G7 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - template has served its purpose and is no longer required. Since I am the original author, this should qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G7.--G W… 10:10, 24 January 2010 (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:IAST1

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 per T3 as there are no objections and the template is both deprecated and orphaned. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IAST1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 24 January 2010 (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:Ruby

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 for now Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated, unused —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the discussion here. -- allen四names 07:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the earlier discussion. I'm the one who nominated it before and still think it could be safely deleted, but the previous discussion was a clear keep and is less than two months old. Although I do not doubt the good faith of this particular nomination, we need to have some limits on rapid renomination to prevent disruptive and pointy XFDs. --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per last TfD . Procedural close as a bit too soon to renominate. 76.66.200.154 (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2010 (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:Cite science

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) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite science (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without redirect as deprecated. We have too many citation templates as it is. Debresser (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2010 (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:Infobox station header CTA

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) 21:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox station header CTA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all transclusions were dealt with in November. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2010 (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 xml-0

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User xml-0. RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User xml-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no XML skills and can admit to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several [language]-0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 25 January 2010 (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 cobol-0

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User cobol-0. RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User cobol-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is meaningless and unnecessary about having a little dose of fun in the user pages? Thirteen Wikipedia users disagrees. -- Egil (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no COBOL skills and can admit to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several [language]-0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 25 January 2010 (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 xhtml-0

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User xhtml-0. RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User xhtml-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no XHTML skills and can admit to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several [language]-0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 25 January 2010 (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 prog-0

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User prog-0. RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User prog-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no programming skills and can admit to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several [language]-0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:39, 25 January 2010 (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 haskell-N

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User haskell-N. RL0919 (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the criteria for deletion - why are CSS-0 and CSS-N up for deletion, but only haskell-N and not -0? ZoFreX (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Makes perfect sense to me. The user is very good at the Haskell programming language. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No one is a native speaker of a programming language. This can be collapsed to haskell-4 or haskell-5 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{User haskell-4}} and delete. As Justin wrote: "no one is a native speaker of a programming language". –Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:55, 25 January 2010 (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 css-N

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User css-N. RL0919 (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The meaning is quite clear, the user has a great understanding of Cascading Style Sheets. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one is a native speaker of a programming language. This can be collapsed to css-4 or css-5 —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum In fact, the user category for this template is the css-4 user category. This is entirely redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 25 January 2010 (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 css-0

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User css-0. RL0919 (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User css-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Meaningless and unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no Cascading Style Sheet skills and can admit to it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 16:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several [language]-0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:40, 25 January 2010 (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 unicode

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User unicode. RL0919 (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User unicode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template asking users to switch to deleted alternatives. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me the benefit you get by deleting this template? babbage (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It serves no purpose, so having it serves no purpose as well. Deleting it keeps it from being used somewhere on Wikipedia while it's deprecated. If you think it should be retained even though it's deleted, there is a template to put that text on the template itself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By that reasoning you should go ahead and remove all the purposeless templates in use on your user page. Does the world need to know your opinion on the serial comma? No, but it doesn't hurt anyone either. What's the big deal that I have a freakin Unicode template? Sheesh. babbage (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response That template isn't deprecated. What is the point of deprecating a template, if it's just used anyway? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:12, 24 January 2010 (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 mobile

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 Moved to WP:MFD because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. The comments below have been copied to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User mobile. RL0919 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User mobile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated template asking users to switch to deleted alternatives. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this replaced with? Surely the deleted alternatives should be removed from the page instead. Sendalldavies (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am biased as I think I am the creator, and I'm an inclusionist. Can we delay deletion while consensus determines an alternative? Mathiastck (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2010 (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 R-proglang

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 Moved to WP:MFD, because userboxes are supposed to be discussed there. See new discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User R-proglang. RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template asking users to use deleted alterantives. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:15, 24 January 2010 (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.