Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 June 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< June 26 June 28 >

June 27

edit

Template:Revision

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, if someone wants to redirect it, go right ahead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

current usage in articles indicates that it is being mistaken for a maintenance template. not sure why we need this anyway. 64.134.188.45 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2012 (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:List of Tongan Monarchs

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Tongan Monarchs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. 64.134.188.45 (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2012 (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:UAAPteam2

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 15:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UAAPteam2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to using either {{UAAPteam}}, or if you want a larger icon, then use {{UAAPicon}}. [1] 64.134.188.45 (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2012 (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:Eduboxend

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted per WP:G8. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

only used by one template, which itself has been nominated for deletion. we now have {{sidebar}}, so we don't need this. 64.134.188.45 (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2012 (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:Quick find

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 15:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quick find (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

quick find in a small subset of the other WPs? seems like this would have limited use, and indeed, does not appear to widely adopted. suggest substituting its one use and delete it. 64.134.188.45 (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2012 (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:Closer's notes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, clearly obsolete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Closer's notes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I believe this is part of an obsolete procedure. currently, all the various discussion areas have individual closing templates, not one generic one. suggest substituted (as is indicated in the usage instructions) and deleting it. 64.134.188.45 (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2012 (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:OSDir

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

old and unused in article space. suggest substitute and delete. 64.134.188.45 (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2012 (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 pfafrich test

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pfafrich test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:User pfafrich test chi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

nearly unused test template, could be moved to userspace. 64.134.188.45 (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2012 (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 style

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

not needed (we have {{userboxtop}} and {{babel}} for userbox containers). 64.134.188.45 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2012 (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:Aerobatics

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wide ranging subject for a nav box that if properly populated could grow to hundreds or thousands of linked entries. Doesnt add any value to the articles and the subject already covered by Category:Aerobatics. MilborneOne (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - By that rationale, almost every navbox on Wikipedia would need to be deleted. A navbox is not properly populated when it includes a link to every possible article within its scope; it should simply cover the articles that most directly relate to the subject of the navbox. A category is no replacement for a navbox as categories and navboxes serve different functions. If there are too many links on the navbox, remove the ones that are most indirectly related to aerobatics; don't delete the entire template. Neelix (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the lists of aircraft and pilots are far too long and ought probably be reduced to just links to list articles. But the topic is not inherently ill-suited to a navbox, and this one resembles other topic-area navboxes in scope and intent. Powers T 02:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. TBrandley 02:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Like

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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: reincarnation of a past debate from a little over 2 months ago. No new arguments, just chattering heads. While I personally dislike the templates for all the same reasons as Powers and tariqabjotu, the community has overwhelmingly voiced otherwise. There is no doubt in my mind that consensus can still change, but, for now, this discussion is too soon and there is little left to be said. Blurpeace 23:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

These templates are redundant to {{Agree}} and {{Disagree}}, per WP:TFD#REASONS. They should also be deleted per WP:NOTADVERT (Wikipedia neither endorses organizations [...]), WP:PROMO (Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia.), WP:TALKNO (Do not use the talk page as a forum, Straw polls should not be used prematurely or excessively) and WP:!VOTE (The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus).

  1. In the October 2011 outcome, the adjudication was that WP:IAR and the existence of these templates will cause users to forgo considered argument and instead to turn to simply posting the templates, adorned by little or no further exposition, in discussions were "not proven".
    • I agree that editors who oppose the use of these templates may indeed not able to point to specific instances of cultural degradation. However, we should accept that there is likely to be a gradual creep in use of this template, which can be viewed as highly distracting and does not contribute anything positive to discussions. I (occasionally) use Fb myself, but that doesn't mean I want to see its format for favouring things propagated here. Their usage encourages further usage by others, in accordance with the Fb principle it is based on. Do we have to become all POINTy and start deliberately using them everywhere in order to demonstrate the likely degradation?
  2. Their usage implies the endorsement of Facebook by Wikipedia editors. Even though they're used on talk pages rather than article pages, the same principles of not inappropriately endorsing organisations should apply.
  3. I have slightly less objection to the earlier incarnations of this template (and note that the deletion nominations didn't appear until after the hijacking of Template:Like). I do (sparingly) use templates such as {{(:}}, {{Thank you}} and {{Great}} myself, but they all incorporate generic icons with no association to any corporate entities.

-- Trevj (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The use of a serif font and the color green doesn't make your arguments any less flimsy. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again? I personally dislike this template and wouldn't care one jot if it was deleted, but after three TfDs that have all resulted in keep, it should be remarkably obvious that this template won't be deleted. This will be a waste of time and I suggest the nominator withdraw. Jenks24 (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I believe new arguments have been presented, and should like to see them fully evaluated. If the consensus is that the arguments are not new after all, I will gladly apologise and withdraw the nomination to save everyone's time. -- Trevj (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 'cause this is silly. They're for fun. Though they could, of course, be (mis)used as lone rationale in debates, so can lots of things -- among them, the typed words "Like" and "Dislike", which we could filter out too I suppose. But we won't. It's up to closing admins to weigh such responses accordingly, and there are many uses for things like this, other than official processes. Not sure why we'd assume they'll be used there necessarily. We could delete smiley templates and a slough of others for a lot of these same reasons. Equazcion (talk) 13:29, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. All of these arguments have been considered in three previous TfDs within the past twelve months (please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 April 22, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 July 12), as well as two separate nominations on WikiCommons, which addressed possible copyright issues. I request that an administrator immediately close this nomination: the premises of this nomination have been previously considered and rejected by the consensus of three recent TfDs, and, in light of those recent TfD "keep" consensuses, this nomination borders on bad faith and possibly constitutes "disruptive editing." In all events, nothing has changed in the last 65 days since April 22, 2012, when the last TfD was closed with an overwhelming 8–1 consensus. Moreover, it is disrespectful to fellow editors who have already considered and repeatedly rejected these same arguments advanced by this TfD nomination. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had (another) look through those 3 previous nominations and failed to find any mention of redundancy. Perhaps I missed something obvious. -- Trevj (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Because your "redundancy" argument, together with the other arguments advanced by you, are simply rehashed and repacked versions of arguments that employed the same or similar logic to those that have been previously rejected. Arguments based on "not a vote," possible degradation of talk page discussions, Wikipedia not being a social forum, etc., were explicitly considered and rejected. Repackaging the same logic under the "new argument" that these templates are "redundant" because of the existence of the graphic templates "check" and "x", is an extremely weak argument. What this is really about is an "I don't like it" quest in the face of previous rejections. It has now reached the level of aggravation to your fellow editors such that those who previously voted to "delete" are now voting to "keep" because of the disrespect shown to your fellow editors by this redundant TfD nomination. Frankly, I don't even use these damn templates, but I am disgusted by this repeated abuse of the TfD process, and I will continue to participate in these TfD discussions to see that such abuse of the process is not rewarded. Unfortunately, it is a waste of the participants' time and energies, and I suspect that numerous others share my opinion on this point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Speedily, as far as I'm concerned. MZMcBride makes a fine argument, and repeat nominations are disruptive. I would close this if I knew how (I'm a luddite with these not so simple XfDs), so please consider this an endorsement of Dirtlawyer's suggestion for the next admin: close it please. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These templates are distracting on talk pages and call undue attention to the comments of editors who use them relative to editors who do not. They are not conducive to productive discussion and should be prohibited. Powers T 14:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you forbid me to put images of delicious beers next to messages? Or would you forbid the use of italics, bold, all-caps, or even non-typographical rhetorical flourishes, since those also might attract more attention than messages without them? What if someone writes really well compared to others? Or really poorly, perhaps on purpose? Sorry, but I don't see the argument here at all. Besides, neither you nor the nominator seem to be aware of the fact that the "like" is rarely used in what one might call "formal" discussions. How often do these pop up on ANI? I wouldn't even be aware of this discussion if there wasn't one on my own talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. LtPowers: "These templates are distracting on talk pages and call undue attention to the comments of editors who use them relative to editors who do not. They are not conducive to productive discussion and should be prohibited." This argument was previously considered and explicitly rejected in Herostratus' detailed and thoughtful closing comments in the October 2011 TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28. Do you have any new arguments that haven't been considered and rejected in the previous three TfDs over the last twelve months? I'm starting to feel like Bill Murray's character in "Groundhog Day"; apparently we are doomed to repeat this over and over again. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That closing by Herostratus was rather poor, despite its length. It boils down to "it's all just opinion, so no one is right and no one is wrong". He said "Editors were not able to point to specific instances of cultural degradation," and then immediately admits that "[t]his would be hard to do". He's essentially saying that no argument against these templates is even possible, let alone convincing. That's flawed reasoning. There are plenty of things we, as a community, can decide are harmful to the encyclopedia without requiring specific instances that irrefutably show harm. Powers T 02:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, Powers, so Herostratus' reasoning was "flawed," we should therefore ignore his TfD closing statement, and we should simply accept these replays of the same arguments until we get a different result. Got it. Color me curious, though. What is this "community" that you expect will decide these templates are harmful? From where I sit, it would appear the community has already spoken rather emphatically three times in Wikipedia TfDs and twice in Commons TfDs in the last 12 months, and that same community has rejected every argument advanced, including several that you and the nominator are now recycling. Hypothetically, what will you do if the Wikipedia community rejects these same arguments for a fourth time in this TfD? Do you plan on renominating these templates again in another 60 to 90 days, hoping for a different result? At what point do you accept that the community has already spoken? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I didn't nominate it this time. I didn't have the opportunity to weigh in on previous discussions, so I'm taking the opportunity now. Why are you so upset that I'm giving my opinion? Am I not allowed to find these templates unsuitable just because other people found them suitable at some point in the past? (And the discussion outcome you linked was far from "emphatic"; even Herostratus acknowledged that it was close.) I expect, though, that the templates will continue to be nominated as more people (unaware of prior discussions) see them in use and realize that they are not well-suited to community collaboration. Powers T 13:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Powers, I am not "upset" that you are giving your opinion; that's your characterization. In my personal experience, your opinion is more often right than wrong. But let's acknowledge that these templates have been nominated for TfD three previous times in the past twelve months. Your particular argument about the "inappropriateness" of these templates for a serious discussion has been advanced and explicitly rejected—not once, but at least twice before. What I find objectionable is that several knowledgeable editors have abused the TfD process and wasted the valuable time of their fellow editors and knowingly renominated these templates after multiple consensus "keep" TfDs. It's discourteous, ignores recently established consensus, and violates TfD standard practices. If someone knowingly renominates these templates again within a relatively brief time, I expect that (a) an administrator or common user will summarily close the TfD as already settled by recent consensus, and (b) if the nominator persists, this will wind up on the AN and/or AN/I boards to deal with the breach of consensus and tendentious editing there. At some point, the minority needs to acknowledge the community has already spoken, and drop the stick. Editors have been blocked for less than repeatedly nominating the same item for XfD in the face of established consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well I hope that I'm not at risk for blocking. What would you have me do? I'm not going to recommend "keep" for templates I feel are clearly inappropriate. Powers T 21:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bold and italics are common typographical conventions used for emphasis. A comment written in all boldface, however, is excessive and not appropriate in most discussions. Using a picture of a "delicious" beer seems pointless, unless the discussion is about beer or the picture, and increases load times for users on slow connections without any accompanying benefit. But all of those tactics are available via the usual mechanisms of editing and cannot be prohibited via technical measures. Of course, these templates' designs can be reproduced even if the templates are deleted, but doing so is much more difficult, and thus the behavior is discouraged. Powers T 02:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per all the reasons stated in three previous discussion this year alone (1, 2, 3). With regard to the "new arguments":
    • WP:TFD#REASONS: The word "agree" does not mean the same as the word "like" and the word "dislike" does not mean the same as the word "disagree". You may "dislike" that fact because it undermines your argument, but you will surely "agree" that it is the case?
    • WP:NOTADVERT / WP:PROMO: These templates don't advertise anything.
    • WP:TALKNO / WP:!VOTE: Is it not quite hypocritical to say these template encourage straw polls over discussion while at the same time saying they are redundant to {{Agree}} and {{Disagree}}? The practice of using bold text to say Support or Oppose equally may diminish discussion. The burden for proper use of talk pages lies with editors and templates like these are merely tools in a kit that help discussion along.
--RA (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (with the bit about the meanings of the words) But you'll presumably agree that redundant isn't equivalent to equivalent. -- Trevj (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, but it is redundant with it :D "They are redundant" and "They don't mean the same thing" are basically counterpoised positions here, since by "redundant" you mean it's not necessary to keep both since they are similar enough in meaning, and by "meaning different things" we're saying that yes we should keep both because they each still have their varied uses. Going back to my statement above, there are lots of templates that could be described as redundant, but that's no argument for deletion unless they're "official" maintenance tags etc, or if they're actually the same. We have many varied "it's good"/"it's bad" templates, just as we have for other sentiments, and there's no reason to get rid of the ones that can be used in similar circumstances. We're not running out of hard drive space. Equazcion (talk) 16:43, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
This template is clearly redundant to a better-designed template. I can't find any previous discussions specifically addressing the issue of whether {{Agree}} is or is not of better design than {{Like}}. I say the former is of a better design because it doesn't encourage unnecessary unconstructive use in the way that the latter does. The default wording isn't particularly relevant because in both cases it can be overridden, as shown below. -- Trevj (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The argument you're presenting now has nothing to do with redundancy (aside from repeating that it's redundant). If you think one presents a better design than the other, that's still not an argument for deletion. Equazcion (talk) 19:44, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying those examples, Equazcion. -- Trevj (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, Trevj? I hope your best argument isn't that you personally prefer one goofy template over another goofy template. If that's your best argument, you are wasting the valuable time of other Wikipedia editors. If so, we need to put a   Big Red X next to your TfD nomination. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going by what I read at WP:TFD#REASONS. This is a nomination made in good faith and without intention to cause disruption. I happened across this template recently and was shocked to then read that the community apparently condones its use. After looking through the 3 previous nominations, I noticed that there appeared to exist a valid reason for deleting it which had not already been discussed. Is there a policy which I've missed which explains why it might not be redundant? -- Trevj (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as RA and others above have already said why it needs to be kept. Its not redundant because I use it for comments that I *Like, and agree-disagree are unfit for that. --DBigXray 16:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This reason for deletion is not as good as the last two or three were, and the result of those nominations was keep. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per comments above TBloemink talk 16:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate these templates with a passion. We are not Facebook or a social network. On a website whose content hinges on discussion, a simple "Like" does nothing. For some reason, people seem to understand that the {{agree}} and {{disagree}} templates are meant for certain types of discussions (e.g. polls), and they understand that the word "Agree" or "Disagree" is not enough. People who use the {{like}} template, however, use it in all sorts of discussions, giving their comments and opinions undue attention and weight and cluttering up talk pages. Often times the template is not accompanied by any explanation (understandable, given how Likes work on Facebook). So, basically we have a juvenile template that adds nothing of substance to discussion and detracts from those comments that often do provide more. I have not looked at or read the previous deletion discussions on this, and I don't particularly care to. Herostratus or whoever closed the previous discussions on this matter is not a Supreme Court judge. His determination of what has and has not been proven is relevant to a discussion s/he decides to close and irrelevant everywhere else. That being said, two months after the last deletion request is a bit soon. -- tariqabjotu 21:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Tariqabjotu, you are new to TfD's longest-running comedy show, so I will simply point out that (1) "I hate these templates with a passion" is not a valid TfD argument, and (2) the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTFACEBOOK has nothing to do with these templates, but prohibits the use of Wikipedia for purely social purposes, cloud hosting, message boards, etc. The latter argument was discussed in depth and then explicitly considered and rejected in the closing last October: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28. And, yes, re-nominating this template for TfD only 65 days after the last TfD was closed with an overwhelming consensus to keep is too soon. As expected, the "new argument" advanced by the nominator is being ignored and we are now simply repeating arguments that have been advanced and rejected three times in twelve months. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the closing of the October 2011 discussion by Herostratus, I note there is evidence which may suggest a propensity to preserve humour, although I acknowledge that evidence to the contrary may also exist. Naturally, humour itself is no bad thing, but that which is redundant to a template of better (i.e. less inappropriate) design, fosters repeat use by others and is coupled with subliminal advertising should not be held in the same class as your run-of-the-mill LOL stuff. I don't believe the October 2011 closure is necessarily valid simply by its existence. -- Trevj (talk) 08:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dirtlawyer1, I understand you want to keep this template, but it is completely unnecessary -- and downright annoying -- for you to confront every single person who opposes it, especially when you have nothing to contribute but condescension and repeated arguments. I have been involved with Wikipedia for seven years, and while I don't often participate in XfD discussions (as they so rarely contribute to the mission of Wikipedia), I am entirely aware that "I hate this with a passion" is not a reason for deletion. But that's only if it's on its own. If I go into depth with an explanation -- longer, mind you, than nearly any other here -- I am perfectly within my rights to summarize that with a statement that, even if omitted, would have been clear to see from the remainder of my comment. This is akin to supporting remarks that call the template "fun" and say "some people find [these templates] useful" -- although you will observe there is far less of substance accompanying these remarks for which you have yet to badger anyone about. I don't recall ever linking to WP:NOTFACEBOOK, and yet you chose to claim I did and then denounce that. I said we are not Facebook or a social network, where simply "Like"ing a status or a picture or a remark is enough; discussion of content is very important here.
To be honest with you, I have no idea why you have even bothered to respond. The trend here is obviously toward keeping this template and I am under no illusion that it's going to be gone after the end of this week. Nevertheless, I am entitled to register my position, which I have absolutely no intention of changing, and I am permitted to not treat the opinion of Herostratus as the word of God. So the only effect of your remarks is giving the impression you can't stand that there are people that disagree with you and belittle people for doing so. -- tariqabjotu 15:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Tariqabjotu, but you misunderstand my intention. I correctly noted that you have not participated in any of the previous TfDs for these templates, and don't know the history by your own statement. If you were annoyed by my reply, I sincerely apologize. But if you are annoyed by my reply, please consider the annoyance felt by those editors who have now taken part in four separate Wikipedia TfDs and two more on Commons regarding these same templates. To paraphrase your comment, it's not a matter of me being unable to stand that there are people who disagree with me. Quite the contrary, I deal with numerous professionals every week who disagree with me in one way or another, but when I wind up on the losing end of a decision, I move on. From my viewpoint regarding these templates, it would appear there is an unreconciled minority that can't stand that the community has repeatedly disagreed with them. I'll leave it at that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No one is forcing you to participate in these discussions and, with so much support, there's hardly any need to (let alone respond to other people's points). -- tariqabjotu 17:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ps: it looks strange already, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How templates appear in archives after they're deleted is not an argument for retention. Redlinked templates exist and that's the potential fate of using a template which risks being deleted. -- Trevj (talk) 06:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again) - these templates are jokey, but ultimately harmless. I don't think they're really likely to create confusion with Facebook, as it's obvious on a moment's examination that they aren't real Facebook 'like buttons', and I don't believe they disrupt discussions either. And finally, they have a functionality not duplicated by any other template; yes, there is {{Agree}}, but arguably there's a slight difference between 'liking' a comment and 'agreeing' with it. Robofish (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate these like poison. They are not, to my way of thinking, harmless at all. They make it easy to take up space by saying nothing, when we should instead be discouraging people from non-content contributions like these. Further, I don't understand the rationale behind saying "I'd delete it but keep because of the previous finding." Were I the closing administrator (noting that I don't close template discussions, so maybe the conventions are different) I'd give very very little weight to a comment like that. In fact, looking at the keep !votes so far, it's "not green," "filter out the word like", "disruptive" a couple of time, "per not green", lot's of "speedy keeps like last time", "archives would look strange". A big thank you to Robofish for a clear, concise addition to an otherwise poor discussion. I'd prefer this template be deleted as redundant and disruptive. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably your comment is to be summarised as delete, or does "I'd prefer [...]" signify that it's merely a comment? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no harm from these templates and some people find them useful. MBisanz talk 02:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It acts and can be used differently. Also because of the above comment. TBrandley 02:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has different functionality than agree/disagree. Also, one may like something without necessary agreeing with it (rarely, but it happens). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I see no reason not to allow these templates to remain. As others have noted, attempts like this one have failed several times before as well. --Varnent (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (nominator) The most recent previous discussion (April 2012) was initiated on copyright grounds. The assessment was that the icon is based on prior art and so can be legitimately used. This current discussion has been initiated on grounds of redundancy. Those effectively commenting "I like it", "It does no harm" , "Keep, because that's what happened before" are not assessing the primary argument presented:
How is {{Like}} not redundant to {{Agree}}, which is of a better design because it neither encourages pointless !votes nor gives the impression of Wikipedia promoting Facebook? The point made that it's not technically an advert is not valid. Brand recognition is often subliminal. As can be seen by referring to the Like button article, it is primarily (and almost exclusively, according to that content) associated with Facebook. Inclusion of the button within discussion pages implies endorsement of Facebook by Wikipedia, which we do not do. To quote a comment made at Talk:Like button#Proposal to merge to Facebook (although obviously WP:OR), The 'like' button has become a social phenomenom. It's often used in advertising, protests and has become easily identifiable. -- Trevj (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mostly harmless. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes it's a little frivolous, but not harmful. No more than {{trout}}, or our vast selection of barnstars. Now if only Facebook would add a {{citation needed}} template... the wub "?!" 15:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This third nomination is a waste of editors' time. Imagine how many hours of reading and replying to this TfD will have been unnecessarily wasted when better edits could have been made in that same time frame. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't care whether these templates are kept or not, but if they are kept, then I vote for replacing the thumbs-up image with a different one, and otherwise changing the template to be a bit more original. The existing template is an absolute ripoff of Facebook's Like button; in fact, the thumbs-up icon was copied directly from Facebook's servers and uploaded to Commons. I fail to see how this is okay, regardless of the Facebook thumbs-up image being a very small image; it is still distinctively recognizable as Facebook's icon, and seriously, why not follow the moral "better to be safe than sorry"? —{|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|} 01:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This reason for deletion is not understandable anymore after multiple TfDs. Mrt3366 (Talk?) 08:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Facebook like feature. It's a lighthearted way to spice up a discussion. What's the harm? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing your view. If you've fully read the nomination and my above comment of 05:48, 28 June 2012, you'll see that in my opinion (which is shared by others) the template is redundant to a better designed template which doesn't imply the endorsement of Facebook by Wikipedia (WP:NOTADVERT). The harm is that its use also goes against a number of other principles which the community has generally agreed to operate in accordance with. -- Trevj (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a trademark violation. I don't care if it's kept or deleted, but this is identical to Facebook's "like" button and therefore cannot stay as-is.
    • Facebook Brand Resource Center: "Do not use trademarks, logos, or other content that is confusingly similar to the Brand Assets."
    • TTABulator: "Facebook applied to register the word “LIKE” and the “like” button graphic in 2010. Recently, the Facebook applications were approved by the USPTO and published in the public record."
  • —howcheng {chat} 16:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Howchecng, am I missing something here? Because the link you provided does not support your statement that "the Facebook applications were approved by the USPTO and published in the public record." Information provided by the blog site you linked clearly states that TiVO has filed for an extension of time to contest Facebook's trademark application. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website (linked here), no agency action has been taken on Facebook's application, although USPTO has published notice of Facebook's application in April 2012. Big difference. If you have other evidence of recent approval by USPTO, please provide it. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I quoted the blog post. —howcheng {chat} 19:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • In light of what the USPTO's official website states, you may want to strike your comment above. Otherwise, it's seriously misleading as to the actual status of Facebook's trademark application, which, we can see from USPTO official webpage, has not actually been granted by the PTO. As best I can make out, your confusion arises from the fact Facebook's application was approved for publication, the publication of notice of the application and request for public comment being one of the several required steps in PTO's review process. Again, there's a big difference in PTO approving the publication of notice of Facebook's application, and PTO actually approving Facebook's application and granting the trademark to Facebook. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the eventual outcome, I think that gratitude is due to all the admins who've seen this discussion and let it continue for whatever reason, despite the repeated calls for it to be speedily closed. -- Trevj (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  'Speedy Keep' I use it all the time. Very helpful. If there was a trademark vio, then the problem should be remedied with an image modification, not by deleting the template. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC) revised --Born2cycle (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2012 (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:CFA destroyer armament

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 substitution Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFA destroyer armament (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

plain text, no proper template. Text can be added to article with a simple copy and paste. Unlikely that the ships stay the same over a long time. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Bot can go through and subst them in. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:13, 27 June 2012 (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:Canadian Translation Associations

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, it appears the articles were created before, but were subsequently deleted at AFD Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadian Translation Associations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN. There aren't enough filled in items in this template to keep for the time being. Izno (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not needed at this time. I don't think four links is enough to justify having a navbox; write the articles first, then it can be recreated when necessary. Robofish (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2012 (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:Final Fantasy characters

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final Fantasy characters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Largely duplicated by various navboxes. Doesn't make sense to have a sidebar of this type, as the various characters barely, if even, connect well to each other. Izno (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as redundant to links in {{Final Fantasy series}}. Frietjes (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the main FF series navbox never shows all the character links at the same time, so this template provides a different functionality. The ability to quickly navigate between all characters of different games is useful and valuable in itself. Still useful as a navigation aid, which is its primary purpose. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    we have Category:Final Fantasy characters for linking between all of them. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The category does not clearly depict which game each character is from. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    sounds like we need to make List of Final Fantasy characters more than a redirect. the usual question is if a grouping is important enough to have its own article. in this case it appears the answer is no? not even a section in an article? but yet we have several subarticles? 198.102.153.2 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I agree, and I'm not sure that argues against my rationale of "the characters don't connect to each other". They're hardly a navigational aid if there's no conceivable reason why we should be linking from a character in FF1 to one in FF10. Consider, do you think it would be appropriate to link those pages in the See also section of any given character or list of characters?. I personally don't.... --Izno (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I can personally attest to finding this navbar convenient when trying to quickly move between character articles while trying to research similarities between protagonists. I don't know how often the navbar is used in this way, but I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine a reader who is interested in, for example, trying to read about all the female leads of the game without having to go to the game's main page as a detour. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even used on a number of the characters pages; I presume because they are mostly short pages and infoboxes are taking the sidebar's space. Would you object to conversion to a navbox rather than full deletion? --Izno (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems potentially useful to me, and isn't exactly duplicated by another template. It does basically do the same thing as the associated category, but that's not necessarily a reason to delete either - we permit redundancy between navboxes and categories. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's an extremely handy navigational tool that isn't replicated in any other form in such a concise and handy manner. Bertaut (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you two object to making it a navbox rather than a sidebar? It's current use is sporadic at best among the various pages it is on. --Izno (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a talk page discussion, not a TfD discussion, with input from WP:SE. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget what TfD actually stands for. :^) Considering that there are a number here expressing its usefulness yet not responding on the point that the sidebar is usually overshadowed by the infobox, I presume this would be an appropriate place to discuss it. --Izno (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that the D in TfD stands for discussion, but considering the amount of traffic here, especially repeat traffic, a proper discussion is impossible. Most visitors to TfD (evidently not including myself) only visit once to drop a single opinion. That's not the proper way to engineer a change like this. WP:SE, on the other hand, is on people's watchlists so a centralized discussion there would actually draw traffic. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2012 (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:Rupengoal

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 15:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used in articles; since articles are getting by fine without this template, it is probably not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2012 (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:Fur Trade in Nebraska

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fur Trade in Nebraska (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be an article rather than a template. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nothing wrong with this template. I red linked the title to encourage creation of the article, though. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article creator, my intention was to have an easy navigation template to related topics- not an article about it. There hasn't been much of substance written specifically about the template's topic, so an article would nearing OR. As a template, readers still get the benefit of a central location for the topic without it being OR. • Freechildtalk 18:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe template makes it easy to see the people and places related to the topic; and the fur trade, as in Nebraska, was often the first stage of later developments by European Americans.Parkwells (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2012 (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:USPP assignment

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USPP assignment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since Wikipedia's "Public Policy" initiative is defunct, this would seem to be obsolete. If there are still specific school assignment related to its replacement, Global Education Program (I think that's the replacement, though the history of this area of Wikipedia is a bit confusing to me), a new template should be created for that. Equazcion (talk) 21:46, 11 Jun 2012 (UTC)

keep the articles that include this template on this talk were created or expanded by this project, and that fact will never change. You could do a noinclude of a historical note, but even that is not necessary. deleting this would just make a pointless mess. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it should be kept on all those talk pages for historical purposes? I strongly disagree with that logic. Talk page headers are rife with enough clutter denoting current issues and notices. We don't need to keep tags on talk pages (forever?) to show something that once affected those article. Equazcion (talk) 17:03, 12 Jun 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:08, 27 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_27&oldid=1091625480"