Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/January 2006

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log | Deleted

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

edit

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
    • 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [1] is PD (Office of War Information).
    • 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
    • Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
  • Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMisleading--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 
This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

Template:Infobox Iranian President

edit

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

edit

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

edit

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

edit

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Lucidinformationsystems

edit

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

edit

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

edit

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything above. DaGizza Chat (c) 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDustimagic 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burn, per numerous above users. - Cuivienen 20:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The implication that Wikipedia shouldn't interfere with someone's ability to make money off this information is particularly offensive.--Srleffler 20:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

edit

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

{{Tfd-small}}

The template
‹ Templates for discussion/Log/Deleted/January 2006 ›
has been
proposed for deletion

Template:Dangh

edit

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

edit

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

edit

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:MLB Athletics franchise

edit

Template:MLB Athletics franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Ac and Template:Ac-reason

edit

Redundant with teh Wikipedia:General disclaimer plx. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:21, Jan. 2, 2006

  • delete as extremely POV. Joyous | Talk 16:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I've been monitoring the actions of User:Flarn2005 for some time now, and his actions have - in my opinion, of course - been nothing but disruption and censorship. A check of his blog, to which he links on his userpage, reveals that he is young - perhaps even a preteen - and attempts to reason with him, likely because of his extremely young age, have been met with difficulty. While I don't think that being young should exclude one from participating in wikipedia, I do think that his history counts against him. jglc | t | c 16:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily deleted per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #4, recreation of deleted content. Raul654 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Template:Events in sport by month links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Adult

edit

Another impossibly POV "adult content" warning added to articles such as Penis and Breast. Joyous | Talk 18:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against jews

edit

Template:User against jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky --Horses In The Sky 19:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring that it's fairly clear Chomsky has blind spots in his support for freedom of expression (Since we all do in one way or another), there is a difference between freedom of expression and paying for the microphone. I don't think anyone in this TfD is arguing that disliking Jews and saying you dislike Jews should be illegal. I think they're saying they don't want it here. There's a big differance. Phil Sandifer 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I agree with God of War but am inclined to say that this template "violates public safety" on Wikipedia. Free speech only goes as far as it does not cause or instigate actual physical harm. - Cuivienen 20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have a hard time seeing where "actual physical harm" is going to take place on wikipedia. --Dschor 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Offensive and oversteps the line. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like someone speedied it, so keep deleted as per WP:NPA. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Amusing and inoffensive. Sets a good precedent for other hatred- and bigotry-based infoboxes, which should have their own section in the Wikiproject. Unpopular opinions are still opinions! And it's hardly intolerant to simply express your opinion regarding a certain religious or ethnic group, whether that opinion is positive or negative! What's intolerant is forbidding others to express their own opinion in the manner they choose! If this template is kept deleted, though, then userfy, so Wikipedians can still use it if they choose, but without it being on the main Template namespace, where Wikipedia could be vulnerable to legal attack by the global Jewish conspiracy. -Silence 03:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"global Jewish conspiracy"? damn neo-nazis... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem angry and possibly hateful. Anger clouds your judgement. For example, in the case above, I think Silence was joking, but you assumed that he wasn't. Anger and hatred against so-called anti-Semites could also be leading many here to vote for deletion. Primetime 11:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with hating neo-nazis. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many neo-Nazis hate Jewish people. Thus, it seems to me like you're trading hatred of one group for another. This doesn't solve the roots of the hate (there are many).

Being hateful or angry also diminishes the persuasiveness of your vote. (I'm not talking just about you, but several other users who have voted above as well.) Primetime 13:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Ideas cannot be censored. Anti-Semitism, for example, has been around for four thousand years. The deletion of the template does not address its dangerous tenets. In fact, it only diminishes our credibility because we are seen as intolerant (in this case of anti-Hebrews). Displaying a userbox saying that a user is opposed to Jewry will actually help disprove the very concept anyway because its presence looks ridiculous. Primetime 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User oppose Kelly Martin

edit

This sort of thing is inappropriate, for several reasons. If one wants to express another's fitness for the arbcom, they can do so through the election, and not through the creation of extra templates for campaigning. There are already official channels for campaigning. This sort of template may also set a precedent in attacking other users -- legitimate criticism of other users should be done through proper channels with regard to civility and other Wikipedia guidelines. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iff

edit

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

edit

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

edit

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletion request

edit

Template:Deletion request (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:*-court

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Burger-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Chase-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ellsworth-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Fuller-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hughes-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Jaycourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Marshall-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rehnquist-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rutledge-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Stone-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taft-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taney-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Vinson-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Waite-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Warren-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:White-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Templates do not appear to be used any more. DLJessup (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (tho I'm sad to see those beauties go, and I'm goin' to keep a copy in my user space for personal reference). BD2412 T 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Hawaiianmusic

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach (Smack Back) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach (Smack Back) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... -   Bourbons3Talk | Contrib's 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach (Smack Back) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach (Smack Back) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated"   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach (Smack Back) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot of variations of it by now -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as {{User survived}}, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.
This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:
This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.
I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_-     --Mistress Selina Kyle (??? ¦ ??) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smiley

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 15:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coin

edit

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood - no need to redirect as it isn't used. Search4Lancer 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Keep (no consensus for delete) --Adrian Buehlmann 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about my closing decision: User:splash says the result was instead Delete, by reasons given here. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren GuReN6 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbamb.
  • Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. DaGizza Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid POV, even if you don't like it. By my understanding at least, as long as you discuss all the other POV's where NPOV needs to be preserved, then it's actually protected by WP:NPOV as a religion. Not that it matters much in userspace.
Wikipedia has one big thing which guarantees freedom of expression on here, which is that if it doesn't it will rapidly cease to be so good. (Rhobite, I'm talking to you here.) In userspace we don't have to have NPOV, and that is a good thing. For example, there are a small but signifigant number of wikipedians whose user pages say things like "I am a homophobe", etc, etc, etc. My user page has a series of userboxes which say things like "This user identifies as gay", "This user has a boyfriend", and so on. None of these can be mistaken for encyclopedic statements, but, when I clash with otherwise good editiors in articles about sexuality we both know where we stand, and what each others biases are. That makes wikipedia stronger I think because we can never get rid of an individuals bias, and everyone has some biases. Being aware of them is the next best thing. Tom 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But Scientology should link to Scientology. Keith Greer   17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does no one who is voting keep understand this is saying the same thing as "I am anti-semetic" or "I am anti-Islmanic" or "I think Christians are whackos" or "I dislike athiests"? This is a personal attack on a group of people and as such is against policy.Gateman1997 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep userboxes are free of NPOV requirements and users could simply make their own if so desired using existing templates. -Drdisque 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. {{User against jews}} got speedied--how is this any different? -- SCZenz 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Rogue 9 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain to me how Judaism is any different then Scientology? They are both recognized and widely accepted world religions. Being anti one is identical to being anti the other. I am appalled this hasn't been deleted yet and frankly if this is the stance Wikipedia takes on religious issues then frankly it doesn't have a prayer. The ACLU will jump on this site like fly's on crap.Gateman1997 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ACLU wouldn't have a chance in Hell if it did try to jump on this. As for the differences, see above. Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Scientology is, and has been involved in many other crimes besides, including wiretapping and obstruction of justice. The Church of Scientology behaves like the Mafia a lot of the time, and as such has earned it's opposition and rightfully so. Rogue 9 08:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL, the ACLU likes free speech too, so I don't think they're gonna touch this one. And do review WP:POINT, Gateman1997. Creating an anti-semitic template was not the right way to draw attention to this TfD. -- SCZenz
        • The ACLU defends all free-speech not just the popular kind. They lost many members for defending the ku klux klan's right to protest.--God of War 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you know I'm not anti-Jewish? I am Catholic and Catholics don't have the strongest Jew loving stance historically. Also it was a valid point to make. Admins are playing favorites. If Jews are protected then so should all religions from this kind of hate bullshit.Gateman1997 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep Gateman, you want me to explain how Judaism is different from Scientology in the most blunt possible terms? It's simple. Jews were actual victims of an actual genocide, while Scientologists can only claim to be reincarnated victims of a fictional billions year old intergalactic genocide that was made up by a two-bit hack science fiction writer. The suggestion that members of this lunatic celebrity cult - and especially its paid operatives - are being lined up for gas chambers is far more offensive than the userbox is. --Daniel 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment  — "I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs..." -Grenavitar (talk · contribs) (nominee of vote) — The thing is, there's nothing to stop people putting such statements on their user page without having a "pretty coloured box" to put the point of view in. And as per WP:NPOV/WP:UP, user pages are not required to be NPOV. Deleting user boxes will not stop people from having points of view.
Important point: In most countries Scientology is not recognised as a religion nor a charitable organisation. And looking at articles like Office of Special Affairs, Rehabilitation Project Force (neo-Gulags) or Xenu you can see why. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment  — Scientology is NOT a religion in most countries: The governments of Germany and Belgium officially regard the Church as a totalitarian cult; in France, a parliamentary report classified Scientology as a dangerous cult; in the United Kingdom and Canada the Church is not regarded as meeting the legal standards for being considered a bona fide religion (see Church of Scientology). In America it holds "charitable organisation" status, but it's widely believed that this was obtained through blackmail too.
It's also the only "religion" to hold officially-endorsed concentration camps/Gulags ("Rehabilitation Project Force") and a branch dedicated for propaganda and silencing/defamation of critics/"Suppressive Persons" (Office of Special Affairs).. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it is not considered a religion in my own country and others, and I did not label it as a religion. I also dislike their practices and gulags. It is however, still a belief. And attacking it, is still considered personal attacks on the users that uphold this belief to me. -- Sneltrekker 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Attacking Scientology is not the same as attacking Judaism, it is the same as attacking fascism. Anyway, as I have said in the users againsts Jews section, I think all userboxes should be allowed to remain, and I will repeat, you don't combat beliefs that you depsise by preventing an individual from expressing it, you do it by arguing down the belief once it has been allowed to be expressed. --Horses In The Sky 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--Sean|Black 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't encourage members of the community to be divisive by giving them such a template to put on their user pages. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Keep as per all keeps above DaGizza Chat 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Userboxes, no problem. Attack boxes, problem. Grace Note 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It's a scam. james_anatidae 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: JESUS H. CHRIST! This has to be one of the most immature and emotionally guided discussions I have ever seen on Wikipedia. We are not discussing whether Scientology is a totalitarian cult (which I think it is, and so do many) or not (which many others think is also the case). Yes, Germany regards it as a totalitarian cult. Yes, there are accusations that they bought their way to charitable status in the US. But then there are people against Jews, against Christianity, against Islam. This userbox is not being nominated on the basis of whether Scientology is a viable religion or whether expressing dislike/hatred of it is acceptable. It is being discussed on the basis of whether NPOV is valid on user pages and whether this constitutes a personal attack. This nomination has turned into an anti-userbox, anti-Scientology rant. Grow up people!. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs   12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no idea in censoring userboxes. Free expression on talk pages must be allowed. Elrith 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a user feels scientology is a hypocritical, psuedoscientific, commericial cult that they should oppose, until freedom of speech is outlawed on WP userpages, they should be allowed to say so. - Hayter 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I personally feel that anyone who uses this template is being rather crass and obvious about it (and also not focusing their opposition specifically enough; this template should say "Church of Scientology", not just "Scientology"), I must nonetheless vote Keep for one simple reason: because it says "Scientology", not "Scientologists". The reason the "user against jews" template was deleted is because it said "Jews" (a group of people) rather than "Judaism" (a loose religious ideology). The former may be unacceptable to some (though I don't see a terribly big deal with it; it's about as silly as saying "I hate people with red hair!" or "I hate people who live in the southern hemisphere!"... what's the point of getting mad about such arbitrary nonsense?), but the latter I fail to see any problems with. Would we delete a template that said "I am vehemently opposed to racism" or "I am vehemently opposed to Microsoft" or "I am vehemently opposed to the United States of America"? It's not nearly as bad as saying "I hate racists" or "I hate Bill Gates" or "I hate Americans", now is it? But whatever we decide, let's at least be consistent. -Silence 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology is not a religion but a rather scary scam; many courts in many countries have decided so. Let's put it like this: anyone here will not condone murder, fraud or theft but srive to write possibly neutral articles on these crimes. The comparison with Judaism fails miserably. Pilatus 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're half-wrong there: Scientology is indeed a rather scary scam, but it's also a religion. Whoever said the two were mutually exclusive? A cult is just a type of religion too, and the only people who would argue otherwise are the ones who think that a religion is inherently "good" (and, on the other hand, there are the extremists who say "religion is inherently bad"; we have plenty of both on Wikipedia), much like someone would argue that only a nice guy can be a Christian. Whether something is a scam or not makes little difference; it's an organized spiritual belief system that plenty of people believe in. In that light, it's more of a religion than a lot of other "religions" that we have boxes for, like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism.
  • Furthermore, a lot of people seem to have rather jumped a few points in logic and made the unjustified assumption that it's somehow wrong to oppose something just because it's a religion. This makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I fail to see how it furthers Wikipedia's aims; why should religious support be treated differently than religious opposition (if you're only basing it on whether the religion's popular or not, we'll have a real problem), or from support for any other ideology (even more of a problem here; if you aren't allowed to vehemently oppose Scientology in a pastel box, are you not allowed to oppose racism, war, persecution, capitalism, grammatical prescriptionism, etc.?) for that matter? The right to be offensive in what you believe is a fundamental and sacred one, and should not be violated for people's personal userpage layout and content choices. We have userboxes for people who are members of all sorts of religions, for "this user is interested in religion", and for "this user thinks the world would be better off without religion"; why not some more specific variants when it helps people feel special about their ideological differences? Userboxes are like pogs: they're an amusing fad and should be tolerated whenever they do no real harm until people move on. And I'm ranting, so I will go now. -Silence 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this TfD might have run its course, though. It has been 7 days since it was nominated, right? Tony's actions may well be out of process, but perhaps less out of process than you think? (I thought the closing admin usually announced their read on the consesus, carried out the deletion if that was consensus, and archived the discussion... none of that has happened but the template apparently is deleted). So color me confused.

Or annoyed that Tony's acting out of process again. I'm just not sure which it is yet. In any case... I'm in the camp that holds that process (despite WP:IAR tradition, and despite my fear of m:instruction creep) is the way to ensure that things are done fairly and that users aren't turned off by the actions of admins. Follow process and people accept that the outcome may not have been as they like (that's what consensus is, after all... not everyone agreeing that the consensus view is RIGHT... just everyone agreeing that the consensus view is one they can go along with even if they personally don't agree with it) but that it was achieved fairly and that the future holds more fairness. Trample process and people become jaded about process, about tradition, about the project, about (perhaps worst) admins in general.... now I think being an admin is a thankless job and one I'm not sure I'd ever want, and the last thing I want to do is make it harder for those admins trying their hardest to do the right thing. So Tony, can you PLEASE follow process? It usually gets the right result, if perhaps not as fast as you like. ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

edit

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising

edit

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

edit

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like it's supposed to be a template for creating articles about cemeteries. Delete, because it's pretty fairly useless.--Sean|Black 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FormerGA

edit

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - wasn't this already listed and kept? FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see this being used. But move it to Template:Former-GA for conventions. - Cuivienen 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to {{DelistedGA}}, which survived TfD, although I whole-heartedly endorse the GA project. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Template:DelistedGA, which should in turn have the box deleted and replaced with only a category: as long as this is only a proposed project without community consensus support, we should not be defacing the Talk pages of hundreds of articles with a big box that is totally useless by virtue of not in any way improving the editorial process. However, by keeping the template in existence, we can in the future easily re-add the box if there is ever consensus to do so, and in the meanwhile the template can consist entirely of a category that will allow easy navigation of all of these articles for those who are interested, but will be 100% non-intrusive for those who dislike or oppose the project or think there are already too many huge, cluttering, arbitrary boxes on articles and article Talk pages already (which there are). The exact same thing should be done with Template:GA: remove the box, but keep Category:Wikipedia good articles linked so anyone interested in the project can easily navigate it. Win-win situation. -Silence 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Silence, having a box for this is ridiculous. Good Articles is a fine project but we don't need to know what they didn't like, they can just drop a note on the talk page. If it does get kept, delete the box. Ashibaka tock 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the difference between, say, an unreferenced article you find by clicking the random article link, and an unreferenced article with {{FormerGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} added to its talk page? The answer is nothing. There are plenty of more specific templates available for noting flawed articles, such as {{unreferenced}} and {{reqimage}}. Noting "good" articles may be useful, noting non-"good" articles is not and if someone is seeking them, plenty can be found at Category:Wikipedia maintenance.—jiy (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It will be much more useful to make a section on the talk page saying "I removed the GA template because.." Sometimes templates just encourage laziness--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is also a template for former featured articles so why delete this one?--Fenice 08:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Silence. Fenice may not be aware that this is only a proposed project, not something which has firm guidelines and process yet. Delisting something from a non-existent process is just silly. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although my intent for this vote is to point out that (1) the nomination of this template for deletion was not announced on Wikipedia talk: Good articles where this proposed project is being discussed & would have attracted informed votes, & (2) the votes here for & against this template reflect the opinions expressed on that Talk page (that is, those for deleting have stated they are against the Good article proposal & those against deleting this template are in favor of the proposal). If the nominator did want to simplify matters, why not first announce his intent on the Talk page, where we could achive a consensus & have deleted this template very speedily? -- llywrch 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, unjustified accusations of bad faith aside (and I notice your advertisement hasn't attracted even a single additional vote so far, so really, what's the big deal...), did you even notice that this article is a lower-quality carbon-copy of Template:DelistedGA? Please read the specific comments before you assume that we're all corrupt, biased system-exploiters out to attack the GA project every chance we get; I said to (1) redirect this one to the standard ("DelistedGA") for the sake of consistency, and (2) to change the content of the templates, not to delete any of the templates used by the GA project. I don't care how many templates you use, I just care that you, like everyone else, use them efficiently and without undue clutter. -Silence 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User POV pusher

edit

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

Speedied per creator requested below. --Wgfinley 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/January_2006&oldid=1145835890"