Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/January 2006

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log‎ | Not deleted

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

edit

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach (Smack Back) 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach (Smack Back) 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

edit

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

  • The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite or delete. Pressure should not be placed on Wikipedians to also work on other wiki projects. The template should be rewritten to identify content on Wikipedia that should instead be placed on Wikisource. If such a template already exists then this one should be deleted. —gorgan_almighty 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis should be used more often. The more general Move to Wikisource is too often used in articles that have an ecyclopedic introdution followed by source text. Then someone moves the whole page to Wikisource without taking out the encylopedic information and we have a HUGE backlog over there already--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mess2

edit

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

edit

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

edit

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark1 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consistency across the encyclopaedia is a good thing, but this is NOT the way to do it, and just bites the newbies. The language used in the latter two is not helpful at all and will scare off new editors and antagonise experienced editors. I agree wholeheartedly with Metaeducation - leave a note with a link to the relevant style guide. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having seen some of this edit war that would not die, these are clearly still needed.  ALKIVAR™  14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first two Delete third. Could we split this up the third is misleading as this is non-blockable--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

edit

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)     05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still supporting removal, I edited it as it was used for a while as target for a redir and its malfunctions affected the other template too.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)     16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice that the creator agreed to deletion on his talk page--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)     16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

edit

(also Template:POV-section-date)

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off-topic

edit

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005
Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. It is obvious from the edit summary of the dispute that the creator intended it as a {{cleanup}} off chute not as a means of justifying the off-topic nature. I believe it should re rewritten to appear more like the {{cleanup}} template and less like the {{disputed}} template. —gorgan_almighty 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let the "creator" explain. In order to do a "Clean-up" there first has to be some core of the section that is on topic. The trouble is in this case nothing in the section was actually on topic. Nothing. You might say "Then delete it all!", but you can read EffK's reply above. He accuses me of wanting to delete this information (when in fact I only wanted to move where it belongs) even though I (grudgingly) retained the off-topic text. Str1977 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Could be useful if expanded. Dustimagic 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree that most editors could probably excise any content they put this tag on, when I'm in "reader" mode I generally will stop reading only to make minor edits — I'm not going to stop and fix the structure of a discursive, tangential passage. I can imagine placing this tag over a section that makes me go "WTF?" when I wouldn't have time or inclination to actually fix it right now, and then coming back later and seeing what's in the template's linklist and making some fixes. Though I'd personally like a cleanup category added to the template for that purpose, whatlinkshere works just as well.... --TreyHarris 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

edit

These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

edit

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vw

edit

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Template:User infallible

edit

Template:User infallible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The wording of the template is a violation of WP:NPA and causes incivility issues. Zach (Smack Back) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB

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

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what happened, but it might have something to do with the fact that this is not a vote. Jkelly 17:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach (Smack Back) 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomertalk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia.   Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian13ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: why are you on the anarchist user list? Why are almost all the "anarchist" users not anarchists at all? Not relevant, I know, but I just want to know. At least you support free speech. The Ungovernable Force 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:User_GWB2 expresses opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, not to George W. Bush in general, and, as such, shouldn't even be called "GWB2." - Cuivienen 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why try to deceive people then? If everyone here is a rabid leftist, so be it. The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template has been multiply speedied, and multiply recreated, and the recrators take offense at it having been deleted when a TfD discussion is going on, though there is a long-standing policy of speedy deleting attack articles and the WP:NPA guideline. But I note that the recreators don't bother to put the tfd tag back on it when they recreate it, so one has to wonder who's being disingenous. Speedy delete as with all attack pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You call this an "attack" as have others -- i don't see that exrpressign dislike, even such strong dislike as "hate", constitutes an attack. It is a clearly verifiable fact that many people do stronglky dislike GWB. I might add that this isn't an article so the speedy criterion does not technically apply even if this is conceded to be an attack. NPA does, but I think that applying that to comments about a very public figure who does not edit wikipedia is streaching it from its intended use. DES (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or reword to make clear that it applies to the article and not the person. Users should be free to express their political opinions on their userpages (within reason). However, Wikipedia should not appear to condone and encourage its contributors using standardized soundbites in expressing their opinions. That's how it looks like to a newbie seeing this and it reflects badly on the project. But please let's settle this within process and with a discussion but not with a boxing match. - Haukur 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Suitable userbox. // paroxysm (n) 00:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want a bumpersticker, slap one on your own damned car. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you see my other userboxes? I don't have a car, and my Razor scooter can't fit anymore anti-bush bumperstickers (I've already tried). The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They you have to delete every userbox that expresses personal beliefs (which was tried and failed). The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another pretty redundant POV-expressing userbox; treat accordingly, i.e., when we have a remotely applicable policy, or any sort of consensus for what to do with such. Not an attack page, unless it gets used in the article space, not a breach of NPA, unless Dubya is editing WP of late, and not so problematic as to justify undue speedying or IARing. Alai 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep as long as it remains in its current non-attack, non-incitement form, lamenting the vandalism on the George W. Bush article without linking to that much-vandalised article and without attacking Bush. If it links to the article again then it will probably be speedied as a vandalism risk. If it attacks Bush it will probably be speedied as a page that disparages its subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That reads less like "keep with provisos" (which would have little standing as such) as "keep with threats". The assertions that the original was an "incitement to vandalism", while much-repeated, make no sense. If I say "I wish we didn't keep having to undelete this template while there's an on-going vote on it", does that constitute incitement to out-of-process delete it? After all, no-one in any coercive or policy sense has to do either revert vandalism on GWB, or restore inappropriate deletion, so it's not reasonable to put a reading on either statement that they express a wish to be relieved a responsiblity to do such, but rather that they ought not to be done in the first place. And "attack" is pretty tenuous, too: "X hates Y" tells me more about X, than it does about Y. Alai 08:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just wrong. -- JJay 08:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Parties

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 15:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Uh... Kaihsu voted "Delete". Do you want to vote for deletion or do you mean someone else? - Cuivienen 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?
  • Delete. Category is enough --kernoz 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doing no harm, I find both boxes like this and categories to be useful. — Wackymacs 08:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consider {{NY-bt}}. That template does much more than just list the articles in a particular category. It gives structure to them and sorts them in a meaningful way, and adds related articles not in the category which are nevertheless useful references. When there are enough articles to warrant such organization, then I think a template is warranted. With just 4 articles and no clear ordering or subcategorization, I'm in agreement with those users not seeing the need for this template, the category does just fine. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

edit

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NH

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuisine

edit
This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

edit

On request from a third party, I have also moved the discussion (which is already quite sizable) there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Not_deleted/January_2006&oldid=1113428679"