Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22 edit

Template:Samurai Shodown character links edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an external link spamming template that is used to link to this site about the game. It seems to be intended for use in all Samurai Shodown character articles. If external links were justified in this I would say use external links, but a template to do so is really unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it links to the official snkp page, and helps keeping consistency intact, it also helps in case of changes in the official page urls. It's there simply to reduce the redundancy. --2dMadness 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at the very least it is the official site on the article's subject matter, so does it hurt anything to leave it?--Kung Fu Man 00:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason it can't just be done normally in the external links section like 99.9% of other external links out there? Just because we can use a template for something doesn't mean we should. And I would most definitely want to nip in the bud any possible trend of new templates to handle external links in any of thousands of articles. --Cyde Weys 00:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but I don't understand what do you mean by "trend" I just did what I felt was better, I have to edit something like 30 pages, just to add links, and knowing snkp, they'll change the url by adding or removing some trivial detail every now and then, so why should I undergo this hassle again if a template is enough to deal with it? Speaking of which, a simple personal talk with me would have resolved this issue in half the time. --2dMadness 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just copy over links from an existing article when needed. -- nae'blis 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete substitute the template and then delete it; we don't need to keep a template for managing external links for such a small scale. You can use linksearch to find external links to update. --Kevin_b_er 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Glasgow Anniesland (Scottish Parliament constituency)/meta/shortname edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (CSD G7)

I created this tempate for use in election boxes but it is not used nor is it going to be used. Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As you are the only contributor to this page CSD G7 applies, so I've deleted it for you. For future reference you can use the {{db-author}} template rather than tfd. Thryduulf 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Election box MSPs elected edit

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (CSD:G7)

I created this tempate for use in election boxes but it is not used nor is it going to be used. Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As you are the only contributor to this page CSD G7 applies, so I've deleted it for you. For future reference you can use the {{db-author}} template rather than tfd. Thryduulf 00:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Scottish electoral region elected edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted (CSD:G7)

I created this tempate for use in election boxes but it is not used nor is it going to be used. Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As you are the only contributor to this page CSD G7 applies, so I've deleted it for you. For future reference you can use the {{db-author}} template rather than tfd. Thryduulf 00:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:TotallyDisputed edit

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

The result of the debate was Keep. —Centrx→talk • 00:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TotallyDisputed, since that was in the wrong deletion category, nominator post was:

Delete - This template is the lazy man's way to question an article. We already have plenty of templates to tag for tone and neutrality, and we have the {{fact}} tag that should be used instead to question a fact. Wjhonson 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some articles have numerous disputes, in both neutrality and accuracy, no point in having {{dubious}} and {{fact}} after lots of statements statements.Polonium 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium Cinik 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium --Aristovoulos 18:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium --Bob 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium Porfyrios 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Khoikhoi 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of this template is to reduce template clutter in cases where an article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed. What looks better, this:

...or this (ignoring the TFD tag)?

szyslak (t, c, e) 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Polonium and Szyslak. User:Angr 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points above. --Will Mak 050389 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are legitimate uses. Addhoc 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Polonium and Szyslak. However, the template can be changed to make it less...um...flowery and comical. --physicq210 23:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's a good point. The current cartoonish design of the "totally disputed" template does not serve its purpose well. I much preferred the older "hand" warning. Porfyrios 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Polonium. Grandmaster 07:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very important template. HighInBC 17:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful template. ⇒Bayerischermann ^- 19:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:User wikipedia edit

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 05:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that in the past this may have included some code for such things as admin status, but we have other templates for that now. The text content of this userbox is, simply, "This user is a member of Wikipedia." We're all members of Wikipedia, therefore this template is redundant and utterly pointless. Delete. kingboyk 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I understand your point, but humor is the reason it exists. It's obvious that everyone's a member of Wikipedia! It's just funny to state that in our user pages! Keep. 'FL a RN' (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but userfy, I agree with Flarn2005, just a joke, and there are plenty of joke userboxes out there, why delete this one specifically? --WillMak050389 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get the joke. I'm sure, in fact, this isn't a joke, as it's a formerly useful template (e.g. "this user is an admin") which now has no useful content whatsoever ("this user is a member of Wikipedia"). It's not enyclopedic, and AFAIC it's not funny. --kingboyk 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just a joke, as a statement of the obvious, just like {{User Earthling}}. --WillMak050389 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Statement of the obvious?" Somewhere, deep inside Area 51, an alien is deeply offended. --Chris (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "member" of Wikipedia is meaningless; you can be an editor, an administrator, a bureaucrat, a "member" of the board (albeit of Wikimedia Foundation, not WP), but being a "member" of Wikipedia implies we're some sort of club. Factionalizing and obscure; may consider if a suitably trenchant rewording can occur. -- nae'blis 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's it Nae'blis! This template is a statement of our non-inclusion in the editor, administrator, bureaucrat or "member" of the board clubs. Page Up 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? You're not an editor? -- nae'blis 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really necessary. I'm not too sure why I have it on my user page! --Alex ^{talk here} 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at least use the German userbox solution). I can't see the joke either, contrary to the joke boxes cited, but what's more, I think this could have the bad effect of non-members thinking they are entitled to a userpage which they then use for advertisement, webspace and whatever else you can do to abuse the userspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not funny and pointless. violet/riga (t) 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violet/riga --Bob 18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GUS it. --Chris (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nae'blis, I actually like the redundancy of this template, but it's really too vague to work out. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with WillMak. What's wrong with a joke? Earth KING ^(Talk) 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Perhaps Wikipedia should have more funny things on it (the briefs are actually pretty funny, just not quite what the project is about). --Swift 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or GUS along with the rest of these boxes. There is nothing wrong with a joke and there is nothing saying you can't put up a small box on your page without that being a template. The template existance says less about the transcluder's humor than his unoriginality and lack of imagination. --Swift 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reywas92 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy - I seriously question the usefulness of stating a tautology. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some user boxes are funny, some are not. Some are serious, some are not. Some find humor in some, some dont!. There is no harm in keeping userboxes free of personal attacks/hate messages/etc. I dont think we need to have a debate to see if its encyclopedic or not, if its useful or not, after all they are used in User namespace not in article space. So I say keep it. --Oblivious 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The transclusions are, indeed, in user space, but the templates themselves are in the template namespace. Read WP:GUS for the German compromise. --Swift 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider rewriting to "This user is a Wikipedia editor" or somesuch, since I agree with Nae'blis about the use of 'member'. Still, it's funny as is (by way of being a statement of the obvious). CameoAppearance 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word editor is equally redundant. By virtue of adding the userbox, the user is an editor (at least of his own userpage). It isn't informative and in no way furthers the Wikipedia project. --Swift 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, all of those templates are still under the main User wikipedia template. See Template:User wikipedia/Administrator and Template:User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator. So keep because those still exist. Hbdragon88 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Would that everyone actually considered themselves a true Wikipedian. --NThurston 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It isn't doing any harm. AnnieHall 00:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep I like it, it's not doing any harm, and it's kind of nice to have a userbox that isn't silly or divisive. Sophy's Duckling 00:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I'm quite sure it's silly :) --kingboyk 10:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy There isn't much else I want to say about it. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 10:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the userbox, its nothing controversial, some may want them on their userpage, so it can be kept in the user space to avoid controversies. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after orphaning - LA @ 13:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, we are all members of wikipedia, but not every states it. This template provides the ability to mention it. It is like a 'Member of the Human race' bumper sticker, very valid. HighInBC 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There doesn't seem to be any consensus forming here. I've suggested on the template talk page that it be moved to userspace. --Swift 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- FLaRN is right.Mac Lover ^Talk 23:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Keep it. Man, is it only me who separates IP-only editors (Who do not sign up, which in turn doesn't make them a "member")? If a IP editor puts this template on his page, it should be removed. GamePlayer623 02:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By your argument "members" are those with usernames, making the userbox redundant.

Would you be against userfying it? --Swift 03:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh...never thought of that, really...but would you mind explaining how it is redundant? Or rather, what redundant means? My vocabulary in english is not great. ESL. Oh well. GamePlayer623 04:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. An ESL myself, I like the quick reference of Merriam-Webster, though here I suppose I should use wikt:redundant.

The userbox is redundant if it adds nothing to our knowled, since it's purpose is to convey information (well, in your explanation — some consider its main asset to be humour). In your argument you state that signing up is a prerequisite to being a member (granted, you don't say that it is a sufficient criteria — I just took it as implied). Since having a userpage to put the userbox on already means that you are a member, and thus adding the box is redundant. --Swift 09:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Theres a lot of people who could or do use it, its not offensive. Whats the problem? - • The Giant Puffin • 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:GUS for starters. Would you be willing to agree to this compromise? --Swift 09:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cameron Nedland 19:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly isn't a joke. I believe it's used to distinguish from the position of admin. User:Brandt Luke Zorn/sig04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Delete I frequently mistake these templates for admin templates at first glance. Irksome. --Quiddity 10:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's harmless. -- llywrch 17:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's humorous and helps categorize all of us who aren't admins. --Jeremie@theLab 19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Admins can use this template just like everyone can. Or are you trying to imply that admins somehow aren't Wikipedians? --Cyde Weys 22:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither. Of course admins are Wikipedians, it's stupid to think they aren't. But since non-admins can't use "I'm an admin" userboxes, I find that this userbox readily defines their rank on the ladder. Sorry if you took that the wrong way. --Jeremie@theLab 11:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. -- Denelson 83 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the template can be used by normal Wikipedia users (like me) to distinguish themselves from admins (let's face it, non-admins can still freely use the admin userboxes) and to reinforce their belief in the Wikipedia project (to me, the userbox shows that the user is proud to be a Wikipedian, which is obviously a good thing). In any case, it's harmless; there are plenty of userboxes out there of even greater uselessness. Andrew (My talk) 23:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's okay to have an identity even if there aren't any ready candidates for outsiders. For example, identifying with the word "human" is a little different than just being a human. It is an affirmation — not just that we're part of the club, but that our common human-ness deserves a bit of emphasis (above, perhaps, other categories humans often get slotted in.) It's the same with Wikipedians. We're all in this together. We should not divide ourselves too much at the expense of remembering our shared objectives. This isn't "obvious" or "a tautology". Omphaloscope » talk 02:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nothing wrong, right? Relentless Rouge 18:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see very little reason to delete this template. EVula 18:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided It does not explain anything at all (since all users are technically all WIkipedia members), but I partially believe that adding this should be at the user's discretion.--❊Đǣţĥ ɱøťőŕ ☎ 23:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All userboxes are added at the user's discretion; otherwise it's vandalism. EVula 03:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless you're going to delete all the other userboxes, then you can delete it. This userbox is my protest against userboxes. Oh wait, if I hate it why would I use something I hate to show I hate something. Now I've confused myself! :P --Wgfinley 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Userfy - WP:GUS. I'd be happy to host it. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointsless, redundant and not funny. Dinosaur puppy 22:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, have to agree with WillMak050389. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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