Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 6

August 6 edit

Template:GBR2 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 delete --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 12:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need in my opinion for this 17th Century flag to be used with the Great Britain flag as a template. There are a confusion of GBR templates, including UK and GBR3 which are more than adequate. This flag is out of date and the template fairly without much real need or use.. doktorb _words^deeds 10:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wait....so do you want the template changed around or deleted? Your nom is somewhat confusing. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh yeah, I understand what you mean. It seems the templates have been allowed to replicate and duplicate without control. I can see no real reason for GBR2 in its current form, so it should really be deleted. doktorb _words^deeds 15:19, 8 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:Cyborg 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 no consensous, revert to keep --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 19:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyborg by ADNghiem501

DELETE. I nominate Template:Cyborg for deletion due to its lack of coherence. --Loremaster 00:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Based on the reading from Cyborg theory, cyborg, and cybernetics, this Template seems quite cohesive to me. Can you be more specific? Suryadas 00:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, loosely related topics who include Cyb-something are not something you group together with a nav box like this. At the very lease make it a "horizontal" box at the bottom, or get rid of it all together and just use the "see also" section. Nav templates really should only be used when there is a "main" article and "sub articles" directly under that topic and closely related. -- Ned Scott 02:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for submitting a non-rhetorical argument. The topics in question were not merely Cyb-anything, but directly related to the topic: Cyborgs. However, I could also understand an argument that the main Cyborg article would have to first be re-written to justify a "nav bar", according to the purposization you've outlined. The Cyborg article could use a re-write anyway, IMHO. Suryadas 02:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk includes a cyb-word and involves technology, but is not a subtopic of human/robot hybrids... Cyberspace is another example of a word that got thrown in there that... is NOT about Cyborgs.. these topics are too loosely related and simply have technology as a common theme. How does this help reader navigation? It doesn't. They are NOT directly related to cyborgs, and it's completely inappropriate to throw this template on each one of these articles. -- Ned Scott 02:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If cyberpunk is not about human-computer hybrids, then I'm not sure what you think it's about. Cyberspace, by definition, can only be accessed by cyborgs. That seems quite a direct relationship to me. Are you laboring under a definition of cyborg other than that used by Donna Haraway and Alexander Chislenko? Suryadas 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) (Again, perhaps this is an issue of the Cyborg article severely lacking in quality; portraying cyborgs only as a charactarization, such as the Star Trek Borg.)[reply]

Most works in the cyberpunk genre include cyborgs according to the article on cyborgs (long before this argument). Suryadas 02:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Though that big list of cyb-anything under that heading needs a major cleanup; probably simply moved to a List page.[reply]

Look, you clearly don't understand the point of having nav templates. You make a nav template not for a group of articles that already exist and that can stand alone from each other, you make it for articles that have had sections split off and made into their own articles. If you want to connect these articles you are supposed to imbed links or use the see also section. Most "cyberpunk" shows and fiction featured hot chicks, but you don't see Women linked in that template, do you? I'm not saying they're totally unrelated, I'm saying it's an inappropriate grouping of articles to put in a large bulky nav template without significant need to do so. Nav templates are not something that should just be made for the sake of being made. They're made when they are needed, which this one is not. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The rhetorical approach of you clearly don't understand the point of having nav templates seems unlikely to engender greater understanding on the part of those holding opposing views. This deletion may well be called for, but the way the arguments are being put forward, I can't develop a consensus, even within my own thoughts, that supports deletion. Refactor, rewrite, be bold, but deleting so far seems excessive. Please consider advancing the arguments for deletion in a less oppositional way. --Ssbohio 02:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd! This isn't an article, it's just a simple collection of links. -- Ned Scott 04:24, 10 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.

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 delete - pointless, not used anymore and even the author does not object. —Misza 13 ^{T C} 20:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User notjimbowales edit

I don't get the point of this box. When I see it, I say to myself, "Duh!" In reality, this applies to everyone in the world except one person. In addition, it is currently used by only one person, so that makes it even more meaningless. Editor88 00:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BALEETED! Uh, I mean, delete. No use of it.--the ninth bright shiner ^talk 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is pointless. Everyone except Jimbo Wales is not Jimbo Wales. —Mi ra 08:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst & Delete I'm normalle pro-userbox, but I'll file this under "patent nonsense". If there were more transclusions I'd suggest migration via WP:GUS. In any case, I won't object if it were later recreated in userspace (WP:GUS again). Charon X/talk 23:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace. When deciding whether to move to userspace or delete entirely, I always ask myself, "what's more helpful and less insulting, this userbox or {{user en}}?" And guess what -- this userbox passes the test. --M @r ē ino 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace if User:BrownHornet21 wants to have it, otherwise delete. --Zoz (t) 00:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No-one uses this template. Pcu123456789 00:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is fine by creator: This was one of my first userboxes, just to see if I could make a decent-looking one. I was surprised to see it on TFD because, quite honestly, I had completely forgotten about it. (In hindsight I should have just used sandbox.) I don't use it myself, and didn't put it on the main userbox template pages because it was just a goof-off. If the consensus is to delete this one to oblivion, then that's fine by me. If someone wants to migrate this one to their userspace and claim it as their own, that's fine by me too. BrownHornet21 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Used in userspace, not divisive or inflammatory. The kind of gentle humor that, if anything, we need more of in this project. If a keep position is untenable, then, as a last resort, userfy. --Ssbohio 02:29, 10 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.