Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 December 22)
< December 21 December 23 >

December 22 edit

Template:User Person of the Year 2006 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, as userfied. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Person of the Year 2006 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This userbox should be userfied per WP:GUS because it violates the policy against categories "which could potentially include all Wikipedians". It should be deleted from the Template namespace. Xiner (talk, email) 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Delete as per nom, this would cover all Wikipedians - but I must say Xiner - it is still fun - especially as the award particularly notes Wikipedia. Lethaniol 19:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lethaniol, I understand that it's something some people are very proud of. That's why I didn't propose it for deletion like I did with Earthling a while back. Obviously, the result will be the same, but I just want to get someone to userfy it. If I didn't nominate it, someone else will come along and delete it. Xiner (talk, email) 19:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the original author. The "which could potentially include all Wikipedians" clause on Wikipedia:Userboxes refers to categories only unless i missed something. In any case, I just liked the TIME article, and wanted to celebrate it. If necessary, of course, I can do that from my userspace, too. -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GUSsing it still allows you to celebrate. "Categories" as used on the Userboxes page doesn't refer to Wikipedia:Category. Xiner (talk, email) 19:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can explain to me the purpose for this template instead of merely "celebrating"? Celebrating what? AQu01rius (User • Talk) 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep - It's for parody of time's silly choice for "man of the year", not for actual categorisation. I wouldn't' really have a problem with this being "germaned" however. ---J.S (T/C) 21:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand the logic here. Because of a rule against categories, a template must be userfied? That makes no sense. -Amarkov blahedits 00:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, Amarkov, the word "categories" appeared in the guidelines for userboxes. You can follow the above link and see that it refers to userbox users, not Wikipedia:Categories. Xiner (talk, email) 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um... No, it refers to categories. It treats categories as seperate entities from the userboxes. -Amarkov blahedits 01:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The subsection "Category inclusion" is within the larger section "Designing a userbox". I've never seen it interpreted as anything else, but will submit a request for wording change to avoid any future misunderstanding. I doubt you'll find anyone else who interprets it as a policy on categories, though. The other rules there wouldn't even make sense. Xiner (talk, email) 01:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It specifies "Category markup". It talks about not automatically including categories, and creating categories for it. I don't know how else it could be interpreted. -Amarkov blahedits 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That section is highly confusing, so I'm going to try to propose a rewrite later. However, take a look at the first rule there: "Userboxes that include Category markup which adds the bearing userpage to a category must only categorize within subcategories of Category:Wikipedians." Now the rule Do not create categories which could potentially include all Wikipedians. For example: "This user is a Wikipedian."; "This user is human."; "This user uses the internet"; etc. would not make sense if it is referring to Categories, for no Category:Wikipedians subcategory would start with "This user is"; that phrase is obvious the text of the userbox.
        • In any case, WP:GUS would still dictate that we had best move it before someone deletes it. I do want to clarify the category point, though. Xiner (talk, email) 02:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy which seems to be the obvious solution anyway. Cute spinoff on a wince-inducing concept, though. Opabinia regalis 05:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or Userfy (second choice) and whoever actually uses this, please never put one on my page. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You do understand that once 2007 rolls around, this template will be obselete.--WaltCip 16:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, we will still be all the person of the year 2006, even if it is 2013. However, i believe that there will be much less people that become the Person of the year 2007, and we probably don't need a template for that ;) -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:30, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfied to User:Royalguard11/userboxes/POTY 2006. Speedy close now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (and delete). per WP:GUS. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy (then delete) Since Royalguard11 already userfied it, all that remains is re-pointing the links and removing it from templatespace. CharonX/talk 14:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's already been userfied. jgp TC 20:47, 27 December 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:MiscLinkedBox 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC) No more use than Template:MiscBox[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MiscBox covers it —Twas Now 02:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Seadog_MS 04:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per all of above. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:12, 25 December 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:Civil1 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Civil1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Utterly counter-productive. When civility is failing and a user overheating, throwing boilerplate about is how NOT to handle it. Fuel to the fire. Much better with to /ignore or to have a quiet personal word with the user. If you're not willing to take a minute to think about what you might say to calm the person down, then you are most certainly the wrong person to handle the situation anyway. --Docg 16:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Counter-productive. Yes. Ill-required. No. We need to warn relatively new users when they are flouting civility guidelines. Also, the prerequisite of a blocking action on the WP:PAIN is a civility warning; which is considered necessary; and is evidence of another user's inappropriate behaviour even after being warned. We don't want truck-loads of users taking stance and crying foul just because they weren't warned. Also, I do not not see any issue with the wording of the template. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: If it's counter-productive why keep it? Templates are never actually required, there are other ways of communicating. When someone is being incivil, the object must be to talk them down. Success is persuading them that this isn't usenet, and we can be nice here. We don't do that by 'warnings' with the object of getting at block to stick later. That approach will always fail, or at least be a self-fulfilling prophecy.--Docg 16:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Invites abuse, the troll's favourite (next to {{npa}}). And even when used in good faith, it's as Doc says never to good effect. The prerequisite for blocking via WP:PAIN is mere layering of wikibureaucracy, and favors those users who're at home in its byways and shrubberies. It should go, too. If WP:PAIN blocks (which should be rare anyway) must have a prerequsite, make that prerequsite a human-speech warning. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, Bish and Doc have answered my concerns perfectly. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Doc and Bishonen. Mackensen (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Imperious templates like this do nothing to calm matters and merely inflame them to the point where a block "can" be issued. Bad mojo. Geogre 18:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc, Bish, and others. --Ghirla -трёп- 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; well-reasoned comments above. Indeed, slapping this template on someone's talk page cannot possibly do any good. You have to take the time to write a personal message, or, if you can't, have someone uninvolved do it. Antandrus (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What'll happen to {{civil0}} and {{civil2}} if {{civil1}} is deleted? Xiner (talk, email) 20:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Burn in the same fire for the same reasons.--Docg 20:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You most certainly can not make someone be civil by slapping on boilerplate. -Amarkov blahedits 00:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be useful for giving advice to new users or IPs and has a good description of the issue with references to the appropriate guideline pages. The problem with it is when it is used on established users, when it is patronizing, counter-productive, etc. --Centrx→talk • 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I actually have a similar problem with the Edit Summaries template. Perhaps we can change them all to welcome+reminder messages like some other violations have (eg NPOV)? Xiner (talk, email) 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per counter productiveness. — Seadog_MS 04:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-negating. Seems to be used for passive-aggressive snarkiness more than for legitimate communication. Opabinia regalis 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While we do not want to worsen the incivility by slapping increasingly persistent templates on users' talk pages, we also want to warn them. Without the template, users placing the warning are going to be more uncivil without the template than with, since they are not using a tried and tested template but warning the users in a personal message. Yuser31415 06:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is often misused, and so counterproductive - I've never seen it do anything but inflame a situation. If someone is angry, patronising them is not going to calm the situation down. Rebecca 06:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I feel this template serves as a pre-fab courtesy reminder. By using this template, one can avoid awkward questions and inflammatory statements. I have found Civil1 to be my preferred means of having a quiet personal word with an uncivilized user. Somnabot 19:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a good example when not to use boilerplate language. If you want to help de-escalate a situation, do so in your own words. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:28, 23 December 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:Category-Daedra 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category-Daedra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphan template; no apparent use. —Psychonaut 14:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft. Xiner (talk, email) 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an abandoned template.
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:Abbrlink 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 consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Abbrlink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As we have piped links that show the hovering box I don't quite get why we would need this template. It seems redundant so I propose deletion. --Eleassar my talk 13:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — this template is for accessibility reasons. The difference with a piped link is that it is supposed to have the HTML <abbr> tag. Currently MediaWiki doesn't allow this tag (that's the reason why this template now only tries to emulate it), but there is a bug report that will fix this. So, although the advantages of this template aren't fully exploited now, it's important to be able to start tagging abbreviations in the Wikipedia, so this template shouldn't be deleted. Thanks! --surueña 14:37, 22 December 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:Bipod 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bipod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Chunk of writing on the seemingly non-notable band Bipod. Not helpful as a Wikipedia template, so I propose deletion. —Goh wz 09:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete definitely -- Jmax- 09:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT : NN and advert come to mind. Xiner (talk, email) 18:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is this, a way to try to get around vanity article deletion? KillerChihuahua?!? 06:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, yeah per nom. — Arjun 04:30, 24 December 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 WikiProject MuslimGuild 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 already deleted by Cyde as "Defunct WikiProject". --ais523 17:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:User WikiProject MuslimGuild (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page for the "Muslim Guild" was deleted per an AfD debate, and is now redirected to Project Islam. This template doesn't serve any purpose now, and might potentially confuse new users about a non-existent "Muslim Guild" (was marked as speedy, but this isn't a valid speedy reason so I'm moving it to TFD) Perel 05:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It should be pretty useless now, and as mentioned it might very well confuse new users about this non-existent "Muslim Guild". -- Karl Meier 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the sort of thing that SHOULD be a prod, but since we don't have prod for templates I moved it to TFD. Perel 07:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman Talk Contribs 14:22, 22 December 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:FIT1 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FIT1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single-use template for a user's userpage. As such, a simple subst and delete would seem to be the most sensible option. As it is, I had to remove the stub category from the template (the number of new users who think it's a funny and original joke to add their user pages to the stub category runs at about ten per week...). Grutness...wha? 01:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reason for this to be a template. Perel 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Belongs in user space. Xiner (talk, email) 19:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after subst, as suggesed. KillerChihuahua?!? 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - creator has blanked the template, so presumably they don't object to deletion. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 14:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, and the fact that the creator has already blanked the template. — Arjun 21:56, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_22&oldid=1142564082"