Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 15

< February 14	February 16 >

February 15, 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 USERFY. -Splash^talk 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rollback edit

Template:Rollback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) A user warning template based not upon wikipedia policies (or "guidelines" even), but upon one particular interpretation of User:Brion VIBBER, whose words were "No one should ever be in an edit war, sysops in particular should be aware that that's not cool, so there's no need to think about whether or not 'rollback' should be used in an edit war. It shouldn't, because we shouldn't be in that position in the first place." Delete, or userfy with improved clarification that it expresses personal views. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:28, Feb. 15, 2006

Delete per nomination. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy per nom, additionally, while one click rollback is generally only used for simple vandaliams, but there are other uses, e.g.: clueless newbie makes a broken template and puts it all over the place, rollback may be the best way to remove it, although it should be accompenied by a talk page notice of course. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 23:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sentiment is correct, and I'll be using this all the time. It applies equally to admins and people using Popups/javascript revert tools. Descriptive edit summaries are quite important. -- Netoholic @ 00:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If admins can't communicate with each other except by the use of templates, I think that people being a little heavy-handed on the rollback button is the least of our problems. JYolkowski // talk 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I am the person who wrote this template. I use it every now and then, but probably there is no need for it to be in the template namespace. I agree with JYolkowski that admins using the rollback too much is not the biggest problems with admins; but it is a problem nevertheless, especially if one admin rollbacks a good faith edit of a person who is not an admin, and the admin never bothers to explain himself/herself. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If Oleg wants to standardize his remarks on a standard situation, what's the problem. Septentrionalis 04:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. --Optichan 16:21, 21 February 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. -Splash^talk 01:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Thailand University edit

Template:Infobox Thailand University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Is no longer used. Seemingly was created mainly to add differentiation between faculties, institutes, schools, etc. but is unnecessary since the faculty field in template:Infobox University was meant for American usage, namely the number of teaching staff. Paul C 18:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated... Mikker ^... 16:29, 16 February 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 moot. The template was speedy-deleted by Android79. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AnarchismDildo edit

And it's gone. Next time it comes up, give a speedy deletion tag as a recreation of deleted content. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious: what did this template actually say? (I'm not contesting the deletion.) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite a lot of stuff, actually, and more than I'm going to copy-paste into here. It included Image:Headupyourass.jpg. -Splash^talk 01:38, 16 February 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 moot. This template was speedy-deleted by Android79. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AnarchismDildo edit

Template:AnarchismDildo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's back. Since Template:AnarchismDef was twice speedily-deleted, User:Hogeye has attempted to circumvent the process by copying his inflammatory template to another one. This time, however, the template is yet more uncivil. Speedy delete, please. Perhaps another RfC of Hogeye is called for. He doesn't seem to know how to play nice with the grown-ups. AaronS 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Hogeye removed the tags, which is a gross violation of Wikipedia policy. I restored them. I ask that whoever speedily deletes this template try to save the edit history, as I would like it to remain as evidence of Hogeye's questionable edits. --AaronS 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it has been deleted. Thanks. Is there any way to recover the evidence? Or, would the administrator who deleted agree to vouch for what occurred in a RfC or RfAr? --AaronS 16:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags is a gross violation? And deleting entire discussions without archiving them... what do you call that? MrVoluntarist 16:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, removing TFD and CSD tags on your own created pages is a violation of Wikipedia policy. While I find it flattering, I wouldn't mind if you decided to stop stalking me and making accusations with no evidence to back them up. It's your reputation to destroy, though, so do what you will. --AaronS 16:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man. I didn't say my reputation was bad. (Yes, folks, that's what it's like to deal with User:AaronS.)MrVoluntarist 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your arguments elsewhere, perhaps to your talk pages. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about the talk pages. MrVoluntarist 23:01, 15 February 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 moot. The section of contraversy has been removed, also see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_11#Template:Kwelcome. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kfwelcome edit

Fork of {{welcome}} that Karmafist made, to drag new users into ongoing policy battles. This is extremely inappropriate for a welcome message. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template was edited at 07:19, 14 February 2006, to remove the forking, so it's now merely redundant. However, it looks like Karmafist is now merely pasting in the text itself to get around this. See here and here. --Calton | Talk 04:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'm all for having personal welcome messages, but they should be in userspace. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 10:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Can we merge this discussion with the one aboute {{Kwelcome}} below? And let's add {{Kawelcome}} while we're at it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete both. Karmafist is forking his divisive welcome template to make a POINT. -- Netoholic @ 18:45, 15 February 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 moot. This template was speedy-deleted by JYolkowski, Marudubshinki, and MarkSweep. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AnarchismDef edit

Neither is your inability to correctly use the term "strawman", yet you keep it up. Why is that? 24.243.188.42 00:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only good defense against incivility is civility. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the defense against someone who stubbornly refuses to use the term "strawman" correctly, and ignores any attempt to understand his justification that a claim is a strawman? MrVoluntarist 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. --AaronS 05:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a good, reusable message - just what templates are made for. Hogeye 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Oh please. This could definitely be written in a civil manner, but it isn't. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied per CSD T1. If anyone has any comments about this, please speak now or forever hold your peace (-: JYolkowski // talk 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up and I say delete. The Ungovernable Force 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this template was just deleted today. The user who created it just remade it. It's starting to get very disruptive. CSD T1. Again. AaronS 05:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleate altough it is fantastic... it would only serve to piss people off. (still, it made my day...)Mike McGregor (Can) 08:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD T1. Angr/talk 09:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Sarge Baldy 16:37, 15 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. Seems that work is needed elsewhere before deletion. It's changed name, although that's comparatively minor for templates since their name never appears in a rendered page. -Splash^talk 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Syriacs edit

Template:Syriacs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template includes not accurate information, misleading lay users of wikipedia. There are Oriental churches who use the extinct Syriac language in their liturgy, but there is nothing such as a Syriacs ethnic group or nation that would encompass e.g. Maronites or Catholic Melkites who are separate ethnoreligious groups (see Millet (Ottoman Empire)). The box has clear political and religious purposes (the artificial construction by some activists of a common identity for non-Arab non-Armenian Christians in the Middle East in order to fostr the creation of an Israel-like Christian Syriacs state under the US protection) not reconcilable with wikipedia. I repeatedly asked on the talk page that its main defender, Benne would give the scientific background for the maintenance of this box, he's not able to do it, as there is obviously none. Pylambert 11:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is too contested to be used as a template on a number of articles, which might even state a contrare thought. Sort out that problem somehow in a detached manner please. Agathoclea 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per T1, divisive template. Angr/talk 14:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as it is never used in "academic circles", who prefer either Assyrians (the official ethnonym in all countries which operate ethnic censuses, see Assyrian diaspora) or the diverse church denominations (Syriacs then only means members of the Syriac Orthodox or Catholic churches, never more). Scientific references of this were added on several Assyrian-related pages, while none can substantiate the use of Syriacs for all Neo-Aramaic-speaking Christians, who do anyway not include Maronites etc. Pylambert 21:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
don't Delete I disagree with pylambert. The box serves it's purpose.King Legit
Keep. "Syriacs" is a valid term. --Khoikhoi 19:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Syrians has for centuries been the English translation of the indigenous ethnonym Suryoye/Suryāye. Since the foundation of the Arab Republic of Syria, this translation has become ambiguous, and Syriacs has become more and more common as a non-political equivalent, both in academic circles and among the people themselves. For instance, it is used by organisations representing Suryoye/Suryāye who refer to themselves as Aramaeans, Assyrians, or Chaldeans alike. Pylambert has not been able to substantiate any of the ludicrous claims he repeated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benne (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 February 2006

Suggestion: Since there appears to be no overwhelming majority for either keeping or deleting the template, I think it might be wise to follow Chaldean's suggestion to move it to Syriac Christianity. --Benne ['bɛnə] _(talk) 14:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suryoye->Syrians[Syriacs], is the accurate translationMichael 22:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not Deletion, but modification is needed very badly. It should be 'Syriac Christianity.' Not just Syriacs. I would like to see the people above me comment on proposing a compremise of changing it to Syriac Christianity. "Syriacs" means as if it is a ethnicity. We need to remind ourselfs that it is not. Religion is a very important part of the people under the name of Syriacs. It is the center of our communities, not just in what is today the middle east, but even in deaspora. So it makes sence to have this box, since these peopele's faith is such a big part of the people's identiy. Chaldean 00:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote from Neutral to Keep on the ground of the templet changing its title to Syriac Christianity. Chaldean 16:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Angr, template appears to have been created as an act of propaganda. Perhaps a neutral template on Syriac Christianity could indeed be created but it would look very different. Palmiro | Talk 13:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Like Chaldean said, the template needs modification and needs to distinguish between ethnicity and religious titles. --3345345335534 14:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To POV to be used in many articles. CG 20:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Al-Andalus 04:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment': How about dividing into a template for the languages/dialects and one for the denominations?Septentrionalis 04:45, 18 February 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. -Splash^talk 01:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Band edit

Template:Band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Here goes my first TFD nomination. This template with the misleading title is redundant with {{music-importance}}, and why use it instead of nominating the article for deletion? Only used by a handful of articles. Punkmorten 17:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand the reasoning behind this template. I'd also deny that the allmusic guide is any authoritative reference as to what bands are "notable", even if it is a decent benchmark in lack of other evidence. Sarge Baldy 18:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, as per nom. Redundant templates make it hard to track down useful information.--M @r ē ino 05:59, 20 February 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.