Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 21

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 February 21)
< February 20 February 22 >

February 21, 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. Angr/talk 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Secretaries of Commerce edit

Template:US Secretaries of Commerce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not in use. Duplicative of tl:succession box. —Markles 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, duplicative - if it actually listed all the Sec's of Commerce, that would be a different story. BD2412 T 03:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ugly, not in use, I'm sure there's a better one there somewhere. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:22, 26 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. Angr/talk 21:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UMO edit

Template:UMO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It is obsolete and links to nothing and with the standard Infobox University taking its place in the article University of Maine, it is not doing anything. American Patriot 1776 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As nominator said, plus there's no reason to have a template that only seems to be able to fit one article. Michael Ralston 02:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Isn't there a "University of..." template that can be used instead? - • The Giant Puffin • 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per all of the above. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Bell. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:23, 26 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. Angr/talk 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mortal Kombat characters edit

Template:Mortal Kombat characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template has been made obsolete by Template:Mortal Kombat series. dfg 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per dfg's reasons. Virogtheconq 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator; Template:Mortal Kombat series has been expanded a bunch and includes this functionality entirely. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. --L T Dangerous 21:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Pagrashtak 03:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above and as in, do we really need to organize a series of articles about Mortal Kombat characters? I'm impressed by how much work has gone into the entire series of Mortal Kombat articles, and only lament that the effort wasn't spent on something a little more encyclopedic. (Note that I'm speaking as a former computer game developer, but I just don't see where the extensive discussion of the minutia of a game is adding much value for the space and effort expended—the same applies to many other works of fantasy that seem to attract a cult-like following.) – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasons specified. Shadaloo 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:25, 26 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. Mushroom (Talk) 13:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Limbo edit

Template:Limbo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A template used to dump an advert for a minor process on AFD discussions. Stifle 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as usercruft. Thanks for taking care of this, Stifle. -- Krash (Talk) 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my template, of course. Reason given does not match any valid criterion for deletion of a template. Fg2 07:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete - No need for such a template. Users that employ this template should already be substing it, by the way. Pagrashtak 03:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete as per Pagra. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per others. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this Limbo thing is not even in the preliminary stages of being policy. -- Mithent 12:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I put a speedy deletion tag on it (being the author). Fg2 12:39, 1 March 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 keep. Angr/talk 21:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User HRC edit

Template:User HRC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was put up for speedy, first by User:Cyde, then myself, reason given: "Divisive, inflammatory, polemical, and/or misuse of template namespace. Qualifies under T1." Was advised to place under tfd instead. Still a good candidate for speedy. This is the current policy IIUC. 172.135.171.239 21:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep the "Divisive, inflamitory, polmatic" part is total BS unless the noninator is a pilgram. as for "misuse of template space has yet to be determined. there's nothing wrong with this template (other then its a bit ambiguous, I had to look up the Human Rights Campaign)Mike McGregor (Can) 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --CFIF (talk to me) 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I fail to see how it can be considered inflammatory or divisive. --Inaxdaze 10:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it were inverted to say "This user opposes the Human Rights Campaign", I suspect it'd be highly divisive. Thus, either it's divisive or pointless - either way, it should go. Michael Ralston 01:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Michael Ralston, also, userboxes do not belong in template: namespace. Roll your own. --Cyde Weys 04:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's in the wrong namespace. Nothing to do with its value or lack of value as regards building an encyclopaedia. Proto||type 11:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. T1 needs better definition to make it objective. Getting userboxes out of template space needs to be set in official policy rather than derived intention. Mass nomination and speedy deleletion has gone well past WP:POINT. --StuffOfInterest 12:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. helohe (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until such time as there is a separate space created for userbox templates. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Builds community. Not to mention I use it. Dark jedi requiem 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Cuiviénen. jareha 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above MiraLuka 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Allowing users to quickly identify as supporters of groups as large and important as the HRC is precisely what userbox templates are for. Clearly a number of users are happy to have it, 'coz we're using it. Let it go, if you don't like it, don't put one on your page. The larger debate may be creating a "space" for userbox templates, which as far as I am concerned is just a matter of how you organize your drawers (so to speak). Iamvered 19:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For all the reasons above. skoosh [[User_talk:Skoosh|(háblame)]] 22:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please keep it for the simple reason of people having the freedom to express themselves on the Internet. Thank you. Jesus geek 19:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' - How can anyone be against human rights? oh the humanity.--God of War 20:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 03:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete *sigh* we are not on a crusade here, folks. Check your POV at the door, or go write about it elsewhere and link to it, or at least express yourself in your own words. Bumper stickers are not helpful to the encyclopedia. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia. Personal POVs and preferences can be described in prose or with self-made boxes. Zocky | picture popups 10:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cuiviénen. --Tydaj 20:18, 28 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.

Template:User nocol edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep bad nomination --Ryan Delaney talk 05:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the worries over people becoming offended by opinions expressed in user boxes, I felt that the "does not like colors" template violated NPOV, and might offend those who are pro-color. Also, what if someone using this edits an article about, say, lemons? Who's to say they didn't do it because they don't care for the color yellow? Best to nip this problem in the bud. Coolgamer 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT. An amusing and accurate point, but still a point. -Silence 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha keep MiraLuka 21:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire And death to all the anti-Christian, gay-supporting, Satan-worshipping, Ashlee Simpson-loving userbox supporters who want to turn Wikipedia into Myspace. MAY THEY ROT IN HELL FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just kidding. We can keep it. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol! You either keep it or may delete WP:BJAODN and WP:FUN as well. Misza13 (Talk) 21:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that it may offend isnt a major problem, as Wikipedia is not censored. But if youre offended by the fact that someone doesnt like colours, then theres something wrong...seriously wrong - • The Giant Puffin • 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep ironic, WP:POINT Mike McGregor (Can) 00:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep deleting this would be blatant censorship.  Shell <e> 01:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No more so then getting rid of other userboxes that might offend people. Which, when you think about it, is pretty much all of them. People are very touchy these days, don'tcha know? Coolgamer 20:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, that comment of yours offended me deeply. I demand a tearful, embarassing, heart-felt apology on my talk page witin the next four seconds or I shall smear you into oblivion. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 20:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep --CFIF (talk to me) 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Call me bad-faith, but BJAODN this. I don't know anyone who would be mad if you told them you don't like colors. WriterFromAfar755 02:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all userboxes in template: space and admonish nominator for violation of WP:POINT. --Cyde Weys 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's in the wrong namespace. Please take the time to learn what the Template: namespace is actually for. No judgement made about this userbox's value or lack of value as regards building an encyclopaedia. Proto||type 11:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. T1 needs better definition to make it objective. Getting userboxes out of template space needs to be set in official policy rather than derived intention. Mass nomination and speedy deleletion has gone well past WP:POINT. --StuffOfInterest 12:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. helohe (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It offends people who are pro-colour? I would think that this whole discussion would offend people who are anti-colour then, or don't they get a say? --The1exile 16:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is offending people??? Now I've seen it all. --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No basis whatsoever for deletion. (Whatever that basis is. Seems to be whatever one of the overzealous sysops decides these days.) --Nelson Ricardo 22:05, 22 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. Angr/talk 21:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Polemical userboxes edit

Template:Polemical userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Is nonencyclopedic and NPOV (mostly used to sway away votes from debates by appealing to authority). Could even be seen as polemical and fall under CSD T1 but the cabal of admins is fiercely defending it from speedying. Misza13 (Talk) 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Misza13 (Talk) 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Will just inflame an already hot situation. The template appears to be admins trying to be Jimbo's high priests and divining his intentions through various statements. Let Jimbo make a definitive statement or codify a definitive policy and proceed from there. --StuffOfInterest 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From the template: "It should be noted that use of such userboxes is strongly discouraged at Wikipedia, and it is likely that very soon all these userboxes will be deleted or moved to userspace soon. Their use and creation is not recommended at this time.Jimmy Wales" That's not definitive enough for you?--Alhutch 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All these remains unclear, to me. Polemical templates are being taken to include templates which address Wikipedia policy (even if done politely) and those templates are consequently speedied. Is it correct to assume that it is Jimbo's intention to include those kinds of templates? I don't know, I'm just asking. If it is Jimbo's meaning that only support of currently existing policy (whether derived from the traditional consensus method or enforced through the new method) may exist in template space, then OK, this template should be kept. However, I would prefer that Jimbo made this crystal clear before this template is deployed. Herostratus 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough, so why are you voting? Just to rub people's faces in it? Herostratus 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with the WP:POINT policy? I honestly do not see how this is disrupting WP. --CFIF (talk to me) 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. —Guanaco 01:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am against censorship wether it agrees with me or not.  Shell <e> 01:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't make sense as a template. Could make sense as a page somewhere to be linked to ... but makes no sense as a template, except to attempt to disrupt conversations. At least, that's how I see it. Michael Ralston 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Divisive and inflammatory. --Nelson Ricardo 04:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't make sense as a template. Subst: everywhere where it is used and then delete. --Cyde Weys 04:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Divisive. Herostratus 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you really mean keep? I would have assumed otherwise from your comments above. --Nelson Ricardo 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. Keep it in spite of its being divisive, because 1) enh, within reason, let people express themselves, and and 2) I, personally, am better than that. Yeah I think it probably twists Jimbo's meaning, but if you can't trust the folks deploying this template to twist meaning, what can you trust anymore? Herostratus
  • Keep, unfortunately necessary at the moment. Delete once it no longer becomes needed and a resolution to this whole mess is achieved. Proto||type 11:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Jimbo really wants to advertise his thoughts, he has far more powerful tools at his disposal (like getting someone to ban CFIF). This is sock-puppeting.--M@rēino 15:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gotta smile while voting on this one...it deserves deletion for all the reasons proposed by its proponents for deleting userboxes. It's just essentially a very large and somewhat ugly userbox. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete — per CSD:T1 →AzaToth 20:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Deliberately provocative. Metamagician3000 06:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete under CSD:T1. Also violates WP:NPOV, even if it really is Jimbo's POV. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 1 March 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 to delete. Angr/talk 21:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Female Model Bio edit

Template:Infobox Female Model Bio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ridiculous sexist template Delete. Arniep 15:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Its certainly not "ridiculous", but in what way is it "sexist" please? Before you go about requesting speedy deletions of articles, perhaps it would serve you better to talk with the creator of them (in this case myself) to see if you can discuss your concerns and possibly come to a compromise. If you want this deleted, I suggest you propose deletions for the Playboy templates and even the Playboy articles from which I copied the code in the first place. Now, having said that, the only thing I can see remotely 'sexist' about the template is the inclusion of the figure measurements statistic. Although this is sometimes an important and relevant statistic for models (see Marilyn Monroe, the Playboy Playmates .. even Dolly Parton!]], in the case of the person I created the template for, it isn't particularly important. I would gladly remove that part of the template as a compromise. --Mal 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I ask do you propose creating a similar template for any men who may have modelled at some time in their life? Arniep 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope. I have very little interest in male models. But I wouldn't object if anyone wanted to set up a template for that category of people. --Mal 08:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing sexist about it. There should be a male model bio as a compliment, but the lack of one is not grounds for deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that a lot of people who were models or who have perhaps only modelled a few times are better known for something else like acting or TV presenting (as is the case with Zöe Salmon who this template links to). I don't think the use of this template is appropriate unless the person is best known for being a model. Arniep 19:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case you are objecting to the application and not the content of the bio box. If that is your objection simply remove the link from the article. If the removal sticks, and it doesn't end up used places like Kate Moss then you can list the template for deletion on the basis of not being used. --StuffOfInterest 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not sexist.  Shell <e> 01:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The statistics could vary too widely over time for any individual, and would also be difficult to verify (models or their publicists may not provide truthful information). Schizombie 06:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, Zöe Salmon was Miss northern Ireland. That's one of the most notable points of her life. Miss XYZ competitions are usualy models or people that go on to become models. As for the statistics varying over time, the same can be said of a lot of other statistics included in bios etc. In the case of Marilyn Monroe for example, I'm pretty sure her figure changed a lot during her life.. but she is generally regarded as having had that 'classic' figure of 36-24-36 isn't she? The problem with the template is therefore not the "ridiculousness" nor the "sexism".. but the application of labelling. I included the word "model" in the name of the template because that is basically how she started out - what propelled her to fame, and I couldn't think of a more generic name for the template. The upshot of it is that I am now going to have to create a new template and call it something else.. which is just a pain in the arse basically. --Mal 08:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Actually, while I have enjoyed a few of her movies, I could not have told you what MM's measurements were, and they're not mentioned in her article. I googled her name and your measurements for her, and a site came up that had: 1945:36-24-34; 1946:36-24-36; 1952:36 1/2-23-34; 1954:37-24-35; 1955:38-23-36; 1956:37-23-37. No citations provided as to the source or reliability of the source. I think that proves my point. Schizombie 03:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this information is not encyclopaedic. Proto||type 11:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Measurements are usually only given for porn star articles, and even then it is frowned upon. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Schizombie. Monicasdude 21:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per the creator's arguments. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete UE, not notable. --Wgfinley 04:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd advise the originator modify to it, since there is something at least problematic about systematically providing measurements like this. But I wouldn't insist on this. In many cases, I suppose it would be notable. Metamagician3000 06:58, 25 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. Angr/talk 21:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ifd a edit

Template:Ifd a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary (and ugly) fork of Template:Ifd. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, template fork, and the directions that it gives are redundant with the {{ifd}} element {{IfD doc}}, which is in this template! That is bad. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Instructions for listing images are provided in the page linked at the bottom of the template. --Optichan 21:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per others. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:28, 26 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 to delete. Angr/talk 21:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against Iraq War edit

Speedy deleted as a T1 speedy, but DRV disagreed by an approximately 3:2 ratio. Relisting here. My vote is below, please do not speedy delete this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the sort of "advocacy" userbox I think Jimbo wants an end to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is the epitomy of T1 deletion. --Cyde Weys 07:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obviously. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really infalitory, diffisive, offensive etc. I believe t1 was ment for much more extream cases then this (i.e the pedofeilia template, and things of that level). I suspect problems with this template and similar templates have more to do with WP:POINTMike McGregor (Can) 15:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC) see below... save button mishap...[reply]
    • T1 is irrelevant here when we are not going to speedy it. Is this template useful to the encyclopedia? Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that's a bad argument. If something meets the qualifications for speedy deletion then it also obviously meets the qualifications for normal deletion. --Cyde Weys 22:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not really infalitory, divisive, offensive etc. I believe t1 was ment for much more extream cases then this (i.e the pedofeilia template, and things of that level). I suspect problems with this template and similar templates have more to do with WP:POINT. Additonally, I believe that disclosing POVs on userpages encourages an open and honest atmosphere, condusive to understanding of editor POVs, contributing to a stronger Wiki community and making the 'pedia stronger and more NPOV. Happy users make better edits. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Mr. McGregor Opinions are like nose hairs. Everyone has 'em. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 15:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle - Trödel•talk 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- Elisson • Talk 17:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of these templates survived recent TfD discussions. T1 should not be applied until objective criteria can be established for divisive and polemic. It is one thing to say you support something. It is quite another saying someone else can not support something or should be denied a right. The former is not divisive while the later is. Once this can be codified then T1 should be useable without debate for every single deletion. --StuffOfInterest 19:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per McGregor and StuffOfInterest. Misza13 (Talk) 20:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above MiraLuka 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and I encourage those voting keep to cite a reason that actually applies in this case. Mackensen (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Mr. McGregor. --CFIF (talk to me) 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am against censorship on wikipedia.  Shell <e> 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sloganism, factionalizes, and fundamentally fails to help the encyclopedia. Michael Ralston 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template has absolutely nothing to do with the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 02:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't help writing an encyclopedia. Free speech is not a fundamental right here. Rx StrangeLove 05:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, worthless. Mr McGregor seems to not understand that T1 is for speedy deletions. This is not a speedy deletion. Proto||type 11:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. helohe (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think users should be allowed to express their opinions. --UVnet 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per UVnet. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I'm not particularly against the war (just the way it was/is handled) I feel that people should be able to show their opinions, no matter what it is - • The Giant Puffin • 17:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Coolgamer 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. jareha 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mego'brien let's retain the right to free speech ppl. Jimbo ain't the boss of me!
  • Delete This template advocates a stance on a touchy issue, and this wiki isn't the place for that. --InShaneee 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything relating to opinions war, politics, religion or sex is divisive. -- Ch'marr 06:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host or a blog. Things that are intentionally divisive need to go. Raul654 06:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - CSD T1. violet/riga (t) 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice, more divisive nonsense we don't need. --Wgfinley 04:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why are we wasting time with this? The keeps that have reasons all contain misguided statements like "I feel that people should be able to show their opinions, no matter what it is". Sorry chum, the Wikimedia servers are not a public venue where you are entitled to free speech. We're here to make an encyclopedia, not provide you with an alternative to MySpace. To all whom make the free speech argument, I offer you instead, a reminder that you have the right to leave but no such right to free speech. --Gmaxwell 05:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle and Gmaxwell. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I may be the God of War but this one needs to stop.--God of War 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending policy resolution. Metamagician3000 02:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 03:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expression of PoV is acceptable in userspace. We all have different points of view; by disclosing these points of view we make it easier to collaborate and reach a Nuetral Point of View, which is one of the foundation issues. This template is useful, and not divisive. (If it must be deleted, please at least be so kind as to subst it and not break people's userpages) --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is almost an NPOV vio. If kept at all, it should be moved to a user temp. We're here to make an encyclopedia- Gmaxwell. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as one of the most blatantly POV-pushing userboxes I've seen. Divisive in the extreme, but the csd tag keeps getting removed. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - freedom of speech, anti-war. Keep! --Arny 08:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia. Personal POVs and preferences can be described in prose or with self-made boxes. Zocky | picture popups 10:08, 27 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. Angr/talk 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Simpsons episodes edit

Template:Infobox The Simpsons episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template that has no way of staying NPOV. I can't think of a way to neutrally discuss notable episodes. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per nom and because it isn't used. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Proper templates exist for Simpsons episodes, alas, this isn't one of them. There are many more notable episodes, -- pretty much all of them, for that matter -- but paring it down to this is not NPOV. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BillyH and Violetriga have both acknowledged on the talk page that it is no longer needed. --Optichan 17:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 01:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. notability of episodes is a matter of opinion.--Alhutch 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. jareha
  • Delete per nominator. Pagrashtak 03:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable episodes are a matter of opinion, so this template should be deleted. - Nick C 20:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per others. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:31, 26 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 to delete. Angr/talk 21:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GAF edit

Template:GAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was designed for good articles that became featured; however, a featured article is no longer a good article by definition and it is irrelevant whether the featured article was previously marked as good or not. Currently only used in one article. Pagrashtak 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That's not keeping in mind what the template was for in the first place, it shows people that the article has been through more to get where it is, not simply that it once fit one set of criteria and now it fits compleatly unrelated criteria. And if it should lose featured status, the template serves as a reminder to replace the template with the ordinary GA template again. Homestarmy 14:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an article changes so much as to lose featured status, it should be reevaluated to see if it is still a good article. Removals are infrequent and the process to be listed as good is easy enough that this is not a significant burden. If you really need a reminder to check for good status after removal, just look for pages with {{formerFA}}. Frankly, this template strikes me as trying to have an article be both good and featured at the same time. It just clutters up the talk page. Pagrashtak 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only one article has gone from being Good to Featured so far, that's why only one article has it yet. It serves several purposes --PopUpPirate 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several good articles have gone from good to featured; The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker off the top of my head, for example. This was mentioned on the Good Article talk page in a discussion you were involved in. [1] [2] No one has explained why this template should not be deleted under T1 (the template is not helpful) or anything this template could be used for that {{featured}} and {{formerFA}} could not provide. Pagrashtak 04:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It shows that the article has gone through all correct stages to become an FA. F-35 JSF which PopUpPirate helped to edit has this and I personally think that showing that it was formerly a good article before becoming featured shows that featured articles don't just come into Existence, but are improved. Also, sorry I'm not signed in, I will sign this comment again later. --The1exile 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC) --212.85.15.74 13:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC) (My schools PC)[reply]
    • All featured articles must go through the correct stages. --Optichan 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a good article is not a prerequisite, neither is have a PR. They are both recomended but it is not policy, AFAIK. --The1exile 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Featured Article is inherently good. If a Featured Article loses its FA status it should be re-evaluated to ensure that it is still Good. --Optichan 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come on, this is getting ridiculous. Do we really have to add a talk page template every time an article's status changes now? Raul654 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It shouldn't be compulsory, I totally agree regards rule creep, but as an optional template, it just reads better. --PopUpPirate 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, I've shrunk the notice down significantly (the image was much too large). As long as it remains smaller than it was, I'll stick to keep. If this is made as large as it was when it was tagged for deletion, then my vote should be counted as delete. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless information. violet/riga (t) 00:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per violet/riga. CG 14:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per others. This is useless. No one wants to see this. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the previous supporters said this template has a use, just give it time. Tarret 23:33, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_21&oldid=1149976327"