Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 8

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 February 8)
< February 7 February 9 >

February 8, 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 wasspeedy delete for disruption and WP:POINT. David | Talk 15:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pedo edit

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

Template was speedied on Feb 7th but has now been recreated. Inappropriate content for wikipedia & premature given the request for arbitration over the userbox incident. Also, there was a deletion review which failed Mikkerpikker ... 10:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete. and protect against recreation. not sure how this template helps with creation of encyclopedia. Agnte 11:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect against recreation, at least for now. All this is is SPUI making a WP:POINT, and does not help with the creation of an encyclopedia OR a resolution to the userbox debate. So much for detenté... -- nae'blis (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - We are not amused. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect against recreation per nae'blis -- Avi 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is of bad taste. I dont agree with argument above that it does not help build an encyclopedia, because it is for user pages and therefore isnt required to do so. Because of the topic this userbox is on, it shouldnt be kept. It should probably be protected from recreation as well -   • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -- disruptive, poor attempt at an in-joke. - Longhair 15:42, 8 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 KEEP. There is absolutely no mandate for TfD to enforce a particular block template on all editors, and absolutely no reason to delete this template. Those citing "per nom" rely on "the nom" having any weight: the keepers argue briefly but entirely effectively that this template is not redundant, since some people want to use it. Those who simply say "test4 is better" should stick to using test4. -Splashtalk 23:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test4a edit

Template:Test4a (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to test4. Avi 06:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mikkerpikker ... 12:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -   • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed + test4 is better anyway stronger formating. --Petros471 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Malthusian (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not redundant at all. This is used for those that want to reduce server load by not including an image. Strong keep. JYolkowski // talk 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I thought the usual argument was that the server load caused by images was too small to worry about. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no problems. Not sure why we'd want to make people type this out instead. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is that it is redundant to {{test4}}. No one would have to type anything out. -- Avi 03:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That template, as pointed out by JYolkowski, is not the same. So anyone wanting to type this content would have to either type it out or subst: and then edit again to change the text. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some folks have very strong feelings about images in warning messages. If we didn't have this no-image alternative, we'd have more edit wars over test4. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a valid point; but in that case we need to come up with a better nameing schema. As of now the 'a' appendment can mean eithr "no image" or "deleteing content". Further, the "im" suffix for the 4-level test means "immediate." -- Avi 16:56, 9 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 ALREADY REDIRECTED to test-n. -Splashtalk 23:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Testb edit

Template:Testb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to test-n, and doesn't follow naming schema. Avi 06:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant test-n, Quarl :), testb has a spot for a page name, as does test-n; test alone does not. -- Avi 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I don't know what I was thinking. —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-08 08:20Z
Please explain -- Avi 03:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting any of these disrupts the RC patrollers that use them, which is IMHO a Bad Thing. JYolkowski // talk 03:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it wouldn't if we had a small, specific set of templates, and all RC patrollers were informed of that set. BD2412 T 03:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
We are working on minimizing the number of user-warning templates to a small, mnemonically-consistent set which allows the flexibility to have page names or not. BTW, I'm also a RC patroller and a Vandal reverter etc. But why do we need 4, 4a, 2a, 2del, 2b, etc. There should be 5 test templates, each with the ability to have a page name added. And perhaps there can be a few for removing content, as opposed to blanking or adding. Regardless, RC patrollers and Vandal Fighters should be keeping track of what template to use via {{TestTemplates}} -- Avi 15:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I modeled this template on {{test}}. When I (and several other users) would leave the test template, would would often get questions as to what article edit we were questioning. Also, the template is informative to admins and other RC patrollers. This template makes it must easier to establish a pattern in vandal behavior when the name of the vandalized article plainly listed. Please notice the talk page for the original version of this template and my talk page archive. Several admins agreed that this was useful template. -- Psy guy Talk 06:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what {{test2a-n}} is for, AND it is mnemonically consistent with {{test2a}} as opposed to {{test2b}} -- Avi 15:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to test-n, then protect to lock it down. They seem to serve the same function and it looks like it's being used. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently redirected to {{test2a-n}} to which it was near identical, as it relates to removing content. -- Avi 16:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's test2b rather than testb. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 17:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I feel like Quarl in the Tfd above. :) Thanks Abe -- Avi 17:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, don't redirect. There are way too many cryptically named warning templates—would be better to settle on a consistent naming pattern, then it will be easy not just to remember them, but figure out which one you want. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:01, 10 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 ALREADY DELETED. This is getting boring, and is becoming a waste of time and space. -Splashtalk 23:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nospeedy edit

Template:User nospeedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive, counterproductive, misinformed. Also delete accompanying category. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. ;) Coffee 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep {sigh} I knew this would be considered for deletion. Since when is it illegal to have a pro-userbox view on here? --D-Day 01:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't. Keep. Rogue 9 01:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an encyclopedia. Using userboxes for activism is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe not political or social activism. Activism as it relates to the encyclopedia? Yes. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then we disagree. If one has suggestions for improving Wikipedia, one should write about it on one's user page, not use pre-printed template messages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm. enochlau (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Admins ignoring policy to speedy delete templates during active tfd's is divisive and inflammatory.--God of War 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but please Reword so that it doesn't sound so whiny ;-) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey c'mon. It's not whiny. I said please fer cryin out loud! :) --D-Day 11:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't believe I'm saying this, but keep and reword per Cuiviénen. Keep the category removed, however, in either case. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per irony. Aye, this is bliss. --Cyde Weys 06:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Knowledge Seeker. I don't really see the point of the template or the category. Michael Slone (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expresses a valid opinion on a user page. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Mikkerpikker ... 10:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re above arguments Boddah 14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is a valid point, isnt an attack. Maybe if userboxes werent speedied during a TfD, then there wouldnt be a need for this. But the truth is, it happens all the time, its not like this userbox is wrong in terms of fact -   • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Hayter 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trödel•talk 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but create opposing userbox that says "This userbox can be speedy deleted by admins any time they feel like it" in the interests of balance. (N.B: don't.) --Malthusian (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tsk tsk, some honchos around here are getting awfully touchy. --Daniel 02:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I ask again, Wouldst thou please refrain from calling people "honchos"?--Alhutch 00:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - slowly. BD2412 T 03:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete divisive.--cj | talk 13:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No harm. It's not like we'll start an online riot. We all want what's best (in our own opinion) for Wikipedia. WriterFromAfar755 00:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The truth will set you free! --Dragon695 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a legitimate opinion, and in no way divisive or inflammatory. --James S. 03:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep per all keep votes above. --Aaron 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it a speedy keep? Speedy != strong. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just covering all the bases. --Aaron 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I know. But why is it speedy? There is nothing to suggest the nomination was in bad faith, and the result is not clear-cut, so why is it speedy? (Sorry, it annoys me when people use "speedy keep" or "speedy delete" as votes inappropriately, this question is as much to anyone else as to you). Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I consider all of MarkSweep's current nominations to be inherently invalid as WP:POINT violations, so to me that makes it speed-worthy. I admit I could be wrong about what policy has to say on that. --Aaron 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please assume good faith without strong evidence to the contrary. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 17:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MONGO.--Alhutch 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid, encyclopedia-related userbox. Larix 06:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me for the question, but how is it encyclopaedia-related? Note that I am not saying not being encyclopaedia-related is ipso facto a reason for deletion, but I can't follow your logic. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid userbox.helohe (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This acutally makes sense. --CFIF 18:51, 11 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. -Splashtalk 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Metro Manila edit

Template:Infobox Metro Manila (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was on Metro Manila. Infoboxes are to have a consistently formatted table for a set of articles on a common subject-- but this infobox is only for use on one article. Worse, it conflicts with Template:Infobox Philippine region (Metro Manila is a Philippine region). Having this template is like having a California infobox that conflicts in style and content with the standard US State infobox. Delete. Coffee 00:33, 8 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 ALREADY DELETED. Surprise!-Splashtalk 23:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No AmE edit

Template:User No AmE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Disparaging, condescending, divisive, counterproductive, unused. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Delete. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Designed as insult. Delete. enochlau (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Hey Guys, One AME at a time. Let's decide our policy there Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_6#Template:User-AmE-0--God of War 03:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I prefer British English, but being from America, cannot relate to it. The userbox is not necessarily insulting people who use the language, merely the fact that it exists. But really, I don't mind which way this debate ends. -Xol 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is just a copy-n-paste sparked by a discussion on the User-AmE-0 talk page; if it comes to a decision to move these elsewhere, this will just get in the way of a proper move that preserves template history. -- nae'blis (talk) 04:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this is the target of a renaming, it's better to use move than copy-paste. I also agree with MarkSweep's summary. Michael Slone (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expresses a valid opinion on a user page. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Valid opinion, user pages are not bound by NPOV. America insults Britain (which actually has more cities than London, despite common opinion) all the time, as bolwer hat wearing, umbrella carrying snobs. We have to put up with this opinion from USA all the time, and so I think you should have some back. British English is the original English, and is therefore is the most correct. If you dont like it, speak properly -   • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"and is therefore is the most correct." - Now that's comedy! Uh, keep. dfg 21:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the final decision is, please make it the same decision as User-AmE-0. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WHOA! hold on a minute... this template IS Template:User-AmE-0 renamed. The former template is to be deleted, and renamed to this. Hence why they are identical.   Deano (Talk) 18:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand. Why delete the former (presumably Template:User-AmE-0) and use this, when User-AmE-0 is the only one of the two actually being used? If it's something to do with naming conventions, wouldn't the answer be to simply move it, rather than create an identical new one? - Hayter 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - per God of War.
  • Strong Speedy Keep per Dussst. --Aaron 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep helohe (talk) 12:45, 11 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 wasSpeedy Delete as the moot after the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia. Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pedophile project edit

Template:User pedophile project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
More WP:POINT pushing by Dschor (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). I won't even comment on the subtly inappropriate title (oops, I just did). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there is a pedophilia project, isn't it OK to have a userbox for projects? Why is this any different? There are, I would imagine, many people who oppose pedophilia on the project. Personally, I'd not want to be associated with it at all, but some people might find it useful. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Template:User WikiProject Pedophilia as to avoid any misunderstandings. enochlau (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inflamatory, disruptive, devisive. May violate WP:Point. Hamster Sandwich 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete idiotic trolling. Ban creator. — Phil Welch 02:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is true that under other circumstances I would vote to keep this. However, since it was created by User:Dschor who has a history of creating disruptive userboxes, since it is not used by anyone, and since it was created at a sensitive time when the community is on edge, I believe it should be deleted now. If the WikiProject becomes active later, the template can be created after the current climate has cooled down. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. WP:POINT, WP:DICK. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unused userbox. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 03:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - THis makes legitamite free-speech political userboxes look bad.--God of War 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Enough Fred Bauder 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them. Every single one. --Tony Sidaway 08:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! per all the comments above... Mikkerpikker ... 10:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the 4 comments above. Agnte 11:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what comes of suffering a userbox to live; IF an active Pedophilia WikiProject gets off the ground, THEN create the userbox. This "cart-before-the-horse" crap has got to stop. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per what happens at the actual project's deletion discussion.
  • Delete box, keep project unless it is not encyclopedic in it's edits (it appears to be a valid project - appears to be case of terrible, terrible timing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very clear delete. The Land 16:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per enochlau. Exploding Boy 16:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The actions of the creator are enough to show that this was an attempt to see how far he could push before getting slammed. Not a good faith creation. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pedophilia Project has been deleted. We can delete this template now. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. For the record, the linked page Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia was speedy deleted as G7 (author request).Physchim62 (talk) 20:25, 8 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 article'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_8&oldid=1138690523"