Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 14

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 January 14)
< January 13 January 15 >

January 14, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I could relist it, but I'm not sure that would achieve much. Perhaps working out which of Tony Sidaway's suggestions applies is the right course of action. It is probably redundant with a note on the talk page of the article, of course. -Splashtalk 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gnuweb edit

"This article contains text from this source, which happens to be GFDL". Barely used, and redundant with other sourcing templates. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's redundant with some other suitable template, just redirect. If it isn't (for instance because the parameters are incompatible) then edit the referring page and then come back here on the grounds that it's an orphan. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 15 January 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. Nomination appears to have been based on an accidental misunderstanding. -Splashtalk 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-german edit

Template:Cleanup-german (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) "This article contains German passages that need cleaning up". Hardly in use, redundant with WP:TIE and with regular cleanup. Radiant_>|< 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was not meant for translations, but for articles that contain German passages, e.g. quotations or lists of compositions by German composers (that are often in a poor state, not even using umlauts). Meant for de-N users. --mst 21:07, 15 January 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 speedy kept -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Google edit

Template:User Google (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Delete. Sole purpose seems to be to advertise the Google search engine. What is a Wikipedian supposed to do with this knowledge? Advise the fellow to try some of the alternatives? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Harmless, doesn't hurt anyone.(Believe it or not) --D-Day 20:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. What's the harm? Morgan695 20:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Helps Wikipedians know how the individual may come up with some of their info/conclusions. - Etcher 20:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep What were you thinking when you nominated this? There are a range of search engine-related userboxes used by many people. This userbox is used by many people, causes no offence, breaks no rule. I see no reason to delete it at all! -   Bourbons3 T | C 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a case for speedy keep. The way to find out how someone comes to his conclusions is to discuss them with him. Seriously, is there any reason, other than product endorsement, to use this userbox? If not, then it is simply viral advertising and I am inclined to the opinion that it should be deleted for the samreason that we delete linkspam. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Etcher and Bourbons3.—thegreentrilby 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not offensive --Angelo 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above... Mikkerpikker 20:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason to delete Athf1234 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep totally harmless. This sort of ridiculous nomination just undermines this page's credibility and wastes space for real debates on real problems. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Stop wasting our time with these random nominations and leave the userboxes project alone already.TCorp 21:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use Google as my primary search engine. Now ban me for advertising. ~~ N (t/c) 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ian13ID:540053 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the category needs to be kept or deleted (I have no objections to either), but I believe the category (Category:Wikipedians who use Google) needs to be deleted. It doesn't add anything to wikipedia, while it brings together users on the basis of a very trivial criterion. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would then suggest you to nominate that category for deletion at WP:CfD→AzaToth 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See, that's why I proposed/suggested "Userboxes for deletion", to deal with it one blow :) Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please stop pushing these through tfd - just take a deep breath and leave the userboxes alone.--God of War 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. *Does Jedi mind trick* You will stop wasting time, energy, server room, and , space on these petty userbox nominations.--HereToHelp (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep *blinks* --Fang Aili 22:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nomination is WP:POINT and in obvious bad faith. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:39, 14 January 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. Although I see it has already been subst:ed into GWB. -Splashtalk 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sprotected-small edit

Template:Sprotected-small (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — substandard in design, text too small to be read, message is wrong (the consensus when discussing semi-protection wordings elsewhere is not to use that wording) yet is being forced onto 1 article in place of the standardised text everyone else is using, is better worded, better designed, which contains a font large enough to be read and which everyone is working to perfect. This template is pointless and duplicates a far better designed, more user-friendly alternative. It also duplicates Template:Sp-sprotected (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). We don't need two templates for the same thing, much less three, two of whom seem to have been designed just to use on one page. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Much less obtrusive than the sprotect template, which seems to have its own problems that are still being ironed out. In general I believe that the massive boxes are overkill; a line or two in italics at the top of the article, as in this template is far preferable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even read this at my browser's regular font size. Useless. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • same here. It shows up as a blurr of tiny squiggles. I know know what it is because I already know it is a semi-protect notice. If I didn't already know I'd never be able to find out by actually reading it. It is totally unreadable but its handful of fans won't allow anything bigger on the George W. Bush page! FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like a personal problem. Get a better web browser, or at least one that lets you adjust text sizes. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is a standard browser used by millions of potential WP readers at standard settings. Are you suggesting that users are required to change browser and change their screen every time they find an article with this garbage on it, to enable them to read it? Cop yourself on. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notices like s-protect are meant to be noticed. This one is just too small and not as constructive or useful as the existing one. Its like having too many chefs in a kitchen. There should be a standard s-protect template that everyone should use -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per tony sideway Greg Asche (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect, please edit the existing template rather than forking. Radiant_>|< 21:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Semi-protection is a long term solution on George W. Bush, and there's no reason to, for the long term, waste the readers' time with a template that doesn't affect them. Most of our readers are not editors and don't care about semi-protection. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So your solution is to put an substandard template with inaccurate text and lettering so small that it appears on many browsers as unreadable squiggles rather than a template that confirms to standard design and which is capable of being read? FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My solution is not to waste readers' time with information that does not apply to them. If I'm reading about George Bush, I really, *really* don't care what anti-vandalism policies we're applying to the article. Large, obtrusive templates are fine in the short term because they discourage long-term protection. But George W. Bush is going to be semi-protected until 2009 at the earliest. That's reality, and given that reality, do we want to annoy millions of readers or not? — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, delete as single-use template. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Much too small. We're with this policy or not. Marskell 22:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On both IE6 and Firefox with standard settings the text is perfectly legible. This template is certainly noticeable to someone who is editing a page, while not intruding on the casual reader. Terrafire 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP is the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", when there's an exception to that it should be pronounced as it is in Template:Sprotected, not subtle. --Wgfinley 22:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • GWB is evidently going to be a special case. How about articleifying the template to George W. Bush/Protection message (or similar)> -Splashtalk 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Template:Sprotected-GWB. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, except you. Radiant_>|< 03:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tony Sidaway (near the top). That's a concern with page protection in general, not this template. --HereToHelp (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Semi-protection is not a long-term solution. It should be made clear while it is in place that it's there. BigBlueFish 18:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, primary per Phroziac. Not surprisingly, the "small" template is small, in this case too small. However, others have correctly noted that if semi-protection becomes a discreet matter, us regular editors won't know to request unprotection after too long, and the anons won't be able to do it themselves, so... Superm401 | Talk 08:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 15:05, 20 January 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. The deleters actually make the better case, and claims of "parody" are oft-misused on Wikipedia, so there's no consensus on what to do about it at present. -Splashtalk 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parody edit

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

  • Delete — This tag doesn't meet our criteria for Wikipedia:Fair use, as it seems to encourage use of fair use outside the article space, among other reasons. Furthermore, the images that it's used on don't really seem to be parodies anyway. 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)JYolkowski // talk
  • Comment Keep. I think all that's needed to make this workable is to create a category for parody images, and add the category to this template. Then abuses can be easily tracked down and removed. Abuses are going to happen, so it's better to encourage them to be categorized (and thus easily found and removed) than to leave them sitting as parodies in a much larger fair-use category. If the parody category is added, then Keep. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-14 22:18
  • Keep. Yes, they are parodies. A parody of a video game, of the Wikipedia globe and the Apple logo, and of Che Guevara. It's useful, and it does not necessarily entail copy violations. When people see Che's face, even if distorted, it "propagates his memory" and thus is okay to use. The images are realesed at the copyright level of the original—another template explaining what that original was and wat its CR status is is also necessary. A category is coming up!--HereToHelp (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We now have Category:Parody images. I've taken the liberty of changing your vote from "comment" to "keep" (you said you'd do that anyway).--HereToHelp (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, they are not parodies. Please read Parody, where it says "parody is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order in order to ridicule it.". The Che Guevara image is not ridiculing Che. The Wikipedia image is not ridiculing Wikipedia. The Zero wing image is not ridiculing Zero Wing. These are satires, which U.S. law has consistently found not to be fair use. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia policy, fair use images must only be used in the main namespace, which these are not, and that images that are not are CSDs, making this tag no better than {{db-i5}}. JYolkowski // talk 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Warn the users of the images that are using this template about the difference between satire and parody, and the fact that they are treading on thin ice. The template should stay for future parodies, though. --James S. 04:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - should of course be discouraged for frivolous purposes, but is legitimate. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zscout370 has speedy deleted the Jimbo Che images as they were fair use being used only in userspace. Anyone that cares more than me can go talk to him. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article images (especially fair use ones) are never be "use[d] [...] for amusement only." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Moreover, the template could encourage users to create their own parodies and place them in articles. That is clearly original research. "Amusement only" is great in user space, but fair use images aren't allowed there. As for the images recommendation to parody public domain materials, it's irrelevant. If the material parodied is public domain, the parody is either in the public domain (for trivial creativity) or copyrighted by the parodier (in which case the template is irrelevant). For rare cases when the article is including a notable or relevant parody to describe the parody (not the parodied subject), a regular fair use tag will suffice. There should also be a note about who did the parody, because they hold copyright despite infringing. Superm401 | Talk 08:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is only being used on one image, so we can transclude it, or create a new template called {{Fairusebecause}}, like {{PD-because}}. Zbot370 07:39, 19 January 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 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DB:LDBsa edit

Template:DB:LDBsa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. — Presumably designed to reduce the effort needed to make a link to different sections of the page List of Dragon Ball special abilities, however it doesn't save many key strokes and seems to be, if anything, harder than just writing out [[List of Dragon Ball special abilities#whatever section]]. --Qirex 13:36, 14 January 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 speedy deleted →AzaToth 21:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User exports bad drivers edit

Template:User exports bad drivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template shows and supports a negative feeling towards the country of France and implies an on going war. I do not believe these ideas belong on Wikipedia. It has no purpose and does not communicate an idea other then that that user dislikes France. It also struck me that it is border line racism and I don't think that should be allowed on Wikipedia. (I'm still a newbie though and will respect any decision, just please consider) Flying Canuck 05:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racism? What race? DirkvdM 07:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He tells the border line racism...
Now imagine u swap France by Israel, and it begins racism! 193.252.213.100 09:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it serves no purpose other than to ridicule another country.--MONGO 11:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by pelting with garlic, frogs legs and hairy female armpits (ick). Yes its racist, even if it is a joke: this kind of thing is why France has laws banning many American films (to "protect the culture"), the more stuff like this that goes on the greater the reaction. you're not helping and promoting yet more cultural/national apartheid. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Racist and redneck userbox. --Darwinek 15:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some guy changed it to Iran and that's no better. Ashibaka tock 16:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't even tell what it's supposed to mean, but it doesn't sound good. ~~ N (t/c) 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. A personal attack to all french. Ian13ID:540053 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Angelo 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied (noting the presence of strong consensus to delete) as an attack template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. ~~ N (t/c) 21:32, 14 January 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. -Splashtalk 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linkimage edit

Template:Linkimage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. — This template is intrinsically POV as, by using it, we are taking it upon ourselves to judge the "obscenity" of an image, which is a matter of opinion. For example, if I were the type of person to censor things, I would place this on our Holocaust images, and not pictures like lolicon or autofellatio (which I have no problem with seeing). Simply put, it's unsuitable for the nature of Wikipedia and its use breaks our policy on neutrality. I'd rather not be long-winded, so you can adapt most of what I've said at Talk:Lolicon#image to this template. // paroxysm (n) 03:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment See also Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions. No vote. Ashibaka tock 03:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep even though Wikipedia is not censored, some images do not need to be in a persons face right off the bat.--MONGO 11:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth in it's foul wake — Next the template will be used on religion articles for links to sites critical of the religion, or sites displaying bare skin of more than just the face (for the misogynist group of religions), or sites critical of governments, or sites containing swear words. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Slippery slope. This template has been used on 2 articles in 11 months. Ashibaka tock 15:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Once put that way it seems clear the argument you provide is irrelevant to the current discussion. No one has suggested the template should be kept/removed to protect/corrupt minors. Mikkerpikker 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mistress Selina Kyle and paroxysm's concerns none withstanding, the template has ended long standing edit wars at lolicon and autofellatio. Moreover, the template is being used in the latter article per a Jimbo decree & received overwhelming community support there (see Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions). Wikipedia is not censored, certainly, but nor is it a shock or porn site and it surely needs to respect people's views & rights enough to not force them to commit crimes or view images they may find disturbing.... Mikkerpikker 13:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have some misgivings about the POV it projects, and it probably will always project some kind of vibe regardless of the wording – after all, it reflects an opinion that the image should not be shown inline. However, this is a necessary tool for use in a small minority of articles such as those mentioned by Mikkerpikker. The template is obviously not suitable for use in some articles where it amounts to pointless censorship, but that is a matter for debate on those articles and shouldn't be cause to delete a tool useful in some situations. --Qirex 14:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about minors (although I am one); it's about appropriate warning. On internet forums, people take care to warn you before linking you to an image that is considered not work safe (NWS). I for one do not want to be caught in an inappropriate situation. :p This template is not used for censorship, IMO; it's used to avoid causing unnecessary problems for our readers that can easily be averted on our part. Minors who want to check out a man sucking himself off can easily do so by clicking. There's no censorship. The only argument I can think of in favour of opposing this template would be that adult users are inconvenienced. I do not think one mouse click, however, outweighs the potential embarassment/explanation that other users (adults, minors or otherwise) might have to go through if this template didn't exist. (In case it wasn't clear, I strongly favour keeping this template.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep per Johnleemk. Censorship would be deleting the image. This is just politeness to people at work/school. ~~ N (t/c) 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mikkerpikker. A necessary tool. as Qirex said. There is a pragmatic reason for this. Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg and a few others are so popular with vandals that the images are prevented from direct use in pages. Linking to them is the only way to reference them in appropriate articles - this template makes it convenient. In any case, simply deleting this template wouldn't (a) prevent people for linking the old-fashioned way (as I did in this comment) or (b) make it possible to put the autofellatio guy et al into articles. FreplySpang (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh 'keep this. The image that is linked on autofellatio cannot be included inline because it's in the badimages file (part of the mediawiki software). This provides a neat and uniform way to produce a link in such rare cases. --20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 20:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I too feel that this template is more of a "backdoor censor" device than anything else, and that makes me feel very uncomfortable about it. Using the image from the Autofellatio article as an example - the image absolutely adds important information to the article (note the lack of a similar image at Autocunnilingus still leaves one wondering whether the act is real and possible, information a line drawing just can't convey). Anyone going to the Autofellatio article should have some idea of what might be there, and the appropriateness of viewing the article at work or school is the user's responsibility, not that of an encyclopedia. I also note that this image is included in the badimages file at the sole discretion of a single developer - neither that decision nor even the recent creation of the badimages file itself were the result of any consensus or even discussion - and the developer in question refuses to discuss that point. Having said that, I do see the utility of it as an anti-vandal device (even if my own opinion is that's not the real reason it is usually deployed) and that's why I vote to keep. I do think the issue I bring up in the autofellatio example is better worked out at the article itself - the template doesn't have to be used there just because it exists, and that should come about as a result of discussion and consensus, not deletion of this template. --Krich (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this template is necessary. I mean, how much times will it actually be used? delete for that, not for POVness.Circeus 23:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's being used on two articles as the result of two very long debates. Please reconsider that reasoning. Ashibaka tock Save our rectangular corners! 01:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I certainly do not deny the usefulness of what it does. I just don't believe a template is necessary to actually do it. After all if a template can do it, wikimarkup in the page can too. Circeus 01:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A template is handy for copying that markup onto other pages. For example, an annoyed editor just placed a picture of a penis onto my talk page, and I don't generally like to censor things from my talk page, so I used linkimage to hide it. (I don't know what to do about this editor...) Ashibaka tock 03:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This template was created after extensive debate. The consensus was that it was necessary to have an extra link to certain images that might not be "work-safe" or "school-safe" for courtesy reasons, and that an extra link is not censoring Wikipedia for the protection of minors. Unless there is sufficient support for a reopening of that debate (which should take place somewhere else), this template should be kept. - Cuivienen 01:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment As has been already mentioned, Wikipedia does not hide images to make them "work-safe" or "school-safe", as a courtesy or otherwise - such matters are the responsibilty of the encylopedia user, and someone visiting the autofellatio page should have a good idea that information (including graphical representation) of... well, autofellatio just might be included. The main problem with the argument above is that it's incorrect - no such consensus was ever reached about this issue, at least at the autofellatio article. There was unresolved debate about whether the picture should be used at all, with discussion leaning towards using it (as it adds important and useful info the line drawing can't convey). But the creation of the badimages file, and including the autofellatio image in that file, was the work of a single developer (as best as I've been able to tell), and no consensus or even discussion of this change happened. Backdoor censorship, not community consensus. --Krich (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This template has no valid use. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And its use on lolicon and autofellatio, which has been approved by consensus on the talk pages of those articles, is not valid because... ~~ N (t/c) 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, no such consensus reached at autofellatio, see my comments above --Krich (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutralitytalk 14:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Electionworld 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep, because a substantial portion of English-speaking readers would be surprised to see it without warning (not because we think they should be). Superm401 | Talk 08:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Should be used where valid and supported by consensus. Some of us _do_ access Wikipedia from work, you know. --Wikiacc 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The template is very useful and should be used when the editors of a given article reach consensus to do so. Johntex\talk 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue mentioned by the OP won't be resolved by removing the image template; that would only force a lot of unnecessary confrontations. Rōnin 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Also Wikipedia should not be censored for the protection of narrow minded adults who for some reason demand to be able to read every article at work without upsetting the boss. That some people don't like some information (text or pictures) is not a reason for that information to be deleted, neither a reason to add a warning that the information may be offensive. That some information (lolicon pictures for example) is banned in some countries is indeed sad but WP should not censor information that is legal in the USA. 81.216.236.207 16:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
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_January_14&oldid=1138690539"