Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 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 KEEP, but I think these debates might be conducted more usefully if people would consider the appropriateness of using the functionality the template offers instead of simply dividing largely along pro- and anti-AUM lines.-Splash^talk 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several color templates edit

Keep They appear to be in use, and Brion Vibber, our lead developer, has specifically stated on WP:VP/T and WP:AUM that editorial decisions should not be driven by speculative technical considerations - i.e. WP:AUM is no longer policy. If the editorial decision on the relevant page is to remove them for aesthetic reasons or for ease of coding, then they can be deprecated and removed as orphaned. Otherwise, I see no reason to get rid of them. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 23:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- for aesthetic reasons See WP:MOS. for ease of coding observe that the names are longer than the content of the template itself. For the latter reason alone I completely fail to see how these template are any useful. Circeus 14:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found maintaining the \"right\" colour across the series is difficult among the writers, whether they are registered or remain anonymous. Each one has a different feeling towards colours, so one will use the colour base on his/her impression. I don't know what are those notices for, but maintaining a consistent colouring system in the series makes life more easier for contributors. I think it is the reason behind setting up templates on colours and there is no point for their deletion. Please revert to preserve the original layout before a resolution has been agreed. --Xavier Fung 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and/or delete, it would seem a lot easier on everyone just to enter the colour numbers, and WP:MOS indicates that coloured text shouldn't be used anyway. JYolkowski // talk 23:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crotalus horridus. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delete — Keep per Crotalus horridus, Delete per JYolkowski _→AzaToth 03:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Crotalus horridus. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Insta ntnood 14:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Circeus and JYolkowski. They'd expect people to remember a series of six different three digit hex codes? SchmuckyTheCat 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The color codes can be documented on a WikiProject page or elsewhere. -- Netoholic @ 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crotalus. Reason listed above. --Xavier Fung 18:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute delete - the manual of style is clear... do not use colored text. This is for accessibility purposes primarily, and railway-cruft is not an exception. -- Netoholic @ 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a vote: I think the main problem here is pages like List of Hong Kong MTR stations, which looks, mildly said not so optimal. Too much color that serves no purpose. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The colours are the liveries of the stations. Every station uses its tone of colour and it is naturally part of the info in the list of stations. It is quite sad to say they serve "nothing", but the page mentioned deserves some more tweaks IMHO. --Xavier Fung 18:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See related issue and discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/November 2005#Various formatting templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These templates are immensely helpful for differentiating between lines. The pages are much easier and more attractive to read - and it certainly saves a lot of time in writing out Wiki code. The MOS does not ban colour links specifically - it asks users to not use them where appropriate and if necessary to remember colour blindness. I think the colours of railway lines should be a good example of where you can use a coloured link, as long as it is not excessively done; it is an excellent reference to the line you are referring to - if we have tourist and other people reading a site like this it is helpful for them. Please keep them all. (JROBBO 12:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- The MOS also stated that it is case-based and has to apply with certain elasticity. Could we move on to develop a form of substitution for the current implementation before deleting abruptly? Why not the sysops posting in the relevant talk pages for a better feedback? --Xavier Fung 12:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The colors stated in the templates came from long time of research and discussion to reach the real color of MTR standard as much as possible. It's impossible for future contributors to trace back the colors if the templates are removed. Deryck C. 15:53, 31 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 Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTR edit

Template:MTR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Appearsto be entirely redundant with {{MTRStations}} Circeus 20:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since it's a duplicate. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one shows just lines, and is quite short. The other one shows stations as well. I can see that one might want a template with just the lines, rather than all the stations; and it does appear to be used that way a couple of times. Nfitz 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a duplicate. — Insta ntnood 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This box would be ideal for pages on the specific lines - where the information on every specific station is unnecessary, but it's good to have a link to the other lines of a system. On a station page, it is good to have the list of all the different stations so a user can quickly flick to that. It's not a duplicate, and both serve their purpose. (JROBBO 12:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - some pages don't need all the stations Peregrine_^AY 21:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The templates are not simply duplicates of each other: The one concerned in this deletion focuses on the LINES, while the other one focuses of the STATIONS. They don't even share the same focus, so there's no point to delete one of them. Deryck C. 15:51, 31 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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2005 Kashmir earthquake casualties edit

Transclude and delete — Used only on 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Templates shouldnot masquerade for content. Circeus 19:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Circeus. Hard to see it being of value to any other article.--cjllw | TALK 07:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep it!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Webcomic 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. JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Template:Webcomic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Delete — This template's text says not to use it in favour of other templates. Currently nothing links to it, so maybe it's time to get rid of it. JYolkowski // talk 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is the same principal as {{fairuse}} or {{tl:screenshot}}. Should a user choose this it will try to point them to a better choice. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wrote that text on {{fairuse}} and {{screenshot}}. The purpose of that text is to get people to stop using those tags, with the intent of being able to delete them in the future. JYolkowski // talk 00:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan template, there are already images copyright templates for comic panels and other comic media.--nixie 03:18, 23 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 Scott Davis ^Talk 12:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islands of the Suvadives edit

The United Suvadive Republic does not exist any more, as it was dissolved in 1960 and claimed back by the Maldives, to which the group of islands originally belonged to. I propose that we delete this template to avoid misleading non-familiar readers into concluding that these islands currently belong to the non-existant former republic. --Fizan 12:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above --Oblivious 12:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - Hayter 13:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one editor created this and two suvadives-related stub templates (now on WP:SFD), plus an article about the former republic which is treated in the present tense as if it still exists. As User: Circeus points out at SFD, there's a faint whiff of PoVwarring about this... Grutness...wha? 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --Loopy ^e 23:05, 23 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 WITHDRAWN by nominator, as it is now moot (the election is over). I've attempted to initiate a general discussion about situations like this on WP:VP/P.

Template:ElectionResultsCA edit

Blatant violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. We do not censor content that might violate foreign laws. Imagine the precedent that might be set ("This article contains pictures that might violate obscenity laws in Saudi Arabia"...) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~The creator of the template~~A contributor to the template has removed the TFD tag twice. I'm disappointed, since this kind of behavior is generally seen from trolls and vandals, not established Wikipedians. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He shouldn't remove the tag. But at the same time this template was still being developed. Why did you not join in the discussion rather than trying to delete it. And your only comment about the template at Talk:Canadian Federal Election, 2006 (after your nomination) was extremely non-NPOV Nfitz 05:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm dumbfounded by this statement. First of all, WP:NPOV applies to articles (and templates attached to articles). It does not apply to comments on talk pages. Secondly, I did not express any personal opinion, but quoted one Wikipedia policy and one Wikipedia guideline ruling out the use of this template. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm dumbfounded you would go for a TFD without even joining the ongoing discussion. Perhaps discussions shouldn't be NPOV, but why are you going off on such a tangent talking about US courts, which is completely and totally irrelevent to the entire discussion? No-one involved in the discussion ever raised, or even considered US involvment in this. It's absolutely not relevent Nfitz 08:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mea culpa for removing the tag, but see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relatedly, the nominator – citing similar reasons herein – attempted to remove the long-standing "future election" template from atop the federal election article without any discussion or consensus to do so anywhere. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Canadian criminal laws are only a threat in Canada, not to Wikipedia servers in Florida, because no American court would enforce a fine or sanction imposed by a foreign criminal law. As to Canadian Wikipedians, what they post is their own risk and responsibility under their home laws. Postdlf 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who cares what US courts will and won't enforce. The concern is that Canadians will unwittingly add information, and then be charged; which has happened in the past. There's nothing in that template that mentions, the US, Gambia, or Moldovia! It isn't a threat, it's a notice. Nothing is stopping Canadians adding material after they have read the notice. They are not encouraged not to do so. The template was designed only to be used during a 3-hour period next Monday between the polls closing on the East cost to when the polls close on the west coast - which is the only period of time that the act covers the reporting of results. No one is suggesting generic permanent warning templates be applied to all pages ... or any pages Nfitz 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator should get one's facts straight. First of all, I didn't create the template, someone else did based on extensive discussions on the Canadian election talk page; I recently edited it to embrace some of the notions discussed so far. Second, the template arose out of concerns for the impropriety of Canadians and others posting results online prematurely (i.e., in contravention of Canadian electoral law), which has been prosecuted in the past, and out of concern to not imperil said persons or Wikipedia in any way. Third, the template was nominated for deletion without the nominator engaging in any discussion on the talk page beforehand. Fourth, the template is still in its infancy, undergoing discussion, ad hoc, and not yet finalised. Lastly, the nominator's insinuations of the template being "ridiculous" and implications that related behaviour is analogous to trolling/vandalism obviates not only the contributions of users who have weighed in on the topic but calls to question the judgement of the nominator. So, who should be disappointed here? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my statement that the template is ridiculous. I'm allowed to say that; it's a comment on the template, not its creator (which apparently is indeed someone other than EPA; sorry about that). WP:NPOV applies to articles and the templates attached to them, not to discussion on talk pages. While talk pages aren't a free-for-all (we aren't, for instance, supposed to debate the underlying political issues on talk pages of politics-related articles) there is nothing untoward about citing Wikipedia guidelines and policy and pointing out that legal threats are unfounded in this context. My only reference to trolling/vandalism was that your acts bordered on vandalism and that as an established user I expected a higher standard of conduct from you, since you know better than to do things like remove deletion tags while a debate is in progress. Nor do I feel that I was obligated to discuss this template on the talk page before nominating it, since it blatantly violates Wikipedia policy and guidelines - being both a disclaimer template and a legal threat - and no mixture of edits would change this. If a template is salvageable, it should indeed be fixed. This one isn't. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The key to all of this is: in your opinion. What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. And I'm allowed to say and maintain that the TfD is similarly ridiculous and mildly inappropriate. You evincing 'blatant violations of policy' does not make it so, nor does it obviate significant discussions and citations for and against beforehand (and I've been keeping track of the Village Pump chat too, as well as being involved on the election talk page). This ad hoc template is, after all, dynamic: a template once changed can be changed again. Even an opponent who initated the chat on the Village Pump suggested editions to the template that may yet be incorporated; you went ahead and nominated it for deletion anyway. I've since read up on TfDs (being fairly virginal regarding TfDs) and regret removing the tag (mea cupla), but I'd expect higher standards from any Wikipedian before making such a nomination. Ditto for nonsensical accusations of 'borderline vandalism', which stem from efforts to compromise the integrity of Wp. And as any glance at the above and the election discussion page will clearly show, you couldn't be more wrong about that and, arguably, this. Lastly and frankly, I'm rather unconcerned if you're disappointed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, if the template is going to be added for a grand total of three hours, what's the big deal? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it violates Wikipedia policy and it sets a bad precedent. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have stated that the template is both a threat, and a disclaimer. It is neither. It is no more a threat, than a copyright notice is; and we don't ban those; it is simply making people aware of something they may not be aware of. And I don't see how it is a disclaimer ... you'll have to explain that one further Nfitz 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's a disclaimer because it reads, in part, "This article contains information about the current Canadian election. It is likely to contain information that is speculative or unverifiable in nature." If that statement isn't a disclaimer, then nothing is. And your analogy with copyright law is flawed because the Wikimedia Foundation is in the U.S. and is therefore subject to American copyright laws. Conversely, the Foundation is not subject to Canadian election laws, not being based in Canada. It's true that a Canadian citizen could get in trouble for posting information that violates Canadian law. But that doesn't justify a disclaimer. A Chinese citizen could get in trouble for reading, or posting, certain information related to Tibet, Taiwan, or Falun Gong. A German citizen might get in trouble for reading the Swastika article since it contains a banned depiction of that symbol. A Saudi citizen could get in trouble for reading... well, too many articles to mention here. Shall all of them have disclaimer templates as well? We need to look beyond the specifics of this case and see what kind of a precedent we are setting. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - How is this any more a disclaimer than Template:Future film? If your troubled by the wording, edit it. I'll grant you the copyright comment ... And how is it a legal warning? I don't see how a 3-hour notification of what the law is, is going to set a precedent to tagging anything China doesn't like with a warning ... let's be realistic here. Nfitz 08:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or: how is this substantially different from the usual Template:Future election template (the part-basis for the nominated template) which states: "This article or section contains information about an upcoming election. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content about candidates may change dramatically as the election approaches and more information becomes available"? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the question is posed to me: this shouldn't be a big deal, as the template is ad hoc. Essentially, Canada is a big place. Voters will be going to the polls across Canada at staggered times, and the Canada Elections Act/Elections Canada prohibits the posting of any results until all polls are closed in all ridings nationwide so as not to potentially affect voter intentions and results elsewhere (namely in Western Canada). The template is intended to address the possible improprieties of posting results prematurely and given a prior instance when a Canadian was charged for doing just that online. If the question is posed to the nominator, of course I can't answer that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 10:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, Wikipedia:No legal threats is quite essential to the funtioning of the project. Also, we don't need to explicitly tell people that we might be wrong, since I think they're pretty much able to figure that out themselves. - ulayiti (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mirror Vax 11:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is in no way contrary to WP:NLT, it is a mere statement of the relevant Canadian law. I find it somewhat ironic that those who object to this discussion on First Amendment grounds feel free to try to prevent me (the original author of the template) from citing Canadian law in an educational manner. Surely it is educational to inform non-Canadians that Canada imposes a blackout on official results until the close of all polls: the U.S. does not do so because the declaration of results is the responsability of individual states, most other countries do not have to run staggered polling times. Surely it is only honest to point out that any results appearing on the page before that time cannot be officially verified. Commons:Template:Nazi symbol is a precedent for warning users against possible law infrigement, as are many of the image copyright tags. If any user feels that the First Amendment gives them the right to flout foreign criminal law, they should read the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the LICRA v. Yahoo! case (the relevant extract is at the bottom of that article). Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida is not part of the Ninth Circuit. Their goofball rulings regarding LICRA v. Yahoo! are irrelevant here. --Aaron 14:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep accurate & useful. - Hayter 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Against the policy. bogdan 14:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nicely worded template that will be in use for a couple of hours only. This is not censorship, but a disclaimer to allow Canadians to avoid legal threats from their government. Also agree with Physchim62. Kusma (討論) 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak, conditional keep. I don't mind keeping the template if we eliminate the assertion that any pre-10 EST results are "speculative, unverifiable, and unreliable, and may be removed." The Canadian Press numbers reported in eastern media before 10 EST are exactly the same type of numbers that will be reported after 10 EST. The 10 p.m. threshold will make no difference in data quality. -- Ray Oiler 14:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, usefully informs users of what seems like a genuine concern. But prevent any attempts to systematically remove source information from the article, e.g. "X news channel in eastern Canada reports results Y." Christopher Parham (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, it would be wrong to remove results others have posted. What makes it difficult though, is that it is very difficult for us to verify the results. On the other hand, if the preliminary results all come in, showing Newfoundland and Labrador voted entirely for the Bloc Québécois, me might think that they should be removed! Nfitz 18:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, obviously such information would have to be sourced, and we can judge the validity of the source as with anything else; personally I would say that major local or any national press/news source would be acceptable sources. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How authoritative were media sources during the 2000 US presidential election? This issue concerns (results for) the Canadian federal election: since Elections Canada is solely responsible for administrating Canadian federal elections and for issuing and disseminating results (including to media), it's arguable that media sources are wholly legitimate in the period prior to their official/proper release. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regardless of whether it violates Wikipedia policy the election's going to be over before this debate. JYolkowski // talk 18:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's why it is ad hoc. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- But what about the next election? It's unlikely that there will be any clear victor in this election, and there will be yet another one within 9-18 months. If there was to be another TFD in 2 weeks to remove this, because it is not of any use, then that is fine. But to establish precedent this vote should be based on the issue of whether the template is appropriate at this time. Nfitz 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a serious matter, Canadians have been charged for posting this information on the internet. Considering this article is of primary interest to Canadian editors, it is appropriate to inform them of their responsibility under Canadian law.--Colle 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is no reason to delete, it serves an important function and, well, what harm does it do? Mikkerpikker ... 19:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Pluribus. Circeus 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the reason for this notice, so far as I can see, is largely to caution Canadians who may unknowingly violate the laws, and be prosecuted, which has happened before. It is not a threat, and may not be applicable to Wikipedia itself or anyone outside Canada, but it is definitely a matter which should concern the Canadian users. It is also useful to warn people that the results posted may not be accurate. Ikh (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The Supreme Court had ruled it was legal to post results. Wikipedia is hosted on a US based server. As long as someone in a northern US state posts it, it's is 100% legal. Tawker 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its not a legal threat, nor is it censorship. Its merely a warning to Canadians not to trust the posted results until elections Canada posts official results. It is a prudent thing to do and since its going to be gone as soon as Elections Canada posts their official results - it serves a useful purpose. LinuxDude 07:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We cannot be and will not be a slave to Canadian censorship nor can we censor ourselves because of it and that includes unduly burdening ourselves for the sake of a foreign power, we don't censor ourselves by not posting information about the Falun Gong even though the Chinese government censors information about it. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not censorship, it does not forbid or prevent in any way posting from Canadians, but warns them of the potential legal problems. Circeus 14:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you Jtkiefer have read the details about the debate. No one is saying that anyone should stop Americans, Chinese, Serbians from posting on the site (where they would reference verifiable data from, is a bit of a mystery though). It's just a notice. This seems much less minor that the Nazi template but I don't see anyone upset about that one! Nfitz 17:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes: and let's remember what Wikipedia is – an encyclopedia – and that it is not a pulpit for unregulated free speech (no matter where you are) nor a news service. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is it any more a disclaimer than the message on the Hurricane Katrina article. Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not our responsibility to provide legal advice to people of specific countries in this way. --Improv 18:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This template will be informative in a useful way to potential editors, and is a fair strategy to help try to avoid (or at least reduce) what seems likely to turn into a temporary edit war on election day (given the discussion on Talk:Canadian federal election, 2006). --GrantNeufeld 22:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. If Canada has a problem with Wikipedia providing data ahead of time, they can order Canadian ISPs to block it. It's not our problem. --Aaron 14:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your missing the point. The purpose isn't to stop people posting results, or even to stop Canadians seeing results. It's simply to give Canadians fair notice that a) the results may not be reliable, as there are no verifiable sources until 10 pm Eastern, and b) implications if they start posting results themselves! I'd be thrilled to see the results posted early; but still support the use of the template Nfitz 15:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template on the Canadian election page now is not Template:ElectionResultsCA. I'm voting strong delete on Template:ElectionResultsCA. --Aaron 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewording to eliminate Speculative; "unofficial esrimates", perhaps?Septentrionalis 16:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Speculative" etc. is in the current "future election" template, a prototype for this one; otherwise, it's six or one-half dozen. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until 10 pm EST tonight. Then delete all you want. There. Now everyone's happy. Ground Zero | t 19:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The words in the copyright template Posting copyrighted material without the express permission of the copyright holder is a violation of applicable law established as precident that Wikipedia sometimes do post comments with respect to various laws. I don't see how the template's wording is any different. With respect to whether to remove early returns, we should not discuss it here. --Hurricane111 00:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not censorship. Although I think the wording could use work. It's on par with the copyright notice, IMHO, and doesn't infringe on anyone's ability to read or edit, nor does it suggestion that they should read or edit JamesLikesBeer 00:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's only needed for another couple hours. However if it's a concern to enough people, perhaps a Wikipolicy should be created with regards to the posting of election results, perhaps before the next American election. 23skidoo 01:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slow but Speedy Delete - It should be speedied after 10 pm EST. Before then, it should be kept. - Cuivienen 01:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a simple current events template, more suitable because the pages are specifically related to the Canadian election. I really see no reason why this should even be an issue. Plus, the wording has been changed so for all of you out there, who don't want to be "a slave to Canadian censorship," it looks good. And I'm not to sure about deleting it at the stroke of 10 est, maybe midnight, to allow for the numbers to be uploaded. --Jay(Reply) 01:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as for comments above. Anyway, guys, just remember that this template will be definitely useless after ~~4:00~~ 3:00 UTC. So, just let's take a speedy whatever decision. --Angelo 01:34, 24 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 as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User does not trust Jimbo edit

pointless, unhelpful, and has no links to it anyway. Derex 01:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the message but until a consensus is reached banning such userboxes, this has as much validity as the "this user trusts Jimbo" UBs I've seen. That being said, if it's not used, I can see grounds for deletion. - Hayter 13:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "This user thinks that Jimbo is a godless Commie" Is an attack and doesn't belong here. The category with it's porn site reference needs to go also. Rx StrangeLove 15:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems to be an attack template (does this apply under the attack page CSD?). It's also a personal attack against Jimbo (and therefore User:Jimbo Wales. I have no comment on the entire userbox issue... but this goes a bit too far. Maybe it can be rewritten, but this form should be deleted nevertheless.
Speedy delete, blatant personal attack. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:27, 21 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.