Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 8

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

January 8 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. -Splashtalk 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sp-sprotected edit

This invents an extension to WP:SEMI by templatizing the notion of semi-permanent semi-protect. George W. Bush may be a special case, but it doesn't need a template for it, since that comes to imply that the template can be used elsewhere when there is no mandate in policy, or in the discussion surrounding that policy. Indeed, many of the supporters of WP:SEMI were clear that they did not want to see such semi-permanent protection. -Splashtalk 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I find this discreet note much less distracting and more suitable than Template:sprotected. And especially on articles expected to be semi-protected for long periods of time (like the GWB-article), this less dominating note should be more than suficcient. Shanes 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this template gives scope creep to WP:SEMI. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, encourages scope creep, should be discussed at WP:SEMI first. Kappa 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xaosflux, Kappa Lezek 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. George W. Bush is not going to be un-semi-protected for more than a few hours at a time within the next couple years. Several other articles also face similar, albeit less extreme, long-term vandalism problems. —Guanaco 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ugly, unnecessary as there is a far better alternative, and distinctly amateurish-looking. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's meant to be small. If it's ugly or amateurish-looking, fix it. —Guanaco 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks/wangi 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until (if ever) there is a change to WP:SEMI for long-term semi-protection. Even then, this template doesn't explain the reason for the protection and is too unobtrusive. When semi-protection is used it should be clearly stated and a reason given. This is even more true for highly visible pages that new people to wikipedia may hit (lest they think that protection is the normal behavior). kenj0418 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.It doesn't give enough info into why the page is semi-protected.--Dakota ~ ε 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. —Guanaco 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and less distracting. It could maybe be a bit bigger with a table box around it, but I think it's good as a smaller alternative. -Mysekurity 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Less distracting for pages that are unlikely to be un-semiprotected, such as Bush. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 10:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary. JYolkowski // talk 22:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep There is a need for the notice to be small for long term semi's. --rogerd 04:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) sprotected-small does the job just as well --rogerd 20:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there isn't because we have the non-misleadingly titled {{sprotected-small}}, which is correctly named and doesn't templatise extensions to policy. -Splashtalk 19:44, 13 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]
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 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Byzantine-Arab War edit

I've already merged it into Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest. Palm_Dogg 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the Battle of Syllaeum, mentioned in the "Byzantine-Arab War" template, isn't itself a "Muslim Conquest" per se, but a defeat that temporarily put a stop to further Islamic conquests in Europe. Possibly re-title "The Muslim Conquests" into something slightly different? — TheKMantalk 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the idea is that the series of wars as a whole is termed the "Muslim Conquests", not that each individual battle is necessarily one. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Loopy e 04:29, 11 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 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User de-5 edit

Template:User de-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • I wonder if your personal attacks are _necessary_ to put through these deletions? Much easier to try and discredit a person than discussing policies, Ilmari. --Fenice 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to WP:POINT is not a personal attack. Also, in this case I think Ilmari Karonen's suspicion is quite valid. Creating a sister template for a template that is nominated for deletion before any consensus is reached, particularly when you yourself did not intend to use it, seems to me like a good reason to bring up WP:POINT. Generally speaking, I'd like to suggest that you calm down and assume good faith. EldKatt (Talk) 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Rhobite tells me that I cannot be defended from your insults, EldKatt, because even repeated insulting comments cannot be deleted on this page. Claiming someone is trying to make a point is of course a personal attack. Have a look at WP:AGF. You know this policy. You are citing it right here. Are you never embarrassed? I have asked you and Ilmari several times to stop harrassing me. --Fenice 17:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, continuing this discussion would not lead to anything positive for either you or me. Before I take a much-needed vacation from this whole conflict, I want to point out that I have not lied about anything here or anywhere else, and I have not insulted or attacked you or anyone else. I regret to say that I lack the energy to deal with this conflict (although honestly I doubt it can be dealt with at the time of writing), and this is the last you will hear from me regarding this issue. (I'm cross-posting this to relevant pages.) EldKatt (Talk) 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-standard template, and per nominator. — TheKMantalk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-standard Babel template, for the same reasons as for {{User en-5}}. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with category outside of babel heirarchy (eg. "Professional copy-editor (German)"). Again, I'm against the user-4 category as well but it's easier to create something on wikipedia than to remove it. A four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and "native or native-like" is plenty as far as i'm concerned. ntennis 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per en-5 discussion. Rhobite 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, obviously. The proposed policy was not opposed by anyone. It should have been discussed first before putting it up on deletion.--Fenice 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Replace with professional writer category. -- Sneltrekker 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A policy does not yet exist making these professional languages illegal. I have no problems with people that want to claim this.--God of War 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to a more appropriate location, not de-5. This has the same problems as en-5 and does seem to have been made to provide an argument against deletion in the en-5 debate. - Cuivienen 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the result of the debate for en-5 will, in a way, set a precedent for either deleting or keeping this template (although there's a lot more of a consensus here). I vote delete, though, with the reasoning I have already explained at en-5. EldKatt (Talk) 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5 discussion. --Fang Aili 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5 -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per en-5, and as a possible WP:POINT violation. Lord Bob 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Changes likes these to the babel system should be discussed on meta and not on a single language version of Wikipedia. If we follow this course, the babel system would mean different things on each language version of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. --Maitch 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it already does: the xx-4 levels are nonstandard extensions. They're not used on meta or commons, even though quite a few Wikipedias have adopted them. But I agree that we don't really need more nonstandard levels. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know and I don't agree to level 4 either, but I wasn't around at that point. If it is discussed at meta and they have found a consensus then it's fine, but I don't like you unilaterally changing things - and the fact that you didn't even have discussed a policy makes it even worse. --Maitch 17:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is not harmful to the purpose of WP. --Dschor 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not useful to the purpose of WP. --Doc ask? 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5. --Angelo 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More nonsense templates for peoples personal pets. Djegan 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • En-5 was kept waitng for policy. [1]. Since this tfd is about the exact same issue I believe that it should follow suit and this discussion be listed as a no-consensus.
  • Keep and await babel policy per en-5. --Alf melmac 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:20, 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. -Splashtalk 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Holiday edit

Template:Holiday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only edited once, back in September 2004; I don't know if this template is even used on any pages. In addition, a better template (Template: Infobox Holiday) has been created and is being added to holiday articles (like Christmas, Yom Kippur). joturner 13:25, 8 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 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:He edit

The template makes the Hebrew text look butt ugly. JB82{ * } 03:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't look "butt ugly" to me (maybe check your installed fonts?), and adding the TfD notice seems to have broken the markup for every use of this template. android79 06:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep font can be easily changed. Improve don't delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how "butt ugly" would be a criterion for the deletion of anything on a wiki; if it is ugly, make it look pretty. EldKatt (Talk) 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is butt ugly you say? {{sofixit}}. If "butt ugly" were a criterion for deletion in real life, I would have been deleted long ago. (sorry, no picture to prove my assertion will be provided... you'll just have to trust me!) Thank goodness it is not. It shouldn't be here, either. Keep unless technical reasons why it cannot ever be made to work (in a way that honors WP:AUM) are provided. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The question is not whether it can be made to "work", but whether it can ever be useful for anything. Maybe this template does have a valid use, but I can't think of what it would be. Hebrew text on Wikipedia seems to work just fine without it. (By the way, What links here (which admittedly has been buggy lately) shows in being used on four pages, on three of which it is misused (missing parameter)!) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but change it to correspond to {{ar}} (minus the language link), and delete {{Ivrit}} which is then redundant. dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 9 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, pending whatlinkshere being reliable again. -Splashtalk 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-any edit

This image copyright tag is equivalent to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}{{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and apparently it isn't used anywhere. dbenbenn | talk 01:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Whatlinkshere has been acting strange lately. I have been seeing templates on pages that were absent from the lists. — Seven Days » talk 03:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I'll renominate it when the link lists are fixed. dbenbenn | talk 20:07, 9 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 02:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:flsr edit

No longer in use, as I have replaced this with the more-useful {{flsr box}} (see State Road 9336 (Florida) vs. its old state for an example). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:11, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_8&oldid=1140255194"