Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 18

< July 17	July 19 >

July 18, 2006 edit

Template:Anarchism table 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead end table created by now banned users User:RJII and User:Hogeye. Should be deleted. FrancisTyers · 23:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --AaronS 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Experiment in POV that would never find a practical use. Also assumes a certain rigidity of various philosophies which doesn't exist. Sarge Baldy 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But I'd like to note that contrary to what FrancisTyler said, the table was created by User:Infinity0 as can be seen in the History. He is known for creating POV forks like this. Hooke 02:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the info Mr. "one-edit" Hooke. Delete as hijacked by RJII and Hogeye, probably being misguided anyway. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misleading and unused.--Runcorn 21:44, 29 July 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.

Template:Actors in Tyler Perry Plays & Televison 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template riddled with redlinks of non-notable actors. Andrew c 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This template was nominated on the same day it was created, so I am not offended by the number of redlinks, especially since the editor who created the template is actively contributing and creating new articles, so presumably the redlink issue will be resolved in a relatively short amount of time. I admit I've never heard of any of those people, including Tyler Perry, but the article has (uncited) references to a couple of movies created by him being #1 in the box office, so he is presumably notable to some people, so perhaps his theater group is notable as well. Neil916 16:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This template is great. Wikipedia needs something for most of the actors that play on Tyler Perry, and most of the redlinks are resolved by now. By the way, Tyler Perry is a multi-millionaire who has greated many movies and plays.

Candyo32 18:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(the above comment was added by the author of the template) Neil916 20:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the issues raised by the nominator seem to be resolved.--Runcorn 21:37, 29 July 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.

More television series user templates 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 all obsolete templates. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates two groups have basically the same look, so master templates were created that could handle variables to make it say the same thing those below are saying all in one template. Please note, I am a fan of both of these series and Monty Python below but see the need for reduction.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 20:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The users of the master templates will not be deprived of categorization nor sub-categorization of their user pages in the appropriate categories or sub-categories. - LA @ 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who edit

{{User Doctor Who Doctor}} replaces...

Star Trek edit

{{User Star Trek series}} replaces...

Discussion edit

Delete obsolete, per nom.--Andrew c 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it'll be better to have one template rather than 6. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 00:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not only for the Star Trek templates, but the Doctor Who templates as well...I created 2 user templates to replace 16. Good bargin isn't it? - LA @ 06:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doctor Who user boxes. Obsolete, per nom. (I'll switch over too.) --Billpg 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain Star Trek user boxes. I don't use any of these. --Billpg 09:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The new solutions are much nicer. --Marcus-e 10:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice work. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep original - There was a mass splitting up of such templates months ago due to the fact that it uses meta-templates. --Jamdav86 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though I appreciate Lady Aleena's idea, I think it would be such a shame to delete templates dedicated to different Star Trek series. Every series is unique and has its audience. Therefore, not every trekkie who likes the Voyager or Enterprise series (such as myself) is a fan of, say, the original series from the 60s. As Star Trek has existed as a phenomenon for almost 40 years, I feel it would be a terrible mistake to lump all the trekkies together under one heading. Besides, every template enables any Wikipedian to locate other contributors who share an interest in the same series. RedZebra 16:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Does your keep vote also apply to the Doctor Who infoboxes? The text of these boxes say "X has been a fan since the nth Doctor." (My emphasis). Implication that X is a fan of all Doctors from the nth to the 10th and the hypothetical 11th, 12th and 13th doctors. Thoughts? --Billpg 16:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer ~~My keep vote applies to templates related to Star Trek series.~~ I abstain from voting in the matter concerning the Doctor Who userboxes. RedZebra 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - After extensive testing on my user page I have come to a conclusion that the premise on which I based my "keep" vote had been flawed. I may be able to command any Intrepid class starship, but early 21 century userboxes are obviously a mistery to me. Whatever the final decision might be, my condition to have the ability to clearly identify all the Wikipedians who are fans of a particular Star Trek series is apparently met either way. I should also like take this opportunity to thank The ed17 for his kind offer to save the current userboxes from cyber oblivion on his user pages. RedZebra 19:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RedZebra, but userfy them via WP:GUS. Put them here if you want--User:the_ed17/GUS userboxes the_ed1 7 17:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Still Keep but per RedZebra's slashed comment. And thanks for the thanks. :) Oh, and my vote only applies to the Star Trek boxes, the "Doctor Who" boxes need to be merged.~~ the_ed1 7 21:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete I read further down. the_ed1 7 21:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The redundant ones, the new userboxes replace them quite nicely. —Mi ra 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the new ones seem to do everything the old ones did. --Brian Olsen 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I am opposed to the German solution for userboxes. They should stay where they are in the templates area. However, I am for the merging of like templates into one so that it does not become over cluttered. I would rather type {{User Star Trek series}} than {{User:Someuser/Someuser's userboxes/User Star Trek series}}. The 2nd is intolerable and way too long and even gives a sense of ownership to the user hosting the box. So, that is why I merged the templates into one, so that the opposition to userboxes can see that even a fan can keep things within a reasonable limit. I am already searching for the next group to merge. - LA @ 21:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Brian Olsen and Mira - no need for multiple different templates when one does the same job. --Gperrow 02:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see you got the switches working. =3 This isn't so much a deletion as it is a consolidation, in my eyes. By the way, is it possible for a template redirect to specify a parameter? If so, that might be a good idea, for these ones we're potentially deleting. Maybe. Luna Santin 08:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consolidation and I would be happy to have a go at diverting the old templates to the new if this is consensus. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Star Trek only). Regarding the Star Trek templates, it would be better off to have the seperate series because therer are some people who like one particular series, but not care for another. I for like ', but do not care whatsoever for ' and I suspect that there is someone in Wikipedia who is the exact opposite of me on the Star Trek shows who would like to keep the shows seperate. Chris 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I strongly recommend you have a closer look at {{User Star Trek series}}, because it's more complicated than I think you know. Users can easily specify, with a simple parameter, that they're a fan of one series or another. {{User Star Trek series|TOS}} and {{User Star Trek series|TNG}}, for example, will produce the relevant results. Have a look and see for yourself. Likewise, if they don't specify a particular series, the userbox won't, either. There's examples and a more detailed example at the template page, if you like. Luna Santin 14:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, belong in userspace per WP:TGS, not in template space. --Cyde↔Weys 23:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep. There is much debate among Star Trek fans on which show is the best. It helps to show who we really are inside.~~ User: Lord Hawk 02:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, the Star Trek series template that should replace the other 6 will categorize users under the proper show. That is the power of that template, it does more than show you are a fan of a specific series, it puts you in a category of the specific series of which you are a fan. - LA @ 18:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it would be a good idea to clearly state in the introduction that this is a technical change which is not going to deprive the Star Trek community of separate categories related to specific series, particularly in view of the fact that this is exactly the point that has been a cause of much misunderstanding (of which I was the first victim). RedZebra 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace not needed in template space. Eluchil404 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried the new Star Trek User template and it it much cleaner and easier to use. And you can still put your favorite series (ST:TNG) which I like. My initial comments from July 20th have been struck through as a result. Chris 12:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since now we get more bang for the buck! plange 04:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I much prefer the new template.--Runcorn 21:34, 29 July 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.

Template:Legaldisclaimer 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. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 04:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV, often limited geographical scope, redundant with Wikipedia:General disclaimer. — Jul. 18, '06 [19:18] <freak|talk>

Delete redundant and confusing, all the liability disclaimer stuff already exists and can be easily found linked from the footer of every page so there's no need for an extra warning template. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no disclaimer templates.--Andrew c 22:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep legal disclaimers I will support. See how it is used in Irwin_Schiff. This could save WP liability on legal matters, a very serious issue in the States. On all other disclaimers I have taken the position of delete, in this case I feel the legal protection of making it clear we do not endorse nor offer legal advice is well worth having a disclaimer. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to {{legally frivolous}} The template is intended (and used) specifically for articles containing links to sites advocating legal positions that have been declared frivolous by the courts. Such positions are universally rejected by the relevant body of experts in the strongest manner possible, and so labelling them is verifiable and NPOV. The caveat has at least as broad geographic scope as the links themselves: it acts as a service to non-US readers as well as US readers. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the new text. It makes clear the NPOV and Verifiable nature of the claim, and avoids being a disclaimer, while providing a service to readers. I modify my vote to propose renaming in accordance with the new text. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has been argued many times, the existence of some additional per-article disclaimers outside the general disclaimer (and especially Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer) may actually increase our liability on those pages which do not have the disclaimer. Heck, for all I know, it may increase our liability on pages that do have the disclaimer, since the template's disclaimer is (naturally) far less detailed than the one at Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but rename to something specifically referencing external links, and rewrite a bit to make it clear that this is not so much a disclaimer to protect Wikipedia, but a caution to protect users who may visit such links. BD2412 T 00:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I don't have a strong opinion on this. To the extent Wikipedia includes this disclaimer as well as other general disclaimers and is therefore redundant, a little emphatic redundancy might not hurt -- and arguably would well serve Wikipedia readers as well as protect Wikipedia itself (maybe). I haven't done any research on the effect of such a disclaimer or how the legal disclaimer should be worded (or reworded, if at all). (Should we add that task to our list of things to do?) Yours, Famspear 02:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundancy. Also, doesn't this rather violate the NPOV, to go and put a big official-looking warning across the page? That sort of thing should be mentioned in the article itself, and only if sourceable, not disruptively emphasized. (e.g. "Within the fooian courts, this position has repeatedly been declared frivolous (citations need to go here)", rather than, "Party x opposes the mainstream view, but THEY'RE ADVANCING A FRIVOLOUS LEGAL POSITION!!! DON'T LISTEN TO THEM!!!".) --tjstrf 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We are talking about links to advice so bad that following it can get you fined or sent to jail. "Frivolous" does not mean simple, "outside the mainstream." It is being used in the technical legal sense of positions so thoroughly and repeatedly discredited that courts can and do impose substantial penalties on those who waste the courts' time by arguing them. The imposition of such penalties, and therefore the frivolous nature of the arguments, is a matter of public record, and multiply cited in the cases where this template has been used. BD2412's suggestion to rename and rephrase sounds good, but I am not sure of the propriety of attempting it while a vote is in progress. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Renaming while a vote is in progress may break links, and is generally frowned upon (although I've done it....); rephrasing is fine. WP:Be Bold. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. We have a legal disclaimer already. Unless these things are written and advised by actual lawyers, don't use them. IANAL and most probably neither are you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed. I previously rephrased and left it in for about a week. Seeing no further comments, I decided to be bold and rename, since that seems to meet the objections of those who wish to delete while meeting the objectives of those who wish to keep. I have no objection to deleting the template redirect that resulted. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:52, 29 July 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.

Template:Italian general election, 2006-Senate-CdL 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 deletion, after subst. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use template containing multiple "fair-use" images. Subst and delete. User:Angr 15:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't it be better to remove the images, rather than deleting the template? --Soman 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were being used in multiple pages, like templates are supposed to be, yes. But since it's only being use in one page anyway, there's no reason not to subst it the one time it's used, putting the images into article space, and then delete the template. User:Angr 14:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a one-use thing, it should not be a template. Hbdragon88 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- 11:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Obviously subst before deleting. Ardric47 23:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as it is a one-off. As subst version can easily be copied if it is needed for the next election. --Runcorn 21:29, 29 July 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.

Template:Bha 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 deletion, given extra discusison on the Village Pump. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/(biographies)#Out-of-date material and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 July 2#Template:Age there is no place for dynamic content like this on wikipedia. It has a tendency to become false when the person dies or when wikipedia is printed (or put on CD). Template:Age was kept because it had other uses outside of the the article space but this has no other use. It is currently not being used. (It was being used by one article that I removed). Jon513 15:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template:Age's TfD established that it should not be used in infoboxes. This is effectively the same thing, so I'm voting to delete per consensus there. --ais523 16:24, 18 July 2006 (U T C)

Keep. Regardless of where it is used, it is a convenient extension of the age template, that we decided to keep. It is used with partial substitution, so backlinks are no indication for usage. For a printed version we could create a different result, like we do e.g. for external links and for Template:ed (backlinks edit).--Patrick 23:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do you envision a different result? (especially as you claim it is subst'ed, that would be very hard). Jon513 23:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With CSS, like class="noprint" in Template:ed (backlinks edit).--Patrick 00:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added that, it works fine. A CD can either have the same content as the printed version, or we can add another class.--Patrick 07:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unprofessional. An encyclopedia is meant to last for a long time, not become outdated every year. What if the person dies and it is not updated! You can't expect an article always to be updated. see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/(biographies)#Out-of-date material. Jon513 00:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Even so, I updated the template so that the age is not printed, see above. When a person dies the article should be updated anyway.--Patrick 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." - it does not mean that we write thing in an unprofessional way. Jon513 17:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section needs updating, like was done on the Meta version. Let us not be restricted by old limitations that no longer apply, that would be unprofessional.--Patrick 23:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a message at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Age_in_biographical_articles in order to generate a wider consensus. If there is no response I would recommend we make this a centralized discussion. Jon513 17:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This template has no legitimate use on Wikipedia. Kaldari 17:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer it seems to me that there is a consensus to delete this template at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Age_in_biographical_articles]. Jon513 11:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't the debate be here, not on VPP?--Runcorn 21:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May occasionally be useful.--Runcorn 21:27, 29 July 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.

Template:Latest preview release/X.Org Server 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is useless, as seen on X.Org Server. Chealer 09:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Neil916 01:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless.--Runcorn 21:17, 29 July 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.

Monty Python user templates 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 Userfy per WP:GUS. I do believe a compromise has been reached. Please remove these from template space by 2006-08-08. At that time I will come through and delete whatever redirects or templates are left, as I've found that the German userbox solution doesn't work too well without deadlines. But one week should be more than long enough to userfy this stuff, fix all of the redirects, and have everything continue to work as it does now. --Cyde↔Weys 21:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin please let us explore the compromise. Thank you. - LA @ 04:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User Monty Python}} replaces...

All of these templates are basically the same, so a master template was created that could handle variables to make it say the same thing those above are saying all in one template.
—Lady Aleena talk/contribs 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The messages are not fixed on the master template, so the user can create a whole new message if desired. So the possibilities with the master template are only limited by the user's imagination. I just intergrated the nine current ones and added a few of my own. Currently there are about 11 or 12 examples with the template. - LA @ 18:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. Will the variables work with the redirects? - LA @ 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS. There are now 31 different messages with various Monty Python links already made and ready for copy-n-paste to a user page. - LA @ 01:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPPPS. I added asterisks to the ones with the same layout as the master template, and noted the basic differences of the others. - LA @ 18:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Monty Python user templates edit

Redirect all 9 to new master template which covers them all or userfy the 9. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Have a single master template with 9 options that create the various individual templates. Dark Shikari 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are redundant. —Mi ra 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse consolidation and I would be happy to have a go at diverting the old templates to the new if this is consensus. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why take nine bottles into the shower when you can take one? Anyway, this discussion is far too silly, start the next ~~sketch~~TfD! — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I use this template and not sure why the opposition unless I'm missing something? Sounds like we can have it and even be more creative by adding our own quotes. -plange 14:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or permit move to userspace, particularly the one about the Messiah as it is speedyable under T1 BigDT 18:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reason for the change is that I tried the new User template and I like it. I was able to create one with the Spam sketch and it work great. My initial vote of keep has been struck through. Chris 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Monty Python user templates edit

Userfy per WP:GUS. —Andux^? 06:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, we have a volunteer to take 'em, I see... BD2412 T 00:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Userfy - I'd be happy to host them. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 21:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Harmless amusement but should be kept in user space.--Runcorn 21:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Monty Python user templates edit

Keep There are many Python fans who like the show only and may not care for the movies. Chris 14:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are all different enough to have their own pages. Hamish (Talk) 11:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish everyone would just leave the userboxes alone. -Neural 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepBrakeman Billy 7/18/06 3:45 PM EST
They may all be similar, but why can't a person have multiple versions of it? I say do not delete. -PhattyFatt 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDudtz 6/18/06 3:09 PM EST
Keep. Ian¹³ /t 15:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy via WP:GUS. the_ed1 7 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take them on a user subpage of mine (per WP:GUS). Say here: User:the_ed17/GUS userboxes. Even if I'm not on, anyone can just put whatever userbox they want GUS'ed there. You have my permission. :) the_ed1 7 17:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely used, leave the userboxes alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorcoga (talk • contribs) 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The spanish inquisition one is radically differant from all the others (well perhaps not, but it still looks better than some of the others). Don't delete it, please! --David C 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all of the Monty Python templates use the same design. Also, why wasn't the inline coding used for the TfD notification? Douglasr007 23:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Douglasr007, most were of the same layout that it seemed to be the favorite, so I used it. And what is the difference between the way I did it and inline? I don't see what the problem is with it either way. - LA @ 07:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking because the inline coding is usually used for userboxes as opposed to the normal AfD notification coding. That's all. Douglasr007 07:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these should remain distinct in order to prevent the use of meta-templates. --24.20.50.7 05:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IP addy, why not have meta-templates? It is taking templates to whole new levels and keeping userboxes from getting out of control. I think that one reason people who want them eliminated dislike them so much is the over abundence of user templates for the same topic. Here is a solution that does not involved moving them out of template space, where they belong. - LA @ 07:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- so saith the Knights who say Ni Jim62sch 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - don't see what the fuss is about. Cain Mosni 01:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is band width that precious? Are we all silly English Kin Ig Hits? You fart in our general direction. Please do not dimiss a massive response against deletion as knee jerk. Redundant duplication may be bad, similar but variant duplication creates variety and enriches the culture. Delete police, please state reasons in the deletion template, not reference click reference click sort through an index, for objections please see protocol on display filed in a locked lavatory with a sign on the door saying beawre of the leopard. Whoops, sorry, wrong comic.Winstonwolfe 03:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All referenced sketches have their own fame. These templates do fall into the "userbox" fad, so keep'em hudd 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I really hope these don't personally offend anyone, and I don't see how they could. Silensor 08:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already in use by alot of people. Leave them alone. °˜§? Robom æ yhem: T/?§˜° 01:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, userfy or splunge. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I started out with {{User monty python alt}} and subst'd it. While I don't see how 9 templates are going to affect bandwidth, I do think it's more creative to just add your own quote, etc. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 13:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you have the option of "being creative", whilst other people have the option of using the existing fixed templates. Best of both worlds. It's not like there's a significant overhead. Cain Mosni 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... touché. Heh. — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • 06:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep for all Python templates. Cjmarsicano 04:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it shouldn't really be an issue. -- Nataly a 11:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's just a bit of fun, let us have our trinkets ;) I might agree to reducing the Nine and gradually introducing the new template to replace them -- S.Skinner 12:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Relax there is no good reason to delete or change any of them. This kind of BS is a waste of time on all fronts. Don't like them? Don't use them. Aborrows 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Relax I don'tthinks that there are good reason to delete the teplate about that kind of humour--Jonathaneo 12:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, damn it As everyone else who has voted on this discussion has pointed out: What the HELL? (Ibaranoff24 04:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, Keep and more Keep Other programs have their own - and these are defined enough to use as your favourite. Userfy possibly, but if people don't like them there is no obligation to use them! Batchelor 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!
Keep. --From Andoria with Love 06:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Monty Python user templates edit

{{babel|Camelot|Monty Python|Monty Python and the Holy Grail| is from Camelot, and eats ham and jam and spamalot}}

Comment: the proposed replacement will work within {{Babel}}—which is where many users have placed these templates—provided that the pipe symbols are replaced with {{!}}; see the example here which was produced with {{Babel|Camelot||Monty Python{{!}}Monty Python and the Holy Grail{{!}} is from Camelot, and eats ham and jam and spamalot}}. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why do you want to keep 9 user templates when 1 will do the same thing...and MORE! I have already seen someone using new variables and customizing the wording of the master template, and there is more that can be done with it. Why keep 9 static user templates? - LA @ 06:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... seems to be some knee-jerk opposition here. We do try, whenever possible, to avoid creating redundant and redundant material. "Duplicates existing template" is a valid reason for deletion, and if done properly the effects will pass unnoticed. This isn't some sneaky end-around on userbox deletion, it's just a straight-forward tidy of sloppy codesmanship. I'd say "delete" unless the advantages of redirection are made clear to me. I also note that while I never close TfD, in an AfD I'd ignore with extreme prejudice the non-arguments presented here.
brenneman ^{L} 10:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment I am vehemently and violently opposed to the German solution for userboxes. They should stay where they are in the templates area. However, I am for the merging of like templates into one so that it does not become over cluttered. I would rather type {{User Monty Pyton|text here|more text here}} than {{User:Someuser/Someuser's userboxes/User Monty Python}}. The 2nd is intolerable and way too long and even gives a sense of ownership to the user hosting the box. Also, it looks hideous. So, that is why I merged the templates into one, so that the opposition to userboxes can see that even a fan can keep things within a reasonable limit. I am already searching for the next group to merge. (I even said this at the top in the other templates I nominated, but it bears repeating here at the bottom of the page.)- LA @ 06:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now for something completely different --Aoratos 11:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I love this new template! I just created one of my own using LA's template proposal: {{User Monty Python}}
Comment - for those voting to keep, do you know you get to still have Python templates only now if you agree to the above proposal, you have more?? See the custom one I created just above. I couldn't do this before without creating one from scratch in my user space. Seems like people are not really getting what's being proposed or else I'm missing something myself. plange 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes. Do you realise that by voting to keep there's no obligation not to keep the new template? There is absolutely NO reason why the originals cannot co-exist with it, and by letting them disruption, or the onus on someone to change existing usage, is eradicated. Cain Mosni 18:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Consolodating the userboxes would be a good idea--it would allow all monty python fans to be tagged as Wikipedians who are MP fans. 199.201.168.100 18:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even more comments by LA @ 21:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Elderberries IS broken and unused.
- Nudge Nudge only has 2 people using it.
- Further reasons for deletion
  - Neatness - When I combine files on my computer, I delete the singular ones to make it easier to remember the combined file.
  - GUSed (userfied) templates are incompatable with the Babelbox.
  - Other shows are getting cut back, see the above Doctor Who and Star Trek user templates. Doctor Who not only had the 10 above deleted, but 1 other later on since it was adding to the master template, bringing Doctor Who to a staggering 11 user templates deleted.
- I am currently working on the next three groups of user templates to be merged with the singles deleted.
- The fewer user templates there are, the less those against them (and who want the entire lot deleted) can gripe. I am trying to avert a user template disaster with mergers.
- The compromise section was not meant to be for discussion.
- I did not mean for this to become a pitched battle, I swear I didn't know how determined some Pythonites can be. This was totally unexpected. I expected this from the Whovians and the Trekkies, but the Doctor Who WikiProject went so far as to include the merged template as an "official" Doctor Who user template before the others were even deleted. Winstonwolfe pointed out that this discussion has taken up more space than would have been saved, and that was NOT my intention.
- We an use some sandbox, but there it is not a sandbox one. I think, the using of template for representation of what the user like and what they don't like is a part of the wiki. The Pyython is an absolutly wonderful things and piece of humor, it can contribute to show to other people that we can laught of the most tiny thing. Template are not Babel, so, it i not an argument because we speak of two different things, one for tongue, the other for passion, and interesting point of view.--Jonathaneo 09:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC) --Jonathaneo 09:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise on Monty Python user templates edit

Out of the nine user templates, six have the same color scheme and image which are marked with asterisks in the list above. Would those who wish to keep be willing to part with those six if the three with a different color scheme or image are kept, though User elderberries has a redlinked image and is virtually unused. If you are willing to accept this compromise, please just sign below and strike your comment under keep.

As an aside, I expected a harsher reaction from the Whovians and Trekkies above, I didn't realize that Pythonites were so dedicated. - LA @ 20:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but I simply don't see why it is so damned important that any of them go. OK, so there's a new flexible template that allows new users to use any quote they choose. Fine and dandy. But why is it so important for some people to remove all (or as in this instance only some) of the existing ones which are already in wide use? I really, really, don't understand the obsession. There's an old adage: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Clearly for the people currently using the existing templates, it ain't broke, so why create all the extra work of forcing them to change? Would someone please explain to me in simple, logical terms why it is so over-archingly important that the old ones be removed?

It's not about dedication. It's about simple management logic. Cain Mosni 21:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the motivating factor is that if we don't switch, we'll be forced to use the German solution eventually...-plange 21:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the new one? The new template works better, someone went to all the trouble of creating it, and customizable userboxes are just plain cool imo. Also, you misunderstand the idiom "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is an argument about priorities, not against improvement. It's stating that you have better things to fix than the things that aren't broken. In other words, go fix something broken. If someone is going to go around fixing non-broken objects anyway though, and they work better than before, then opposing the change simply because the old version "wasn't broken" isn't practical, it's silly and anti-progressive. --tjstrf 22:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not misunderstand "if it ain't broke...". I'm afraid it's you who appears to lack comprehension. The principle is very simple - by all means design a better tap washer, and persuade the world to use it in all their new taps. That doesn't mean you have to go around the world dismantling every existing tap and replacing a washer which still works perfectly well. Hence - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and not "if it's new, don't use it". In this context, by all means let people use the new template if they desire. The new template may be "better" in some eyes. I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying that that is no argument for forcing people who are perfectly happy with what they already have to change just because you think it's cooler. It's just creating unecessary work.

I despair. I joined WP about 6 weeks ago, thinking yeah - this is a good use of my time. 6 weeks on and I'm coming around to the view of people who point their finger and laugh. It's nothing but one huge vanity project. It's full of people touting their own agenda (qv the current edit wars over whether Freddie Mercury, as a Parsee, was or wasn't Persian, and was or wasn't therefore Iranian), and petty bureaucrats who appear to drive change not because it achieves anything useful, but because they want to implement something. I'm not naming names. I'm not pointing fingers. It's a wider observation than just this one issue.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is absolutely no practical reason why the old and new templates cannot co-exist. The difference is a few hundred bytes of storage (and, I might add, a minute increase in processing overhead each time an instance of the more complex new template is rendered). The only reasons to remove the old and force a migration are bureaucratic. There is no support cost or overhead. There is no continued use cost or overhead. The only cost (man hours to change existing usage instances) is in implementing a forced migration. It flies contrary to all sensible engineering or data management. From now on, I'm just going to sit back and watch. Cain Mosni 23:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One final note - I just looked at WP:GUS, and guess what the guidelines actually explicitly say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". It's there in black and white. If it's not controversial don't tinker with stuff unless there's a reason to. Now, unless I'm missing something, Monty Python may be a lot of things but it's not controversial and subject to edit wars. Cain Mosni 23:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the bureacracy, then there's a simple solution: Just edit, don't involve yourself in all the meta stuff. Most of us just tolerate it as a necessary part of collaboration, while some of us actually enjoy it in our own twisted way. And 6+ redundant userboxes is indeed a form of "broken", and the replacement box is a compelling argument to counter those who vote to delete these as a type of userbox spam. If you really don't like the new box, or are so concerned about the load time, then just subst: yours. Simple enough. --tjstrf 23:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something, but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes:

"Splitting templates with multiple options into separate templates

Templates with multiple options should be split into separate templates where possible.

Merge duplicates of same template

Duplicates need to be merged, choose the most suitable, turning the one for removal into a redirect, and following the guide below from step 2."

That alone should pretty much wipe out the new multiple-use MP userbox.

On the other hand, if we don't follow this... I've looked at the new template, and it looks like, one could fairly simply use the same template for just about any topic/theme.

So on one hand, it goes against current guidelines. And on the other hand, it could be used to replace many existing userboxes (adding a programmable reference for box colour would further do this.)

- Jc37 09:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(A note on a post from 4 days ago) As an IT manager I fail to see any "management issue" here -- of course, this assumes that the database is properly set up, if it is not, fix that issue before addressing non-issues. As a user, I've yet to see any rational reason for the removal of user boxes -- I've seen a lot of piffle, and piss-poor excuses, but nothing that has the ring of validity.

Additionally, the "German solution" (more like an Endlösung) is a solution only Germans could come up with. (BTW my ancestory is German, so make no assumptions that this statement violates NPA). Jim62sch 15:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. This discussion must have used more time effort and band width than would be saved. :-) 2. I think the new template is very good, but I think deleting the old ones will just bug good wikipedia citizens. How about an evolutionary approach - introduce the new template, and see if people adopt it in preference to the others? 3. Thanks for pointing out the Whovians, I will go add their user box to my page :-) 4. I agree with the comments above, and can get frustrated with irresponsible bot weilding Spiny Normans who hide from accountability and constructive criticism behind miserable excuses about no precedents and accusations of wikilawyering. However that is not the case here. The way Lady Aleena has handled this matter with thorough consultation rather than unilateral action and attempts to find a compromise rather than dictating a solution is exemplary and, while respectfully disagreeing with her original proposal, I thank her for the decent manner in which she has pursued it. She deserves a shubbery.Winstonwolfe 07:28, 31 July 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.