Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 March 2)
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2, 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 subst and delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HAL edit

One-use template, itself merely a transclusion of {{Infobox Company}}. Subst and delete. —Cryptic (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus -> keep. However, the fair use image was removed, and therefore the objection made by two of the three users who voted delete does not apply anymore. Thus, it will be renamed Template:User quagmire approved because it is a userbox (of course, any pending userbox policy will apply to it) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quagmire approved edit

Template:Quagmire approved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Non-encyclopedic. Jason 17:15, 2 March 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 LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 22:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Routeboxca edit

Template:Routeboxca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I tried to shrink this, as I did successfully for {{infobox U.S. Route}} and {{infobox Interstate}}, and was reverted. This template is way too big, as it includes a full list of junctions with other routes. (See California State Route 1 for an extreme example.) Thus the only alternative is to delete it - all the information can be included without it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also created a decent-sized replacement - see User:SPUI/State Route 15 (California). This is comparable to the edits made to the Interstate and U.S. Route infoboxes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this routebox is used on many articles to good effect and is readily maintained and useful. SPUI nominated in bad faith because his was rejected.JohnnyBGood 19:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I nominated it to give the existing template a fair hearing, not a speedy keep by the wikiproject that owns it. Though I'm sure meatpuppets will give the same result here. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this box has worked well for almost a year now, is well liked by most, and well supported by the wikiproject in terms of both upkeep and feeling. It is only two long on and handful of articles and fixing that can be handled much more easily case by case.Gateman1997 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to fix it by removing the junctions, which should not be in an infobox. I was reverted. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You were reverted because they do belong in the infobox per consensus developed at the CA Highway Wikiproject. If you wanted to make a change it should have been brought up there.Gateman1997 02:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments First, I reverted SPUI in the first place since this was a major change to a template that is central to Wikipedia:WikiProject California State Highways and it was not thoroughly discussed on that Wikiproject's talk page. Secondly, interestingly I did post a question on WP:VPA on the size of the template, and the response to that was that "the answer is 'as big as it needs to be, but no bigger'" [1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A change I've reverted until consensus is reached. SPUI please refrain from being a unilateral policy setter... it's inapproriate.Gateman1997 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "policy" - it's common sense. Stop fucking up these articles with huge infoboxes. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remain civil, cussing and insults just detract from any point you are trying to make.JohnnyBGood 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm personally a minimalist (if everything could look like Elgin-O'Hare Expressway, that'd be great) but infoboxes are just another way of gathering together common data where I can find it easily. I can't see why an infobox larger than any given size, however arbitrary, can be bad, especially if it doesn't take away from the article. —Rob (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Rob. Also the images can be moved to the left... it's not hard.JohnnyBGood 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the text itself will be too narrow on small resolutions. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what? 8x600? I'm looking at it on 1024 and it would not act as you claim.JohnnyBGood 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Images are often 300px, and the infobox is about that size. Adding in 100px for the sidebar, that gives 700px, leaving only 100px for the text on 800x600. Not everyone uses a full-size browser window on larger resolutions either. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then shrink the image to 250. It's not hard.JohnnyBGood 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, then you get 150px. STILL TOO FUCKING SMALL. And 300px may be the smallest necessary to show a good amount of detail. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then leave it after the routebox. It looks fine there. Also anyone using 8x6 needs an upgrade anyway. No OS will be actively supporting that in the next year or so.JohnnyBGood 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Often a map can do a much better job of presenting a summary of a route than a huge multipage list of all junctions. Thus it should be near the top. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IF that's your view then move the map to the top left before any text.
I've already explained why that's a problem. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dear reader. Your computer is not good enough to view Wikipedia. Please buy another one. Yours, The Management." Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it sounds harsh but it's a fact. 6 years ago 6x4 fell by the wayside, 10 years ago 3x2 did. Resolutions eventually are replaced by higher res it's a fact of computer life. 8x6 is at the end of its useful life. I'd be shocked if Vista supports it for anything other the legacy purposes.JohnnyBGood 22:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not creating an encyclopaedia for Vista. I want to create an encyclopaedia for everyone. You are placing the restrictions necessary to view Wikipedia even higher. Not every Wikipedia user is a US computer nerd, so not every Wikipedia user can be expected to have the latest equipment. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True they aren't, I certainly am not. But they are ALL computer users. And computer users are eventually all forced to upgrade. No one still uses Win 3.11 to surf the net. Heck I'd be surprised if anyone on here is a Win 95 user anymore. And once support for Win 98 and ME dies in June those users will start upgrading too. Support for Mac OS 9 has also come to an end and those users are all in the process of upgrades. And most Linux users are "nerds" anyway so they're usually quite cutting edge in their Hardware. The fact is there is no reason to cater to anyone lower then 1024 beyond this year. But even that aside the page is still quite viewable with a picture on the left and infobox on the right. It may not be pretty but at 8x6 nothing is anyway. Most websites are 1024 optimized these days anyway as are most programs.JohnnyBGood 23:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1) I have come across Win 9x computers in web cafes in the Middle and Far East. 2) Those with visual impairments will continue to use very large resolutions. A lot of effort goes into designing Wikipedia's look, particularly the main page, so that all screen resolutions can view happily. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then might I suggest a less drastic alternative to deletion or a major redesign... shink the width of the box slightly. Most of the width is blank space right now anyway...JohnnyBGood 23:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried shrinking it to remove the junction list, and was reverted. Maybe after this is done I'll do it again. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and shrink This is an utterly horrendous template. So much information is packed into it on California State Route 1 as to lose the prominence of the article. The attempt is not to fit as much information into as small a space as possible, but to present a reasonable amount of information as would be useful for a summary view of the subject. This isn't WikiData! That said, the template itself is useful. The current implementation is all but useless. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sam Korn but remove a lot of info, e.g. all the city information used in California State Route 1. That is clearly a case where the infobox is a bad way to present this information. No infobox should be larger than one screen on 1024x768. Kusma (討論) 23:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, {{infobox CA Route}} is not only a shrinking but a slight redesign, and it would not be possible to simply edit {{routeboxca}} to convert - the articles themselves must be changed over. I did this successfully a while ago with {{infobox rail}}, but in that case there was no one reverting my improvements. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue removing all junctions is a MAJOR redegisn as your box is. However limiting routes that get too long (ie CA1, 99, US 101 in CA) to only major interchanges would accomplish the same thing without removing the junction list, which the majority of the CA wikiproject users oppose. Please view the changes I've made to CA-1JohnnyBGood 23:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listing all the junctions in an infobox, intended to give a general idea of where the road is, is too much for any route. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there are under 10 I whole heartedly disagree. Take CA 9... there is no way that is too long.JohnnyBGood 00:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is too long, even if the legend were to disappear. A map could convey the general information much more easily and in less space. Infoboxes are not for details like that. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they are. Look at the planetary infoboxes or any other infoboxes. Besides the legend there is nothing in those boxes that isn't equivalent to the figures in a planetary infobox.JohnnyBGood 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shit. That's too big too. If I cared about planets I'd take that on. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The planet infobox i.e. Saturn conveys a lot of useful information for people interested in the planets' technical aspects. So does this one. They're big, but I don't see it as unsightly or a need to eliminate the information displayed in this format. However, maybe reducing the legend's size and/or the infobox's width would be acceptable to help accommodate those using lower resolutions. TransUtopian 01:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is generally accepted by the CASR WikiProject, has served even as a model for other state routeboxes (WA, KY, NY, TX to name a few), is used on too many articles to easily fix, is very informative, etc. We can shrink down CA-1 and CA-99 if needed but otherwise the box is really not too long. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless shrunk by the end of this TfD. Septentrionalis 22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The junction parameters exist to inform the reader what highways meet the article route, where they meet, and what is the status of the article route given the legal description. The parameter helps the reader determine where (or even if) the route physically exists. Also, since the "Route Description" section of each article is a narrative that only talks about other routes at major events along the highway, the junction part of the routebox can give readers information on routes that otherwise wouldn't be mentioned or aren't known to most viewers. There will have to be a way to tidy up Routes 1 and 99, particularly with regards to listing the cities. However, those two are an aberration and are hardly representative of the more than 200 considerably shorter state highways in California, which have far fewer interactions with other routes. I will, however, say that since we now have pictures of shields, some information on the box may now be unnecessary. We could do away with the "Highway in California" bit and the ensuing route number, though the CS&HC section number should be kept. Reducing the legend could help, as is doing away with "Prev" and "Next" notices, as the green browsing sections make the purpose of the routes there quite obvious. Bennyp81 02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rschen7754. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!>
  • Comment I think Rschen already said this on the template's talk page, but the real template being referred to is Template:Routeboxca2. This template is almost a redirect. --Geopgeop 16:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, however there's still some routes which have this template on their articles. I'ma close this as keep, but when all the articles become routeboxca2, then you can AfD it again or redirect, whichever's easier. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 22:46, 9 March 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. All affected articles should be converted to use Template:Ship table Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ship edit

 
USS Monitor using CSS hacks
 
USS Monitor using meta-templates

Template:Infobox Ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary fork of Template:Ship table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Worse, it suffers from accessibility issues stemming from use of CSS hacks to hide fields. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added two images to demonstrate the issue of CSS hacks vs. meta-templates more clearly. Please view them directly (they're just thumbnails here) to see the difference. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a transition template. If you inspect the parameters, you'll see they are differently named -- the "Ship table" template uses two-word parameter names unnecessarily. It doesn't matter whether this uses CSS or not... but it exists so that articles can be transitioned to the new parameter names without disrupting any during that conversion. After that's done, we can redirect "Ship table" to "Infobox Ship". -- Netoholic @ 05:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are better ways to handle that besides forking (adjust the template to use both parameter names temporarily, use a bot to update pages that use the template, then remove the old parameter names). And again, your forked template impairs accessibility by using CSS hacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom DaGizzaChat © 08:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Whether the parameters are two words or not doesn't really matter since the amount of space taken up by such parameters is miniscule. The CSS situation does matter. Accessibility is required of sites under Section 508 and besides, if the conditional templates problem really had proven to be so bad Ship table could easily have been adapted to use the CSS version of things (as at one point it actually was). Ship table complies with current policy and there are far more pages using it than use Infobox Ship, so it is actually far more logical to alter pages using Infobox Ship to Ship table as it involves far less effort. David Newton 14:13, 3 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Television First-Run edit

Template:Infobox Television First-Run (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is no longer in use. On top of that, the articles it is intended to cover are already covered by Template:Infobox Television. Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary duplicate; no mainspace articles use it. --BinaryTed 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused. Cedars 23:58, 4 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Country English & Metric Units edit

Template:Infobox Country English & Metric Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template is no longer used. Its purpose was to be able to display English units on the United States article. That functionality has been added as two hidden structure tags in Template:Infobox Country naryathegreat | (talk) 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.--cj | talk 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created the template but figured that the hidden structure tags were best. So I have no problem with the deletion of it. MJCdetroit 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 07:44, 2 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NumismaticCategories edit

Template:NumismaticCategories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created to help find consensus for a rename/reorganization of the Numismatics category structure. The rename has happened, with no objections. Ingrid 01:28, 2 March 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 and replace with {{Portalpar|Spirituality|EndlessKnot03d.png}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spirituality portal edit

Template:Spirituality portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant now that Template:Portalpar and Template:Portal can be customised to perform same function. cj | talk 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The template is not redundant because it has a unique image that will be lost by using the standardized portal template. Rfrisbietalk 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Delete. Okay per Kusma. Rfrisbietalk 18:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace all uses by {{Portalpar|Spirituality|EndlessKnot03d.png}}, which produces
  Spirituality portal

So the template is redundant per nom. Kusma (討論) 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom DaGizzaChat © 08:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Spirituality is not philosophy or other field of external knowledge. Spirituality is a subjective inner-living aspect in each of us, and which can be expressed in the external world by us in many forms: as religious practices, abstract philosophy, in humanitarian aid, etc., and, above all, in the smallest actions of our own lives. That is perhaps why sometimes it causes so much fear in those minds whose life has almost nothing awaken-living inside of them. Spirituality has always been present in mankind, in spite of the too materialistic-reducionist (some say 'objective') times we live on, where greed and personal satisfaction rule. Spirituality portal should be a proud to Wikipedia where the majority of articles are cold, technical, objective and scientific articles. It took many hours of editors here to develop so many qualitiy articles related to Spirituality and under the Spiritual portal, and now to destroy all this effort... Why? :( --GalaazV 07:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Comment I donnot agree with the symbol at the Template:Spirituality portal and I have already presented my point of view at the related talk page, the best way I am able at this time and in the most open direct way; on the other hand, hope also no one be uneasy with it as it expresses only my own personal understanding (pov). --GalaazV 23:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Um.. no-one's proposing to delete Portal:Spirituality (which wouldn't be proposed here in any case). This nomination is for a template linking to the portal, not the portal itself. --cj | talk 03:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with GalaazV, on the editorial hours comment if nothing else. I myself am a follower of a spiritual path (a somewhat eclectic, individual one, nonetheless viable), and it would do Wikipedia a serious loss if such a high-quality article would be lost to the rigors of scientism and materialism. Frankly, I think it would constitute an ideological bias if this were to happen. Secos5 23:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the above. Portal:Spirituality is not being considered for deletion, Template:Spirituality portal is.--cj | talk 03:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize and sincerely hope no harm is done. I wrongly assumed this deletion votes were related to the Portal:Spirituality; I am happy it is not! :) Thank you Secos5 for your words and Cyberjunkie for your clarification on this issue! (my comment above). --GalaazV 22:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Vít Zvánovec 20:13, 9 March 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 and convert all affected articles to {{portalpar|Philosophy|Socrates.png}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philosophy portal edit

Template:Philosophy portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant now that Template:Portalpar and Template:Portal can be customised to perform same function. cj | talk 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know how it can do this, and don't know if anyone else in WikiProject: Philosophy knows how either. Somebody want to explain this to me? KSchutte 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is not redundant because it has a unique image that will be lost by using the standardized portal template. Rfrisbietalk 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Delete. Okay per Kusma. Rfrisbietalk 18:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep RFrisbie is not correct. Delete and use portalpar. --Lacatosias 09:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and use {{portalpar|Philosophy|Socrates.png}} instead. Kusma (討論) 17:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Potentially useful. There is no need to remove the edit history here when a redirect will do the job. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:01, 7 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RugbyPortal edit

Template:RugbyPortal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single use, un-necessary template. Subst and delete. cj | talk 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nomination. Rfrisbietalk 15:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! DO NOT DELETE. This template has a purpose. If you look at Portal:Association football you can see that they have a similar template...in fact, it was my inspiration for the template you are suggesting to delete. This template serves a direct purpose on a very important portal. If you delete it, I will bring it back and we can fight this again and again. Don't be silly, and please whoever seconded the nomiation, sign your name. Rowlan 14:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE unless another use can be found for it. I've copy / pasted the template code into the Portal so that it looks exactly the same as before but does not use template.GordyB 16:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have been moved to Portal:Rugby/Header or something similar. Portals can have single-use subpage templates, but they should be in the portal namespace, not the template namespace. Delete now that it has been substed. Kusma (討論) 17:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No widespread use in the main template namespace. Now that it's been substed, either delete or go ahead and move to a subpage. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:42, 2 March 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 for now, pending any new policy on userboxes. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User admins ignoring policy edit

Template:User admins ignoring policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, divisive. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 23:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks used to me...[2]Mike McGregor (Can) 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Lubaf. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I expected better than immediate renomination to try to push your opinion, MarkSweep. It also appears to be used at least on User:Guanaco and User:Leifern, plus whatever What Links Here isn't turning up. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now substed on Leifern's page. Tried substing on Guanaco's page before, but was reverted. Other links mostly refer to deletion debates and are irrelevant. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would recommend that you not subst userboxes without asking permission first, particularly such userboxes as this one. I still vote to Speedy Keep as it can be used to be substed. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete divisive, disparaging, misleading, un-necessary.--cj | talk 01:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only divisive or disparaging if you are an admin who is ignoring policy. Per Wikipedia:Adminstrators, admins shouldn't be ignoring policy anyway. If this template applies to you, and is thus offensive, please make it not apply to you. This is far better for the project than to take offense at the very existence of this template. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No it doesn't apply to me (and thanks for suggesting it might). The fact is, it encourages the disruptive belief that all admins are rogue. This makes our role more difficult than it already is when we are confronted by misled users. Besides that, this template doesn't cite policy as its point of grievance.--cj | talk 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until and if a clear policy specifically banning templates realted to Wikipedia internal policies is formulated.Herostratus 01:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cuiviénen and Herostratus. —Andux␅ 04:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all my other TFD votes like these, they are not divisive. Moe ε 05:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speed keep, renomination. Sarge Baldy 06:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Article passed TFD less than a week ago. Template is only unused because nominator removed all links to it. Speedy keep this template and slap Marksweep with a large trout. This is getting ridiculous. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A large trout...I like it. MiraLuka 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. I don't like the template, but enough discussion already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. These keep votes disturb me somewhat. It's clearly an attack template. Moreover, WP:OWN ought to apply, since anyone who tries to change the template language gets reverted. I'd like to see a statement for the keep voters that this template, like the rest of the encyclopedia, is freely editable. The language I've been trying to add, "This user is annoyed by admins favoring product over process" is surely a far more accurate statement of what's been going on. Mackensen (talk) 12:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an attack template at all, really. It's not even expressing annoyance at admins in general. It's expressing annoyance at the small handful of admins who repeatable ignore process, policy, and consensus. This isn't the same as "Product over Process", because in the end, these issues really have no effect on the project. (Really, how does an innocent little box harm the encyclopedia?) Most admins respect process, policy and consensus; this template simply expresses annoyance and the relatively small handful that does not. The language you are trying to use is a bit insulting to the users who use this template, as well - basically, by inserting "product over process", you are asserting that the users displaying this box do not care about product. Nothing could be further from the truth. That's why we're all here - to build an encyclopedia. Some of us just go about it in different ways, and have different viewpoints on how these issues should be addressed. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 12:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, the present wording is insulting because it does not assume good faith. First of all, it hasn't been established that the "small handful" (which is vague, and which gets bigger every day) ignored process in the first place. They believed that they were following process because they were faithfully executing a speedy deletion. The process for speedy deletion is to delete.
  • Therefore, what this template is actually saying is this: "This user believes that admins broke policy." I don't see how that can be anything other than factional. I'm offended every time I see it. I'm offended every time someone votes to keep it here. To me, it's a direct statement that I, as an admin, am not trusted to use my tools. It's a statement that said user no longer assumes good faith, and believes that every admin who tries to act on speedy deletion criteria is committing an out-of-process act (God forbid). I can't tell you how many editors have told me, flat out, that they don't accept said critera and that they don't accept the authority of Jimbo.
  • Why does this template exist, except to prolong a dispute and keep open old wounds? What possible utility does this template have other than to promote factionalism and some kind of userbox rebellion? Are you seriously arguing that these deletions occur because admins are power-tripping? Who would want the kind of abuse we've suffered? Who would deliberately expose themselves to the rank incivility that so many participants in this debate regard as an acceptable modus operandi. Again, I ask this simply: how does it help the encyclopedia to have a box which encourages factionalism and which makes gross insinuations of character against many fine and respectable users on this site? Mackensen (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderfully articulated Mackensen. You've expressed my concerns perfectly.--cj | talk 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "This user believes that admins broke policy." is harly a contiversal statement. Arbcom has in the past ruled that it is true. Quite a few admins have been blocked for breaking the 3RR so it is undinalable that from time to time admins have broken policy.Geni 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep —Locke Cole • t • c 16:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's the nomination that's divisive. Septentrionalis 17:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination made the impression this was being dumped on the offending Administrators' userpages, in which case I would have recommend deletion and a large scarlet 'A' be used instead. —Rob (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has been discussed how many times now? --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close This Nomination - Re-nominamting so soon is disruption of TFD.--God Ω War 05:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep express legit concernes about Admins abuising they're authority. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - please let me know how many times and in which places I need to express my view, as it appears that some people want to keep nominating this until it goes away. I'm frankly not a big fan of userboxes, but a) this one is almost a non sequiteur (who wants a lot of admins that flout process?), b) it's about making Wikipedia better and does not disclose and kind of bias, and c) is kind of funny. --Leifern 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has MarkSweep no shame? StrangerInParadise 20:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally Keep At least Mark didn't speedy it. Janizary 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: There should even be a 7-day moratorium on renominating the same template for deletion (speedy or otherwise), regardless. this should solve at least a couuple issues. If someone continually nominates articles for deletion, perhaps they should have a one-week delay on nominations, as well? something like "you've nominated too many articles for deletion in too short a time. please slow down and try again later. :)" That's just my opinion, though. Raccoon Fox 20:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. As Juvenal said "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (who watches the watchmen?) Alex Law 22:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This sort of thing should not ultimately allowed as a template, in my opinion. However, it should not be deleted in advance of the formulation of a widely-accepted policy on what is an acceptable template and what isn't. It is not so divisive that it needs to be deleted in advance of that happening. The fact is that some admins have acted in a way that is widely seen, rightly or wrongly, as high handed, premature and provocative. If some people want to express that view by way of this template, preventing them in advance of wide agreement about a general policy on templates seems most unwise and will only increase their feelings of alienation. It's much better to have a moratorium on deletion of userbox templates (unless there is some absolutely compelling reason in a particular case, such as if it breaks the law in some way or is an outrageously personal attack to a much greater extent than this case) while we try to repair the wounds by developing a policy that everyone can live with. If that process takes months so be it. In a few year's time, it won't matter whether it took weeks or months; what will matter will be whether it was done in a way that kept the community together or in a way that left a lot of people feeling alienated. I wish that the admins who acted so quickly to delete so many boxes had thought this way - a lot of people, including me, were upset unnecessarily. OTOH, I understand that some of the admins may now feel hurt, and I realise that they acted in good faith, if unwisely. There needs to be reconciliation and healing all round, but suppressing userboxes like this in advance of completion of the process won't help that. Metamagician3000 01:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I pretty much stay out of these userbox debates because I think they are a great waste of time on both sides. However, I'm going to throw in a vote to keep this one since it so succinctly summarized my thoughts that I just now subst'ed it on my user page. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use the template, and I see nothing wrong with it. I see this as censorship...hm, sound familiar? It's funny, because I used to be called one of those! Эйрон Кинни (t) 09:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stupid, obvious, trivial, divisive, unspecific, pointless. And those are the good points. Midgley 15:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous TfD result was keep, so this shouldn't even be listed. But, seeing as it is, it should be kept again because, although some people may think it is decisive, dont shoot the messenger. It is the admins that are being decisive, and the act described in this userbox is completely true. If you want to sort out this problem, take a look at reviewing all the current admins, not the userboxes - • The Giant Puffin • 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_2&oldid=1142563970"