Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

May 19, 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 Obviously the work of an evil/rouge/cabalist admin set out to destroy all userboxes!!~!! (keep-withdrawn). Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User notconfused edit

Template:User notconfused (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
~~Reason for deleting is clearly divisive. (The text is "this user is not confused" with "not confused" linking to the bisexuality page)~~Withdrawn. Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 23:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you understand that the meaning (or at least the implication) of this template is "being bisexual is not just being 'confused'"? It is not a criticism of bisexuality; it is exactly the opposite, a defense. Just asking to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding here, and to get a clarification on what's "divisive" about this. -Silence 00:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, it is divisive IMHO because it implies that those who are not are somehow "confused." It isn't for my own POV though, so perhaps if you disagree I may be barking up the wrong tree, per se, in which case I apologize. Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - RN, you clearly don't understand the meaning and context of this template. This template is a response to the common bigoted view that bisexuals are just "confused", and are not genuinely sexually oriented towards both males and females. It's an allusion to and refutation of a stereotype about bisexuals, not an attack on non-bisexuals as though they were "confused". Do you understand now? It is not an attack on bisexuals, nor an attack on non-bisexuals. -Silence 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep What's divisive? The nomination, and the nominator. Not the box. --71.36.251.182 00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see that point of view, I guess. Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid abusive ad hominems, 71.36.251.182. Users can disagree without being uncivil. -Silence 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:35, 20 May 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 Circeus 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User jessicaalba edit

Template:User jessicaalba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What makes Jessica Alba so special? If we're going to have this userbox, we might as well have userboxes for EVERY SINGLE CELEBRITY IN EXISTENCE. --Atlantima 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets Wikipedia:Userbox policy. JohnnyBGood t c 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't be referencing proposals. Ardric47 01:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't help in writing the encyclopedia. It also contained a fair use image that I just removed. Also note that ~~not~~ a single user page links to this thing. --Cyde↔Weys 21:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and subst per CSD T2. Not broadly useful enough to justify a template; just use the raw code. By the way, User:Whatsisname—do you have a friend named User:Batzarro? :) -Silence 22:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the jury was still out on T2, based on the note on the CSD page & the debate in its talk.--Ssbohio 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The controversy sure as hell isn't going to be put to bed if you won't even concede that worthless templates that no one is using can be deleted. This is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for thousands of orphaned nonsense templates. --Cyde↔Weys 11:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In previous TfDs, I got the impression that you didn't favor deleting assorted useless cruft as long as it only existed in userspace, but that the problem is that these are userboxes. If we're going to delete things from userpages because we see them as worthless or orphaned nonsense, then we have a lot of work ahead of us. But, if the fact that this is a userbox template is the central issue, then my reasoning fully applies.--Ssbohio 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is Templates for deletion and we are talking about a template right now. It doesn't "only exist in userspace". I'm not sure I understand the nature of your comment. --Cyde↔Weys 22:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion, can't we just replace it with a userbox saying "This user thinks that NNN is hot." where NNN is a selectable parameter? // Liftarn
Delete - If you want to tell everybody this kind of things, create a blog or use Hi5 or myspace or something like that. This is an encyclopedia. Afonso Silva 11:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a typical example of a user box that makes not much sense without a copyright-violating image. Kusma (討論) 18:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Template like a lighthouse in the middle of a swamp: brilliant but useless. Stifle (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an encyclopedia, not MySpace! --Icarus 09:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - plainly unhelpful to the encyclopaedia. Johnleemk | Talk 10:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This thing is downright stupid. Treima 22:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per every other delete reason. — Natha n ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 02:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Doc ^ask? 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and feel free to glorify the celebrity of your own choosing. --70.218.30.181 04:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not very useful, and such templates are a bit offensive to the subject. I know I wouldn't like a template like that with my name. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill, it doesn't provide information with any bearing whatsoever to Wikipedia. The idea that userboxes allow us to learn relavent or at least potentially relavent information is the entire justification for their existance. A userbox which identifies the user as a Vietnamese speaker, Wikipedia inclusionist, vegetarian, NRA member, or even offensively racist gives some information about them that can be useful interacting with them. In what situation exactly would knowing what users think Jessica Alba is hot aid the rest of us? --Tjstrf 21:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, in the event that someone is editing Jessica Alba or related article in a biased manner, we will know for sure that the editor is tendentious through this userbox! (Seriously, this excuse that userboxes expose a personal POV and as a result are helpful doesn't hold much - if any - water. If someone is biased, you can tell it from their editing.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I personally think it should have to not only be information, but information that is relavent to Wikipedia, and information that forms an important part of that user's belief system. (as relates to wikipedia) Of course, there couldn't be hard rules, but any proposal at all would be better than what we have now. A guideline that a userbox with an associated category had to undergo a validation process, or fit into some relatively broad categories of usefulness would be sufficient.
  - Or, you could just apply the patent nonsense and/or notability guidelines to userboxes, and that would fix 90% of the problem ones right there. "This user enjoys throwing tentpegs at random passerbys" would fail nonsense, and "this user attends Randomville alternative highschool" would fail notability. "This user finds Jessica Alba to be hot" would probably fail both criteria. --Tjstrf 07:02, 25 May 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 speedily deleted as G2 (test page testing self-transclusion of template). Kusma (討論) 18:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xx edit

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 Circeus 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox_City_mapsize edit

Delete - This was created in January by Kmf164 as an alternative template to resize maps and redirected three days later. Apparently wasn't all that useful. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:39, 23 May 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: either a nomination of the wrong template, or an attempt at WP:POINT. Either way, speedy keep. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template User _ edit

Seems to be the root of all evil, I feel that if everything repressented by this template were removed indefintly from wikipedia, the userbox wars could be over today--Ipod person 18:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Is it helpful or noteworthy? Yes, as evident by its extensive use in discussing users with the aim of providing easy information. Is it redundant to another better-designed template? Not that I can see. Is it used? Yes, as evident by its what links here. Does it not express NPOV? No. Does it belong on TfD? No. PoptartKing 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think Ipod person was making a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment. Think about it: "everything represented by this template," and the template represents Wikipedia editors. Therefore, "If everything repressented by this template were removed indefintly from wikipedia, the userbox wars could be over today" translates to "If Wikipedia editors were removed indefintly from wikipedia, the userbox wars could be over today," which, in fact, is true ... no users means no Wikipedia at all. That being said, if that is what Ipod person meant, I recommend he withdraw his recommendation. Cutesy, but not the place. — WCityMik e (talk • contribs • where to reply) 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:35, 20 May 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 Circeus 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Popular essay edit

See also the associated category Category:Wikipedia featured essays. This concept is not part of our official "featured" series and there is no associated peer review for what goes into it (an essential part of featuring anything). Second, the template gives the impression that the opinions presented in some essays are more valuable than others. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gives the wrong impression.... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 07:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I'm not sure it was a good idea to take this to TfD before the CfD is completed. They are intertwined so everyone will just end up arguing the same points twice. Perhaps you should withdraw this nomination untill the CfD is settled one way or the other? As I said at the cfd, if "featured" has the connotation of per review about it, I can rename the template to popular essays. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and do just that.
Moreover, the template is explicitly meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It does not say that a certain essay should be heeded or that it is a guideline (it is mentioned that the essay is NOT a guideline and is informal), only that it is popular and is often cited in discussions. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a way of pointing out some essays a Wikipedian should be familiar with, whether they agree with it or not simply because they are going to see a lot of it at discussions. I hope this is sufficient to resolve everyone's objections. Loom91 08:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The renaming is now done. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Wikipedia_featured_essays. Loom91 09:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete under the new name as well. No need to make the distinction. Far too subjective.Geni 09:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that the idea of having more popular essays easily identified is a good one, as it is difficult for new wikipedians to identify which essays reflect widespread opinion and which reflect a minority opinion. However, I think there should be a location (the category talk page seems like a good one) where one can propose additions and without objection add them, or with objection reach concensus on whether to add or not. I guess I am for Keeping the template and category with with a discussion of the proper name/process (popular is better than featured, but still not completely satisfying - though I can't think of a better name).Trödel 13:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep тəzєті 13:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, opinions should not be arbitrarily tagged as more popular without some approval process, and regardless of intent the template gives the impression that the tagged essays are more valuable or legitimate than other essays. --Muchness 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Who's to say whether an essay is popular? And the use of the word featured in the template doesn't rub off on me well. The featured article process is quite extensive. On the other hand, the featured essay process is virtually non-existant. Perhaps if there were a better (but not too formal) process that determines whether an essay is featured (or rather, popular), I'd support. joturn e r 05:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question to Deleters. If there should be an approval process, then could you give me some time to devolop a light system to determine which essays can be called popular? This would not be a process to determine which essays are 'good' or 'right', but which essays are popular, as suggested by the new name of the template. This will prevent redundancy with the Guideline process and stop long debates about the subjective issue of whether an essay is beneficial. I'll need some time to this so if you agree with my suggestion then I request that you don't delete right away. Loom91 07:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - featured content represents the best of Wikipedia - that is, for presenting information as an encyclopedia. Featured content is encyclopedic content, regardless of whether it is an article, picture, list, or portal. They all serve to inform and benefit the readers. Essays, especially those dealing with policy and guidelines, do not do that. The idea that they can be tagged as "featured", quite frankly, is premature and ridiculous. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please take your time to read some of the discussion before sticking on that delete vote. It's Popular essays now, not featured. Loom91 06:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did read all of the discussion. Regardless of what it's currently named, the template started off as "featured essays" and the concept has not changed.Simply replacing "featured" with "popular" doesn't change anything. Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Strange, seeing that your objection was based exclusively around the name featured and its connotations. Do you mean that you are voting delete for no reason at all? I also don't see what the template started out as has to do with the whole thing. Loom91 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - My objection was (and is) to the entire concept that some essays are created more equal than others, and the fact that these essays are not part of the encyclopedia. Changing the name from "featured" to "popular" does not change anything. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you insist on imposing fictional concepts on the template? The template does not claim some essays to be better than others and it won't claim so no matter how many times you repeat your objections. The template simply does not make that claim.Loom91 07:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        So why does it say, "[this is one of a few essays that are] popular within the community and [are] frequently cited at discussions"? I stand by my objections. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nothing wrong with it. Rename to "good" if featured doesn't work. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Flcelloguy, without regard to featured, popular, or good. This template implies that its bearers have been judged better than other essays by the community, but there is no process in place to make this determination. While I do not support developing such a process (essays are supposed to be informal), without it, this label is inappropriate, misleading, and likely to cause edit wars over its inclusion. ×Meegs 07:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see how the template can be responsible for mistaken conclusions readers draw from it when the template explicitly makes clear what it is not. Loom91 16:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can not argue this any better than Flcelloguy has above. It is not appropriate for one person, placing this tag, to anoint an essay as featured, popular, or good. Some of the essays bearing the template are quite controversial, and I hate the idea of this label being debated on each of those pages. I might support categorization of essays by topic, but not by someone's idea of merit. ×Meegs 10:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed and unobjective. Nathcer 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take action on the categories first, then deal with the template as need be. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep or Replace~~~~. Even if this category/template itself seems faulty to some of you, a category/template for well-developed and discussed essays as opposed to those that get little attention needs to exist.~~ More importantly, we need a better system for categorizing essays.--Tjstrf 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, I change my vote to Delete and Replace. The essays which are included seem to be rather random, and there is little apparent reason why WP:BEANS is more worthy of inclusion than User:Pmanderson/I have a girlfriend but she lives in Canada is. (I would say they were both true though rather obvious, personally.) This does not change the fact that the essays section is a mess and needs sorted into subcategories though. --Tjstrf 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The answer is very easy, just use the What links here. WP:BEANS has way way more links than WP:CANADA, which has very few. We are not judging which templates are true or obvious here, only which are popular. Loom91 07:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, at what level of linkage is popularity set? If there isn't a rough guideline at least, then the category remains meaningless. Popularity is an even more ambiguous term than notability is, and we all know how the debates on that particular subject often go. --Tjstrf 07:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a guideline needs to be set, though I would prefer a flexible percentage bar rather than an absolute one. But I can't devolop such a guideline myself, it would need to be approved by the community through the standard proposal process, and I don't see the use of starting the process untill or unless I know this template is not suddenly going to go poof in the middle of the discussion. For this reason, at least a temporary keep will be helpful. Loom91 07:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a classification system by subject to one based on popularity. "Essays on X" makes for a lot easier category navigation than "Essays which fall in the top quartile by number of references." Plus, linkspam, anyone? A single wikipedian who participates in a lot of discussions would probably be able to reference an essay, in a valid context nontheless, a dozen times per month quite easily. Of course, the judgement could then be based on whether the essay actually helped in decision making or not, but that adds even more complexity and would basically necessitate a review process. The KISS principle applies to category systems as much as it does anything else. --Tjstrf 07:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alter to read Notable Essays on Wikipedia or Delete - too subjective - encourages abuse.
Keep. Mostly harmless. WP:SNOW is over-invoked; it's a fact that some essays are popular. But bu all means get rid of the category. Dr Zak 15:12, 26 May 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 Circeus 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Student Fraternity edit

Template:Student Fraternity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Obsolete template, also wikiprojects can't add templates like these to the articles, just the talk pages and there already is a template for that. I tried to speedydelete this but I guess that was the wrong proceedure. Dspserpico 08:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Afonso Silva 11:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Deletion - The userbox looks ugly and inaccurate. And, I would agree with the nominator as well. Weirdy 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:40, 23 May 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.