Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 30

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 May 30)
< May 29 May 31 >

May 30, 2006 edit

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greens edit

Template:Greens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template serves no real purpose but to spam Green related articles. Delete Ardenn 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right (though is green philosophy on the same level as Anarchism and Fascism - which have symbols but are both fringe movements - or should it more resemble the liberalism and conservatism infoboxes, which, like the greens, are actively involved in the political process?) While I think the box looks sleeker and more serious without an image, perhaps a symbol, such as the recylcing symbol (Image:Recycle001.svg) would work. In any case, a meadow full of flowers isn't really in keeping with any of the other templates on political philosophy. - Nhprman 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please explain why you believe it was nominated in bad faith. I didn't detect that, but maybe I missed something, and maybe the nominator should be asked to explain his motivations better if that's the case. - Nhprman 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; helps readers that are interested in Green party politics to easily navigate through Green party-related articles.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep. I do not see why someone would want to delete a useful template which is one of the older ones amongst its comparators and has been quite stable. The notice at the top is obstructive to substantive reading of the encyclopedia. I think there is a consensus to keep now. – Kaihsu 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most political and religious organizations have boxes like this for their article sets. The boxes are useful b/c they're more user-friendly for novice researchers than categories are.--M@rēino 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redesign. This template is fine, just replace the image. --Coredesat 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have found this template very useful and helpful Sjeraj 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep I think the sunflowers image was chosen because the sunflower is a symbol of many green movements, famously the early 80's German anti-nuclear movement. The sunflower is the logo of the Australian greens for example, and probably other national Green Parties. I support the use of a symbol in the template, perhaps a single drawn sunflower rather than a photo of many flowers would be better - certainly the recycling logo is inappropriate because that is a non-political symbol. - Drstuey 10:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I don't see any problem with this template. C mon 10:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redesign (though subtle) has vastly improved the template, and it's obvious that the debate has been overwhelmingly "keep" since this is a useful template that is consistent with other political philosophies. If the nominator has any further issues, they should be aired now and addressed, or I would urge an Admin to close this discussion on Tuesday morning (7 days after opening, as is standard) if not early. - Nhprman List 14:36, 4 June 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 redirect to Template:User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SCVF edit

Template:User SCVF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unencyclopaedic, part of a dead project. Rory096 18:14, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tvtome edit

Template:Tvtome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was superseded by {{tvtome person}} and {{tvtome show}}. It's no longer in use, and it only works confusing for people. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I had undeprecated it last year when it still offered an advantage over {{tvtome show}}, but since TV.com's takeover of TV Tome, it hasn't worked for most (possibly all) shows. It's no longer in use in any articles, so it can be safely deleted. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete if it's no longer used and obsolete. --Coredesat 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Nick C 18:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. – Xolatron 22:49, 30 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 -- Drini 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox synopsis edit

Template:Infobox synopsis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) An attempt to provide a box for article summaries, but the discussion on the talk page established that lead sections should be used for that instead of yet another box. Has been orphaned. Zocky | picture popups 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Coredesat 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nick C 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Created in response to requests from Wikipedia users as an ungoing test, which Zocky, who indicated his own bias in the issue, aborted through mass orphaning (now reverted). As to the claim that a "discussion on the talk page established that lead sections should be used for that" - false. A handful of users expressed opinions. One of those then took it upon himself in an abuse of process to orphan the box to terminate the discussion by ensuring no-one else were aware of the boxes and so participate in the discussion. Opening paragraphs regularly fail to provide adequate summaries and attempts to edit them to do so generate regular edit wars. The idea of the box is to create a simple summary for readers who are simply skimming through WP and aren't reading detailed articles but are looking for a short, snappy summary of the article separate from the article proper. Non-editors off Wikipedia who visit the site were asked what they thought of the site. The absence of clearly marked summaries was their number 1 gripe. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems like a content dispute to me. TfD is not the way to solve content disputes. While I may think this template is a bad idea, because consensus over thet content has not been met on the talk page, I'd say keep this template for the time being. It doesn't seem to meet any criteria for deletion, yet.--Andrew c 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. A place for a synopsis already exists at the top of every article, so this template is redundant. Feel free to continue discussion at WP:LEAD, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems eminently useful, a great addition to certain articles, and increases clarity on the subjects. In other words, it will likely be deleted because it's too rational for Wikipedia. WP:Lead is a great ideal, but the template's creator is correct, article leads often fall far short of that ideal, and some instead become loaded with POV. This is a way to encapsulate a few major facts about an article subject in one place. Also, this is clearly not a content dispute, it seems like an honest and original way of dealing with a flaw - another in a long list of "ideals" that don't seem to reach into the daily edits of this encyclopedia. - Nhprman 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete please — Dan | talk 03:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't we have contents for that? Sophy's Duckling 03:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm afraid that it will be yet another box fighting for the reader's attention, and that introducing this is a slippery slope that will serve as an excuse for not writing a good lead. To use programming speak: If a lead is broken, fix the lead, don't invent this box as a workaround. I do however think the idea should be discussed among more people than those freequenting tfd, and wouldn't object to the synopsis box staying in a few articles for a short while (maybe subst'ed) to give the idea some wider attention and thought. Shanes 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet more clutter at the top of articles. The lead section should summarise the article. If the lead section had content disputes they would also spill over into the summary box. Bad idea tastefully implemented. --Jumbo 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per user Shanes --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now so that it can have a proper discussion as a content issue, rather than as a template. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but start discussion on the issue of synopsis vs. lead section somewhere per Chcknwnm. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this really addresses problems with the lead section, people will fight about what goes into the summary instead. Kusma (討論) 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and work on the intros instead. —MiraLuka 03:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as of User:Jtdirl justification. CC90 10:25, 12 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACF-Fiorentina and Template:Gazeta-Sporturilor edit

Template:ACF-Fiorentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Gazeta-Sporturilor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Both of these were created for use on images to suggest that all rights to the images had been released. Checking the websites linked to from these templates does not bear this claim out. All images tagged with these templates have now been deleted as copyright violations. Angr (talk) 09:24, 30 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 keep. With 20 times more editors asking for it to be kept than for it to be deleted, and many, many more users than normal having voiced their opinions in this TFD, it is quite clear what the consensus is, and it is not for deletion. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal edit

Template:Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Last TfD
Complete violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't talk about themselves. The template is also a GFDL violation. (Note that I couldn't put the TfD notice on the template itself because the code is so complicated, so it's on the talk.) Rory096 05:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the notice to the template. --CBDunkerson 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template can be helpful for readers who are looking for more information about a particular subject after reading the main article. Portals are for the benefit of both readers and editors. Plus, the template is also used in wikiprojects and other project-namespace pages, where self-references are not only allowed but necessary. --TantalumTelluride 05:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A link to WP:NPOV would be a good way to provide more information about points of view, but we don't link there because it's self-referential (probably a bad example, a better one would be username → WP:U or something). As for linking in projectspace, simple deprecation in articlespace would work too, rather than complete deletion. --Rory096 05:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've always hated seeing this used on articles, although I wouldn't object to its use on talk pages (edit: or project pages, as above). —MiraLuka 06:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: how is this self-referential? These links are no more self-referential than those to internal articles or categories; portals are not projects, but content in themselves. Thus, the citing of WP:ASR as a reason to delete is completely invalid. So to is frustration at the positioning in articles – if that's the case, you propose a reformat. In any event, these links are supposed to be placed at article ends.---cj | talk 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Positioning in articles? What does that have to do with anything? Anyway, Portals are not encyclopaedic, and so not like links to articles. Portals also often link to projectspace, like related WikiProjects, so saying that they're part of the encyclopedia itself sets a dangerous precedent- either we'd have to remove links to projectspace from portals, or we'd be essentially saying that inline self references are OK. --Rory096 07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The positioning comment was in reference to MiraLuka's comment above my own. This template is not an inline link.--cj | talk 09:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ASR and the apparently emerging de facto policy that templates are not to be used for nonencyclopedic information. Angr (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • News to me and a change to the purpose of the Template: namespace which would wipe out virtually every process we have... such as all the templates used to run this "nonencyclopedic" page. In any case, portals are 'encyclopedic'... unlike 'self references' they are designed to be used by encyclopedia readers. --CBDunkerson 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per previous TfD. --StuffOfInterest 10:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This nomination essentially argues against the existence of portals at all. The entire point of having portals is to aid in navigation through a particular topic. They were intended to be alternate Main Page links for just that specific area of the encyclopedia... and thus, like the Main Page, they are accessible from within the articles and contain links to both article and Wiki content. If you can't get to the portal directly from related articles then it isn't much of a navigation aid / Main Page. Portals are encyclopedia content, fully intended to be used by the readers of the encyclopedia... like any single article related to them. There are thousands of articles in Wikipedia which contain 'self references' in various 'approved' forms ('temporary' cleanup tags, 'in wikipedia' links, 'See also', et cetera) and we don't remove links to those pages from other articles... because even though they sometimes include 'approved' self references they are encyclopedia content for the readers... just like portals. --CBDunkerson 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is needed! Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 11:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this deletion proposal is the most ridiculous fallacy I've ever seen. —Michiel Sikma, 12:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBDunkerson. --Mais oui! 12:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep If portals arent mentioned in articles, then it really limits their use. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 12:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBDunkerson. Percy Snoodle 12:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBDunkerson. Portals are a part of the encyclopedia, not separate entities. They're just one of the benefits of Wikipedia not being paper. It therefore is not a self-reference. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 12:37 UTC
  • Keep per CBDunkerson. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think Portals are indeed encyclopedic, if you flip open a paper encyclopedia, I'm not sure which ones specifically, you well often find "portals", (sometimes they are called by other names), these "portals" are a few pages dedicated to a specific topic, very much resembling Wikipedia's portals. In fact, sometimes it is even lexicographic, take for example a Larousse or a Petit Larousse will have pages dedicated to specific topics such as different scripts, architecture, history, and so forth. --Shibo77 13:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBDunkerson and Shibo77. Schutz 13:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBDunkerson and Shibo77 as well. ~Linuxerist   A/C/E/L/P/S/T/Z 13:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep performs the same function as a cat, but much more effectively and efficiently. --Gurubrahma 13:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Without this template, portals would rot away. --Merovingian {T C @} 13:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I thought this was a joke when I first saw it... is the suggestion that we get rid of all "See also" links at the end of articles? Or get rid of portals altogether? Doesn't make any sense to me. DJR (Talk) 13:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Portals are to aid readers to identify related material. They are not self-referral. Portals are useful and this template link to them is important. --Bduke 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is useful, and unless the English language changed while I wasn't looking I don't understand how portals are supposed to be "self-referential." Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful template, easier to find portals. --Terence Ong 14:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per CBDunkerson and Shibo77. -- Irixman (t) (m) 14:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful navigation aid. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per larsinio --Filip (§) 14:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 14:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the many reasons given above. --Dave A 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is vital. Without it, no one would know about portals. --Telex 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Could use some modifications, but the template is a way to organize a series ar articles and random facts in an orderly fashion. Poorleno
  • Keep, for the many reasons given above. Pēteris Cedriņš 16:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the above, they're a great way to find subject material. If you don't like them on articles, move them to talk pages. Rlevse 16:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong keep. These are not self-references but a way to organize material, just as categories are. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 16:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can we else go to the portals? NorwegianMarcus 16:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incredibly useful template allowing someone reading a broad topic article on a new subject (such as the generic Stargate article that covers a broad base of Stargate material) to reach the coolness and info of a portal. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd never have found out about the portals except for this. If you're deleting this, you should probably delete the templates for Wikiquote, WikiCommons, et al--and I think THAT would be a fantastically bad idea. Rob 16:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, how else are people supposed to find portals? Kusma (討論) 16:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as per above. --Coredesat 16:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, It's really a helpful way to find the portals, especially for complex topics like History of Science. And as Rory096 says on his user page "Ignore all Rules." :) --SteveMcCluskey 17:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely Keep - The rule on self-references is meant to stop Wikipedia articles from using each other as sources of information. The Portal template is just a way to help both readers and editors navigate the encyclopaedia, most certainly not a self-reference. Why do we have a See also section at the bottom of most articles? So that readers can find related articles easily. This is surely the point of portals as well? So why make it more difficult for readers to find related articles? Tamino 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is absurd. It is a navigation tool, that is all. Osomec 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's good that links to portals have a standard appearance. Gronky 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per CBDunkerson. Encyclopedias also publish specialised information, such as maps and biographies or if a country has had a change in power, its encyclopedias might choose to publish separete volumes relating to autobiographies, history, politics, etc. This is what happened in Estonia, btw. (and for many other good reasons presented above)-Mardus 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBDunkerson and other reasons above. - Nick C 18:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pwzn0re

  • keep our purpose is to educate, this facilitatres that and provides more information. if we delete this portal, are we going to delete the sex portal off the sex article next, or start eliminating the portals all toghther? theres a reason we have portal and they should be linked to from relevant articles Qrc2006 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I really can't see how portals would be self-referential. Surely this is a joke? --HymylyTC 19:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BhaiSaab talk 19:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please. The Portal links are helpful in the navigation of this encyclopedia. It's a simple indexing function. Wisekwai 19:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep per all the above discussion. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CBDunkerson. --evrik 19:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per just about everyone. HAM   20:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very helpful template. Mark with any invisible class tags desired if it needs to be filtered out of something. — xaosflux Talk 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - portals are extremely useful for finding out more about a subject. How will they be found without a template? --Tim 20:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per Snowball clause bogdan 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All the reasons are above 70.17.150.63 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What the hell are you idiots thinking when you say it is self-ref. Timothy Clemans 20:40, 30 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. IceKarmaॐ 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legal disclaimer edit

Template:Legal disclaimer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is self-referential and in any event in contravention of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates; inasmuch as the template is used only twice (once in mainspace), its existence but absence from nearly every page to which it could be appended surely invites one salient objection from NDT, viz., that The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits. Hence, delete. Joe 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kill this self-ref. We have the Legal disclaimer for that. --Rory096 07:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Angr (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Isn't this valid useful information one should know when reading the article? The above comments view the template from a legal disclaimer perspective, that its "in wikipedia somewhere so we are protected". But surely the issue is, it is also appropriate and valuable general information for anyone who might be looking up specific legal articles for information in their circumstances, and will inform them of key facts they might not otherwise realize, if unfamiliar with the law. Its practical purpose is to inform, not just to protect Wikipedia. FT2 (Talk) 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have site disclaimers linked from the bottom of every page. In any case, legal advice is not what Wikipedia does and any text that can be construed as such needs to be rewritten or removed. Zocky | picture popups 12:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too many warning boxes on articles detracts from the content so let site level disclaimers cover it. --StuffOfInterest 13:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but address cluttering concerns by making much smaller and less conspicuous. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 14:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Crzrussian. --Off! 19:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --TantalumTelluride 21:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Caveat lector 02:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:No_disclaimer_templates. -- Zawersh 04:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a useful and important template concerning legal topics, but should not be more discreet and placed into talk pages instead of articles. Aaaaaa 20:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. 1() 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep May come in handy. Neutral arbiter 04:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Guinnog 18:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer and violates Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. Rex the first talk | contribs 22:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete self-ref. bogdan 11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep', per Neutral arbiter and Aaaaaa. (LD444 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Important notice. The "Disclaimers" link at the bottom of every page is far too small.--Kkk 12:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. - Fdp 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pr Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates, among other things. Shanes 11:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IntoCom 15:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- IANAL. John Reid 21:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid disclaimer notice, the "disclaimer" link at the bottom is much smaller and more non-legible than this template. CC90 10:24, 12 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mario vs. DK series edit

Template:Mario vs. DK series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Barely a series; not enough games to warrant being separate from a Donkey Kong template or a Mario template. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, 30 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 保留 - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-blue and Pan-green Userboxes edit

Template:User Pan-blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Pan-green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This Userbox is polemic. Both Pan-Blue and Pan-Green are big parts of Taiwanese politics, and that's why there are articles for both of them. However, they do not belong in Userboxes as they are polemic and divisive. Also, consider the fact that both {{User CCP}} and {{User CCP-0}} have been deleted. Hong Qi Gong 01:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. --StuffOfInterest 02:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Wikipedia:Userboxes/Political_Parties has just about every major political party or coalition for many countries. Why should pan-blue and pan-green be singled out? Can somebody provide the link to the CPP deletion so we can see some the reasoning behind it? BlueShirts 03:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But both Pan-Green and Pan-Blue are NOT political parties. They are political coalitions that happen to include multiple political parties. Hong Qi Gong 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a userbox for the United Left Coalition of Spain. The NP and PFP are offshoots of the KMT, and I don't really see any reason why political coalitions, especially the ones as tightly united as the ones in Taiwan, are not allowed. We need to see the CCP deletion page so we can understand what happened in that page. BlueShirts 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted here about the CCP deletion - Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:User_CCP. Hong Qi Gong 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, this is a speedy delete looking at the clearout of political userboxes. - Hahnchen 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop anti-userbox crusade Larix 09:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep non-project-wide stuff out of public namespaces. Zocky | picture popups 12:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, what's wrong with all this templates? --Terence Ong 14:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, As a follower of East Asian politics, I support Pan-Green and the independance of Taiwan. I just wish they had a LDP user box. struggle 14:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So make one. Shouldn't be too hard. --Disavian 05:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nick C 18:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All this "Delete these userboxes because they express an opinion and are therefore divisive" talk is getting really old and needs to stop. Userpages are not covered under the WP:NPOV policy. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What's wrong with saying "I like x political party"? Sophy's Duckling 03:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the place for political divisiveness and political bumper stickers are inappropriate here. Please keep politics offline. (See: WP:NOT). - Nhprman 16:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The number of votes here to keep these Templates as opposed to the number of votes to keep DELETED for User CCP really shows the pro-Taiwan bias in the Wikipedian population. I believe in the end these two Userboxes will stay around while the CCP Userboxes will be kept deleted. Perfect. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) Hong Qi Gong 16:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just a procedural note, this isn't a "vote" in any sense of the word, it's a discussion. As this link notes, saying (in effect) "I like it. Keep it" is not an effective discussion point because it does not address Wikipedia policies. What does, for example, is saying that the deletion of the CCP template set a precedent, and the argument to keep these got far weaker after that was decided. Also, as noted above, Divisive political topics AS TEMPLATES are not in keeping with Wikipedia's mission and the role of templates is not to act as political rallying points, as these clearly are (if these templates are transfered to User space, that's a bit different.) So if the Administrator closing this Tfd debate is fair, he/she will not simply "count up the votes" (though that often happens) but will weigh the policies I've cited and others here, and make a decision. - Nhprman 04:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't agree with a TfD, you could always bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review, if it hasn't been already... --Disavian 05:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Box holy war avoidance keep This is getting old --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This user does not see what is wrong with divisive userboxes. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 04:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't like it? Don't use it. Neutral arbiter 04:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop the antiuserboxians from doing their dirty antiuserboxian-ness-of-doom. --Disavian 05:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete. --Coredesat 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Larix.--YGagarin 23:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think there's anything wrong in supporting any political movement. Heilme 04:52, 5 June 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. 這個討論已經结束。请不要对这个存档做任何编辑。
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_30&oldid=1080958819"