Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 12

< June 11	June 13 >

June 12 edit

Template:AAHS edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use infobox used at Air Academy High School so that {{High School Infobox}} can have a "mascot" parameter. Circeus 22:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A little more searching would've shown that {{Infobox Secondary School}} already has such a parameter. --fuzzy510 04:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given up a long time ago trying to keep up with the horror that taxoboxes are.Circeus 05:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be fair, I got lucky discovering it, so I can't really take too much credit. --fuzzy510 06:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single-use. –Pomte 08:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace then delete Pick one from Category:Education infobox templates, then delete AAHS. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Participants of TFD may find the above mentioned category fully of redundancy. An opportunity to whack. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - "whack" makes it sound easy :( Actually, it doesn't seem that complicated: 1. Document the differences between templates, and see which ones could be merged together, especially wrt to parameters 2. Find one template to merge to for a group of templates 3. Replace all uses of the template to be merged with the central one 4. TFD the templates being merged, or delete them as housekeeping Gracenotes^T § 18:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and the whacking part: self, with large stick. I'll take a look at the cat ;) Gracenotes^T § 21:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For some reason, it was rather easy to get all the city/village and university infoboxes streamlined in a few ones, but school infobox seem to multiply faster than we can delete them. Circeus 23:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Pomte. Eddie 20:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use the Template:Infobox Secondary school in the article. hmwith talk 15:27, 16 June 2007 (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 section.

Template:AAA edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was created for a project that never took of the ground. — Circeus 22:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - project was apparently deleted, so this may be considered housekeeping. Gracenotes^T § 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been wading through Category:Uncategorized templates and deleting dozens of templates. However, this one was part of a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council, so I preferred to actually run it through. Technically, I doubt unneeded/unused template deletion is considered "housekeeping" (slippery slop...), but I really don't think anybody would ever notice these were gone. Circeus 00:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete follows from deletion of the WikiProject. –Pomte 08:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete housekeeping. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Redeeming Value. Dfrg.msc 06:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete. hmwith talk 15:28, 16 June 2007 (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 section.

Template:Chicoutimi-Upholder edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unnecessary. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its one use (I've gathered) was here. It's not in article now, so unless the creator has any objections, I think that we should delete it (otherwise userfy). Gracenotes^T § 23:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an attempt to make a manual table of contents. –Pomte 08:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete housekeeping. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not used, and there was no reason for it in the first place. hmwith talk 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gracenotes is correct, that is the original purpose, but I didn't plan out that page properly. Wikada - ^{TALK CONT ISU} 23:49, 18 June 2007 (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 section.

Template:Abuse edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Overly broad. Poor criteria for inclusion. Takes up way way too much space in the articles it's used on. I think it's too broad of a topic for a template and the consensus seems to agree. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is irredeemably POV. It lists utterly unrelated topics, many of which may or may not be considered 'abusive' depending on the context. No reader will find this a convenient navigational tool as the entries are essentially unrelated. What has Brainwashing got to do with Animal abuse got to do with Child Protective Services? The template should be deleted. — Andeggs 16:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Andeggs has misleadingly pulled items from the "Forms of abuse" section and the "Related topics" section and presented them together without clarification. Furthermore, is Wikipedia really so bleeding-heart apologetic that identifying any behavior, no matter how heinous (i.e. Commercial sexual exploitation of children) as "abuse" or even "related to abuse" is considered POV? Even when they've been addressed by the UN?ref This ought to be addressed by modifying the wording of the template (if at all), not by wholesale deletion. Joie de Vivre 17:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To clarify, I don't believe the template should be deleted because abuse does not exist. It is that abuse is not enough of a coherent, well-defined concept for a navigational template to work well and tie these very different articles together. Andeggs 07:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To be sure, it needs a cleanup (like maybe dropping the "related subjects" section). Before we delete the whole thing maybe we can try a cleanup? Sethie 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template is much too broad. We have a separate template to cover {{slavery}}. Other narrower topics (e.g. child abuse) should be covered separately, from other topics such as hate speech. The related topics section of the template is problematic, grouping a mishmash of articles together. For example, some do not consider capital punishment to be abuse, and something that should be grouped together with articles such as The Holocaust. --Aude (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Separating types of abuse is no simple matter, because mental abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse often occur concurrently. Where would spousal abuse go, if it can be any one or any combination of the three? How about Bullying, is that physical or emotional abuse? Incidentally, capital punishment is under "Related topics", not "forms of abuse". Joie de Vivre 21:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - and if we're going to keep this, for God's sake remove or merge the "Related topics" section. Abuse of people occurs on so many different scales that meshing them together in one navigational template will probably not aid a user wanting to learn more about a specific type of abuse. Not every page needs a navigational template: if we can't create a coherent and relatively easy-to-work-with criterion, the template is probably not worth having. Gracenotes^T § 23:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I could go either way; it's frankly too broad. --Haemo 01:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Templates like this I believe are really needed, and POV really? If you look up abuse a lot of these things are valid. But also I think for any of those going through abuse templates like this can help them find information as well as learn how to cope, why delete something like that? That would be bad faith. --Migospia †♥ 04:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. A POV magnet as it stands. Getting rid of the "related topics" and trimming down the section to keep it on topic might be enough to save it. Rockpocket 05:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral This requires judgment from experts of the subject. But people, please say delete or keep, not support or oppose. Thank you. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 13:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is indeed too broad and groups articles that aren't actually related. I would suggest creating three or four more specific templates to cover the various areas. >Radiant< 17:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That would be extremely difficult, because many forms of abuse are not specifically physical, emotional, or sexual, but can involve any one or any combination of the three. That is why this template is so important to keep. Joie de Vivre 17:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, splitting it between physical/emotional/sexual isn't going to work. Perhaps we can find a better split? At present the template lists anything from schoolyard bullying to genocide - that's what I mean with "overly broad". >Radiant< 17:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, Joie, not every article needs a navigational template. Better have none than have one with an awkward criterion for inclusion. Now, I do like Radiant's idea somewhat, although implementing it would take some thought. Gracenotes^T § 18:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may seem broad but it shows all the different types of abuse which I feel is very important to keep. Like Joie de Vivre said: mental abuse, physical abuse and sexual abuse often occur concurrently. The current version is okay maybe get rid of the Ambiguous/Disputed section and move Corporal punishment, Incest, Mind control to the Anti-Abuse section.--Migospia †♥ 23:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the support, but I don't think it makes any sense to move those four items to a header that lists social movements that are against abuse. Joie de Vivre 23:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.You are right maybe just move Corporal punishment and Mind control to forms of abuse. And Incest is a form of sexual abuse when it's not conseual and since child sexual abuse and sexual abuse cover that area in a way, and since I guess the reason is it is disputed is because some cases it is conseual therefore not abuse--Migospia †♥ 23:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This highlights the problem with this template. Calling Corporal punishment (like animal experimentation and human experimentation) "abuse" is reflecting but one POV. Nav templates should define things in strictly NPOV terms. Rockpocket 00:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Well the reason Corporal punishment does not seem POV is because it is defined as: Corporal punishment is forced pain intended to change a person's behaviour or to punish them. That really is not POV it seems stated fairly simple. Animal experimentation is not on the template although it should be and if it was it would not be POV because animals don't volunteer to be tested on, and it is stated and known a lot of the test kill and/or harm the animals. The testing done in majority is not like testing food or a toy to see if the animal likes it for them, but, testing non animal things that is going to be used on humans to see if it would harm or kill the animal that is not POV, but since animal abuse is stated there it would work okay. And human experimentation should be removed mainly because now a days a lot of the humans volunteer for the testing and therefore is not abuse.--Migospia †♥ 00:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling corporal punishment abuse seems POV because not everyone thinks that it's a bad thing. Abuse can mean "physical maltreatment", but if that's the case, why is Hate mail in there? Gracenotes^T § 01:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well just because some people are in favor of it, it's still abuse by defination. And hate mail is a form of emotional abuse--Migospia †♥ 01:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or startover - the template is too broad and so debatable that it's insane and thus pov. Controversial links (such as capital punishment and animal testing) have consistently been a problem, and the template is way too huge. The template should be split up and attempt to classify the different types of abuse (Relationship abuse, animal abuse etc) - and thus conflicts will be easier to deal with due to the smaller scope (one benefit that would help resolve conflicts: less links means that there won't be a lot of conflicts at the same time, but there are a bunch of other ways too), it will be easier to navigate due to size, and best of all it's a compromise - we get to have abuse templates but not one abuse template. --daniel folsom 02:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I strongly disagree for the reasons stated above. No spliting too confusing, with the removal of some disputes and the Ambiguous/Disputed everything should be fine, but the rest of what you said I have no idea what you are talking about, clarify? And this template is good for a lot of reasons mainly for people either doing research or people who have been abused and is looking for more information, this templates make both of those easier.--Migospia †♥ 02:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree (why bold?) I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. " No spliting too confusing" - I think you're saying splitting would be too hard - but that's hardly a reason not to split in order to beter categorize articles with templates. And people that have been abused wouldn't go from a Human abuse category to an animal abuse category - so that's why it's best to split. And what do you mean ther est of what I said - all I said was we should split it. --daniel folsom 03:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded it to be bold, why is anything bolded? Yeah I am confused with what you are saying as well. No I am not saying it would be hard but it would be confusing and pointless like stated already splitting it may be confusing for the reader, having all abuse in one place makes more sense. and saying that a people who have been abused would not go from a human abuse category to an animal catagorey I really think that is wrong, all people take abuse different and may read up on animal abuse, and like ZeroZ said some scholars in certain fields may study both the human and the animal and there is only one animal category.--Migospia †♥ 03:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be less confusing. You have a set of articles on relationship abuse in the template, a set of animal abuse, and more. Chances are a reader looking up a type of abuse would not want be traveling from relationship to animal, and vice versa - so thus the question: why throw every type of abuse in there when they're looking at one! I mean having a template like this would be like having a template "Wikipedia Articles" - where every Wikipedia article is listed. Does that help people? Of course not it's too broad - but the "Wikipedia Articles" template could be split up, into different categories - and it has, which is why templates exist. UAnd what do you mean "I am confused with what you are saying as well"? Unless you actually say what you don't get, then I can't explain. --daniel folsom 11:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay still confusing me I think I get what you are trying to say but I don't think you get it. I believe it would be horrible to serperate the abuse template like that and this is not listing all Wikipedia articles I mean not even close so that is not even relevant in this case. Sure it is possible that one abuse researcher or victim is looking into one particular case, but there are also times (probably a lot more) when they are looking at them all or if a abuse victim was abused in more than one *area* it's nice having them all there so you can go from one to the other, I mean that is the point of templates!--Migospia †♥ 12:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A)WHAT DON'T YOU GET! Jeeze, I keep saying just tell me, give me a line you don't understand and I'll explain it, but constantly saying "I'm confused" doesn't help. B)You were the one that brought up the victim example, but more so don't say "more times than not people research all types" - because you have no info to back it up, and it seems completely false to me. But as to the discussion, you were involved in an edit conflict on this template very recently, and the conflict went to multiple user's talk pages, but if we have smaller templates that are easier to navigate - then attention can be focused on one comment, and conflicts will be dealt with faster.--daniel folsom 19:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Although wide-ranging, the topic list is cohesive. Scholars in criminology, sociology, psychology, and law have been studying links between these areas since the 70's. For example, the subjects in this infobox closely match the group of subjects covered by the peer-reviewed Journal of Interpersonal Violence. -ZeroZ 02:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Detailing the complex links between these subjects is certainly deserving of an article, but a navigational template (keeping ease of use in mind) should probably be less uncomplicated. Gracenotes^T § 04:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per ZeroZ. Dfrg.msc 06:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Too broad, too much POV, and a little pointless, imo - Chwyatt 08:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This kind of template is a bad idea. It's one thing to have navigational templates designed to go at the foot of an article, like {{Coldplay}}. It's quite another to have navigational templates designed to go at the top of an article. For one thing, it's against the manual of style: the links in these boxes are effectively "See also" links, and those should fall in appendix sections at the end of an article: see WP:LAYOUT. For another, there really is room for only one such template, and if that's the case we should only break the MOS suggestions for cases where it's obvious that every article in the list would only have a single template there at the top, which means that such a template should be the one and only list of articles one would ever want to have in a particular article. "Abuse" is not like that. No, this template would be better replaced by a Portal, or at best, a horizontal navigation template. Even then, though, I think this grouping of articles is very loose and vague and not a particularly good idea. Mango juice^talk 13:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Mangojuice. --John 16:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and develop a horizontal replacement with less than twenty links before recreating. —ptk✰fgs 17:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This template is trying to wear too many hats at once. We have articles on animal treatment, bullying, and crimes against humanity grouped together, and, regardless of whether these topics are interrelated in a broader sense, this template still casts its net too wide. I think casual readers viewing the navigation box in search of related information will be overwhelmed, rather than aided, by this breadth of scope. As editors have suggested above, it would best be split into a series of more targetted templates, such as "psychological abuse," "physical abuse," "sexual abuse," "child abuse," and "large-scale abuse." If a topic, like bullying, fits into more than one category, then there is nothing preventing it from being cross-listed in each of the applicable templates. If there is concern over the use of the term "abuse," this could be resolved by selecting different terminology, like "psychological treatment" or "child treatment." -Severa (!!!) 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spliting would not make any sense. This is a perfect example of a good template--Migospia †♥ 23:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would splitting not make any sense? You have yet to respond to his/her point. And if it wasa perfect example of a good template then it wouldn't have this many delete votes.--daniel folsom 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While most of these are abusive, I don't really see this template as adding value to the encyclopedia. The Behnam 17:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Several editors have suggested splitting the template, but none have suggested ways this may be done. My view is that there are no clear-cut boundaries by which to split the contents of the template. Bullying is physical and emotional. Spousal abuse can be any of the three, as with Prisoner abuse. I agree strongly with ZeroZ's comment as to the relevance and consistency of the grouping. Joie de Vivre ^T 02:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh - they've mentioned categories, but the reason no plan has been made is because this discussion is not about making a plan for the better templates, it's about whether a plan can be made to better Wikipedia - and if it can, then the template should be deleted.--daniel folsom 03:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a split into numerous templates with similar problems. The articles themselves link to each other if they're related. –Pomte 03:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue - there too loosley related.--daniel folsom 03:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very purpose of a navigational template is to provide a central hub, rather than relying on a network of links. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My statements and some others sated the reasons spliting would not make any sense, and yes like Joie de Vivre said some say a split do not say how and what is the cut off point? And The Behnam, like stated above by me and some other editors it does have value to the encyclopedia, because it is a template of a set of very informative articles arranged in alphabetical order. It is informative to the researcher or the abuser, or who ever else reads upon it. And they are not loosley related at all because they are all forms of abuse, hence the template name, and like said one abuse can involve both emotional, physical and so on.--Migospia †♥ 03:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - well then I propose a template of every single article on Wikipedia - which are not loosley related because they are all articles on Wikipedia, hence the proposal. --daniel folsom 04:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph and propsal makes no sense, related: similar or related in quality. How is evey Wikipedia article related when they are not similar?--Migospia †♥ 04:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relation is they are all Wikipedia articles - related:associated [1] --daniel folsom 04:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the sarcasm really necessary? Are you suggesting that the items in the Abuse template have nothing in common other than the fact that they are Wikipedia articles, or that the level to which they have something in common is comparable to a collection of random articles? Joie de Vivre ^T 12:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter actually - but the reason sarcasm is neccesary is because what I said has been stated over and over again, yet is ignored. --daniel folsom 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not in the business of providing help to those who have been abused, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Several people have suggested that we should bear in mind people who have been abused may themselves be using this template. That may be true, but I believe it should not dictate the design (or existence) of this template, nor should it drive this debate. Andeggs 10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Migo

Keep The "related topics" is apparently now gone. It should be sure to only link to what generally seen an abuse by most cultures, and it should go on many watchlists (including mine), to make sure it doesn't become too POV. hmwith talk 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go check out the new changes in a bit - and if they're good enough and this hasn't closed I'll change the vote --daniel folsom 02:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While category abuse has purpose, navigational template is bad idea, because you can not get clear message which kind of abuse belongs where in navigational template. When dealing with such a term, man should avoid any possibility of mistake, not enhance it. Wikipedia has policy Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, but anyhow it should avoid danger of misleading it's readers. And deleting template is not denying the reality, because well written article about abuse exists, but only trying to make wikipedia as fine as it can be. SpeedyGonsales 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs cleanup, but as it is currently linked to many articles, better to change it in place. Twenty-five or fewer links may be a good target, change orientation to bottom, horizontal. / edgarde 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

25 fewer? What are some of the abuse you are thinking of ridding? And bottom horizontal would be way to confusing and difficult to acess as well as too big.

It's too big now - and - per the above editor - the bottom orientation is how the mos says it should be --daniel folsom 11:28, 19 June 2007 (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 section.

Template:Category relevant? edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a well-intended but misguided idea. The intent is to "tag" articles with dubious categories, stating that in order to remain in that category, the article needs more sources. However, this is just creating extra work for all involved; if a category cannot be plausibly sourced, it should simply be removed and discussed on the talk page if desired. >Radiant< 13:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need for a template here, just treat categories with no evidence as you would any unsourced statement. -Amarkov moo! 13:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is not needed.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not possible, at least to my knowledge, to put up a {{fact}} on a category so that it displays next to the category. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because as Chochopk says no way exists to mark categories as unsourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I'd prefer removing dubious information rather than tagging it, but this seems to be essentially a {{fact}} tag for categories. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info - it seems some of the pages using this template used to use Template:Category unsourced (this is now only used on a single article). --- RockMFR 22:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Yes, it's a {{fact}} for categories, but {{fact}} only takes up a small part of a line, whereas this is garishly displayed across the article. It's a fine idea, but the execution is lacking. --fuzzy510 04:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Categorizing articles with unsourced categories (i.e. Category:LGBT articles with unsourced categories) is a neater solution, but it is preferable to uncategorize the unsourced category and discuss on talk page/WikiProject due to WP:BLP concerns in this case. If the article does make the claim, as does Alicia Bridges, then the content should be tagged with {{fact}} with a note to  when someone decides to remove the unsourced claim. –Pomte 08:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categorizing articles with "Category:Something articles with unsourced categories" simply adds another category, which often goes unnoticed by readers. By putting a cleanup banner (and I usually add it down by the categories), it a) draws attention to the fact that the article needs a source, and b) tells average readers that the category is unreliable. The LGBT version ({{Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Category unsourced}}) also is important because people often vandalize articles by putting an LGBT category on the page, usually without adding any further text - a simple {{fact}} can't be used in that instance. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you simply remove the category if it's unreliable? See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Use of categories. –Pomte 07:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I just remove categories from living people, but for people who aren't living, IMHO, I give a week with the "Unsourced Category" tag, then I remove it. Mostly to give people with more knowledge of the subject a chance to add a ref - which happens ~ 50% of the time. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are they the people who added the category, people from the WikiProject, or random people stumbling upon the article? If there's a portion from the last group, then I'll change to keep. (For the first two groups, there are more direct ways to do it: notify them, monitor a list.) –Pomte 03:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, potentially useful. In the majority of cases it's sufficient to simply remove any dubious categories, but there are always those occasional tricky cases where the tag looks to be correct, but there is still some doubt as to its relevance. Lankiveil 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree that if one was in the situation to add this template, he/she should simply be bold and delete the cats. If the user is wrong, it will be reverted. hmwith talk 15:37, 16 June 2007 (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 section.

user:Hirak 99/Userbox/User Atheist2 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 speedy keep per nearly unanimous consensus, also MFD is the proper forum for userfied userboxes. Ƙɽɨɱρᶓȶ 21:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be speedy per T1. Userbox is inflammatory. . ~ Wiki hermit _(HermesBot) 03:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty inflammatory -- but I reckon if he changed the logo to something else, it would be okay. --Haemo 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy relist - this is not a template; this is a user subpage. Thus, it is under different jurisdiction: WP:MFD. The template version was located at Template:User Atheist2, and was speedy userfied as a result of this TFD debate. Suggest relisting at MFD, and linking to previous TFD. Gracenotes^T § 04:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I should probably comment that T1 is a criterion to be treated with much caution... it can be/has been used to wikilawyer the deletion of a template, although invoked in good faith here. Gracenotes^T § 04:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is the Word "God" crossed out inflammatory and/or how is "This user is an atheist." inflammatory? We should not discriminate, or we would have follow the logical consequences to removing crosses, david-stars, invisible pink unicorns, or whatever from the userboxes and/or all religion related-userboxes. If this were Templatespace, I would reccomand userfication, but as the box is in userspace, I see not reason to have it deleted. Charon X/talk 12:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am a christian and I do not find this inflammatory in the least bit.--James, La gloria è a dio 14:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know why this is inflammatory. If the content of this box is inflammatory, change it. Only if the fundamental concept of this box is inflammatory, which I don't think so, then this box should be deleted. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Finding this inflammatory is seriously POV; I don't normally bring such things up, but the nominator is highly involved in Wikiproject:Christianity (such as his work here). While his intent is no doubt good, this is clearly in the realm of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Thespian 22:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepThe main userbox article states that only "intentionally inflammatory" content is not allowed. This userbox does not aim to be inflammatory or insulting, that fact that some religious people may find it to be so does not merit deletion. If I am correct in assuming that it is the image part that the nominator finds offensive, then all "no smoking" signs are also inflammatory. VanTucky 23:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a template ... this TFD should be closed without prejudice. --BigDT 03:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Since when is simply being an atheist inflammatory? Isn't it more inflammatory to insinuate such a thing? --fuzzy510 04:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template was speedy userfied there due to an April 4 TfD. Consensus was also to keep. –Pomte 08:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You might also note that it was the same user who nominated it. VanTucky 18:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If this is counted as inflammatory, the you don't want to see my page. No reason to Delete. Dfrg.msc 06:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the image perfectly and absolutely captures the meaning of "atheist": a hastily drawn, loud rejection of a supernatural deity. —ptk✰fgs 17:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I hardly think it's inflamatory, but regardless, I think that because it's in the userspace we shouldn't rule on it. Frankly I'm really surprised this was nominated - what in the world?--daniel folsom 20:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see anything inflammatory about this userbox. Essentially, the icon is saying, "no god," which is an accurate description of what atheists believe. I can understand how such a statement might be upsetting to people who have very deep-rooted theological convictions, but, as statements of principle, I don't find the icon or the text, "This user is an atheist," to be inflammatory, because neither statement belittles people who believe in a god — they just disagree with them. Imagine if a userbox had an illustration of human evolution crossed out, with the caption, "This user believes man was created in the image of God." I wouldn't consider this userbox to be inflammatory in any way. -Severa (!!!) 01:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep probably a bad faith nomination--sefringle^Talk 06:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletions. -- sefringle^Talk 06:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I fail to understand how this inflamatory, any more than a userbox with a Christian Cross or a Star of David on it. Lankiveil 10:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: It looks like this debate is somewhat one-sided, but there are a lot of more civil userboxes for atheists, and you should respect the beliefs of other people

Yoda921 14:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]

Keep, there is nothing wrong with the userbox, it adequately sums up how a section of athiests feel. Darrenhusted 16:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if you applied that logic to Islamic extremists etc? Yoda921 17:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Yoda[reply]

Are we looking at the same picture, the word God with a cross through? I take that to mean No God, I'm not sure how you are interpreting it. Would you prefer the word Zeus with a bar through it, because many atheists don't believe in Zeus either.Darrenhusted 17:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is absolutely nothing wrong with this box. I personally can't see why someone is targeting this box but then again lately they have been targeting a lot of good userboxes like the Anti-Wii userbox. As other have stated this box won't anger people they just might not agree with our beliefs which is fine but it's our beliefs on God and other parts of the Church and we should be able to state them with this box. Xtreme racer 12:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It represents how people feel. I don't see how it would be inflammatory at all, as it's not putting down any specific religion or group of people. It just uses a simple icon to show that "there's no god" or "no god". hmwith talk 15:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the userboxes page, any userbox in the User namespace do not need to be NPOV, or extremely inflammatory, in this case. I sincerely believe this userbox is not inflammatory. I also invite the nominator to read WP:UBX. (→zel zany - fish) 21:33, 16 June 2007 (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 section.