Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 1

< November 30	December 2 >

December 1 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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar edit

Template:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is named after a former admin, RickK, who apparently was exposed as a sockpuppet admin. It seems strange to be celebrating a long-term (three years) absent former socking admin, who, in the current days of Huggling thousands of edits a day, really isn't anything special when it comes to vandal-fighting. We have a much better barnstar that can be used instead, The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar, that doesn't unnecessarily make a saint out of a long-gone former admin. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Evidence, please? Skomorokh 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence of what? His long-term absence or lack of reverts? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about your extraordinary allegation that the editor in question was a sockpuppet? You seem to be going on nothing other than hearsay. Skomorokh 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - RickK was not a sockpuppet. His account was compromised following his long term absence and as a result it was desysopped. The worst he ever did was a 3RR if I'm not mistaken. --Thin boy 00 @198, i.e. 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was going on what I have heard people say, and seen evidence for it. Seems odd Zoe and RickK would both be hacked at the same time, and have a similar history. But this point is irrelevant - it's a barnstar named after someone who left 3 years ago. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I think this should be renamed - RickK is long gone and there are now many others who've done more to fight vandalism - but not deleted. (The sockpuppetry allegations come from Kelly Martin via WR, and so by definition aren't reliable.) – iridescent 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about renaming, or using this instead? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be inclined to just keep the unnamed one - however, as I've said on my talkpage this will cause spectacular drama and it's really not worth the hassle. Some principles are worth fighting for, but the name of a barnstar isn't one of them. – iridescent 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — This isn't worth deleting, many people use this barnstar regularly regardless of whether the original creator is a sockpuppet. The principle of a barnstar is important, not it's creator. If anybody insists, it could be renamed, but it sounds like unnecessary hassle which can be avoided. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really, clicking the move button is hassle? I'll do it myself, and fix all the redirects :-) We have a barnstar already that is for the same thing, but lacks the redundant name of RickK in it. People should use that one - we don't need two. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Touché. If you're up for it, you can do it, I just don't see much need for it personally. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This barnstar has been given to boatloads of editors. Deleting it would be a mess. Rename, but do not delete. لennavecia 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See what links to it. The barnstar is substituted, so even if it was deleted, it wouldn't make more of a mess than any ordinary template deletion. – How do you turn this on (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd go with that. I can see from the template's talk page that at least three other people have made the same suggestion. It's now more than 3 years since RickK's last edit; to 90% of our users, the name means nothing, and the first thing they'll see should they decide to investigate him is the block notice. – iridescent 01:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~delete~~ Keep On the one hand , it hurts nothing, yet at the same time Iridescent's point is valid. The name means nothing, and Rick K hasn't been around in ages so the name means nothing. This template is subst'ed so deleting it won't harm anything really. Changing to weak keep because I realized how widely used it is, and it probably needs rename if anything. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AND Rename For obvious reasons but for those that can't see the obvious.. 1) it being the most widely used anti-vandalism template on WP 2) and because it is, it shouldn't be named after someone. The history of RickK isn't a secret, at least to people that's been around a while, so there certainly shouldn't be a lasting memorial in that regards. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 05:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meh, it's known as a RickK vandalism barnstar. I was once asked what a RickK was, so I don't think it has too many negative connotations from our new users. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and migrate discussion (about renaming) to talk page (TFD is the wrong venue for renaming). --Thin boy 00 @194, i.e. 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wouldn't have a problem, necessarily, were this to be renamed: but I don't think it's necessary. Yes, RickK has been gone for a while, but the circumstances around his departure are interesting and when I first came across this barnstar it was a good opportunity to find out about an interesting part of Wikipedia's history. It adds color to an otherwise fairly impersonal barnstar. ~ mazca ^t|c 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The tenative conclusion to the sockpuppet accusation is his account was compromised by hackers. Of course, the debate ain't over till the CheckUser sings, as I like to say. Even if his reputation is tarnished he did so much that it deserves to remain The RickK Anti Vandalisim Barnstar. It is used on countless pages of those who have worked to continue his legacy. There is a reason it's name was originally changed from The Anti Vandalism Barnstar. To delete this would be to listen to the random accusations of raving lunatics who want to throw stones at those who have given their precious time for this great project. In the end however, I can't help but think this is kind of a color of the bikeshed issue. odds are nothing will change and this will wind up in WP:LAME along with the Gasoline/Petrol arguement.--Ipatrol (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was originally titled without RickK in the name? I can't find any evidence of that. It seems you can't appear to make an argument without resorting to ad hominem arguments, and petty name-calling. This is not "lame" at all. Please learn to AGF. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since people clearly want to keep this, I withdraw this nomination, and will move discussion to the talk page, suggesting a merge with a better barnstar, that doesn't unnecessarily make a saint out of a user. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (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:PD-NHC 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete --The Helpful One 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-NHC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete as redundant, duplicative of the more widely used {{NHC}}. Eastlaw (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already removed all transclusions and backlinks to this template. I think {{NHC}} should be kept (and this template should be deleted) because the newer template conforms better to the formats found in Category:United States government attribution templates. --Eastlaw (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect لenna vecia 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —G716 <^T·_C> 03:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. --Thin boy 00 @196, i.e. 03:41, 3 December 2008 (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.