Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5

Template:NSFWArticle

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another disclaimer template; see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. cesarb 21:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. FrostytheSnowman ^('sup?) 23:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as re-creation of a deleted idea. --Carnildo 05:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh! Delete it as fast as possible. (Ahem, I mean, delete per nom. ;) ) —Mi ra 08:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Garion96 (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neil916 15:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Snowy speedy. Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates --Zoz (t) 00:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shanes 00:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. However, remember that no disclaimer templates is a guideline rather than policy, and itself speaks of a need for clearer exposition on this topic. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:Sportiki

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No articles link to it. Previous external links to Sportiki have been removed. Sportiki pages do not offer much more information than official team sites. Example: Official site of the Yankees and New York Yankees at Sportiki. Sportiki pages tend to be outdated, as well. As of the time of this post, the New York Mets have a record of 11-4, while they are currently 64-44. -- Win777 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:Mergedisputed

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 consensous/keep. I will now duck and cover, after I put water on the fire. --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A DRV consensus determined the closure of the previous TfD on this template (by a non-admin) was improper. This is relisted for new consideration. In this case especially, non-admins should not close debate under any circumstances. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain Xoloz 17:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is an old TfD being reopened, shouldn't all the old votes and comments be copied over? I can't make an informed vote if I haven't heard the original arguments. Neon Merlin 17:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is not being reopened, it is being rerun. Typically, if an appreciable period of time has elapsed, DRV will not reopen a debate, for precisely the reason you mention. Consider the template anew. Xoloz 21:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Merge. Here's a link to the original debate and here's a non-diff link to the deletion review. The main problem with the former (aside from the improper closure) was that the support for keeping the template was based upon precisely the types of confusion and misunderstanding that justify its removal. As far as I'm concerned, the "keep" voters actually helped to make my case. I urge the closing admin to carefully analyze the respondents' reasoning (and the validity thereof) instead of performing a simple vote count. —David Levy 18:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Serves a useful purpose for the article to show directly that a proposed merger is disputed. It encourages participation when participation is required. Many proposed mergers do not generate discussion and are not disputed. For these, the standard template works fine. But disputes should be advertised to get contributing editors to respond. The category is also very useful as a means of seeing which proposed mergers are disputed and attracting attention to ensure a quick resolution of the problem. --JJay 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Very few editors use this template, so the vast majority of disputed mergers are not labeled as such. Therefore, this leads to a variety of false assumptions (some of which were demonstrated in the previous deletion debate). The tag creates the appearance that articles tagged in this manner have been assigned an official status that sets them apart from other articles with contested merger proposals (such as the belief that an impartial third party has issued a ruling). It also discourages participation on the other articles' talk pages (which should be encouraged regardless of previously expressed opinions), and one might even be led to believe that the handful of articles tagged in this manner are the only ones for which the mergers are contested.

2. Despite claims to the contrary, the template's lack of use is not due to poor documentation. It was popular until the standard {{merge}} tags were reworded for neutrality. At that point, {{mergedisputed}} was rendered obsolete, so most editors decided to stop using it.

3 Even if it were widely used, the template would convey nothing other than the fact that one person has contested a merger. It is not an indication that substantial opposition (which would require an arbitrary assessment) exists, but it often is misinterpreted to mean precisely that (as evidenced by the previous deletion debate). —David Levy 20:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my view, the current merger tag's wording is not particularly relevant to this discussion. Nor is your unverifiable claim about this template's previous popularity. This template helps to resolve disputes, something we should be striving for. The fact that few users use the template does not have any bearing on its utility. In my experience, the template often indicates substantial opposition from many users to a proposed merger against one stubborn party arguing and often edit warring over a merge. In those situations, it is entirely appropriate to use this template. Furthermore, your argument about an "official status" conferred by the template is fallacious. It confers no more official status than a merge tag, POV tag, cite tag, etc. --JJay 21:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The standard tags' wording is highly relevant. In the original deletion debate, you stated that "the current merger tag's wording is not particularly relevant to this discussion (unless the wording is changed to reflect the possibility of dispute)". You've backed away from the latter half, because you now know that the templates' wording was changed (by me) to reflect the possibility of dispute and encourage discussion (diff). Previously, the tags indicated that "this article or section should be merged with _____." Therefore, a separate template indicating that this was disputed made sense at the time. Our current wording, however, merely conveys that a merger has been "suggested," and it invites readers to discuss the matter on the articles' talk pages. It neither states nor implies that this is uncontested...except when someone arrives at that false assumption upon seeing {{mergedisputed}} in another article.

2. The fact that most editors who formerly used this template stopped doing so when the aforementioned reform occurred also is highly relevant. You refer to this claim as "unverifiable," which seems to imply that I'm lying. Believe what you like, but this template used to be used far more frequently than it is now. (Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered to create its special icon.)

3. You claim that the "template helps to resolve disputes." In my experience, it currently has no observable effect other than to confuse many users and occasionally generate new disputes over whether a merger proposal qualifies as "disputed."

4. You stated that "the template often indicates substantial opposition from many users to a proposed merger against one stubborn party arguing and often edit warring over a merge." What you describe is known as "consensus against a merger." We don't need a tag to announce that (nor does this one do so). The proper course of action is to remove the merger tags and not merge the articles. If the "one stubborn party" continues to cause disruption, this should be addressed via administrative action.

5. In rejecting my "official status" argument, you're ignoring the feedback received during the previous deletion debate. Ste4k (whom you counted as part of "a clear numerical 9-6 consensus for keeping the template") was under the impression that "the template makes note that a third unconcerned party has reviewed the discussion and found it to be recent but in dispute, which clearly delineates the set of articles from a category of unreviewed." Despite this, you disputed my assertion that the "support" votes stemmed from confusion and misunderstanding. I asked you to explain how Ste4k (one of several respondents to base their opinions upon obvious misconceptions) was anything other than confused in stating the above, and you never responded. —David Levy 01:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 1. I have "backed away" from nothing. With the third review of this template in 3 weeks, brevity is a virtue. Otherwise, I disagree with your interpretation of the current wording of the merge template.

2. Your claim is so far unverifiable. It is also not relevant. The template should be kept if it has a utility, even if on a small or smaller scale.

3. I have used the template. It helped resolve a dispute. No one was confused by its use.

4. Disagreement is sometimes expressed through edit warring leading to administrative action (but this should be avoided). Other times it is expressed through templates. These templates - like the merge template itself - should, ideally, not remain on an article for sustained periods. They should lead to a a resolution of the problem.

5. This is not DRV. It is a new deletion nomination. I will not try to channel, read the minds or parse the comments of participants in previous debates. I am thus not going to undertake the misplaced and futile exercise of trying to ascertain which earlier delete/keep "voter" was/is "confused", "misconceived", "misunderstood", etc. I respect other opinions. I would ask you to try to do the same--JJay 01:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please explain how the standard merger templates' wording is anything other than neutral. (Regardless, most of the community disagrees with you, as evidenced by the strong support that it received in a straw poll and the virtual abandonment of {{mergedisputed}}.)

2. Again, you point out that my claim is unverifiable. Are you implying that I'm lying? And no, this is not irrelevant, as it clearly demonstrates that the template is no longer needed.

3. You may have used the template to resolve a dispute, but you're one person. You could have resolved the dispute without the template, and the confusion that the tag causes is clear.

4. You didn't address my point. You indicated that this template should be used when "one stubborn party" is pushing for a merger that everyone else opposes. Again, that describes a consensus against the merger (for which no template should be used). If someone continually causes disruption by inserting tags for a merger that defies consensus, the solution is not to replace them with this tag. It's to remove all of the tags and address the user's misconduct via a warning (and possibly a temporary block).

5. Please stop wiki-lawyering. The comments expressed in the original discussion (or in any related discussion) are highly relevant, as they illustrate the problems that justify this template's removal. I'm not asking you to read anyone's mind. I'm asking you to address the actual comments and explain how they could have stemmed from anything other than confusion (the existence of which you deny). "Respect[ing] other opinions" doesn't mean "allowing obviously incorrect statements to go unchallenged, counting the votes, and declaring a 'numerical consensus'." —David Levy 03:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have been over and over this. You have stated, restated and repeated your views. I have already strongly disagreed with your approach. You see no use for this template and I see value. Our positions are opposed and will not change. Further discussion between us and exceedingly long comments serve no purpose. Otherwise, I clearly indicated I will not speak for other users and the previous debate has been through DRV. There is nothing for me to add. --JJay 03:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My "approach" is to engage in discussion. Yours is to dodge my questions and accuse me of disrespecting other users by challenging their incorrect statements (instead of simply counting their votes). The fact that "the previous debate has been through DRV" doesn't mean that the comments contained therein are no longer relevant. From the very beginning, you've acted as though TfD is supposed to function as a simple majority vote (in which users file in, express their opinions without interaction, and file out). This simply isn't so. —David Levy 04:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have done my best to respond to your opinions. I believe my four comments above are more than sufficient. But I have not accused you of disrespecting anyone here since I am currently the only other participant. I have also made no comments here about TFD, majority votes or anything of that sort. If any other users appear here, feel free to "challenge their incorrect statements" as much as you want. --JJay 04:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've responded to my opinions by stating that you disagree. You have not, however, responded to my questions.

You believe that the standard merger templates' wording isn't neutral, but you refuse to explain how this is so.

You've repeatedly referred to my statements regarding the template's former popularity as "unverifiable," but you refuse to clarify this remark (which seems to imply that I'm lying).

You indicated that this template should be used when "one stubborn party" is pushing for a merger that everyone else opposes, and you refuse to explain why it's appropriate to respond to such vandalism by compromising with the vandal at the article's expense (instead of soliciting administrative intervention).

You assert that this template does not cause confusion. I've cited evidence that it does, and you refuse to address it because "the previous debate has been through DRV" (as though that somehow renders the comments contained therein irrelevant). I didn't ask you to "speak for other users." You were more than happy to cite their votes as part of "a clear numerical 9-6 consensus for keeping the template," and I just want you to explain how these statements could be indicative of anything other than confusion. I'm referring strictly to what these people wrote, not to anything that requires mind-reading.

And yes, you did imply that my decision to challenge the incorrect statements from the original discussion (instead of simply counting the votes) was disrespectful. Quoth your earlier post: "I will not try to channel, read the minds or parse the comments of participants in previous debates. I am thus not going to undertake the misplaced and futile exercise of trying to ascertain which earlier delete/keep 'voter' was/is 'confused', 'misconceived', 'misunderstood', etc. I respect other opinions. I would ask you to try to do the same"

Again, "respect[ing] other opinions" doesn't mean "allowing obviously incorrect statements to go unchallenged, counting the votes, and declaring a 'numerical consensus'." —David Levy 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please reread my comments above: (i) I have said nothing about "neutrality", but rather that the merge template wording is not very relevant - it does not cover the situations where this template can be profitably used; (ii) Regarding "popularity", see point 2 of comment 3. I have also never called you a "liar". (iii) Comment 2 gives an example of appropriate use. I have not used the word "vandalism". Vandalism is dealt with in other ways; (iv) I have seen no confusion in my use of this template as per point 3 of comment 3; (v) my comment regarding "respecting other opinions" referred to my own; (vi) I have made no comments here about "counting the votes", a "numerical consensus" or anything similar (see previous comment). --JJay 19:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You previously stated that the standard merger templates "indicate to uninvolved readers that an article may be defective." That certainly comes across as a claim that their wording isn't neutral. In actuality, the wording is entirely neutral, and it covers any merger proposal (whether unanimously supported or opposed). That's why its introduction resulted in the abandonment of the obsolete {{mergedisputed}} by most editors.

2. You didn't call me a "liar," but you repeatedly noted that my claim regarding the template's former popularity is "unverifiable." Either my claim is true or I'm lying, so you certainly seem to have implied the latter.

3. You didn't use the word "vandalism," but you described an act of vandalism (the disruptive insertion of merger tags that defy clear consensus) and cited this an ideal situation in which to use the template (thereby compromising with the vandal). No, that is not "an example of appropriate use." It's an example of vandalism that should be dealt with via reversion of the problematic edits and administrative intervention.

4. Again, one need only read the comments expressed in the original debate to see ample evidence of the confusion that this template causes. Of course, you refuse to address these statements (despite the fact that you previously cited them as clear justification for keeping the template).

5. You stated that you refuse to scrutinize the aforementioned comments because you "respect other opinions" and "would ask [I] to try to do the same." That was a clear implication that my scrutiny of said comments (instead of simply counting them as valid "keep" votes, as you did) was disrespectful.

6. I'm stunned by your argument that you "have made no comments here" about a "numerical consensus." By "here," of course, you're referring to this particular page. Do you honestly believe that the fact that you made this comment on a different page (during the deletion review) somehow means that it's no longer pertinent? Talk about wiki-lawyering! —David Levy 04:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:In the interest of repetition: (i) I have not discussed the merger template's "neutrality" here or its defects (see previous comment Sec. 1); (ii) I can not prove or disprove your assertion regarding the "popularity" of the template. It is thus "unverifiable" for me - but may very well be true (although your "either or" statement regarding truth is a false affirmation. Lying requires intent). However, I have indicated that I do not believe its "popularity" is relevant (see comment 3, Sec. 2); (iii) I have not described an act of "vandalism". This template should not be used for vandalism (see comment 2); (iv) none of my comments here have "cited" any opinions except my own; (v) I have not counted any votes here. My comment referred to my own opinion. To clarify: I respect your opinion. Please show a minimum of consideration for mine; (vi) This is TFD not DRV. My participation here concerns the template's merits (see two previous comments). --JJay 00:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. PLEASE stop pointing out that you didn't make comments "here." The fact that you made them on different Wikipedia pages doesn't mean that they no longer exist. You're welcome to retract your previous statements, but stop pretending that you never made them.

2. I couldn't possibly be mistaken about the fact that the template formerly was in much wider use. (Otherwise, I wouldn't have created the icon.) Therefore, this claim is either true or it's a lie. I'm asking you to accept my word. This is highly relevant, as it's been claimed that the template isn't used because it lacks adequate documentation. In fact, it's better documented now than it was when it was widely used. This is indicative of a conscious decision to abandon an obsolete template.

3. Yes, you have described an act of vandalism. When someone deliberately causes disruption by inserting merger tags that defy clear consensus, that's vandalism. Regardless, you're debating semantics instead of explaining why you believe that it's better to compromise with such an individual (by inserting this template) instead of upholding consensus by removing the tags and requesting administrative intervention.

4./5. Again, PLEASE stop attempting to dodge my points via the technicality that you didn't do something "here." During the deletion review, you counted the votes and declared "a clear numerical 9-6 consensus." Despite citing these comments as justification for keeping the template, you continually refuse to address their content. "Respecting" an opinion (whether it's yours, mine, or someone else's) doesn't mean "not challenging" it.

6. The fact that "this is TFD, not DRV" doesn't mean that all previous pertinent discussion is stricken from the record. I'm citing comments made by respondents to the original deletion debate (relevant irrespective of the forum in which they were made) as evidence of the confusion that this template causes (the existence of which you deny). I'm asking you to provide an alternative explanation that bolsters your stance, and you refuse to even address these remarks (which you previously cited as part of "a clear numerical 9-6 consensus for keeping the template"). You've made excuses that you won't attempt to read minds (when I'm only asking you to respond to the statements that were written) and that "this is not DRV" (despite the fact that you ignored exactly the same request during the DRV). You know darn well that numerous people have stepped forward to support the template because of clear, incontrovertible confusion (precisely the type that I've cited as justification for its removal), and you're doing as much wiki-layering as you can to avoid acknowledging this fact. —David Levy 03:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: PLEASE stop the argumentative repetition and emotional accusations (dodging, pretending, wikilawyering, you know darn well, etc.). To reiterate: My support for this template has always been based on personal experience. I have used it and it was highly effective (and thus not obsolete) in resolving a disputed merger. None of the editors involved was confused by its use. This was not vandalism and I would strongly encourage you to review the stubborness section from "what vandalism is not". Feel free to cite your beliefs about other users to "bolster" your opinion. But I can only explain my thinking on the merits of this template - not whatever strawmen you keep trying to inject into the discussion. --JJay 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JJay. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 14:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JJay has written a great deal, so it isn't clear what rationale you're citing. Could you please elaborate? —David Levy 17:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying Keep based on everything JJay said in his first comment. —JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, perhaps you could read the remainder of the discussion (if you haven't done so already) and respond to some of the questions and comments that JJay has refused to address. I would sincerely appreciate it. —David Levy 18:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depreciate Redirecting it will cause some level of confusion. ("Why is {{mergedisputed}} the same as {{merge}}?") Rather depreciate the tag, as it doesn't seem to be used that often. Kevin_b_er 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Its a useful note in case someone comes along to merge without checking the talk pages. T. Moitie ^[talk] 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is a note useful when it conveys nothing more than the fact that one person (out of any number of respondents) contests a proposed merger? That's a normal occurrence, and users should be encouraged to routinely check the talk pages before proceeding with a merger (not merely when they see a tag that usually isn't used—even when numerous people contest a proposed merger). —David Levy 20:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very useful way of showing diputed merges. Has prompted me to look further and consider the arguments presented more than a few times. Viridae ^Talk 23:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should check the talk pages of articles containing any merger tags, not merely the handful containing this particular tag. It might seem as though it's directing you to special cases, but it isn't. It's directing you a tiny number of the numerous merger discussions (many of which are contested) and discouraging you from pursuing the rest. —David Levy 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No reason to delete it. Not causing anybody any significant bodily harm... and I find it potentially useful. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 09:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the above discussion? I nominated the template for redirection, not deletion. It isn't causing anyone "bodily harm," but it's confusing and misleading people.

If the template actually served to differentiate between disputed and undisputed mergers, it would be useful. The wording conveys that idea, and that's why the template is harmful. As you can see, it appears in 49 articles out of approximately 10,500 with proposed mergers, thereby creating the false appearance that these (essentially random) 49 articles are the only ones with disputed merger proposals or the only ones to meet some sort of special criteria. In fact, each just happens to have had the tag inserted by an editor who contested the merger. It means nothing more than if you were to replace the TfD tag with one indicating that this nomination is disputed. It's an ordinary occurrence, not one warranting announcement (hence the fact that almost no one does it). —David Levy 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my book, if the template isn't going to be there in its form after the discussion, it's been deleted. Redirected name or not, it's been deleted. Poofed. Vaporized. Vanished. Gone. Dismissed. Discharged. It calls extra attention to something that somebody might otherwise not be interested in. Mergers are tedious, and most people don't care about them (Thusly 10,000 articles are tagged thusly), but with this tag, it might bring another set of eyes to the party and have a fresh input or something. I'm an inclusionist-based type person. There's no reason to delete/merge/redirect/split/disambiguate (Overboard?) the template. Leave it alone. It's keeping 49 articles nice and toasty. It serves a purpose and even if it is underused, to those 49 articles, that little yellow exclamation point and those bold words might give a passerby some pause and reason to flip to the discussion page and read. It did to me when I saw one. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 18:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please understand that I'm not arguing that the template is unneeded because it's used so little; I'm arguing that it's used so little because it's unneeded. (It once served a valid purpose, but that was before we reworded the standard merger templates to reflect the possibility of dispute).

Secondly, why do the 49 articles in question deserve to have "extra attention" called to them (at the expense of other articles with merger proposals)? Do you believe that these are the only ones that are disputed (or the only ones that have been verified as significantly disputed by an impartial third party)? Some readers do (as plainly stated in the original TfD debate), and that's why the template is harmful. If it were merely of limited use (but harmless), I wouldn't be pursuing this matter.

If anything, it would make more sense to inform readers that a merger discussion is unusually complicated (whether due to a dispute or some other factor that requires extra input). That reminds me...

In case you didn't realize, we have a page on which merger proposals can be listed with a reasonable amount of background information. Some editors use it routinely, but it's especially useful for proposals requiring extra attention (due to controversy, difficulty, etc.). This page is readily available for those who seek it out, and there's no need to pollute article space in a manner that confuses and misleads countless people. —David Levy 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"At the expense of...", "deserve to have extra attention", et cetera... What expense? It's not as if its time critical otherwise there wouldn't be 10 thousand articles needing merging and we'd have complaints from here to Wazoo County. It's not as if the Wikimedia Foundation will suddenly collapse. And as for deserving to have extra attention. They aren't human beings. They aren't going to suddenly feel left out. They are things. Things get prioritized, things get lost in the shuffle, things get held over to the next meeting. Things don't have feelings. I hope, or otherwise, I'm in trouble. It won't kill the integrity of Wikipedia to have 49 articles getting a little bit more attention than others. Otherwise, the many Collaboration of the Week things would have to be abolished because it's favoritism, and we would have to eliminate * for Deletion templates because... OMG, we can't have those articles getting any more attention than articles marked for speedy delete. But of course, we'd have to get rid of PROD too. Don't want it to feel left out, do we? Don't take my comments the wrong way, I understand your concerns... but, they are, to me at least, a bit much, for a template that is only trying bring attention to a situation that may be more complex than other merger discussions. Maybe a full on argument. There's no sacrifice of integrity. The launch codes are secure and we can all stand down from battle stations missile. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust (T C) 23:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that that anything as dire as the collapse of the Wikimedia Foundation would occur, nor did I intend to anthropomorphise the articles. I agree that no harm arises from the extra attention that these articles receive. The problem lies in the attention that the other articles don't receive. This template misleads readers into believing that these 49 (or however many at a given time) articles are the only ones with merger disputes requiring their attention. Therefore, they're more likely to ignore the talk pages of the other articles (and possibly even proceed with unsupported mergers). That's the "expense." And for what benefit? To draw special attention to articles with merger proposals contested by one person? (As I said, this tag would be more useful if it conveyed the existence of a "complex" discussion and requested additional input.) —David Levy 01:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly publicise better, maybe editing the {{merge}} template to say 'replace this with {{mergedisputed}} if you disagree'. This situation reminds me of PROD; it's useful to know whether a merge has been contested or not. The nom is correct in that it isn't being used enough, but I don't think this is a reason for deletion. --ais523 12:21, 8 August 2006 (U T C)

I don't know why I bother to type these replies, given the fact that no one reads them.

Again, I nominated the template for redirection, not deletion. And again, the template is better documented now than it was when it was popular. People stopped using it when the standard merger templates' neutral wording was introduced (thereby rendering this template obsolete). Readers are informed that a merger "has been suggested" and encouraged to use the talk pages (which contain far more useful information than the fact that one person disagrees). All sorts of opinions can be expressed, so it isn't possible to accurately convey the status of a proposal via a tag. It's harmful to imply that it's okay to ignore the talk pages unless this message appears. —David Levy 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume that noone reads your replies until they've had a chance to reply to them! I don't think that this template is obsolete yet, and I agree with you that it may be misworded. I'm not sure whether people will read anything into the fact that a particular dispute template has been used (I read more into the colour of the talk page link), but this seems to be a problem with wording, not concept. Of course it isn't acceptable to ignore the talk pages; but I don't think that that's a problem with this template. I'm aware that the template was nominated for merging rather than deletion, but for me that doesn't make a difference to the result of the debate. Lastly, despite the link on the template, it seems reasonable to suppose that many Wikipedia non-editing readers won't bother to check the talk pages, and having an admittedly small amount of information in the tag will help sort this problem. --ais523 13:29, 8 August 2006 (U T C)

Firstly, I sincerely appreciate the fact that you took the time to read my reply to you. I was referring to my previous replies (one of which explained that the template's lack of use is due to a deliberate decision to abandon it, not a lack of documentation). I always read the entire discussion and any previous *fD/DRV discussions before commenting.

Secondly, thank you for discussing this issue in a constructive manner. I disagree with you, but I respect your viewpoint.

This problem, as I perceive it, is not that this template conveys too little information; it's that it conveys the wrong information. If you read the original TfD debate, you'll see that numerous "keep" voters based their opinions upon entirely incorrect impressions (such as the belief that "the template makes note that a third unconcerned party has reviewed the discussion and found it to be recent but in dispute, which clearly delineates the set of articles from a category of unreviewed"). When users see this tag, they're led to believe that theses articles are the only ones with contested merger proposals (when they only make up a tiny percentage) or that they've been officially designated as "disputed" by a neutral arbiter.

The tag also fails to weigh the breakdown of the opinions expressed. It might mean that half of the respondents oppose the proposed merger, but it could just as easily mean that one respondent out of ten opposes. Therefore, it conveys no truly useful information, and it actually lends a false appearance of significant opposition to proposals that are overwhelmingly supported. By using the standard merger tags (as almost everyone does), we encourage readers to always check the talk pages and consider whatever opinions have been expressed (in support of the merger, in opposition to the merger, suggesting an alternative/reverse/partial merger, etc.). —David Levy 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per aid523. And yes, David, I have read your full refutation and rebuttal of every keep vote so far, there is no need to repeat them. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it. :-) —David Levy 21:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see a reasonable chance that this TfD will go to consensus, given the agglomeration of verbiage above. Also, a comment about the nom: I'm not sure I understand the reference being made to it being a non-admin who closed the previous TfD. I've seen some tendency in the project of stratifying into admins, users, and anons, which I believe is ultimately harmful to the goals of the project. Since nonadmins can close TfDs (by my understanding), I don't understand the relevence. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:Off topic warning

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 consensous/keep --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates the first bullet in {{Talkheader}}. NOTE: That bullet is not visible on the template page because it is filtered for article space with an #if directive. – Smyth\^talk 07:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)– Smyth\^talk 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since, as nom mentioned, it's redundant due to Template:Talkheader.--TBCTaLk?!? 03:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per User:Tree Biting Conspiracy Travb (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Maybe I'm just being dense, but whatever it duplicates from {{Talkheader}} isn't readily apparent to me. This template seems useful. Neil916 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is useful on pages like Talk:High School Musical that are frequented by those wishing to discuss the topic itself and have no interest in the subject. Because it doubles the message in {{Talkheader}} annon editors and newer editors are more likely to head it's message. --omtay38 04:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a much stronger emphasis than {{Talkheader}}. Off topic posting is a real problem on talk pages such as talk:evolution. I would note that although the template was only created a few months ago and not widely discussed it is already in use on 30 pages. Barnaby dawson 07:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is useful when there would be benefit in reiterating that the talk pages are not for general discussion, as it is more specific and more prominent. Maybe revise the content to optimize it for such a purpose. --TJJFV 14:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per TJJFV's points above. Template:Talkheader makes no mention about keeping the talk page about the article, not the topic. Matt Deres 02:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, see "NOTE" above. – Smyth\^talk 07:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topicality warning is more vivid on its own than within the header, so this seems a useful template. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is only actualy redundent when you use both. Keep since it's usefull. ---J.S (t|c) 04:37, 11 August 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.

Template:100TPF

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template only used in one article and unlikely to be usable in others. In addition the data in the table does not match the reference provided in the article ([1]). Suggest subst and update. Chaos syndrome 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now substed the table into the article where it was used. Chaos syndrome 17:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agree with nom. Merge with article works better. — RJH (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge with article. Neil916 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & merge Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:AIK

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 all speedied as violations of fair-use policy. User:Angr 14:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following related templates:

Not one of these are used, and it is not a good idea to have these, as football logos generally are fair use and should not be used as pure decoration, which was the meaning of these templates. Delete all. – Elisson • Talk 11:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Fair use images should not be used in templates per fair use policy. Oldelpaso 12:10, 5 August 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.

Template:Gradmain

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, created by self. Combination 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author nom. Neil916 15:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per author's request. The two edits which weren't from him were both minor + the template is not used anywhere. --Zoz (t) 23:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Per author. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:NYCGov

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and difficult to conceive of a use. It is neither necessary nor sufficient as either a source or a license for images, so what's the point? User:Angr 08:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neil916 15:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:Wii

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 consensous, reverting to keep --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All this information is already in template form via Template:Nintendo hardware (Wii parser) or Nintendo Wi-Fi Jigahurtz 08:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Nintendo Wi-Fi}}

Speedy Keep- This may be a deletion of little faith, as the only information in the two is the link to the Wii and the Wii Remote, so there is no redundancy, as you can see for your self below. It would need links to List of Wii games, Wii Optical Disc, Virtual Console (Wii), WiiConnect24, etc, which don't fall under the hardware classification. JQF 17:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC), edited JQF 17:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and removing a template up for deletion from the pages it's on is bad form, and I think may be grounds to the remove the deletion nomination, but I'm not sure so I'm going to leave it for now. JQF 17:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Much of this information is not duplicated. This is useful. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A little research shows that the template was removed before it was up for deletion. [2] It was removed at 7:51 and the request to delete came at 8:00. The nomionation appears to be clearly in bad faith. --Edgelord 22:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first line in the template is shown in the Wii parser for the Nintendo Hardware template. WiFi is shown via the Template:Nintendo_Wi-Fi template. Which also shows the games list. Categories are shown at the bottom of the page. That leaves 1 thing in this template that isn't shown on existing templates of on the page. Wii Optical Disk. A one sentence non-cited speculative article.70.101.201.248 01:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment History of Wii artice shows that above user removed template from main article before voting here. [3] --Edgelord 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it has some handy information that is useful and less confusing when separated from the Nintendo Hardware template. Also, remove the Wii parser from the general Nintendo hardware template, or at least don't call it in the Wii article, as there is redundant information. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I don't think that catagories belong in templates, and the wiimote section is more fitting in the hardware section. The Wi-Fi section has the remander of that information. In note to a comment above, the wii optical disk is a plain DVD, not a new format. I agree with you that that isn't a very useful article. DeathSeeker 08:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Wii Optical Disc was removed from the template, and the page turned into a redirect on suggestion by CambridgeBayWeather.
Keep per JQF and koavf. --129.8.206.111 08:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above. –Prototime (talk • contribs) 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serves a related but distinct purpose tot he Nintendo hardware template. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:Demographics of South Africa

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.

deleted --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template was only half created, no articles use it, and it's been about a year since it was first created. See history - [4]. Template should be deleted. --- Hong Qi Gong 05:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:User System Administrator

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, since it's been reworded to avoid potential confusion. —Misza 13 ^{T C} 21:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being used by people who are not system administrators on Wikipedia. A completely misleading template. If it's changed to say "System administrator at another site", then I would withdraw my nomination. But as of now, this template is misleading and should be deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's confusing at all - there's a reason WP uses "Sysop" rather than the generic "System Administrator". Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. We're called "admins" all the time, more often than "sysops". WP:AN is an Administrators' page, not a Sysops' page. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The admin template is different but I have always thought this one would confuse new or inexperienced editors. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 02:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sarah Ewart. Crum375 02:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that some members of the community are not confused by this template is not important. The point is, some Wikipedia users might not understand the meaning of this template. The template does not help us build the encyclopedia and it can cause problems. If Wikipedians feel a need to describe themselves as system administrators, they can do so without using a template. --JWSchmidt 03:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and edit if necessary. I would never in a million years assume that this template indicated a position of responsibility on WP. The computer icon gives it away for me. But if it's such a disaster for even a few people to mistake a non-admin for an admin, I'm certain the userbox can be made less ambiguous for their sakes.--Anchoress 03:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Rename~~ per Zoe's suggestion. I think that the link in the template makes clear (to the people who click) that the template isn't referring to Wiki admins, but agree that it might confuse some users as stated. TheronJ 03:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the rewording should make confusion very unlikely. TheronJ 15:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless text is edited to clarify that the user does not hold a special position of authority or responsibility on Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my discussion above. I believe it's not ambiguous as-is, however, would not stand in the way of someone making it even more unambiguous if that's an issue they feel is necessary. Georgewilliamherbert 04:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've re-worded it in a way that should be completely unambiguous. --Carnildo 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Carnildo's changes. GeeCee 04:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The changes being suggested are a good idea, but an even better idea is deletion, because even the residual confusion is not worth the (near nil) benefit to the project that a userbox provides. Mango juice^talk 04:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - from a risk/benefit standpoint, I don't think there's much risk but there's almost no benefit. Since I dislike userboxes in general, I would say the same of most of them, but I don't see a strong reason to delete this one in particular. Isomorphic 05:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potentially confusing and rewording may not help matters. I changed the background color so that it doesn't resemble the admin template, just in case the discussion is to keep the template.--MONGO 05:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think the new wording clears up any confusion which certainly was present in the original. As always, this userbox belongs properly in userspace. Ashibaka tock 05:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or else all other Category:Profession user templates must be deleted or modified so they will not be confused with Wikipedia activities. Template:User bartender might be confused with someone who serves drinks at Wikimania. A label should say "Wikipedia" if it is related to Wikipedia otherwise it does not. (SEWilco 06:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep per above. It's also gotten clarified since the nom, which I believes "Fixes" it. ShaunES 06:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, as it is after changing the wording, and preferably move to userspace, per Ashibaka. --Joanne B 07:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carnildo's changes and as currently worded. --Cactus.man ✍ 08:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Even if it was misleading to a passerby, which I don't contend it is, what's going to happen? Is the "System Administrator" going to be able to block someone? Protect a page? A WP Admin is an editor with a few extra tools, tools that the "System Administrator" doesn't have. Of course, any person confused won't be with the changes by Carnildo. --Kbdank71 14:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As stated by SEWilco. --Jelloman 17:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's now fixed, keep it. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This doesn't really cause confusion, and also per SEWilco. rootology (T) 20:58, 5 August 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.

Template:MLB infobox Giants

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC) Orphaned template or linked on non-article namespaces, which references {{MLB infobox}}. All baseball pages are now using the proper template. This template should be deleted. Retropunk 02:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination also includes the following templates:

Template:MLB infobox Padres

Template:MLB infobox Dodgers

Template:MLB infobox Rockies

Template:MLB infobox Cardinals

Template:MLB infobox Pirates

Template:MLB infobox Brewers

Template:MLB infobox Reds

Template:MLB infobox Cubs

Template:MLB infobox Nationals

Template:MLB infobox Phillies

Template:MLB infobox Marlins

Template:MLB infobox Mariners

Template:MLB infobox Athletics

Template:MLB infobox Twins

Template:MLB infobox Royals

Template:MLB infobox Tigers

Template:MLB infobox Indians

Template:MLB infobox White Sox

Template:MLB infobox Blue Jays

Template:MLB infobox Devil Rays

Template:MLB infobox Diamondbacks

Template:MLB infobox Yankees

Template:MLB infobox Orioles

Template:MLB infobox Red Sox

Template:MLB infobox Rangers

Comment, I've merged the nominations together due to the length--TBCTaLk?!? 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant due to Template:MLB infobox--TBCTaLk?!? 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Improper use of templates, and all have been replaced by proper versions. - Pal 22:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 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.

Template:User X Japan

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 --Pilotguy^{(roger that)} 20:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userbox. BigDT 01:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to {{user band-3|X Japan}}. This is why templates have parameters! Neon Merlin 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an expert on template parsing syntax, but I don't see the user band-3 template performing the same categorization function as this template. ALso, since the template is only visible in userspace, its existence as an alternative to the band template should at least be tolerated. --Ssbohio 03:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. People can add a cat to there page without useing this template and other then that it's totaly redundent. ---J.S (t|c) 04:43, 11 August 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.