Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 11 February 13 >

February 12, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If defined call3, and others

[edit]

Meta-templates with many layers (usually called in a template, and both additionally call {{If defined call}}) as mentioned in its previous TFD, but now completely orphaned. Wikiacc 19:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Note that [personal attack removed] the existence of discussion over a template does not make the template divisive, it simply indicates that there are some issues with the template to be resolved. -Splashtalk 00:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchism table

[edit]

Please see Talk:Anarchism for deadlocked discussion. This is just another waste of time and energy, as the template does not even serve any real purpose, not even for those proposing it!!!Harrypotter 14:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amen. The nomination for deletion is frivolous. Hogeye 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- (and the 'anarchism' trees) they are far too simplistic and POV. You can't seriously use such contorted and bias rubbish on wikipedia -- max rspct leave a message 19:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tables, charts, and trees of this sort are inherently oversimplifications of a complex and highly disputed topic. Sarge Baldy 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not? If you think it's a waste of time, then don't participate in it. How is it any more of a waste of time than Wikipedia itself? Why prohibit others from utilizing it? How rude and authoritarian. RJII 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because something takes time to reach consensus doesn't mean you should give up, that's a sign of bad collective decision making. The table is POV because it hasn't reached consensus yet. It is true that simplifying something will ultimately impart some kind of bias, but even a hundred page essay on the subject is hopelessly simplistic in comparison to the subject matter (no matter what the subject matter is). Anarchism is confusing so organizing a table to help people make sense of it can't be a bad thing if it's done correctly. Let's work it out. CJames745 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem, you might have noticed, is that about half the editors of the page consider these visual interpretations inherently POV and a waste of time. I think part of the problem is that some people define anarchism in terms of what is, while the rest of us define it in terms of what it is not. Thus the idea of trying to list all strands of anarchist thought in a chart seems impossible, and indeed this one ignores existing traditions such as anarcho-primitivism on the grounds it doesn't translate well into a chart. I don't find it possible to plop anarchism onto a chart, nor do I think it should be reduced to a series of economic theories. Sarge Baldy 18:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's why it is now explicitly refered to as anarchisim classified by economics. A chart simplifies anarchism only as much as an opening paragraph to an article does the same thing. That is why the article exists in the first place. To expand upon the subject. CJames745 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I thought CfD did the template deletion when the only purpose was to populate a deleted category? -Splashtalk 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Needs-verification

[edit]

Template:Needs-verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category that this template points to was deleted per CfD on Feb 4. I don't know if someone would rather it pointed somewhere else, or whatever...but it is not terribly useful in the current form. Syrthiss 13:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (29 keep/11d) (72.5% majority) keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wdefcon

[edit]

Template:Wdefcon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's the complement of the MFD on Wikipedia:WikiDefcon: [1]. After seeing comments like "vandalbot is trying us to get defcon raised to 1" it seems clear to me that this is inviting to vandalism, and we don't want to encourage that. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per drini and my comments on Wikipedia:WikiDefcon's MFD page. --lightdarkness (talk) 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per my comments on the MFD: It's unnecessary, since most users who would use it are already active in countervandalism. Worst, I think that it's actually harmful to Wikipedia: it encourages vandalism by transforming the issue of vandalism into a militaristic vision of epic battle. This is one of many similar manifestations of this militarism that should be eliminated in favour of simple tools. A Defcon is not a 'simple tool'. // Pathoschild (admin / ') 07:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No vote Keep. Technically, the vandalbot wants us at DefCon 1, but his main purpose is to get us to disallow all anons from editing, and he thinks that by getting us at DefCon 1 would make us realize a problem. However, if there were no organized system, he'd just have to vandalize even more for us to really notice, so deleting DefCon may not be the answer. Then again, Pathoschild is right, it's not really useful anyway. And it's 3am and I have no idea if I'm even coherent. --Rory096 07:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you realize that even if defcon goes to 1, anon edits WON'T be restricted? the defcon is an unofficial subjective thing. Carries no weigh whatsoever. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too effing right. Lock the database because a bunch of kids on RC patrol think we ought to? Stuff and bollocking nonsense. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we're not gonna protect anything, it's the damn vandal that wants us to. That's the whole fucking point. --Rory096 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know, it's the vandal that wants universal semi-protection and thinks DefCon 1 will make us do it. That's exactly the point, DefCon isn't really important at all. --Rory096 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Shrink is decided, or if someone would like to propose one, I would find a smaller version of this template just as handy (perhaps only showing the level and comment, but not all the possible levels?) xaosflux Talk/CVU 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete manually updated and totally subjective, it doesn't show anything meaningful --pgk(talk) 18:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per xaosflux. I have the template on my user page and I start my daily activities from there. If I see a higher Wdefcon that normal (4/5) I immediately hop into IRC and get going at helping out. For me, it is a great tool for looking at the current amount of vandalism at a glance. If we didn't have it, I most likely wouldn't rcp as much due to the amount of extra time it would take just to size up the current situation. There's a cleanup backlog that needs doing and NPOV issues that need solving too. --ZsinjTalk 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How about if the images are cropped down so that only the Wdefcon level is shown? This would greatly shorten the template. Also, the text could be made a bit smaller if space is really that much of a concern. --ZsinjTalk 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to CSD T1: "Its existence and invocation is still controversial." --ZsinjTalk 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be kidding!? So lets just speedy any template that attracts a mix of keep and delete votes on TfD as "divisive" the wub "?!" 01:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I use it. I don't usually fight immediate vandalism, but I have jumped in a couple times at DefCon 3. Seems useful to me. If people don't like it, don't put it on your page, duh. The part about militarism is just silly. This general denigrating of people who are doing boring work fighting off vandals is insane. Also, I'm getting pretty fed in general with people deciding they want to delete other people's stuff. What, are you bored? Deletion is supposed to be for cruft and garbage, not decent work that you don't happen to like. Herostratus 09:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Pfft. Not even sure I risk commenting here. If you can't spot the militaristic vein this injects into the project, then you probably shouldn't be commenting. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was (16 keep/12 delete/1 other) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User anti-fascism

[edit]

Template:User anti-fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Template is clearly divisive and/or inflammatory, and, like User:No Rand and User:No Marxism, should be speedy deleted. Deletions must be consistent and fair. This template is not NPOV in nature. (nominated by User:Nhprman)

  • Note: Please avoid the temptation to delete the warning notice on the template, since it's the only way people can get here and vote to keep or delete the template.

Strong Keep If you are going to nominate a 'anti' something, you must to be NPOV nominate the 'pro' as well. The nomination is POV and therefore invalid. Would you also have a problem with a User Anti-Hitler as well? It is not divisive or inflammatory. Jwissick(t)(c) 05:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the policy on templates at WP:TFD?--Alhutch 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a claim is an opinion. I happen to disagree. I also think that too many users and admins are abusing CSD T1 - a criterion which I oppose vehemently due to the conflicts it has invariably created, but which was instated by rule of dictator, and therefore didn't have to go through all that bothersome nonsense of "consensus". --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, user fascist isn't divisive? So you don't think a Jewish editor who, say, lost grandparents in the holocaust would find this offensive? Something isn't automatically divisive because it has "no" or "anti" as a prefix ("this user says no to anti fascism"; "this user is against the idea that there are an even number of stars in our galazy"). Mikker ... 19:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put.--Alhutch 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Are Wikipedians not allowed to be against or anti- anything? An opinion is never universal, so by its nature it's bound to be "divisive or inflammatory" to someone. I am not a fan of flauting these POV boxes but I believe people can hold strong opinions and still edit responsibly. Might as well purge all POV boxes and get it over with if you're afraid of being divisive instead of filling up the tfd log with them. --Pastricide! Non-absorbing 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we keep "belief" Userboxes, let's rename them "Bias Announcers," because they insinuate bias, and create controversy. I have to point out that some Userboxes were "speedy deleted" while others remain. If all boxes stay, the ones deleted need to come back. But since some have gone, ALL should be deleted until this debate is sorted out. I'm not saying "purge them all" but I'm close to it. Nhprman 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think it is ridiculous that pro-anything is NPOV but anti-anything is POV. The entire concept of userboxes is doomed if that is the position the community takes. Rexmorgan 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen. Jimbo's statement was (edited, emphasis added) was: I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad... I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC) OK? So keep the userbox and use the "what links here" function to find and engage each user who is using the userbox. If they don't want to delete it ask them to subst it.Yes this is time-consuming but so it bloviating about it all over the 'pedia, wheel wars, etc. See User:Tony Sidaway/Jimbo's request. All you have to do is basically drop Jimbo's note onto their page and I'm sure 80% will comply. The remainder? It'll be a teaching moment. Herostratus 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subst it if you want it. Proto||type 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete al user boxes except for very few. Caesarion 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV-userbox (personal criterion). Herostratus' appeal above is not incompatible with this nomination. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But change. The idea is a politically sound notion. It might be best used with a different icon in it though. --Mal 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all user-boxes(both pov and npov).helohe (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rexmorgan. --Dragon695 02:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since the "User:Authority" (pro-authoritarian) and - more importantly - the "User:Fascism" Userbox templates have been deleted, apparently very recently, I'm a bit puzzled why this template is not also deleted, since the pro-fascism counterpart is gone. (User:Jwissick, above, suggested that to be NPOV, the pro- had to be deleted too. I'm curious what he has to say about the situation now.) So, unless we have some kind of double standards here at WP, this needs speedy deletion. Also, this voting has gone on far longer than any other in the deletion logs, curiously. Nhprman 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - or bring back the User_fascist box. Wikipedia is not to decide what's good or bad, and by having only 1 choice it is denying people the right to think for themselves. Boothman 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TucsonInfoBox

[edit]

Template:TucsonInfoBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete not used, redundant with {{Infobox City}}. --Sherool (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (15 keep/13 delete/1 other) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User vomit

[edit]

Template:User vomit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Entirely pointless, no encyclopedic or community value. Possibly a variant of trolling, based on disgust rather than outrage. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ga-?

[edit]

Template:User ga-? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Doesn't make sense. "?" is not one of the standard language categories at Category:User ga. Should be in Irish, not English if it is meant to be a real language template. Angela. 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot. Speedy deleted by Physchim62 (T1, bloody stupid and frankly offensive). - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User m1911

[edit]

Template:User m1911 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with various NRA-related templates, and needlessly provocative by combining politics and religion. Next thing you know, there will be boxes asserting that She always keeps a round in the chamber. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:46, 12 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_12&oldid=1082482474"