Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< February 6 February 8 >

Contents

[edit] February 7, 2006

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 LEEP. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Welcome

Template:Welcome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
I got one of these on my talk page; it didn't make me feel any more welcome -- just the opposite. I'd rather have gotten two personal words than this slab of stale bread. Editors who are new to wikis should visit some Help pages, yes; but a directory of those pages is available here. New users who clearly haven't bothered to orient themselves might need a little push, but that will be most effective if individual and appropriate to the case. Yes, it's a good idea to welcome new members of any community; but it's just nasty to fake it. Delete. John Reid 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

We're all different and nobody has to agree with me; but I'd like to address some comments. I think some people would prefer I did. If not, sorry.

Quite a few say it would be better if newcomers got a personal welcome; well, then, why not? If you're composing a personal welcome, why start with a template? Better to write out two or three actual words from the heart than this cold, impersonal bit of stiff fluff. I wouldn't feel any better getting a block of text you copied off your own Notepad, either.

A template is less genuine than a personal welcome. It says I'm too busy/careless/bored to write anything personal to you as an individual, but I want you to think I care, even though I don't. It carries with it the smell of something done to make the doer look good.

Some say this template contains links every new user should be given. Well, then, why not do that automatically? It would be easy enough to run a bot. This is a computer system; I expect to interact with the system itself and I'm not upset if it treats me impersonally. Run a bot to throw this on the talk page of every newly registered user and I'll withdraw my objection.

I don't expect admins -- or anyone else -- to welcome me to the community just because I signed up and made a few edits. I've done nothing of importance here and (as in any online forum) I may be gone tomorrow, never seen again. I don't expect anyone to waste time checking me out or making me feel at home -- not until I show some sign of real involvement. If and when I do, then I surely hope my welcome is more sincere than this scrap of junk mail. John Reid 21:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, this is a problem of usage (and possibly of the template's content, which is debated at its talk page). I always combine {{welcome}} with a personal message thanking the user for a specific edit. Especially since the {{helpme}} has been added I think it is a very good thing. Kusma (討論) 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. We need a way to inform the users of the standard way to work with wikipedia and still be friendly. The real problem is that there are very few people who welcome newbies. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because there's a template for welcoming doesn't make the welcome any less genuine. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just after signing this template I received a request from a new user because of an edit conflict and those who place Welcome tags receive quite a number of Thank yous and questions, thus it provides a positive addition for a small group. A personalized welcome would be better the amount of newbies versus the amount of people welcoming them is such that a short cut is necessary. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. This is a very useful template, if for nothing else to use as a subst: starting point for people making their own personalized welcome templates. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 03:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the template didn't exist I would simply copy and paste my own welcome into Notepad and use that, and I doubt I would be the only one. But not speedy, nominator has a valid point, even if no-one agrees with him, and there's no harm in letting this run its course. --Malthusian (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Non-speedy keep Its one of the most used templates on WP. If it werent for this template, some people may not bother welcoming new members at all because it wouldnt be as easy. Although its an automated message, people still have to bother to use it, so some thought does go into it. I didnt feel particuarly welcome when i got it, but its useful - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I find it quite useful. Do you really expect the admins to handwrite a note to every single new user? It contains importaint information in a well organized fasion. - Koweja 04:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep discuss wording on Talk page. Physchim62 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Leep - Seems like an obvious leeper to me. P.S.: Damn keyboard. --Cyde Weys 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Lukobe 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 21:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Muhammad cartoons

Template:Muhammad cartoons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This fair-use image violates Wikipedia's fair use criteria. In particular the criteria notes that fair-use images should never be used in a template. Perhaps should be speedied as this is a blatant violation of the criteria. Nfitz 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If there's a fair use image in the template, then remove the image. That's no reason to delete an entire article template. As to the template itself: it allows the reader to navigate between articles relating to this subject. I'm not sure about the current format though. The template is a "sider", and I think it would be more useful as a header or a footer. Keep. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If image is removed, template is organised better, and actually used, then retention wouldn't be unfair - though considering it seems to have been created by some kind of sock-puppet with the interesting name of User:Template for Muhammad cartoons controversy then it would appear that the user was intending to fan the flames of hatred by pushing the image onto more pages than it already exists. I'd sooner we just delete this completely and generate a new template, rather than one which has roots in hatred. Nfitz 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as superfluous; we don't need a template to link to a "series" of three articles. dab (ᛏ) 17:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. At this moment we got Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons, and List of newspapers that reprinted Jylland-Posten's Muhammad cartoons. That's five articles. Given the size of the main article I wouldn't be surprised if more subpages would be created. --Maitch 18:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The violence is far from over on this stupid fight over a series of cartoons. The image problems have been taken care of. No reason to delete. --Cyde Weys 06:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep There is never a good time for censorshipHiggercabin 04:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Might be a keep ... but what's censorship got to do with this? The image issue was because fair-use images aren't allowed in templates. Nfitz 05:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Could this template please be speedy kept. At this moment we got 7 articles related to this controversy. A template would make it easier to navigate through all the articles. It doesn't really matter anymore that the template had a fair use image or that it was created by a sockpuppet. The image isn't used anymore on the template and we need the template. --Maitch 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Lukobe 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Higgercabin. Siva1979Talk to me 11:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
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 unanimous delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wikipedia

Template:Wikipedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Was added to the top of pages like Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Given that virtually every possible use of this template would be in a context where the very next line makes it obvious that the article or section is about Wikipedia, it seems like a waste of article real estate and an insult to the reader's intelligence. What's next? "This article or section is about {{PAGENAME}}"? --Eloquence* 10:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Not necessary. --Fang Aili 15:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Every wikipedia page has these links anyway not nesicary. --Seth Turner 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • support the "This article or section is about {{PAGENAME}}" template. No wait, delete. dab (ᛏ) 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary. Maybe we need a policy on template creep. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Khoikhoi 23:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Mikkerpikker ... 19:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Loopy e 01:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ¡Dustimagic! (T/C) 03:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Ding, ding. -Splashtalk 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User homeless

Template:User homeless (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This seems offensive and making fun. 195.188.51.100 13:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

(corrected submission and moved to chronological order by -- nae'blis (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC))
  • I never made it to laugh at people. If they're really homeless, and they put it on their userbox, it's one way to call for help.
    • huh, why help? Why not just honesty like the rest of the userboxes, as a point of interest? --Prometheuspan 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    • When a Wikipedian sees it, and asks about it, they could tell their life story as to why they're homeless, so the Wikipedian could possibly help them themselves and/or refer them to an organization that can help them as well. --Shultz 16:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I have a question. If they're really homeless, how would they get their hands on a computer? --D-Day 17:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • hmm, dunno, probably by use of a public computer lab. lol. --Prometheuspan 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Public libraries? Net cafes? And that's just dealing with people who are actually on the streets, and not the many, many homeless who are based on someone's front room floor. Having been briefly homeless in London, I can tell you that 24 hour net cafes are a cheap and relatively safe place to spend the night, and totally Wikipedia-equipped. Vashti 18:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I think this userbox should stay. Homelessness with internet access is entirely possible these days. --Overand
  • Speedy Keep as per Overand, Vashti, Shultz. also, homeless indivdules would be some of the most qualified to edit articles relating to homelessness... just a note, this Speedy Keep post was made from a computer in the Homeless Shelter where I work (Its a slow night...) Mike McGregor (Can) 09:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no harm, actually relevant to building an encyclopaedia (not that I consider that necessary) if vandals add it to someone's user page there's this thing we do called reversion. --Malthusian (talk) 11:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, discourage use as a joke so that it will actually have some value to the project. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Its harmless - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 16:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as possibly useful. A question for the nominator: what sort of changes would make it seem less offensive to you? Michael Slone (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - If someone is going around plastering this on people's user pages ban the offender. The box itself is fine.--God of War 01:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Userbox is harmless, lighten up people. --Dragon695 03:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope it stays, but i'd rather see a tent than a shopping cart. There are two types of "homeless" in my opinion, the first kind is the one everybody presumes. The second kind gets less press and attention because if you saw them on the street, you probably wouldn't know they were homeless. High functioning homeless people tend to have very different issues and reasons than low functioners. They sometimes like to differentiate themselves as being "Houseless". --Prometheuspan 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Then they can make a Houseless userbox with a tent.– Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah, keep. Moved the previous comment out of the section lower down, too. Vashti 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless. Halibutt 11:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Mikkerpikker ... 19:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Mike McGregor, and I must say I don't understand the nomination. --James S. 03:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I woulden't mind seeing the picture changed to somthing less sterotypical though... maybe no picture. just a thought.Mike McGregor (Can) 11:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC) - (moved from inside closure box below -- Dalbury(Talk) 11:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you by the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's amusing and harmless. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, cannot see any means to insult homeless, homeless people are not all poor, some are campers, mobile campers, backpackers.GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 10:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, i met people who are homeless but still go to internet cafes, for example to look for a home or job.Mutante23 15:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per God of War. Everyone has a right to declare their own identity. How about an image of a house with the "universal no" (red circle & line across) logo? Her Pegship 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Change of image would be a marked improvement though. Mystache 03:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. --Lukobe 06:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • New image How about this? Her Pegship 22:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Image comment That looks like a "no bread" sign. How about making an image that doesn't look so ambiguous? --Shultz 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • New image part deux Shultz is right; I had to laugh. How about...this one? Her Pegship 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Make it a new userbox for the Houseless--I see no problem with the shopping cart for the homeless. Sheesh. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
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 speedy deleted by Ryan Delaney. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User pedo

Template:User pedo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This appears to be a pointless end-run around the recent decision to speedy delete {{user-pedophile}}. Given the timing and the source, I find it impossible to assume good faith, but I'm bringing it here rather than marking it as CSD. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:POINT per nom. Fits within CSD T1 in my view. David | Talk 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't Michael Jackson's mug shot be a more appropriate image? Sorry, shouldn't joke. Delete unless it can be reworded to "This user is interested in the study of pedophilia" or something less controversial. --D-Day 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, the sooner, the better. WP:POINT at best, if not delliberate disruption. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia%7ETemplates_for_deletion_Log_2006_February_7_52aa.html"