Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< April 28	April 30 >

1 April 29, 2006

[edit] April 29, 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 Delete.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User antifa-01

Template:User antifa-01 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Nominated for speedy deletion but evident reluctance to do so. Editors bickering on talk page, in edit summaries and on template itself about Jimbo's intentions and whether you're a fascist if you delete the template. Note: technical nomination, so no opinion from me, but feel free to have a go on my talk page if you must. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete: Pro-Communist and Anti-Fascist or Anti-Communist and Pro-Fascist. Advocating the destruction of one group, and violently depicting it, while supporting another. This seems pretty inflammatory and divisive to me. --Khat Wordsmith 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Keep: I see nothing wrong with it. Theres nothing inflammatory about it, well in my opinion anyways. It's just a stand, like you either beleive in God or you're an antheist, you either like bacon or you don't, you either like facism or you don't, you're either one or the other. -- whipsandchains 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Delete Since the nominator is afraid to mention why this technially violates WP policy, I will make his case for him. It's divisive, inflammatory and INAPPROPRIATE for Wikipedia. Should we have a template kicking a hammer and sickle now to "balance" this one? NO! But that's where this could lead - though I note a pro-fascism box was quickly "taken care of" when someone created one as a way to make a point. The political merits of this or any other template aside, and forgetting the 'fairness' argument, Wikipedia is simply not a soapbox, and support for or against Fascism has nothing to do with this "anti" template existing here. It's appalling to think templates are being "saved" because they are "correct" in their political viewpoints, but that's what I've been reading about why this box is so precious. Everyone should please review WP policy before jumping on the "save the 'correct' template" bandwagon. Nhprman 00:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- And I should note that while I abhor fascism and fascists, I never once voted up an attempt to delete their userboxes. Why? Because there's bigger things to worry about on Wikipedia than fascists ability to put up a Kick Me sign on their own backs -- like the fact that racists routinely vandalize pages and get away with it, and that the hostile environment this fosters has never been properly dealt with.

If someone wishes to have a mouthbreathing anti-communist userbox, I say that's fine and dandy. We've already got pro-capitalist and pro-Objectivist userboxes, and those are already pretty close to that. --Daniel 19:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Not afraid, merely disinterested - I was clearing out the speedy delete category, this template had been there for hours and had no reasons given under the existing criteria for a speedy delete. I remain disinterested in the reasons for deletion or keeping this template, but I'd rather not be misrepresented by either side. Thanks. ➨ ≡Я Ξ DVΞRS≡ 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong Delete, I think people could take a lot of offence at this DannyM 09:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- Offensive, to whom? Advocates of pogroms and genocide? People who dispatch thugs to go after "sick art?" They're already offended by the fact that Wikipedia allows for editing by Jews, people of color, trade unionists, et al. Why the hell should a project built around freedom of honest inquiry be worried about the opinions of those who oppose freedom, honesty, and inquiry? --Daniel 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The same argument can be made against thuggish Communism, which has killed or ensalved hundreds of millions, so where's your anger against that political philosophy? This is why Wikipedia is no place for narrow political crusades. Deleting all political Userboxes will bring that honesty and freedom you seek back to the project. It's getting lost now in these Userbox wars Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
You just answered your own question. Why should a project built around freedom say it's okay to think one way and it's not okay to think another? Last I checked, isn’t that what you've been saying fascists do? Say everyone who doesn’t agree is evil? --Khat Wordsmith 19:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

- Re-read DannyM's comments, and my own. His argument is that fascists will be offended by this userbox. That would make sense, were Wikipedia a fascist website, censored along the lines fascists dictate. It isn't -- and if Wikipedia were ever censored along fascist lines, then say goodbye to at least half of the over one million articles on English Wikipedia.

This userbox is simply a token acknowledgement that there are those Wikipedians - of many backgrounds, beliefs, and interests - who aren't going to stand idly by as fascists attempt to use thuggery to intimidate the rest of us into submission. While I strongly wish Jimbo and company would actually bother to look at what opening the door to fascists' participation in the project actually means (e.g., the alienation of a good number of people), this userbox does nothing to do anything beyond stating a common, honest belief. --Daniel 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether any one political philosophy is "wrong" or "right" is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and this is not the place for Wikipedians to "battle it out." The entire discussion is moot, and there is no "right" to express one's belief in, or opposition to, a certain political philosophy. WP policy states: "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech." It's not a question of defending or attacking Fascism, it's a question of whether the template should be gathering supporters and opponents in the way these always do (and we're seeing it here in this argument.) It - and all other political Userboxes - are taking users away from the core purpose of the site. Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. Feel free to beat a strawman until your knuckles are bloody. This is not a matter of "unregulated free speech" on Wikipedia - this userbox appears nowhere other than user space where it does absolutely nothing to work against Wikipedia's mission. I've never argued for unregulated free speech on Wikipedia, and to the opposite I wish people like you would actually bother to regulate the type of racist garbage that gets posted daily in the articlespace. You don't - and that's why people post up userboxes like this. --Daniel 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The straw man is the attempt by some to smear all those who oppose this Userbox as a racist. Bad move, and they need to assume good faith. Your comment that this appears "nowhere other than user space" is incorrect. This is a template, and is in template space, making it subject to community discussion and consensus. However, put the raw code on your Userpage and very, very few will even care to comment, and the community aspect of the box goes away. But if it's going to be a tool to "organize" other anti-Fascists, be warned that pro-Fascists and anti-Communist boxes will be allowed, too, and selective censorship will not be tolerated because, as we hear ad nausem (only when it suits people's wishes, apparently,) "Wikipedia is not censored." Nhprman 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

~~**Strong Keep~~, “The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” I can see the point of NPOV thing and I understand if you dont want to offend anyone but come on, there are some things you KNOW that you have to take stand against. Besides, how many articles get vandalize with racial slurs and attacks on an hourly basis here on Wikipedia? The people you are so afraid to offend doesn't seem to mind offending others now do they? Why not just remove all the Holocaust articles since according to them it never happened that way it' ll be really NPOV. -- whipsandchains 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User's second vote on this nomination. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

- - That's right, we all have opinions. But thinking - no, KNOWING - that your own opinion is right and other peoples' are wrong, and that all material you think is "wrong" should be erased isn't going to work so long as someone else holds a different opinion. That's why this project is supposed to be done in NPOV, so that all the differing opinions have a chance to be recorded and documented so that all the information the differing opinions will let in are let in. People who aren't fascists (the vast majority) can put in information about the holocaust - but there are a few people out there who just, gosh-darn-it, KNOW that that information is false. Are you saying we should let them delete those pages? No, they can put in a different page that some people have a different opinion. By proudly proclaiming that people KNOW that you are right, what message are you really sending? Everyone's point of view is the same as yours? If that was true, no one would have created this button which attacks the POV of another group. Of course, I could have completely misread what you had to say, please inform me if I am mistaken. --Khat Wordsmith 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    - Perhaps the use of the word you in that part of first sentence was misunderstood, I was refering to myself in a third person view (poor choice of word I admit). And gosh-darn-it, you just made my point. Why delete something you don't agree on? Like you pointed out, instead of deleting the holocaust article, they made another one right? Then why delete this template? You can make a pro-facist template and put it on your userpage for all I care, I can't force you to see things my way, thatd be rather hypocritical now woudn't it? This template here just represents the fact that I am antifa. It's not like I go around and vandalize articles or userpages with this template, its just used on my userpage (where I'm suppose to put my POVs correct?) to indicate that I am anti-facist. -- whipsandchains 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      - You are very, very, very right. One can make a pro-fascist user-box and put it on his or her user page. You are 100% right. Just as someone can make an anti-fa userbox and put it on his or her own userpage. But the fact is that, for some reason I don't quite understand, I'll admit, when someone makes a template of something like that, it gets deleted. I've watched all the pro-fascist user boxe templates get deleted while the anti-fascist userboxe templates stay were they are. I'm just saying either keep both (which is very unlikely to happen) or remove the templates of both and allow people to use their own on their own user page or someone other than Wikipedia. Personally I'm over the opinion where the pro- and anti- anything userboxes should be able to remain as templates, but there are people, as you rightly said, who are malicious about these sorts of things and will go to great lengths to change said templates. Unlike vandalism on articles, towards which Wikipedia should be putting it's efforts into in order to stop, I think it's a better solution to nip this problem in the bud and, again, as you rightly said, have people who feel strongly about certain things to make their own userboxes for their own user pages.--Khat Wordsmith 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason these Userboxes are being deleted as Templates is because, as Templates, they are being used to round up people of like interests who then act in concert with others, and that makes this into a social networking site, which, according to Jimbo and others, Wikipedia is NOT. Again, policy states: Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. By creating political templates, and gathering "supporters" to "save" Templates that are popular from being threatened, and "rallying" forces to delete unpopular or opposing ones, this has become the focus of the project for many Users. And that's not the reason why we are here, theoretically. Nhprman 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete frankly this is a t1 speedy. But since people keep saying these things are better debated here, let's see if tfd can do it's work. If not, we can speedy it later. --Doc ^ask? 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, offensive template, this can be speedied. --15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep, if this template is offensive, inflamatory and divisive then surely that opens the path to deletion of most userboxes, personally i'm offended by organised religion, so y'know. Feel free to ignore the userbox, just like you'd ignore someone who favoured antifa's approach (Johnny Copper 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
If it simply stated the user supports something, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but right now it goes on to make a controversial political statement in connection with it, so I'd say Delete unless it is changed. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages.--Ssbohio 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- You see, that's the problem. It is quite possible for a user to edit in a NPOV way on articles that he/she has an apparent POV on. I don't really have a problem with these kind of templates in general, but often they are used to factionalize like this and add to the myth that everyone comes here to edit in their POV rather then improve articles. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  - But, the same fact set can be used to justify the opposite view. If we go about restricting people's expression of their POV, the issues they care about, then we perpetuate the myth that those who come here are disinterested NPOV angels. Since it is, indeed, possible, even almost certain, that a person with a POV can do NPOV work, it follows that a person with an admitted POV has an additional reason to make sure his work is above reproach. In all the thinking I've done on this issue, I don't see a disclosed POV as the negative others do, especially in comparison to the alternative, where the same people have the same points of view, but keep them hidden. It's axiomatic that withholding information leads to less accurate judgment. More information means better decisions.--Ssbohio 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

If people have a POV, and it appears in their editing, it will be obvious whether or not they have a User box on their User page, and POV editing will be reverted. Users without boxes are judged on their editing abilities alone, as it should be. "More information" on a User's POV has created the appearance of POV even where it doesn't exist, and has lead to escalating User box Templates that have been more and more insulting and inflammatory, causing these debates. So in practice, the "knowing more helps us" theory has been shown to be flawed. Furthermore, the real myth here is that Wikipedia is a place of unrestricted free speech. It's not, especially on User pages, which are not designed to be personal Webspace. (see WP:NOT) Nhprman 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

And the corollary is that the absence of a userbox somehow eliminates the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican, a Democrat a Democrat, and an "antifa" an "antifa," regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you that the lack of a template doesn't eliminate the user's belief. That's an easy one to agree with. Also, I agree that trying to police user pages is not something we should be doing, other than in the case of the odd person who notes the he is a pedophile or admits to loving the idea of mass murder. That's not to say the WP community has no right to set policy for userboxes, or even user pages. The key point I'm making is that as long as these boxes are Templates, and are being used to link like-minded people together to create "tribes" that contend with one another in a POV fashion over these boxes, then they are a problem, because Wikipedia is not supposed to be a social networking site. If the raw code of all boxes were to be placed on userpages, 90% of that particular problem vanishes, because they are no longer Templates in the template space, but simply code or text on a user's page. There is another level of the issue that says that it's not a good idea to make POV political/social statements on the user page, in any format, because they imply that these biases will likely be transfered to the articles the user edits. But that's not to say I believe we should ban people from saying "I'm a Catholic" or "I oppose Fascism" on their pages. I just think it's a bad idea, generally, and I'd urge people to consider not doing it (as Jimbo himself has done on occasion.) Nhprman 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete, unencyclopedic template. Also meets T1. --Cyde Weys 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Reluctant Delete. Disagree with Cyde's reasoning, but it does meet T1, which seems to be policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. A definitive decision needs to be made whether or not all userboxes expressing POVs need to be moved to userspace. Dragging them individually through a deletion process is a waste of time, as they can potentially multiply more quickly than they can be produced. Until then, they must all be allowed, at least where not personal attacks. I find a lot of things offensive. I find the babel template that proclaims that everyone should speak American English offensive. This kind of petty squabbling is poisoning and dividing Wikipedia. Mgekelly - Talk 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is somewhat labour intensive to delete one at a time and that some standardisation of policies must take place. Whilst the issue is beng decided, our best judgement must prevail, taking each case as it comes. Cheers. Nhprman 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (an American who doesn't mind the Queen's English)
Your reasoning rings true, but unfortunately that's not policy. And practically speaking, if the template isn't deleted here, it'll be speedied. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reluctant Delete per Arthur Rubin and per (am I actually saying this?) Doc. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep there is a big difference between pro and anti fascist. it's not inflammatory.
Keep It is not offensive--Hattusili 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Well....it appears from the word choice and the actual article behind it that its sort of supporting violence, and you know, that's just not right. Homestarmy 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. We all know that this isn't what Wikipedia is for. This kind of campaigning makes a joke out of the idea of getting together to create a neutral encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 5 May 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 result of the debate was Keep. Debating this one template is not the way to get it deleted. Please discuss this at Template talk:Start LUL box.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Waterloo & City Line link

Template:Waterloo & City Line link (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Just my two cents but wouldn't just be easier and more reliable (as newer users might not know effects of altering templates) to type in the text into the railbox?, Im going to try this line first to gauge opinion, as its a small (and atm closed) line. Thanks DannyM 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete See reasons above DannyM 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as per nom. --Dominic 17:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep - this is part of the navigation box template which takes the text "Waterloo & City Line" as a parameter and from that looks up Template:Waterloo & City Line colour and Template:Waterloo & City Line link automatically. If we delete these we would need to have an extra parameter on the template. Not to mention the obvious disambig advantages should a line article be moved. ed g2s • talk 15:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep; either we change all of them, or none - don't try to change established ways of doing things by an artificially time- and scope-limited deletion debate, please. James F. (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep per ed g2s's argument. It would be precipitous to delete one template when it would break the current operation of others.--Ssbohio 01:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment, admittedly deleting just one template of a group is stupid, but I was using this one to see how people felt and then we could think about deleting the other templates of a similar nature (as written in opening para), for example for the railway line boxes (i.e. those that operate normal rail services), link to the railway line through an IW link, and that seems to work well enough (on a bigger system) so why use two systems when one works perfectly? DannyM 08:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete them all - completely pointless to have this link as a template. Mgekelly - Talk 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Entirely pointless: what's the point of having a template that's the exact same length as the original link? If it was unbearbly long, or was a piped link that woudl take a lot more time to type out, I could see its purpose, but otherwise it's rather pointless. Hbdragon88 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read my explanation. The only parameter that is passed to the navbox is "Waterloo & City Line". This is then used to lookup both the link and colour. Compare:

line = Waterloo & City Line

with

line_link = [[Waterloo & City Line]]

line_colour = {{Waterloo & City Line colour}}

do you think we should edit hundreds of pages, just to make the templates more complicated to use? ed g2s • talk 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Either way, deleting this template is not an option, this should be discussed on Template:Start LUL box, or somewhere more suitable. If there is a consensus to change the system (which is unlikely), then you can nominate the templates for deletion. As it stands, they have a well defined and essential use. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Republican

Template:Republican (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Republican) and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming tribes of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Wikipedia. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. I'm also inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting.

This is not a Userbox. It does not and is not intended to live in userspace. It applies to candidates for (US) office, presumably on a page about the election or the office, rather than about the candidate. (It's unnecessary as applied to a candidate or officeholder.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. I've allowed my comments to get off track. This, however, is an unecessary template. Simply writing the word "Republican" does the job just fine. Nhprman 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Democratic

Template:Democratic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Democrat") and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming "tribes" of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Wikipedia. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. But the fact they are stored in Template space, and are therefore put into "categories" that are abused by some who want to "meet other people who believe X" then it's a warping of Wikipedia's mission, and it's vital that this aspect of the problem be dealt with. As for your other point, I am inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting. Nhprman 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Well, if its really fair use, its kind of illegal for them to be here in a way I guess :/. Homestarmy 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy delete criteria G7: author's request Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MAGovernors2

Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom --Dominic 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
A navbox for an odd assortment of pages that seem to have no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Some of the listings are professions (e.g., system administrator), some are job titles (e.g., webmaster), and others are user privileges (e.g., IRC channel op). Fixing this navbox to be inclusive of the current links and also NPOV to include other similar articles would make it enormous. There are better-defined categories to do this job. --TreyHarris 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

delete, Silly, meaningless grouping. Night Gyr 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete, stumbledon this recently and was immediately reminded of the whole Wikipedia:Branchlist fiasco. Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete.--Sean Black ^(talk) 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Contra

Comment. Not taking a position here, but I'm alarmed in reading the log of the earlier TfD that the prevailing consensus was that it imposed too much server load to repeat the same image many times on a page. That's just not true. Any image will only be loaded by the browser once per page, no matter how many times it is used. For example, the bullets on this page are an image, and it doesn't cause the servers any problem. --TreyHarris 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Just to be picky, the bullet points are HTML, not images. Remy B 16:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment Actually, the bullets used are from here. If you see the CSS stylesheet, it uses this:

ul {
   ...
   list-style-image: url('bullet.gif');margin-left:1.5em; margin-right:0; margin-top:.3em; margin-bottom:0
   }

"ul" stands for unordered list, or bulleted list. So, in the HTML <ul> will automatically add the bullet GIF for every list item (<li>). But the GIF image is only 50 bytes large, as opposed to 762 bytes the image the template uses is. —Black and White^USER_TALK^CONTRIBS

Delete adds extra linking processing that is not necessary --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete First of all, if Template:Oppose and Template:Support were deleted, this should be deleted to. This makes no sense, "Contra". "Oppose" is more reasonable. 67.81.33.18 19:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia%7ETemplates_for_deletion_Log_2006_April_29_e1b2.html"

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 29, 2006

[edit] Template:User antifa-01

[edit] Template:Waterloo & City Line link

[edit] Template:Republican

[edit] Template:Democratic

[edit] Template:MAGovernors2

[edit] Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles

[edit] Template:Contra

Views

Navigation

interaction

Search