Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 11

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. Harryboyles 09:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:VOY navigation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template is no longer in use, was blanked, and is redundant with infobox. — Koweja 19:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete less showspecific templates is better. Thanks for helping out with that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - grubber 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not in use. Infobox is superior. Vassyana 10:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - blank and unused. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:52, 18 March 2007 (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 section.

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 delete. Circeus 18:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Subtext (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Housekeeping. Used to be a subtemplate of {{taxobox}} whose usefulness vanished with the conversion of hat template to Parserfunctions.. — Circeus 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. If this is housekeeping (which I confirm that it is), I suggest speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G6. Unless someone can provide a compelling reason for it to be kept, delete it. Gracenotes^T § 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete yes, as above. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 00:55, 12 March 2007 (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 delete. John Reaves (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Philippine TV Stations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant template. Also, the template is currently not in use. — Danngarcia 18:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I contend that this should be deleted, because it is not useful currently as a navigational template. It also possibly provides false information, since it is unsourced. {{Metro Manila TV}} is useful as a navigational template, and is redundant to this. The criteria for inclusion is not entirely clear, either. It appears unencyclopedically selective to me, but please prove me wrong if I am. Gracenotes^T § 19:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced information, no use. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 00:55, 12 March 2007 (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 section.

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. Mangojuice^talk 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:But yes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:But no (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is only one article using these templates. They use green to mean "good" and red to mean "bad", even though this is an encyclopedia, where good and bad are POV and should not be included, and elsewhere ({{yes}}, {{no}}) green is considered to mean "yes" and red is considered to mean "no". Furthermore, where the templates are used, the templates Yes, No, Depends, or Partial would be better used in their places. The But yes and But no templates only confuse readers and color use while providing unbalanced pov. Althepal 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Confusing and redundant. -- intgr 03:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - such a POV differentiation should not be made. Well-stated, Althepal. Gracenotes^T § 04:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to {{bg-green}} and {{bg-red}} - Wikipedia makes these judgements all the time without being POV. Here's an example of how they're supposed to be used:

	Tasty	Poisonous	Cost
Salmon	Yes	No	Cheap
Mackerel	Yes	No	Expensive
Fugu	No	Yes	Expensive

They're used in a couple of articles to indicate whether a particular codec is patented. The alternative is to have a red "no" to indicate that it is patented, or else switch the heading to "not patented" and introduce double negatives. See for instance comparison of graphics file formats.

I submit that green and red more usually mean "OK" and "warning" than they do "yes" and "no". —Ashley Y 05:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I've seen comparison of graphics file formats, and it's confusing. Reminds me too much of green yellow blue red purple. Green is close enough to "yes" for me when looking at those charts. Gracenotes^T § 15:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Is there a good reason not to just use {{yes}} and {{no}} with the appropriate paramater? It's the same number of characters. -Amarkov moo! 06:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Do you object to this practice, such as "{{yes|no}}"? —Ashley Y 06:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That would make more sense than having the extra template, but on wikipedia, green means yes, not good, and there should never be such confusion. I've said it before: Wikipedia does not inform of good and bad: it informs of yes and no, and color changes confuse the reader, and everybody agrees with me. Althepal 06:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get this idea that green means "yes"? In the world at large, green means "OK" and red means "warning". So it should be here. And Wikipedia certainly does inform of good and bad, in cases when that's considered NPOV (such as whether a codec is encumbered by patents). —Ashley Y 06:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. I will no longer dignify your statements. Althepal 06:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? They were made in good faith. —Ashley Y 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If they where honestly in good faith, then I am happy to help. But in order to do that you must recognize the facts when people present them, and you just aren't doing that. For example you must understand that Wikipedia is not a street warning people what to do; it is a reference source telling what things are and are not. Red backgrounds on two Yes things, one "good" and one "bad", makes the information more difficult to get, because you are just trying to tell the person if something is good or bad. I said the facts. Again, if you are in good faith, you will realize this, and there is no point for me to further respond. If not in good faith, I will not respond. Althepal 06:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, these are not facts. Wikipedia is perfectly free to imply that, for instance, being poisoned is a bad thing, or that a codec is better for the user if it is not patented. It can make these judgements provided that they are widely accepted and not seriously contested. Also, insisting someone agree with you before assuming good faith is frowned upon here... —Ashley Y 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

What about when someone wants too die? Aren't poisons good for the species? What about the patent holder? Good and bad are relative. What is good for me maybe bad for you. What is good for us maybe bad for others. Mike92591 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Mike is right. On Wikipedia, you are NOT free to imply something is good or bad. Even if there would be an article saying the sun would explode in a month, and everybody thinks that is bad, the article CANNOT say, "It is bad that the sun will explode." Furthermore, you have no right to proclaim that "Green on Wikipedia means good!" On the hundreds (thousands?) of articles using the Yes template, there are plenty of places where it is bad that something is Yes, and green is still used. Why? BECAUSE GREEN IS CONSIDERED TO MEAN YES! Proof is that the yes template has a green background. Having some Yes values red and some green is confusing, because everybody will look at it and say, "If it is green, then it is yes." They will not say, "If it is green, it must be good, and since I think that patented codes are bad, green under the patented section must mean No." I'll say it only once more: ON WIKIPEDIA, YOU SHOULD NOT, NEED NOT, AND MAY NOT TELL PEOPLE IF SOMETHING IS GOOD. Althepal 21:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct. Wikipedia is perfectly free to imply something is good or bad, provided such things are uncontroversial in the context of the article. WP:NPOV only requires that all points of view are fairly represented. This means that if there are different points of view over whether something is good, Wikipedia should not take a position. If everyone agrees that something is good, Wikipedia is free to imply the same. The idea that green always means "yes" is your idea, which you've tried to bolster by deliberately removing cases where it doesn't, even while this TfD is underway. In the world at large, green usually means "OK", while red means "warning", and so it should be on Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• ← So green always means OK? I will just anecdotally note that green implies something affirmative to me, rather than something that is beneficial. Gracenotes^T § 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's the thing, it's not curtain so you can't assume goodness or badness. Additonally, There is only 2 POV of somethings goodness so in order to follow WP:NPOV you would always have to make the background yellow in all cases. Mike92591 22:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't think red means "warning" rather than "no"? —Ashley Y 21:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You do have a good point about that. However, I can temporarily get myself into the frame of mind of thinking that "red" is no, and that "green" is bad, merely for ease of navigation. In my opinion, these templates read into the whole "yes/no" color thing too much, and why they were originally implemented. Gracenotes^T § 22:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. When scanning a table of a file format, and you see a lot of green in a row, does that suggest the subject of the row is more useful? —Ashley Y 22:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would say no, but this relates to my personal experience. If there was an all-green or all-red row I would certainly pay more attention to it (same as with an all-yes or all-no row), but not deem it more useful. Gracenotes^T § 22:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above points. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 06:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Althepal, please be careful with your edits. When you edited List of ministers of the environment with the summary "remove the but yes and but no templates: they are confusing and useless, and they will be deleted" (Nano at Earth summit, Sandiford at World summit), you got the key wrong, changing the events the ministers are shown having gone to. If it's confusing, let others fix it. I've reverted it (Nano at World summit, Sandiford at Earth summit). -- Jeandré, 2007-03-11t12:56z
• Oppose. The colour isn't being used to indicate "good" and "bad", but utility and disutility. POV doesn't come into it. –EdC 18:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and utility and disutility is probably a better characterisation. —Ashley Y 21:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete/merge/redirect to {{bg-green}} and {{bg-red}}, which are more neutral and serve a practically identical function.Circeus 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That template doesn't work in table cells, but renaming "but yes" and "but no" to "cell-bg-green" and "cell-bg-red" would be okay as long as the articles are updated before the deletion and the articles are not made to show incorrect information. -- Jeandré, 2007-03-12t20:54z
• Comment. Althepal, please don't remove these templates from comparison of video codecs, comparison of audio codecs‎ and comparison of graphics file formats‎ while they are still under discussion. —Ashley Y 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Aside from the fact that it is certain that the templates will be deleted, I would replace the templates there because of the simple fact that the use of the templates there leads to confusion. The fact that the template was not yet deleted is not a good reason to put it into an article. Do not revert those articles. Althepal 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This matter is still under discussion here. Please leave them as they were. —Ashley Y 21:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should a discussion on whether a template is acceptable mean that the template has to be in articles? Althepal 21:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That's where they belong. Please respect the discussion here before pre-emptively taking action. —Ashley Y 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot further explain it to you. If you create pov issues by making it seem that what is good for the consumers is good, that is vandalism. Althepal 21:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not POV issues, and something is not vandalism just because you happen to disagree with it. —Ashley Y 21:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Althepal, I must second Ashley Y that one shouldn't enforce consensus before the discussion is up. Admins can be trusted to close deletion debates, so please don't implement a solution before consensus has fully been determined, and the discussion has been closed. This seems equivalent in spirit to "don't remove AFD tags until the debate is over." Gracenotes^T § 22:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. But that does not mean that I can't edit articles for clarification. I mean, Ashley keeps on saying that red is bad and that green is good, and she keeps on saying that doesn't imply pov. This is contradictory. And color coded templates become confusing and useless when the color becomes a warning if some people consider something "good" or "useful" instead of saying if something is true or false. The fact is, red and green on the templates do not infer good or bad, so using them does not introduce pov; it makes people think that something is not what it is. That is why I replaced them on the articles, that is why they are up for deletion, and that's why six out of eight people agree that they should be removed. Althepal 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please let the discussion run before "editing for clarification" by deleting the templates where they are intended to be used. —Ashley Y 01:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete - I still kind of imagine that these templates could be used consistently with NPOV, but they are certanly not being used that way now. Our current coherent use of colors is merely green=yes and red=no. We have not had any consensus for value/utility meanings & the bias in those is great enough that I don't think we will. --Karnesky 02:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. Confusing. Vassyana 10:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment All the other templates from March 11 were decided upon. This has such a large thread with almost everybody saying to delete it. What's going on? Althepal 23:09, 20 March 2007 (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 section.

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 {{Notcensored}}, no consensus on {{Notcensored2}}. Sandstein 06:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Notcensored (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Notcensored2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These templates promote a fundamental misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy. That Wikipedia is not censored only implies that we can have nude and sexually explicit images in articles related to nudity and human sexuality, not that we must. The choice of images, and whether to display such images inline or as links, is, of course, a question of editorial discretion, to be settled by consensus. Discussions concerning what, if any, images should be included in an article, and how to display such images, are therefore properly held on an article's talk page. John254 02:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I am confused how your reasoning is connected with the deletion of the two templates. Both do not dictate that images unsiutable for minors are to be used, but rather remind users that, well, Wikipedia is not censored for minors and thus those grounds for objections against "unsuitable" images, are in fact not valid. Nothing less, nothing more. CharonX/talk 03:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored contains no limitations whatsoever on the grounds upon which editors may object to the inclusion of images. Rather, this policy section is intended to inform readers that (1) since Wikipedia is widely editable, someone could insert sexually explicit images into a completely unrelated article (although this would be reverted as vandalism, the reversion would not be instantaneous), and (2) placing sexually explicit images in relevant articles, and uploading images for such placement, does not violate Wikipedia policies (though edit warring to force the retention of such images would be inconsistent with Wikipedia policy). Template:Notcensored2, particularly, seems to imply that legitimate discussions concerning the choice of images in articles are to be summarily removed because the editors deem the "grounds for objections against 'unsuitable' images" to be invalid. John254 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't seem to understand the issue behind this. If somebody would add, say, a picture of a naked human on an article about the "Barbie" series to demonstrate the difference between the anatomies, the majority of editors would say, no, we don't need that image here. On the other hand, on an article regarding human anatomy there should be no reason to not include a naked human, and any objections along the lines of "OMG! The nudity! Think of the children!" should be dismissed per WP:NOT#CENSORED. Slapping this template on the barbie article would be pointless, since a naked body does not belong there, but might help reduce the "Think of the children" cries at human anatomy. CharonX/talk 16:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep {{notcensored}}, delete {{notcensored2}}. The first brings up a relevant policy. There's no problem with that. The second is redundant to the first and should be deleted, and there are other problems with the second as well (assumes that the article is currently correct, although there is no way of knowing that, and that the viewer of the template is not). Gracenotes^T § 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, per Gracenotes' reasoning, however, I feel that a minor rewording of {{notcensored2}} would be able to fix any problems without resorting to outright deletion. Axem Titanium 04:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete {{notcensored2}}. The fact that Wikipedia is not censored does not mean people are allowed to put pictures of, say, themselves conjugating, and nobody may remove them. And the template implies that any images in the article are automatically right. Keep the first, though, although it should be kept in mind that WP:NOT#CENSORED doesn't mean that we should have unnecessary offensive material. -Amarkov moo! 06:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete {{notcensored2}} per Amarkov. Keep {{notcensored}}, per Gracenotes. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 06:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep {{notcensored}} - Meant to head off long-rehashed discussions. Delete {{notcensored2}} - overly combative. —dgies^t_c 20:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete {{notcensored2}}. Keep {{notcensored}}. No obvious need for 2^nd. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 00:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Both, and as the templator of both, may I explain why I didn't stop at the first? The original conversation's still on my talk page, if anyone wants to go look.

  In mid-January, I'd noticed (as I said there) "an article talk page where there'd been repeated requests to censor text, pictures, or the entire article. Thinking, perhaps naively, that one clear statement up front might help reduce the repetition, I came up with the following box, and added it at the top of that talk page." That was not a template yet, merely a snippet of code...

  {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="text-align:center;"
  |-
  | width="0px" |
  || Before complaining about article content, please read: '''[[WP:NOT#CENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored]]'''.
  |}

  ... that turned into {{Notcensored}} simply as an easier way to post it where needed than by copying-and-pasting from a file. It still serves the same purpose, just more conveniently: to inform those who've gone straight to the articles and complained without ever learning the policies; and to remind those who have perhaps forgotten. It's short without being brusque or confrontational, and visible without taking up too much room. Frankly, I don't see a problem with it; if I ever had, I would have fixed it before sending it out into the world. What could anyone gain by forcing others to go back to copying-and-pasting five short lines of code?

  {{Notcensored2}} is a different story. I didn't write the original text, layout, or code, and I don't know who did; this was relayed to me in that same talkpage section, as having come from Talk:Breast, where the argument had been along the lines of -- Well, talk about breasts if you must, but don't illustrate the article! -- an argument that seems to recur at the talk pages of articles on human anatomy, nudity, and sexuality, and is not directed so much against specific pictures as against using any illustrations of the subject matter at all.

  {{Notcensored}} is as nicely generic and adaptable as the Basic Black Dress, but by the same token it didn't specifically address any particular argument, such as this one. {{Notcensored2}} tackled that argument head-on, so for this particular situation, it was a more appropriate box to post than the one I'd written, even though being so specific made the text longer and the box bigger. I made just a few changes in templating it, notably some layout tweaking and making the article name appear automagically when the template's posted. (The original box appeared to require typing in the article name each time.)

  Now, I tend not to get into mainspace article disputes; the office politics aren't so severe back in the tool-and-die room, where I can tinker merrily away at crafting helpful gadgets for Them Folks Out There to use on the factory floor. Journeyman or even apprentice I may be, but tinkering with the works seems to be my calling here. So I've got no call to be telling you folks your business.

  But it seems to me, if your quarrel is with the arguments other people are making, you might want to spend more time addressing those arguments, and maybe even coming up with more persuasive arguments yourselves, than trying to take away other folks' tools of communication, whether those be templates or typewriters, codes or keyboards.

  You don't want to use these templates? Fine. Don't use 'em. And if nobody'd ever wanted to use them, so they'd just gathered dust by their lonesomes... well, we wouldn't be here now, would we, because you'd never have noticed them. We're here because other people do want to use 'em, have been using 'em, seem likely to keep on using 'em -- and you don't want them to be able to.

  There's hardly anyone who's ever taken kindly to that sort of end-run. You think this is a way to end your quarrels? Well, I wish you luck, I really do. But you might think a bit on how peaceable or otherwise you'd feel if someone else had tried this sort of thing on you, oh, like not asked you to talk less on your cell phone in the restaurant, but reached over and took it away from you. He won the argument, right? You're off the phone. And does that mean you're going to be good friends from now on? Bosom buddies? Best pals? I suppose it might happen, but somehow I don't feel assured of it. Should I?

  Even without templates, people can still copy-and-paste these boxes. Do you think they'll do it less often, or more often, after you've tried to stop them this way? Will they be more kindly inclined toward you, or less? What's your guess? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Ben: yes, they can put them wherever they want, but whatever wikifate is in store for those that blatantly ignore consensus, it's probably not pretty. In a subjunctive way, I wouldn't want it. Now, suppose that someone adds an unencyclopedic image that resulted from, say, a webcam. The only problem with version deux is that it says "don't talk about whether this picture belongs on Wikipedia or not" without referring to encyclopedic value. I think that this can be fixed by adding the statement "Images that some may consider offensive are allowed to be displayed in articles if they illustrate or add encyclopedic value to the article." to Uncensored: Act I. And hi ho hello from the toolbox, Ben! It's a nice place to be :) Gracenotes^T § 21:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  Gracenotes, if they "put them wherever they want", here meaning "put them on totally inappropriate pages", then that's as much an abuse of the tool as misplacing any other template -- like putting {{sockpuppet}} on the article George W. Bush (rather than his userpage, if he ever gets one) -- which is not a reason to delete the template itself, only to remove it from the inappropriate place and have a chat with the user who put it there.

  Likewise, even on "adult-content" articles, {{Notcensored2}} would only apply if (as it says) "the images used to illustrate the subject matter are necessary for the quality of the article" -- or (in your word) "encyclopedic". The poor template has no way to make that judgment. That's up to the human beings who place it there.

  And if someone else, after that, posts Miss April's centerfold from Sleaze Magazine, especially where irrelevant and unhelpful, there's no reason in the world that can't be challenged and reverted -- for copyright violation, if nothing else.

  One of the points actually made about this template, early on (I'll try finding the cite if you wish), was that this in no way discourages the criticism of pictures on any other basis than "contains nudity" -- such as irrelevance to the article, or poor quality, or even being not as good for the purpose as some other freely available picture that could be used instead. I don't recall the word "unencyclopedic" being among the examples given then, but it might as well have been; {{Notcensored2}} doesn't say anything against making that criticism, either.

  You and I could misuse the word "not"; we could "put it wherever we want", here meaning "add it to every true sentence on Wikipedia and make most of those sentences false" -- and then it would be proper to rebuke us for that misuse, but it still wouldn't be proper to try deleting the word "not" from the language. Others might yet have valid uses for the word, and thoroughly appropriate places to insert it, and they shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because we had misused it. And so with this template.

  As for adding the image discussion text to {{Notcensored}} (#1)... Right now the first template's so generic that it also applies to articles entirely without photos, where the censorship requests might concern mere mention of sexual activities or religious beliefs or political opinions -- and making it a template about the use of images would actually decrease that broad applicability.

  The second template is specifically about the use of images; if it isn't phrased as well as it should be, why not improve it rather than delete it? You'd show any article the same courtesy. Just please keep in mind all the places it has already been transcluded, and don't turn the statements that are now true in those contexts into statements that are now false in those contexts. Tread carefully. Thanks. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 23:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep appropriate warning for people who dislike stuff the rest of us want to keep. (like this template) Nardman1 02:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both. The first is clearly fine, as it's just a pointer to policy. The second doesn't say "don't discuss images". It only says not to bring up the issue of nudity yet again (wasting everyone's time). If people are misconstruing the meaning, then perhaps the wording needs to be tweaked, but that's all. — coelacan — 19:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep both - both have their own uses - for example the first is useful for text only (like on WTF). They both go well with {{uw-notcensored1}}. But like any other template, if it slapped on the wrong page, we take it back off. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:52, 18 March 2007 (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 section.