Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< February 10 February 12 >

Contents

[edit] February 11, 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 (6k/4d) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Google

(previous deletions votes - October 2004, May 2005, August 2005)

This was speedily deleted, but WP:DRV overturned that. The balance of things was such that it should be listed here. There is important information for editors to consider contained in this version of DRV. -Splashtalk 23:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - protect to prevent re-creation. Generic "Search for this on Foo"-type templates have no encyclopedic value. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Any use of this template would imply that Wikipedia considers Google "The One True Search Engine". In other words, it's a little too close to advertising for my taste. --Aaron 01:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Aaron. Creates too strong a link with Google. Chairman S. 01:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - While google is the only search engine worth a flying god damn, there is no need to have a template which simply searches for X, the search engine does that just fine. Janizary 02:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - As elaborated in detail in the DRV discussion, this template has been happily used for 6 months in WP:RM and WP:AFD discussions in situations where the Wikipedia:Google Test is at least marginally useful. It should be used with subst and kept out of article space, but that is no reason to delete it. Now that we have <noinclude>, if some wants to add a flashy warning about not using it in articles, be my guest. I use {{google}}, it's helpful in discussion, but if one of you feels it somehow creates too strong a link to Google, feel free to create a template for whatever other search engines you think someone should care about. Dragons flight 02:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep shorthand that is useful for discussions on what is to be included in the encyclopedia - do not use on article pages. Trödel•talk 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • A simple link avoids the need for a template, and is much quicker. No one wants to be in the business of checking up on the usage of this template in the future. -- Netoholic @ 04:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, see also Template:Imdb name which is also just a way of forming an external link. And as per Dragons flight above. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Template:Imdb name links to a specific encyclopedic reference on a highly-reliable website which is respected within its field (movies and TV). You cannot draw a comparison between that and this Google search template, which links to whatever website ranks highest at the moment, and to whatever advertisements people have bought on Google. -- Netoholic @ 06:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Its useful for discussions to prove if a subject is notable or not - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 10:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If it was so useful, it would actually be used. Are you going to check up on this regularly to make sure it's not used in articles? -- Netoholic @ 10:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting people won't link to Google if this template is deleted? I have a bridge I can sell you if you believe that. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
        • No, what I'm saying is that they aren't doing it with this template. In fact, many discussions make use of the interwiki-stye linking as in "[[google:Foo]]". The template is more complicated than a "normal" external link and also the interwiki-style. -- Netoholic @ 11:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
          • If it won't stop linking to Google, I guess my question is: what's the harm in keeping this template for those who prefer it over the other two formats you propose? —Locke Cole • t • c 11:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
            • As I said above... who's job will it be to keep checking on this template's use over time to ensure it stays out of articles? -- Netoholic @ 11:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
              • As opposed to people who are forced to insert the links directly, which are more difficult to track... —Locke Cole • t • c 12:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. bogdan 10:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Dragons_flight. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 07:25, 16 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) 10:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:todo1, Template:todo2... to Template:todo9

It may be a bold nomination, but I think that splitting the Template:todo into priority categories numbered from 1 to 10 is stupid. What's the difference between a priority 6 and a priority 7? I suggest these templates be deleted, replaced by more intelligent templates (maybe "high priority" and "low priority"). CG 11:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and recreate (suggest three levels: high, normal, low) – Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; I'm not opposed to fewer levels. violet/riga (t) 14:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Why not just mark the entries in the todo list by number, and the number be their priority? Craziness no? Janizary 02:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I thought I had successfully retired this crowd in favour of {{todo priority}}. Has some clown reverted all my work? Replace {{todoN}} with {{todo priority|N}} and you're laughing. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:27, 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 Ummmmm, well, two have been speedied so can't be merged, one has survived and people wanted them merged somewhere, so I figure editing should continue on the suriving one of the three. -Splashtalk 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec independence templates

{{User independent Quebec}}
{{User independent Quebec 2}}
{{User independent Quebec 3}}
Among these three templates, two are redundant. We need to determine which two. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • To me, the third seems to be the one to keep. It's the clearest and least garish. Chairman S. 11:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree that that's the most visually appealing version. I just don't know enough about the connotations of that second flag there. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the context of Quebec nationalism, Sovereignty and independance are two segnificantly diffrent concepts. Sovereignty calls for an economic association with Canada (i.e. Quebec would use Canadian currancy, etc.) and indipendance would involve cutting all ties with Canada (similar to American indipendance from Britian, just less messy). The flag in question is that of the "Patriots" during the short-lived rebellion of 1837 in Lower Canada (now Quebec). So... the "Sovereignty" template would not really be redundant and the Second flag has historical meaning. I'd go with only "independant Quebec" for deleation Mike McGregor (Can) 13:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge {{User independent Quebec 3}} into {{User independent Quebec}}, and rename {{User independent Quebec 2}} to {{User sovereign Quebec}} (or similar). —Andux␅ 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I think merging 1 and 3 and renaiming 2 to "sovereign" is perfect. I've made the "2" because I don't call myself a separatist or an independantist, I'm a sovereignist, and like McGregor said, it's quite different. PhDP 17:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge 1 and 3 and keep 2; rename as appropriate. -Acjelen 21:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Per Andux. Chairman S. 23:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Mikker ... 23:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all three as POV-boxen (personal criterion). -- nae'blis (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge 1 and 3 and keep 2; rename as appropriate, per PhDP and Acjelen. --Aaron 01:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge {{User independent Quebec 3}} and {{User independent Quebec}}, rename {{User independent Quebec 2}} to {{User sovereign Quebec}}. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 03:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - THen post the content of all the boxes on the talk page so the users can sort this out for themselves.--God of War 20:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 1 was there before 3, and they're redundant, so merge 3 into 1. Keep 2 as a separate message. —Nightstallion (?) 09:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge I am also in favor of keeping only two, one with the word independence and both the new and the historical national flags and the other with the word sovereignty and just the current national flag. -- Mathieugp 19:39, 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 interesting, but this template was speedy-deleted by DavidWBrooks and MarkSweep. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User disBush

Template:User disBush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Redundant - we have {{user GWB2}}. Morgan695 04:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, that couldn't be more incorrect. We do not have GWB2, because it was just out-of-process speedy-deleted to circumvent consensus; I only made it into a redirect to "user disBush" as a stopgap measure so people's userpages would continue to work until the template could be restored by an admin. Speedy keep, self-refuting and paradoxical deletion criterion; may support renaming to "This user does not support George W. Bush" or "This user opposes George W. Bush's policies" in the future, as those stances are vastly more significant to Wikipedia than whether you personally happen to dislike a certain fellow human being. -Silence 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all userboxes, including this one. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Is this really worth the time for you to keep voting delete on every userbox. If you are upset about POV userboxes, don't look at them. --CFIF 12:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Why would it be a waste of my time to vote delete on every userbox when others are voting keep on every userbox? I'm the only one who can decide what my time should be spent on, and I've had enough of these things that I do think they should all be deleted. --Cyde Weys 07:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all these recent userbox vfds are getting annoying and are getting us absolutely no where. (Not all of the recent ones but you know what ones I'm talking about after seeing the recent vfd nominations.) --Douglasr007 04:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong KEEP. --Nelson Ricardo 05:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per user Silence and there was already a consensus about keeping GWB2 Dr Debug (Talk) 05:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TFD, WP:NOT, WP:JIMBO. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux␅ 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep the template and Delete Bush. helohe (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep this vote and delete User:helohe :-) – Doug Bell talk•contrib 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep all POV userboxes. --CFIF 12:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete directly divisive Trödel•talk 12:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep POV is not illegal! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 13:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Nor is it obsequious, purple, or clairvoyant -- all which are equally relevant to the actual issue at hand.
  • Delete, per nom and MarkSweep. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Userboxes that proclaim political beliefs make users more accoutable to NPOV, And they're doing it voluntaraly! FREE THE USER BOX! Mike McGregor (Can) 13:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete* If I cant keep my Anti-ACLU and Anti-UN userboxes why should you get to keep yours? IF you are going to delete Userboxes for POV then delete ALL userboxers with POV like this one. See you dicks, you can't be hypocrites! --PistolPower 15:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I voted keep on all 3 of these userbox discussions. All POV userboxes should be kept without question - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 17:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I believe that the POV userboxes should be kept, not only this one, but also the conservative anti-ACLU and the anti-UN ones. It is not a crime to have an opinion, and it in no way influences articles. I would still hate Bush whether I state it on my userpage or not, so what how does the userbox influence articles? This is ridiculous. And no, it isn't redundant, the other anti-Bush userbox was deleted, out of process. Asarelah 18:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Mikker ... 18:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete.If anyone can tell me how this template helps write an encyclopedia I might change my mind. The Land 19:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, if people are allowed to support Bush and the Republican party (for which there is no userbox deletion proposal), some of us ought to be entitled to dislike Bush as well, hands down. No Republican conspiracies folks.

Thistheman 19:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep why don't you delete millions of other userboxes altogether? none of them help write an encyclopedia, so why the fuck is this in particular getting that criticism? Stop trying to censor free speech on userpages. --Revolución (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • That's an excellent suggestion. This one is getting extra attention because it's political and divisive. GWB is a polarizing figure, as recent US federal elections have demonstrated. Boxes that say "This users's favorite color is mauve" are rather pointless as well, as you mention, but they don't have nearly the same potential to incite passion and attract the wrong crowd. And by the way, please read Wikipedia:free speech. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • And how is "This user supports Bush" any different from "This user dislikes Bush"? Userboxes are allowed to have very political content. The userbox I created that opposed the Iraq War was not inflammatory at all, but it was tagged as inflammatory, and all it said was "This user opposes the Iraq War and advocates immediate withdrawal". There's no problem with userboxes like this, the real problem is the people who want to censor them. --Revolución (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, though it's inevitable that one of a certain few admins will kill it and close debate as a "speedy delete" regardless of this discussion. --Aaron 22:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per 1. WP:TfD templates must be NPOV, 2. WP:NOT a saopbox, 3. WP:CSD T1 'divisive or inflammetory, 4. Jimbo's request not to use political userboxes. --Doc ask? 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Its a request, not a demand. And we're not all headless chickens so we dont need to follow Jimbo on everything he says - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 10:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, divisive and not relevant to writing an encyclopedia. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - And kill all these people that keep putting userboxes up for deletion. Such a waste of time. Janizary 02:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just because Jimbo says that we shouldn't have polticial userboxes doesn't mean that its neccessarily policy. Policy on political and POV userboxes is still being debated, and it is out of process to delete something while the policy for deletion is still under discussion. Furthermore, I wish people would stop invoking Jimbo in the userbox debate. If he wants to the userboxes deleted, then he ought to come in here and speak for himself! Asarelah 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment this userbox was deleted by DavidWBrooks (talk · contribs) with the summary "No political userboxes". This is ridiculous. Why wasn't {{User PresidentBush}} deleted? Because these admins are right-wing hypocrites. --Revolución (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent point. I've now tagged that template for speedy deletion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Revolución, the anti-ACLU and anti-UN userboxes were both deleted out of proccess as well. I don't think this is a right v.s. left issue, this is an issue of process. Asarelah
  • Comment WHAT THE HELL?! The template has been deleted before the freaking vote even closed! I've had enough of this crap. Who do I complain to about this?! Asarelah
  • Keep - Want to complain. Go here. - Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates--God of War 19:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I very strongly dislike Bush, but I also very strongly dislike divisive POV userbox trolling in Wikipedia. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: WTF????? There was no consensus, yet this was deleted. Not nice. How come the I support Bush template is allowed Template:User PresidentBush? Obviously Republicans are controlling the process here. --Nelson Ricardo 11:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - Want to complain. Go here. --Dragon695 02:53, 18 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 moot - issue ressolved. See [1]. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kwelcome

This divisive little template is being used by User:Karmafist to welcome new users. I say divisive because it includes links to Karma's personal wikiphilosophies page and a manifesto/petition. Social discontent should not be shoved onto the newest users of our website. -- Netoholic @ 03:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Update: This template was userfied by Sean Black. Crotalus horridus has since removed the TfD notice.[2] --MarkSweep (call me collect) 09:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Update 2: Template:Kfwelcome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been created, duplicating most of Template:Kwelcome. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Cyde Weys 04:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to user space. I suppose everyone has the right to greet new users any way they see fit, as long as they remain civil and don't make personal attacks, etc. But this template doesn't represent any views that the community as a whole has adopted (yet, anyway), so it probably would be more appropriate in karmafist's user space. --TantalumTelluride 04:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think being in user space is a good idea because then this could still be used to welcome users, which I think most of us agree is not a good idea. --Cyde Weys 04:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Userfy, even if this is deleted, nothing precludes him from copying and pasting it manually (and it would be just as easy). In other words: this TFD is pointless because it wouldn't put a stop to the nominators objections. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Putting murderers in jail is pointless too because other people are just going to commit murders, right? --Cyde Weys 04:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not seeing the connection and/or relevance. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • You're saying we shouldn't do what we know to be right because it can just be easily circumvented. That was the point I was trying to make. --Cyde Weys 04:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
          • No, I'm saying we don't know it's wrong (and in fact, it's not wrong to ask people to support something). On the other hand, murder is clearly wrong. Apple, say hello to your long lost cousin, Orange. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or Userfy there is no standard way of greeting a person or what you can and cannot inform. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Moved to Karmafist's userspace- regardless of the message, personal templates do not belong in the main template namespace.--Sean Black (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per above. Mikker ... 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Though a very inappropriate welcoming template. The Land 19:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Doesn't belong in template namespace, but its statement is perfectly understandable given current circumstances. --Aaron 22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy - I came across this when talking to newbies. And why is it not subst:ed? —Quarl (talk) 2006-02-11 22:39Z
  • Delete I agree with Cyde Weys. Whilst deleting it won't stop Karmafist from using it, we shouldn't let him just get away with factionalising new users before they've even had a chance to really explore the site. Chairman S. 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom., Cyde Ways and Chairman S. -- Dalbury(Talk) 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy I'm all for editors having personalized welcome templates, but they should stay as user subpages. xaosflux Talk/CVU 23:29, 15 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 delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:user yellow amer

Template:User yellow amer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Speedy delete I created it to use American spellings, but I've since modified old template {{user yellow}} to do this. As of this writings no one is using it. Lefty 02:22, 11 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.