Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 29 January 31 >

[edit] January 30, 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Native American

Template:User Native American (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — I'm not even sure where to begin! The image used is seriously stereotypical. There are well in excess of 200 recognized native nations in the US now (many of whom are amalgamations of once fully independent nations) but things used by some Plains cultures are used by the... ahem, not so well informed (he said euphamistically) to represent pratically an entire continent of cultures (this is the polite version of what I've heard full bloods say on the matter). The pic may be deleted for lack of sourcing anyway. The issue of who is and is not "an Indian" is a very, very "hot" issue in Indian Country these days and even just a simple little use box like this could end up leading to quite a flame war at some point. Such a small box but talk about Pandora potential. Mark K. Bilbo 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep If there is a questionable picture we always remove the picture. We don't have to delete the box. I don't see this as any more controversial than a user saying they are of asian orgin. If people want to create an individual box for each Indian nation they can go ahead and do it, but I don't see this as anything that controversial here. Also, on the internet, It doesn't really matter who is really and Indian and by who's standards they are an Indian. We have no way to prove either way and in the end it is simply up to the user of this box to make that call for themselves.--God of War 16:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep If the picture is questionable, it can be removed and/or replaced. If users prefer a more representative picture, it can be added in place, or as a second template. There is no grounds whatsoever for deleting this box. None. There is no reason for this to even be discussed. --Dschor 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have replaced the non-free image.--God of War 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep I see no legitimate grounds for deleting this userbox, particularly now that the image has been replaced. (That said, a controversial image is no reason to delete a userbox - just change the image). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Now that image has been fixed, there is no reason to delete. --Dragon695 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep a disagreemt over what image to use is not a reason to delete, although it might be a resopn to fork. DES (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Trödel•talk 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, pages/templates/etc. should not be deleted over content disputes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dragon - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IF the term "Indian" is replaced with "Native American", I'd vote keep, but does it apply to anyone with even the smallest amount of native blood? Perhaps the box needs usage guidelines. Harvestdancer 17:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Good lord, now we need a policy for who can use a userbox? I don't have a problem with the userbox itself, although there's some concern about the whole AmerInd/Native American/Indian "label", but userboxes are by their nature self-selecting. If you don't think someone should use it, talk to them about it or go do something else. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And if there was a userbox that, say, used a picture of a watermelon, stated "this user is of African-American heritage" and was used as a trendy label by whites, your advice would be? You're letting a user (who, by the way, is on the verge of being hauled in front of ArbCom for his behavior) drag you into a mine field and you don't know where the mines are. Anyway, if it blows up in your faces and the Wiki starts taking a beating in the Native press, you can't say you weren't warned. That's about all I'll have to say about the matter. Mark K. Bilbo 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Nice straw man, but that's not quite the same problem with this template (unless the picture/wording has changed vastly between the time of nomination and when I saw it). The naming controversy is real with regards to First Nations people, but nowhere near as inflamatory as the Negro stereotypes you threw out there. I'm trying for light, not heat, in this debate. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
      • With regards to this particular user box, we're wading into waters that are very deep. The use of that term, as pointed out by the nominator, is a contentious one. There are Native Americans who object strongly if a white guy like me, who has less than 1% native blood, were to use the term for myself. Harvestdancer 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Did I ever tell you about time a group of us tore AOL a new one in the "Blue Snake" incident? The mess got a write in Wired it was so noisy. <G> Mark K. Bilbo 19:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, then, frankly, that's their problem. It isn't as if the term is inherently offensive. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I disagree; if people take offense at something, it's because they take offense at it. Whether YOU find it to be offensive or not is not necessarily relevant. Go read up on Native American name controversy a bit before you declare it to be "their problem"; they didn't ask to be called "Indians" or "Native Americans", and there is no definitive collective term. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Light, then anyone can object to anything and have their opinion enforced! No, they didn't ask for anything, but being offended by a term is your problem if the term was not created to offend you (and Native American was not). —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, per God of War. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep helohe (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep (on second thought, Keep; what's the rush?), and create templates for every variant of "Native American" (like "Indian", etc.) that are likely to be popular, so the templates create the benefit of telling us how people prefer to be referred as (cf. the numerous "pronoun" templates, "this user prefers to be referred to as 'she'", etc.), not just something as irrelevant as where a person's ancestors happened to randomly live. Heritage is infinitely less important than beliefs, on the Internet and Wikipedia even more than elsewhere, and what terminology someone prefers to use is a matter of belief. The only valid reason to delete "Native Americans" as a self-identification template would be if noone (or very, very few people) used it as a self-identification, which is obviously not the case, even if it's less popular than a couple of other terms. Userboxes are valid when they are both significant and likely to be used; whether the view expressed in the userbox is factual, offensive, etc. is entirely beside the point. -Silence 03:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep now that the image has been changed. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 16:59, 5 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, but that doesn't sound like a good enough release to me. Is he ok with commercial 3rd party use? Modification? Any purpose? This needs to be clarified. -Splashtalk 00:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:SocEur

Image copyright tag, for images used with permission from Soccer Europe. The only copyright infomation provided by the site is "The contents of this site may not be used without written permission of the webmaster", so this would seem to exclude the possibility of subsequent commerical use of these images from Wikipedia. The site also does not explicitly claim ownership of the images, so who actually owns the copyright is uncertain. Given the non-commercial aspect implied by the permission, images and the template are incompatible with current wikipedia policy on non-commercial images the template should be deleted.--nixie 02:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • The website's creator has an account at User:Soccer-europe.com. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As stated, written permission is unusable and authorship is uncertain. (Delete the images after that). --Abu Badali 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the site owner is convincingly able to show that he owns the copyright on all of the images on the site and agrees to allow anyone to use them with attribution. JYolkowski // talk 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 02:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The template was previously discussed regarding deletion here.
    • This issue has now been resolved, see Template_talk:SocEur. Template will be kept. ed g2s • talk 21:12, 4 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.