Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mareino (talk | contribs) at 15:56, 15 May 2006 (→‎[[Template:Rfa cliche1]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11, 2006

Template:Nudity warning

Wikipedia is not censored. --Doc ask? 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It not a censor, it does not remove images in fact it warns viewers not to censor and it directs them to a disclaimer explaining why. --BerserkerBen 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it against wikipedia policy?, how does this message censor images? and how are people suppose to know about a disclaimer: are we suppose to put giant disclaimers at the top of every article?--BerserkerBen 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While not really necessary, and thus a Weak delete from me, this differs a bit from the spoiler template in sort of an ironic way in that the spoiler is a warning that WP isn't censored, and that the reader should expect ALL details of a film, not just the usual review they may expect to read in the paper or elsewhere online. It's a common courtesy, because "censorship" isn't usually used in connection with movie reviews (exept perhaps self-censorship.) The double warning isn't needed here, since the "WP not censored" policy, had sexuality and nudity already in mind when it was created. Nhprman 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Letting people know that they shouldn't just delete stuff because THEY don't agree with it is a good thing. Russia Moore 07:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong deleteas WP:NOT censored/disclaimered, unless this is only being used as a talk-page template, in which case I don't like it but I think it's harmless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to see anyone describe how this is censorship or show were it violates wikipedia's non-censorship policy (All the links provided above say nothing of warning tags), I am open to any changes to what the tag says, at present this is what I have come to on the Talk:Circumcision page:

This article contains pictures of human genitals; discuss before editing the images. --BerserkerBen 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All userboxes below

I didn't feel like copying my vote multiple times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below:

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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User I2P

Template:User I2P

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User crazy

Template:User crazy

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:User ding

Template:User ding

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Gaia

Template:User Gaia

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User goon

Template:User goon

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-1

Template:User Hattrick-1

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-2

Template:User Hattrick-2

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-3

Template:User Hattrick-3

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LUElinks

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:User LEO contributor

Template:User LEO contributor

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, did anyone even read what leo.org is? It's a free archive of open-source software and online dictionaries. It's an extraodrinarily useful tool for those of us who, say, want to translate articles between English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. Except for the fact that LEO isn't a Wikimedia project, having this userbox on one's user page is no different from having {{User Wiktionary}} there. Angr (t • c) 19:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LEO is a fellow reference site, legitimate need to organize collaboration could arise (confer planetmath and mathworld). This is probably a misinformed nomination. -lethe talk + 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; useful to users specialising in German - English translation and the wider German-speaking en.wikipedia community, and equivalent to templates pointing to other open-source projects. Aquilina 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whether a box advertises or not, or is "cool" or not, or is "neat" or "useful" or "funny" or not is irrelevant. Deleting simply takes them out of template space and allows users to continue to use them on their User page ("User Space"). It's a technical change that has become a rather shallow popularity contest over the content, which is not really the issue. This particular one is "Unencyclopedic" because it's in template space, and ads pointing to other sites, however, great, aren't really the point of Wikipedia's template space. Saying "Subst and Delete" simply moves it to User space, and ends these endless deletion exercises. Please reconsider your positions. Thanks. Nhprman 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one called this box "cool", "neat" or "funny". Whether a template is useful or not is most certainly not irrelevant. There is no reason whatsoever to remove this from template space. Templates are convenient tools for text that is to be repeated in multiple locations, such as this one. Deleting it from template space would not improve Wikipedia. Angr (t • c) 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Neopets

Template:User Neopets

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:User Onion

Template:User Onion

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It still can be, even if deleted from Template space. It will exist as text in User space, and you can still use it. It just shouldn't be in Template space, because that's where the articles are. This distinction doesn't get explained very often. Hope this helps! - Nhprman 06:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just semantics at issue here. Templates should be set aside for assisting in the editing of articles. Funny templates simply don't advance that cause. Still, I agree there should be a separate place for them. Good solution. By voting "Delete" and deleting them from the Template space, they go into the User space, where they can be used there as users see fit. Nhprman 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User RMP

Template:User RMP

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All userboxes are not advertisements for other sites. Clearly the ones you mention aren't. If you vote "Delete,' this box will not disappear, it will simply be transformed into a text-based box that looks exactly the same. It will just be taken out of the template space. Hense the rather undiplomatic comment that it's "clutter." It doesn't belong in the template space, really. - Nhprman 19:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Snopester

Template:User Snopester

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SG

Template:User SG

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Template:Unproved

Template:Unproved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template isn't particulary helpful, since all it does is to inform the reader that the factual accuracy of the article in question might be disputed or in any other way be considered unreliable. I consider that a bit too vague to be really useful or helpful. There are also plenty of already existing templates available that would substitute this one, in a more specific and helpful way (such as Accuracy, Neutrality, Controversial and Unencyclopedic), making this one redundant. And finally, in my opinion, this one is not NPOV, since even proven theories are frequently disputed, while some theories are never proven, but accepted anyway. Allowing a template like this might trigger edit wars between believers and skeptics in various articles around Wikipedia. Magore 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncertain wording and other templates are applicable. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template is redundant and silly, it talks down to the reader; if topic is theoretical, it will be stated in the article Judgesurreal777 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the nom and the above, there is also Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates.--Andrew c 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire

Template:Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A navigation template which is way too large to be useful. bogdan 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

----------------------

Given the fact that there are more links at the template of "countries in asia" or very close in "countries in Europe" the quantitative arguments about the size is not really valid. Also the template comes as hidden division, which only covers two lines in its hidden state. People who want to use it can open the (through the link on the right side) division and work with it. Both of these arguments defends the opposide side "Not To Delete"--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative remarks about the usefullness, which is linked with the organization of the empires, seems to be valid. There should be a better organization than categorizing through centuries. However these questions should be covered in its talk page. However, these talks are develop the arguments toward the need to keep the template. This paragraf is about "Not To Delete" side.--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it's better, but still, I think a "See also: List of empires" would be better. bogdan 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the elementary education in your country, but there is a unifying topic called "World civilizations" which organizes (classify) the topics around empires. There is an idea that an empire is a reflection of its civilization, which can be arguable but in any sense it is here as a teaching tool. The empires page is a good point for you if you have hard time following this idea... Please reconsider your wote. --OttomanReference 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Helpful template for seeking out historical empires. Issues have been raised about the "Irish Empire" and more than a few could be raised about "American Empire," which seems like a POV inclusion. - Nhprman 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Weak delete - I find the comments by Jon513, below - that the subjects are generally unrelated - rather convincing. I'd like to see the template's creator make an "Ancient Empires" template, however. That would be useful and consistent. Nhprman 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Once agian, completely and totalyl pointless. Anything that could be served with a simple CATEGORY should be a category. If category doesn't quite do it, then a See also to an article with a list on the topic. Making all text infoboxes on such large range of descriptors of no particular purpose is just completely unencyclopedic.DreamGuy 07:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nebulous concept of empires as corrupted by inconsistent use of Christian and Colonial tags serves to confuse rather than enlighten. Pedant17 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Empire is a classification, like colonial empire. I do not like it, as I do not like the idea of caliphate as an empire but these concepts do exist. I do not see how you can get rid of a concept by deleting a navigational bar. I have a difficulty in understanding if you object the empires as a navigational bar or classification of the empires based on christian. The second can be removed, which is arguable, and would that cover your dissatisfaction?--OttomanReference 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the whole facile classificatory concept. The Great Moravian Empire has imperial status on a plane quite different from (say) the Inca Empire. We have an Empire article which can discuss these distinctions, but a template undermines the differences. -- The concept of a "Christian empire" (has anyone defined this in Wikipedia?) raises particular POV issues. Why classify the Venetian Empire as Christian, but not the militantly Orthodox Russian Empire or the earnestly Lutheran Swedish Empire? Venice favoured trade over religion for much of its imperial career. The Roman Empire spent many decades with Christianity as an official religion ... Pedant17 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not opposed to navigation templates when they are part of a whole subjects that some reader would want to learn about in full. No one wants to read about all the empires in the world; some want to read everything there is to know about a particluar religion. I can't image that anyone who is reading about for example the Holy Roman Empire will then want to read about the Akkadian Empire. While the two are related they don't have the same readership. This is what catagories are for. Jon513 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too large, confusingly organized, and POV to be useful. Angr (t • c) 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jon513. HenryFlower 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nintendo series developers

Template:Nintendo series developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Useless, mangled, redundant with the much more useful {{Nintendo developers}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headgear

Template:Headgear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Request is to deprecate this template, replacing its use with Template:Headgear box, which is designed as a box for placement at the bottom of affected articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: having a navigation box like that is just a little bit ugly. Looking at a page like Apostolnik, I'm convinced that a bottom of the page box would be more suitable, and as one already exists (nicely created, too), there's no need for this to remain. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no real unifying factor with headgear. An infobox is completely inappropriate! A category is more then enough for this. Jon513 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most effective boxes to come from a project on WP, which links themes and topics in a uniform style and link. Far superior to the frankly amateurish and frankly hideous headgear box. But at least this time Schuminweb is consulting, as opposed to mass deletions of a box he wanted axed across dozens of articles, an action that led to his blocking. This whole issue was voted on in February. It is a waste of time constantly revoting on issues over and over again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In February there was no consensus, now we hope there will be. Jon513 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Jtdirl's edit above - Jtdirl is the administrator who blocked Schuminweb for removing/changing this template, timestamp 2006-05-09 19:31:25. A questionable block, since it might have been made in order to gain advantage in a conflict with another user on Wikipedia. /Magore 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A complete lie. I uphold WP policy, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. Schuminweb unilaterally doctored the content of a project page to create the opposite impression to that created by its authors. He then proceeded to use his falsified version of the page to mass delete a template and replace it with the one he had pretended, through doctoring of the page, was the project template. No user can do that. He was repeatedly warned to stop. Other users asked him to stop. He ignored all calls to stop. As a result, in accordance with WP rules, after being warned he was blocked. That is standard procedure and is done by whichever admin finds it happening. No user is allowed to falsify contents of protect, naming convention or manual of style pages and then begin mass deletions on that basis. He was only blocked for 24 hours. Other users have in the past been blocked for such antics for far far longer. One some months ago was blocked indefinitely by another admin. Schuminweb was very lucky to have only got a short block for such a serious act. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without taking this much further off topic, what other users asked me to stop? From what I can tell, the only user who asked me to stop was User:Jtdirl. Jooler questioned my removal of a comment when I moved the box (which I explained), but no one else explicitly asked me to stop. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category should be sufficient here. MiraLuka 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems more like a content issue. Should the box be a header or footer? Should the topics be organized according to relation? What should the design of the final box look like? I think those issues should be worked out before we decide to delete one of them. My two cents, I personally prefer the way the newer box looks. But simply centering the lines and changing the semi-colons to em dashes would make the nom look better. In the long run, one of these boxes need to go because they are redundent. I do not feel that this TfD followed process. It seems like an eager editor created a new box as opposed to editing the existing box, and as the above comment points out, there is not community consensus on removing the old one.--Andrew c 22:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no harm, it may not be an example of WP's best work, but it is informative for those who are interested in headgear and the different varieties. --rogerd 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) it is not a matter of doing no harm. if there is no point it does not belong. and taking up space is harm. 2) who is going to be interested in learning everything there is to know about headgear of every different time and culture. people don't work that way! Jon513 15:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- completely useless as encyclopedic content, at best it's a category or See alsos, absolutely pointless as a big boinking box on the page, should not be replaced with any template either, just needs to go... Infoboxes absolutely as a matter of policy should not be forced onto articles without the clear and direct consensus of editors on ALL affected articles BEFOREHAND. This is common sense here. Instead we have someone coming up with these useless things all on their own without any sort of input and forcing them everywhere and then complaining when they are removed (and if Jtdirl above is accurate that someone was blocked for removing the template, the admin who blocked him should lose admin status and be laughed off the entire project). DreamGuy 06:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The usual personal abuse. Some things never change with DG. lol When the last attempt to vote this template off was defeated, DG responded by blanking it. His standard of behaviour never changes. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfa cliche1

Template:Rfa cliche1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unuseful template, may as well just be typed out. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11&oldid=53332612"