Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20, 2006

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OntarioSH

Template:OntarioSH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As per similar templates, redundant with list articles, and categories. — May. 12, '06 [09:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>

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 Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headgear box

Template:Headgear box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created to replace template Headgear which was deleted. However in the discussion almost all of the participants who voted to deleted, voted to deleted this template as well see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11#Template:Headgear for the full discussion. Jon513 20:59, 20 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 Speedy delete

WP:CSD#T1 by Xoloz. — xaosflux Talk 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]


Template:Shutup

Template:Shutup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bumped into this while searching for something else. Rubbish created by an anon 9 months ago. Lucky13pjn 19:24, 20 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 Keep. — xaosflux Talk 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anti-war topics

talk | history | links | watch | logs
)
Ludicrously long, replace by category. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. Not any longer than
    Talk) 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. If it's too long, it can be trimmed, sections can be cut, etc. If there's nothing wrong in principle with the template, there's no reason to delete it. Kalkin 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs cut down or split up, not deleted. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 04:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although I agree with what you are saying with regard to userboxes, this is not a userbox, it's a normal template. The Ungovernable Force 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The length of the template only serves to highlight the notability of the topic, in my view. If it is deemed "too long" for the articles it is included on, then perhaps the template should be adjusted, but certainly not deleted. —GrantNeufeld 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Similarly to the above. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have used this template many times when navigating Anti-war topics; I've found it very useful. I think the size issue can be solved by moving elements into another more specific template. - Solar 10:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep but Anti-War topics should be reworded. Netscott 11:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a problem with this. The more people who are aware that are aware of the process of template deletion and their say in it, the better. Sophy's Duckling 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote-stack spamming is bad. Netscott 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote spamming has been ruled out by the arbcom irrespective of message. Schuminweb broke the rules. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above comments. --Sanguinus 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has proven useful to me. If Fear EIREANNs opinion "too long" is enough for deleting templates, it would imply the deletion of many templates that are also long, like the Template:Irish Free State for example. Also, the length of the template is typically a thing discussed on the template's discussion page. Why refuse to give your opinion or advise on the discussion page? Why opting for deletion right away? -- ActiveSelective 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above comments. Kukini 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. // The True Sora 02:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --Strothra 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there template focusses on Western anti-war movements, the solution is not to delete the template, but to expand it to include other anti-war movements. While I probably disagree vehemently with many of the subjects of the articles, organizing them doesn't promote their point of view. I also don't understand how you could see Galloway as not anti-war. (I'd never heard of him before, so I am just trusting the Wikipedia article.) --Habap 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Galloway has this: Galloway stated "I am on the anti-imperialist left... If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe.". Apparently Galloway strongly favours the Cold War and possibly Soviet-backed aggression Bwithh 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are varrious problems around putting the template on to biog' pages but that doesn't mean that it should be on no pages. Also, how does this template act as a soap box any more then Template:Fascism sidebar? Both are usefull what ever your political perspective.--JK the unwise 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but drastically cut down Expanding this Anglo-American biased template to include other anti-war movements would make it far too long and unwieldy. I favour cutting it down to a menu of simple categories with no mention of specific organizations. Bwithh 14:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - too long atm, but a useful tool. -- infinity0 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really think that the template is far to U.S-centric and the contents of it could theoretically be endlessly long. I'm not sure either way for delete or for keep but I just thought I'd add my two cents.--Jersey Devil 23:41, 27 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 improperly nominated, relaunched a discussion at

WP:COMIC Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:GreenLantern

Template:GreenLantern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is highly inaccurate and useless insomuch as there are various characters known as "Green Lantern", and hence each individual character has his/her own page and corresponding template (in most cases). As each Lantern has his/her own character specific allies/adversaries/notable stories, this template does not accomplish the purpose it seems to have been designed for initially. NetK 00:15, 19 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 Keep. — xaosflux Talk 16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Christian

Template:User Christian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was controversially amended by several editors in an edit war over which all parties have acknowledged regret. DRV discussion resulted in a consensus to undelete and relist this template. This a procedural nomination, so I abstain. I urge all commenters to treat this matter with respect. Xoloz 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Reword to avoid T2. Keep - If edit war is used as a rational to delete a(n) template/article, then many pages on Wikipedia has to be deleted as well? -Hunter 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rewrite. The edit war merits an RfC at the least (and perhaps even an RfAr, on Cyde in particular). But the template itself is currently violating T2. However, since T2 is a new proposal, we should avoid deleting too many templates with it and generating controversy and division. So instead, circumvent the problem by both preserving the template and adhering to
    CSD T1/T2: move this template to {{user christianity}}, change the text to "This user is interested in Christianity.", and for anyone who wants the original, simply subst the raw code to their userpage. The exact same course has been taken for every other template on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, mainly as a preventative measure to avoid a big, ugly war over implementing T2, when we should be worrying about editing the encyclopedia, not squabbling over userboxes. -Silence 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I agree, though this was not the reason this template was nominated for deletion (Sorry, I believe in due process). If this is used as the reason to nominate this template for deletion, I probably would support your view and vote the same as you. Hunter 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and re-write as per Silence, or speedy delete as CSD t2. --
    ask? 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep as is. There is no harm in allowing Christians to identify themselves as such. Bucketsofg✐ 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good thing nobody's suggesting they aren't allowed to do that, then. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Buckets Homestarmy 20:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if a user is allowed to write "I am Christian..." on his user page why can he put it in a box? Jon513 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He can. People object to users putting the text in a template, not to putting the text in a box. Personally, I think both objections are rather silly, but there's clearly significant support for the idea that there shouldn't be belief-expressing templates, else T2 wouldn't have lasted this long (though there seem to be more people who oppose than support its usage). -Silence 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see proof that this userbox has led to any division among users, besides the edit wars and the speedy deletion. --
be a pepper too?) 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
If it were obviously so, Mr. Sidaway, I would not have relisted it. While your observation is welcome, it is inaccurate. As for the good served by this discussion -- a calm discussion helps ease tensions, and mollifies the anger of those rightly upset with the events surrounding the previous improper speedying of this template. As I said, consensus at DRV did determine the previous speedy was improper. Xoloz 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D-Day: Look no farther than the Jason Gastrich RFC. --Cyde↔Weys 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is nothing offensive whatsoever about the words "This user is a Christian." Sophy's Duckling 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sophy's Duckling Brian | (Talk) 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy keep. Think about how to show convincingly that this template violates "Don't be a dick". — Timwi 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm getting dragged into this dumb userbox war. For those of you who think a vote for keep==subt and delete... no. The content is not the purpose of the userbox. The ability to find other users of a certain POV to help balance out articles is the purpose of a userboxe. If the purpose was to say "I am a chirstian" on your user page, then people could just type "I am a chirstian" on their user page. --Rayc 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: maybe you weren't around for the Great Userbox War, but your keep rationale is the exact reason that it got started. People use this kind of template in deletion debates to "rally the troops." —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — speedy if possible. Nowhere near T1/T2 in any acceptable formulation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not divisive. —
    Luka 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Strong Keep Per many keeps above. ~Linuxerist
    L/T 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • keep (not "subsist and deleate")... it would be helpful to know who is a Christian, esspecally if editing articles relating to Christanity. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: First off, I'm not a christian and am actually quite opposed to the religion (and pretty much all others) but I do not see any harm in allowing someone to express their affiliation as a christian. If the problem is that it's a template, than just speedy delete every template that expresses an opinion and get it over with, instead of slowly doing this one by one. The Ungovernable Force 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Why delete something that simply states what you are? Some people aren't afraid of showing what they are and have no issue with others knowing. Some people may just put it there for "status" but that's highly unlikely in this case. Clearly doesn't violate any of the T's... --Ivorydust 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You cannot be offended by this. Thats just stupid. And it simply states that the person is a christian. It give people an insight into who they are, so they can understand their edits more without wrongfully judging them. If people wanted the Userbox war to end, they would stop wrongfuly nominating countless numbers of userboxes - • The Giant Puffin • 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep possible - is this political correctness gone mad once more? I'm not Christian but many of my friends are, and so are millions of other people in the world. This is insanity. Surely if you delete this, you have to delete all the religion ones. Michaelritchie200 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless a decision is made to delete all templates expressing beliefs, be they religious, political, food preference, favorite sports teams, etc.
    E@ 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - I am a Christian and I find it pathetic that you're offended by this. This just tells people that the user is a Christian. I disagree with Atheism but you don't see me proposing deletion on the Atheism templates. --Tuspm 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not offended by this template; I just don't think it's an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources. A This user is interested in Christianity template would be quite encyclopedic and would avoid giving the impression that we edit as advocates here. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if this gets template gets kept, I'll recreate "User satanist" (which is currently protected against creation). If we allow one religion, we should allow them all. :-) bogdan 07:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that just about everyone who voted "keep" above would agree with you: fairness is the most important thing. So rather than exacerbating an error by asking it to recur elsewhere, why not fix the original error? Nominate {{
    Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. It should at the least be undeleted, moved and rewritten to say "This user is interested in Satanism.", as this one should; deletion is completely unnecessary. -Silence 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If you're going to talk about fairness then why not delete the template on the Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians? If there are satanists on wikipedia feel free to go to undelete. Falphin 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should recreate the satanist userbox is this is kept. I dont think that we should have one religion on here, and not have another. The spagetti monster one should be kept because it is a legitimate view - • The Giant Puffin • 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consistency with userbox policy right now. First off, this will probably just get speedied regardless of what ever decision is reached here. I agree, if this is allowed, Satanism should be recreated, but don't count on it. Until we can come to a consensus about userbox policy there is going to be a lot of mixed messages sent out, and there's not much we can do about it. The Ungovernable Force 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because this whole userbox thing is one big war. Admins deleting like its going out of fashion, and others trying to stop it. The sooner a good policy gets through the better. Even if templates are kept on here, theyre either renominated, speedied or end up protected - • The Giant Puffin • 07:59, 25 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 keep. -

Mailer Diablo 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:User No Napoleon

Template:User No Napoleon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's a frivolous template becuase it's for

glovepuppets only. And it's not a happy face. Myrtone@Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20.com.au 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Does that comment count as a double vote? --
be a pepper too?) 11:43, 21 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 delete Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Satanism-footer

Template:Satanism-footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redirect to

[yell at me] /01:13, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_20&oldid=1136067321"