Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 January 11)
< January 10 January 12 >

January 11

edit
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. -Splashtalk 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oldvfd

edit

Template:Oldvfd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Obsolete and now unused. —Phil | Talk 19:07, 11 January 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 Karmafist 20:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User allboxes

edit

Template:User allboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The purpose of this template is to stack consultations against anti-userbox deletions, disciplinary actions, and changes to policy. It subverts the attempt to find reasoned positions in these processes into tug of wars, or in brief, it is disruptive. Templates expressing support for userboxes in a non-disruptive manner exist, for example, Template:Userbox Love. The template should be deleted. --- Charles Stewart 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom edited: I missed a non- before disruptive when talking about Template:Userbox Love, which I think is a good template for expressing support for userboxes. Sorry about this. --- Charles Stewart 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A user should be allowed to state they are in favour of userboxes. This does so. If I notice a userbox expressing an opposite viewpoint, my vote will be the same. This is a comment on a wikipedia phenomenon. As I understand it, this is not only possible, but encouraged. This is after all, a collaborative project and such projects encourage feeback, even if said feedback may be interpreted as negative in content. - Hayter 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is disruptive, certainly I fail to see how it is more disruptive that the example you provide as an alternative. If it's the inclusion of a category, one need only check the 'what links here' list to find the users who use the box. That aside, not everyone likes pink. - Hayter 21:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't see this: the disruption is to wikipedia's decision-making process. The box-love template indicates no intention to vote on this preference, and because most people find poll-stacking sleazy, it's likely to be of little use in a poll-stacking operation. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just let the people show their opinions about userboxes. --Angelo 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but perhaps remove the category. Does the nom have evidence that this box is actually being used for vote stacking or is the nom just saying that maybe it might be? #wikipedia IRC might be used for vote stacking too, right? ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two points: first, templates, categories and images all have potential for being used in poll-stacking operations. I am saying the template is well-suited for vote-stacking, because it explicitly advertises an intention to vote, and hence it is (i) not expressing an opinion but advertising an intention and (ii) has a good chance to be used in the future in vote-stacking operations. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 22:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No personal attack or anything. Remove the category, if you want. —Nightstallion (?) 08:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Well, what a surprise! Another userbox is up for deletion! Why don't people get it into there heads that userboxes are here for opinion, lots of people use them, people like them, they're not harming anyone, and they should not be deleted!. This is a huge waste of time. — Wackymacs 08:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and carefully watch the keepers. --Pjacobi 11:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not see this as in any way disruptive. DES (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It advertises a clear intention to vote a particular way. It is the very picture of a vote-stacking template. I'm surprised you don't see the disruptive nature of this template. --- Charles Stewart
  • Keep, no evidence of disruption. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest imaginable keep. Fer cryin' out loud, would y'all stop already with the campaign against userboxes? As others have said, there is no evidence of disruption.
  • Comment I'm not surprised to see that for many participants find that the issue of freedom of expression trumps the risk of vote-stacking, but I'm very surprised that templates formulated in a manner explicitly inviting vote-stacking are not seen as being in any way disruptive (even to the extend of invoking the pinciple of not shutting barn doors unless the horse has already bolted). Are there any circumstances which keep voters think that vote-stacking templates should be deleted on the grounds of vote-stacking? --- Charles Stewart 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see this as "vote stacking" but rather as expressing an opnion on a currently debated issue of wikipedia policy. If someone wanted to argue for removing the category as possibly likely to lead to block voting, I could understand that. DES (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear: you think that This '''[[:Category:Users who support userboxes|user]]''' supports userboxes and '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Userboxes/Alerts|votes]]''' to stop their rampant deletion. does not invite attention from people trying to stack polls to protect userboxes? --- Charles Stewart 00:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Postscript I am assuming that you are aware that most (probably 2/3s of) people do not subst templates, and so they can provide an effective tool for vote-stacking. --- Charles Stewart 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anyone who would censor what other editors say about themselves on their own user pages cannot be trusted with administration or arbitration power. --Peace Inside 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep This user is voting keep.
Ashibaka tock 20:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promoting flocking behavior in votes Consensus is not about mob rule. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as I have yet to see any evidence that this userbox has caused any disruption. --Asarelah
  • Strong Keep You want to talk about being disruptive. This very vote for deletion is being disruptive. This whole thing is getting completely out of hand. If you like the userboxes put them on your userpage. If you don't like them DON'T put them on your userpage. FINISH. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep — This isn't hurting anyone. If you don't like it, don't use it, simple as that. There is no "flocking" behaviour going on, there is absolutely nothing wrong with drawing attention to Wikipedia vote processes, as the notice about ArbCom elections on your Special:Watchlist shows. People who try to hide knowledge of votes for deletion and other processes only wish to try exclude newer users from Wikipedia processes and keep their cliques in power. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 13:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This kind of Tfd is disgusting. Where is the evidence that this userbox causes disruption besides the paranoia displayed by those who put userboxes up for deletion? The comments made by Pjacobi and MONGO truly make the Deletion process look bad. --D-Day 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tony Sidaway has documented 3 poll-stacking operations, all of which were foolish enough to be organised on talk pages; I expect the majority of such operations are organised by email. I do not think that people who advertise their intention to vote in a particular way should be permitted to participate in polls: this issue I find to be far more serious that the issue about personal attacks. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Continous deletion of userboxes without due process because some people here believe that there should be no freedom to express your affliations. KittenKlub 19:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as freedom of speech. The nomination of this just highlights the over-reaction of some people, as well as violet/riga's comment of "Delete and ban all users with a stupid userbox on their page", how stupid! -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 11:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because people use it. Box love only has 2 users. Rich Farmbrough. 13:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I think about, the very fact that this userbox was brought up for deletion is even more proof of out-of-control admins trying to censor user pages. --D-Day 13:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boddah 18:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Mystache 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't like being censored, and the box is not libelous or slanderous, or anything else that would make it offensive...what's next? Deleting userboxes staing a position of support for Amnesty International or Gay and Lesbian rights?...this whole argument is quite ridiculous. If you don't like userboxes, don't put them on your page, and privately condemn those who use them if you feel so strongly about it, if you really hate userboxes and userbox users that much, state your POV on YOUR userpage...don't try censor people's personal opinions when they are properly confined to their personal userpage. Nobody is forcing you to use userboxes, so don't try to force others not to use them. bcatt 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sometimes wonder if it is worth writing an explanation for the TfD and discussing issues various people have with it, when messages that indicate a complete lack of effort at comprehension appear as this one. This template is not offensive, libellous or slanderous, just as the TfD rationale said. It does, however, advertise an intention to vote in a particular way, and if I saw an Amnesty International userbox that said "This user likes Amnesty International and will vote to delete any articles that irritate them", I would put that up for TfD too. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep There's one that states pratically the opposite of this one so, go delete that one instead.--RBlowes 23:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh yeah, and carefully watch the "deleters" =)
  • Keep Harmless... Duran 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete factious, used to stack consensus. Iff kept, remove the category so it can't be used for talk page spamming. --Wikiacc 22:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no compelling reason to delete (and no, I have not put it on my page). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TCorp 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk 04:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep it, or lose the 'noboxes' one as well. Makitk, 18 January 2006, 8:02am (GMT+1)
    • Comment I accidentally posted my above vote under Uncyclopedia. Sorry for that.
  • Strong keep It's harmless - • Dussst • T | C 15:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Boddah 15:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep Shell 17:31, 21 January 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncyclopedia

edit

Template:Uncyclopedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is currently not used, nor should it be. It somehow survived a TfD debate here.

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. You're alterations to the [[{{{1}}}]] article were indeed very funny, but I'm afraid we can't keep them. This is because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and shouldn't be corrupted by that sort of thing. However, you may be interested to know that there is a very similar wiki called Uncyclopedia that would welcome your comical contributions. This is because Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, and welcomes comical content written in good taste. You are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, however if you wish to submit comical content please do so at Uncyclopedia instead. Thank you.

—gorgan_almighty 14:29, 18 January 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. -Splashtalk 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon

edit

Template:Simon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Template is overly large and somewhat unwieldy, and is mostly full of red links. Discussion on the template's talk page shows a preference for this information to be a simple category, rather than a full template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The shortening of the template reduced it to Simon malls that already have articles on Wikipedia, meaning that all the red links were cut out. I now consider the template to be incomplete, because it's not giving the whole picture anymore. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 12 January 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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_11&oldid=1113350361"