Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 28

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 January 28)
< January 27 January 29 >

January 28, 2006

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 NO CONSENSUS, though this verges on a keep, and the template is not close to the userbox debate (nor is it a userbox). -Splashtalk 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MultiLicenseCommunism

edit

Template:MultiLicenseCommunism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Read this: Humor :) --D-Day 14:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You got me. I was trying to point out that it wasn't humorous. Oh well. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not propose this because I oppose POV on userpages or even templates for userpages (I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes). I proposed it for deletion because it was not being used, as I said in the nom, and its associated category was incorrectly categorized in article space categories. I have fixed the categorization. If some users have decided they now want to use this template, then I suppose it can be kept. But honestly, if only 1 or 2 users are using it, and only because they saw it nominated for deletion, it would seem to make more sense to delete the template and let users paste the code directly into their userpage. --Tetraminoe 20:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I think it's rather hilarious!! —akghetto talk 03:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Elle --Graphic 02:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it's serious, it implies that the material cannot be used under the GFDL, by saying: "Don't you ever try subjecting this material under the terms of copyright, intellectual property" - the GFDL is a copyright license, i.e. "under the terms of copyright", so if you can't "subject" the user's edits to the GFDL, that's a violation of basic tennets of Wikipedia. Of course, it could be simply a rather convoluted way of licensing a user's contribs into the public domain, which is perfectly OK; but a PD dedication doesn't have such language, so I have to view it (if serious) as a violation of Wikipedia custom. If it's a joke, subst it on you're user pages, folks, and/or BJAODN it. But for now it looks way too much like a violation, albeit a well-intended one. JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep is compatible with GFDL. Physchim62 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having fun is good. Heck, I like to have fun in the name of (or at the expense of) Communism, but this is a bit too much. Since the original boilerplate serves as a legal statement, this parody may possibly lead to unnecessary confusion. Besides, the pink is UGLY! :) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 05:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We've been over this and over this. NPOV applies only to articles, and users are free to license their contributions in any way they see fit. This communist thing, though arguably useless, and potentially confusing, is harmless and entirely compatible with the GFDL. Bhumiya/Talk 07:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not comply with GFDL. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our article on Copyleft is quite useful--it indicates that copyleft is part of copyright law, not outside of it. Even public domain is part of copyright law. You can't just opt out, and to say so on your user page is a violation of the basic Wikipedia license that you subscribe to every time you press save. As for POV, this template is not a remotely accurate assessment of the actual communist position on copyright or intellectual property, so I don't think POV arguments apply one way or another--it doesn't espouse a POV except confusedly. Chick Bowen 01:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with it. Complaints with whether this is legal should be brought up at some other page, not TfD. Ashibaka tock 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fun template, an appropriate use of userspace. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 06:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 22:15, 5 February 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. -Splashtalk 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of John

edit

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template assumes that all chapters are individually notable enough to each have a wikipedia article, rather than more general articles on the subject matter. This template consequently violates NPOV by enforcing the view of one or two users against the community, which has repeatedly decided that breaking things down by chapter and verses is not the right way to do things. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:08, 28 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. -Splashtalk 23:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew

edit

Template:Chapters in the Gospel of Matthew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template assumes that all chapters are individually notable enough to each have a wikipedia article, rather than more general articles on the subject matter. This template consequently violates NPOV by enforcing the view of one or two users against the community, which has repeatedly decided that breaking things down by chapter and verses is not the right way to do things.--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of Matthew

and so on.

The bonus here is that all such templates would link to the 'feeding of 5000' article, and that one article would discuss the feeding of 5000 from the perspectives of each gospel. It means less articles have to be created, and the actual issues are discussed, rather than the arbitrary chapter divisions; this would seem to make everyone happy. I am keen to hear your thoughts. A J Hay 12:17, 7 February 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 NO CONSENSUS on userboxes generally. Jimbo has expressed a wish that they gradually fade away, there is wide dissent present in the community at large, and this TfD debate does not occur in a vacuum. -Splashtalk 23:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User antifa

edit

This template has been subject of an edit war initiated by User:Silence, who has repeatedly thrown away actual antifa slogans - e.g. "Follow your leader" "Smash fascism" and "Smash fascism before fascism smashes you", - and insists on putting the watered-down, impotent, "progressive liberal" slogan of "This user opposes fascism" (ain't that grand? So what does Silence think anyone should do about it, hmm?)

I wholeheartedly believe that User:Silence would have preferred to have just deleted the userbox outright, but knew he could not get it through WP:TFD.

At any rate, this userbox is now completely redundant to Template:user antifascism demagoguery, and it should be deleted anyway since the text has nothing to do with antifa and everything to do with Silence's "progressive liberalism." --Daniel 18:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a simple "anti-fascist" userbox (Template:antifascism demagoguery. I had made an antifa (e.g., radical anti-fascist) userbox, but Silence unilaterally decided that such sentiments are "too polemical and aggressive" and watered it down to a "liberal" message he found more palatable. Fine by me if you want to express that - but don't call that antifa. --Daniel 21:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't delete templates because of an edit war. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination designed exclusively to make a point. I most certainly don't want to see this deleted (and if I did I'd have simply nominated it myself, rather than going to the trouble of repeatedly trying to improve it; the template would have had a much, much harder time getting through TfD if it was still the version you originally created it as, whereas the current version should be safe except from the die-hard anti-opinionated-userboxes crowd, who would vote the same regardless of its content or delivery), as the anti-fascist viewpoint is a significant and interesting one, and, just like most belief-based userboxes, can be useful to Wikipedia in faciliating participation between disagreeing parties, in demonstrating that Wikipedia does not discriminate for or against members of any specific world-view, in making explicit the POV biases and ideologies users hold to begin with (while avoiding the assumption that they will interject those biases into the articles they work on), and in giving us easy and quick access to people who are more likely to be interested in articles like antifascism should there be a dispute or attention needed for those articles.
The only thing I objected to in the article was stylistic problems (the previous image was illegible due to its small size) and, more importantly, civility issues: the original version of the template incited Wikipedia users to "follow your leader", with a picture of Hitler killing himself and a piped link to mass suicide. I have no problem whatsoever with the anti-fascist view (indeed, I'm partial to it myself ;)), but no Wikipedia template should be spitefully encouraging other Wikipedia users to commit suicide, no matter what thoughtcrime you think those users are guilty of.
Wikipedia templates like this are for letting users self-identify based on their personal beliefs, their interests, and their world-view, not for users to mass-produce bumper stickers, political slogans, propaganda, or otherwise seek to further their own agendas (no matter how noble their agendas may be!). Ideological userboxes are for giving us information about you, not for furthering your own personal crusades by denouncing people you dislike or trying to rally support for your view (or at least not to do those things in an aggressive, polemic manner); you have an entire userpage for denouncing fascists (and people you think are fascists, since you seem to use the term surprisingly loosely, calling people fascist sympathizers, vandals, and censors just because they disagree with your version of a template), but userboxes, which are created for public use (why not just subst one if you don't want yours to be toned down at all?), have to meet slightly higher standards, or at least not go out of their way to stir up trouble and factionalism. For more information, see Dtasripin's talk page prior to its being cleansed of dissent and criticism by him. -Silence 22:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Silence, you apparently don't even have to bother with actually consulting WP:TFD to sort out the issues; apparently you made yourself the judge, jury, and executioner of a userboxes for a cause you do not even support. That was a bad faith attempt to act as a unilateral censor.
At any rate, Silence, YOU are not an antifa, and "liberal progressives" are not antifa. Why it is a "liberal progressive" who feels it necessary to bend over backwards to protect fascists somehow gets to be the final authority on the content of Template:User antifa, I don't know.
This template should either be deleted, or moved to Template:User anti-fascists progressive liberal bedwetter or some such. --Daniel 22:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just a comment for Silence here, you know if you write short concise statements they are much more likely to be read completely. Just sayin.--God of War 23:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. I'm given no other choice then. Moved this sad excuse for an antifa userbox to Template:User anti-fascism where I'm sure that rhetorical anti-fascists will be able to find it. On the antifa box, I guess I will have to start from scratch. The minute I see Silence starts an edit war, I am simply going to have to be put this through some bureaucratic nonsense to get him to stop. --Daniel 03:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- typical bad faith assertion from a right-wing popinjay. FYI, being liberal and being antifacist is NOT mutually exclusive. After all, whose books, exactly, do you think hitler burned? --Dragon695 07:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, did I say being an anti-fascist and being liberal were mutually exclusive? NO. I said being a liberal and being an antifa (a radical anti-fascist) are mutually exclusive.
And how, pray tell, am I "right-wing?" when my criticism of liberals is that they're not left enough?--Daniel 16:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if you think anyone else would (apart from possibly some hemorrhaging heart-type liberals), you're sadly mistaken. Not shooting them in the streets when they aren't an immediate threat to anyone isn't equivalent to "giving them a hug." If you're simply referring to protesting them whenever they appear then I withdraw my objection; I've done that myself many a time, but "direct action" is simply stupid, getting the wrong people arrested and creating martyrs for the side being acted against. Rogue 9 13:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You say that and link to someone who announces that he's a Libertarian? Erm... Rogue 9 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) Get a sense of humor. 2) Look at the actual page. --Daniel 06:55, 4 February 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 SUBST: and DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fr

edit

Template:Fr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I agree {{En}} is pointless here at English Wikipedia, but {{De}} isn't. I use it all the time. Angr/talk 18:37, 4 February 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. This isn't a political, polemical, or opinionated userbox, and it would seem to me to be outside of that larger debate. -Splashtalk 23:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GangnamSeoul

edit

Template:User GangnamSeoul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Way, way, way too specific. I have some respect for the argument that every city/town/village/ward deserves an article but please, not a userbox too! FreplySpang (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC) FreplySpang (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gangnam itself has over 500k people, and Seoul is a really wired community of over 10m. Also, Gangnam is a pretty ritzy district, with upscale neighborhoods and shopping districts (notably Apgujeong). Gangnam has to have at least some Wikipedian Koreans there (plus some foreign nationals, to throw in some extras). This was also a little "gift" to PuzzletChung. --Shultz 16:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - Ok, if you want to delete it, would you, I, or somebody care to make a Seoul userbox? That should be broad enough; there's over 10 million in the metropolitan area, so lots and lots of Wikipedians from there to be sure. --Shultz 16:28, 28 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 23:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suggestprotect

edit
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. This has an unusually large delete support, and is not in use, so I'll action this one. -Splashtalk 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User gop

edit

Template:User gop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Mostly unused, wet t-shirt image is rather POV for a political party template, already have Template:User republican. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's redirector: Template:Gop xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:24, 28 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 23:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colbert

edit

Template:Colbert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete — This nav box is completely unnecessary. All items in the list can be found linked from Stephen Colbert or The Colbert Report. waffle iron 05:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A series-box seems like a good way to tie together Colbert-cruft. -- Netoholic @ 05:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — It annoys me and seems unneccessary. Rubber cat 09:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Extraordinarily unnecessary, clutters up the page, doesn't give any useful info whatsoever. All it is is a list of the four links to Colbert Report-related pages (the show itself, the episode list, recurring elements, and "truthiness") plus a list of shows Colbert has had anything to do with in the past. In other words, it's just a crappy "see also" box + Colbert's résumé. Plus I'm quite sure that the images being used at the top of the box, which are clipped screenshots from the show, do not qualify for "fair use" since they're being used for primarily decorative reasons in this situation (and once you remove the images, the box isn't even aesthetically pleasing enough to bother with). Eliminating this box would be a gigantic boon to the Colbert Report-related articles, as it would provide them with much-needed breathing room, the potential to include images in the upper-right corner like normal pages (especially useful for a page like List of The Colbert Report episodes, which is currently in a lot of trouble due to the table/template conflicts), and stylistic flexibility. Removing this box will also make the pages a lot simpler and easier for people to navigate and understand; simply providing all of those links at the bottom of the page, under "see also", is vastly more useful and efficient. -Silence 15:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An ugly and unnecessary box that does a disservice to all the articles it appears in. Andrew Levine 17:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a See Also in a box. feydey 05:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "A series-box seems like a good way to tie together Colbert-cruft." Do we WANT to tie together cruft? Let the cruft wallow in the Wiki shadows. Marskell 08:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't get me wrong - I love me my Colbert - but he doesn't merit a template. Frozenpork 19:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... the category should be sufficient. Calwatch 21:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Weird. KILO-LIMA 17:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think that putting all the links under See Also is more efficient, it seems to me that have a bulleted list of related items and subtopics is easier to understand thatn just a straight list. However, the template does seem a little wide for its page. Also, I feel, from my experience, that the Colbert Report and its effects on modern pundit culture are interesting and significant, and deserve to have their articles tied together in a more significant way than "see also."--Zaorish 14:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "See also" lists use a bulleted format exactly like this template does, so I don't understand why you prefer one over the other; the only difference is that the "see also" one looks nicer and is more standardized, doesn't clutter up the tops of articles by assuming that people want to know where to find other articles immediately when they came to this article to find out about this topic, and is more standardized and useful. As for being "tied together meaningfully", not only are there not enough Colbert-related articles to justify that (they should all be linked to within the text of Stephen Colbert and/or The Colbert Report anyway, so they'd be redundant), but that's exactly what the categorization system is for: see Category:The Colbert Report. -Silence 00:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I've revised the template, to now be clean and long, with no images. The template is now only at the bottom of pages. Also, pop culture deserves equal standing and coverage as any other subject. As long as topic matter is notable and verifiable, nothing else matters. -- user:zanimum

  • Comment. Better—yet still completely unnecessary. All this template constitutes is a résumé of articles Stephen Colbert is in some way, however tangentially (i.e. "he did voice work for this animated short" or "he was a minor character in this sitcom"), related to. In other words, it's a ridiculous attempt to create a template out of what should simply be the biographical details of Colbert's careers, in which all of those pages should be (and are) linked within the context of the Stephen Colbert article! Once we remove the fan-appeasing résumé, all we're left with is a very short list of links, almost all of which deal with The Colbert Report itself rather than with Colbert the person: truthiness, miscellania, episode list, the Report itself, and, from The Daily Show, "This Week in God" (which isn't even really a centrally Colbert-related article anyway, anymore than The Ambiguously Gay Duo is, now that other comics have taken over Colbert's role in that Daily Show segment). That's a truly tiny and simple collection of links, and to create a template to bind them all together even more closely than they already are by countless in-article links, "See also" links, and even a Category, is beyond overkill. If we're moving the durned thing to the bottom of articles anyway (which is, admittedly, a giant step up in terms of page organization; if this version stays, I'll change my vote from "Strong Delete" to merely "Delete"), it'll simply be redundant to most of those pages' "See Also" sections, not to mention to the in-article links, if we delete the silly résumé fancruft there'll be too few links to make the template worth the space it consumes, and if we don't delete the résumé the template will be even worse off. I can't see any real reason to go to the trouble of having such a template around; it can't possibly do any significant good, and it could cause significant bad—such as by setting a precedent to give templates to all actors and comedians, listing every single thing they've ever been involved in (even though such simple, organized collections of links are what categories were made for!!). -Silence 01:25, 7 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deletion under review

edit

This template should never be used, as undeletion while an article is still under review at WP:DRV should never be done. To do so is to violate the procedures of DRV. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom... Mikkerpikker ... 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per the notion that people discussing a page might want to be able to see it. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as pointless. From someone who can't see deleted content, on the rare occasion when it's required the material can either be pasted into the discussion (if it's short) or put in a user page (if it's long). - brenneman(t)(c) 03:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{tempundelete}}. The version that was on {{tempundelete}} (which I've just reverted to) is better (and looks more like {{deletedpage}}). "Should never be done" is a bit strange when you have the "content review" section specifically for that purpose. --cesarb 03:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm temporarily undeleting pages where good faith requests for undeletion have been made. This is so that non-administrators (who often complain that they cannot see what we're talking about) can participate fully. I'm perfectly prepared to type out the words every time, but the motion seems somehow counter-productive: hence the template. Of course we wouldn't undelete articles containing copyright infringements, attacks, or defamation, but there's no reason why most deleted pages should be invisible while they are being discussed in good faith on a forum set aside for the purpose. They can be redeleted at the end of the debate if necessary.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is associated with an experiment in altering DRV practise. I find the recent trend of immediately listing for deletion any template or policy associated with an experiment or proposal to change policy or practise a very disturbing thing. Personally, I believe that non-harmful deleted content should be visible during an undeletion debate; to do otherwise is to disenfranchise non-administrators, who are a significant proportion of our editing population. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matthew and Tony. - Haukur 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for as long as it is used in accordance with common sense (that redirect makes no sense) and not used to undelete legally problematic content. Angela. 12:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, duh. Btw, why propose deleting the template when it's the process you disagree with? Stevage 12:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect (per CesarB). It allows undeletion discussions to be transparent so they are more accessible to non-admins and not just for a select few which is a good thing. I don't see why temporary undeletion is a bad thing when discussing an article. - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matthew. And why wouldn't we want to temp undelete something not otherwise problematic whose deletion is being reviewed? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Temporary undeletion of DRVed articles may prove controversial, but this a discussion of the template, not the undeletion itself. If the articles are going to be undeleted we need a template like this (though I'd like to see slight changes to it). If it's decided that Tony's idea of such temporary undeletions is bad, then we can talk about getting rid of the template. Personally, I think it's conditionally not a bad idea, though Aaron Brenneman has a point as well. -R. fiend 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, now that I look at it {{tempundelete}} is better, both as a template and a process (keeping the content in the history allows it to be visible by nonadmins, but prevents the page from being fully undeleted). So redirect, per CesarB. -R. fiend 18:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm a bit divided on this, but basically agree with Mindspillage. AnnH (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Tony. There's quite a few users who would like to see the content of deleted articles while analyzing them at DRV, and that don't have access to the Special:Undelete buttons. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm all in favour of temporarily undeleting pages where good faith requests for undeletion have been made, but this template is redundant. Template:TempUndelete says exactly the same thing, says it more clearly, says it with a neat box around it, and has done so for a long time. Even though the nomination here may have been motivated by a policy disagreement with Tony, there really is no need whatsoever for Template:Deletion under review. And no need for a redirect either, since it's a brand new template and not used anywhere. --Stormie 20:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:TempUndelete. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Redirect to Template:TempUndelete since the two have the same purpose. As for the underlying policy, I don't see how there can be informed discussions at WP:DRV if the actual content is not visible. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would add that the difference between temporary undeletion of the kind that is currently carried out and the kind that I perform is that mine is solely for the purpose of a discussion which is specifically intended, in good faith, to result in the article being kept or the content being re-used. Where the appellant does not dispute the deletion status but nevertheless thinks that the content would be useful (perhaps for his own use or for transwikiing), then the temporary undeletion is adequate. It keeps the article in a deleted state while enabling the appellant to copy content. But in deletion review we're talking about an appeal with the intention of using the article as part of Wikipedia. It makes sense to me that the article should be restored to its full status, although only for the duration of the debate. Editors should feel free to edit the article as they would any other article, provided they do not conceal the fact that it is on review (that is, they must not tamper with the template). If an editor missed the deletion debate but wishes to appeal and has new material, he should feel free to add that material. For this, we do need to fully undelete the article. It should not be a history undeletion with a protected cap on the top. Of course we would exercise commonsense and never undelete an article in any way where there was a question of copyright or defamation. In any case, should the appeal fail the article would be deleted again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Template:TempUndelete, a pre-existing and more obvious template with the same purpose. (It has to be in-your-face and obvious, since it serves as a warning that this article might go away soon - the same reason {{afd}} is put on articles instead of talk pages.) As to whether it should replace the article or just be stuck on top, I'd prefer to leave that to the undeleting admin's discretion. —Cryptic (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with redirect to Template:TempUndelete. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 02:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is superior to the older (and far more intrusive) template. Guettarda 02:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template condones inappropriate restoration of deleted content. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:57, Jan. 29, 2006
  • Keep I can see where it has it uses. Marskell 08:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How can worthiness of an article be judged if no one (bar admins) can see it? Bratschetalk | Esperanza 16:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was leaning toward redirect but Tony makes a good argument in his comment above why {{TempUndelete}} is inappropriate for the purpose he has in mind. - BanyanTree 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: you're tweaking us, aren't you? Are you seriously suggesting that the only people who should be able to participate in WP:DRV with full knowledge of the article under discussion should be admins who can view the deleted article? —Phil | Talk 14:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, DRV should not be an admin-only affair. Alphax τεχ 06:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per CesarB; the older message is more suitable for the purpose of DRV. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per CesarB. DRV has long undelted for discussion when there was a specific request to do so. Whether we should do so automatically is debateable, but to say we should never do so is IMO just wrong, and a proper warning should be put on the article (or other page) in such cases. DES (talk) 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems fairly obvious that one needs to see something before voting on its restoration. Also, its necessary for the article to be restored in a way, that allows editing, particularly in the case of a7 speedies, where somebody may need to add the required claim of notability. --Rob 06:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everybody. Ashibaka tock 05:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{tempundelete}} Pilatus 23:55, 5 February 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_28&oldid=1089796896"