Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:38, 5 February 2006

February 5, 2006

Template:Icons

Template:Icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No text or anything, just adds images to Category:Icons. No need for a template to do that. JYolkowski // talk 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Capmv

Template:Capmv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant since a speedy deletion criteria (csd-g6) and the related template {{db-histmerge}} exist (and the category that was only populated by this template ended up deleted a few weeks ago). Having two ways of accomplishing the same thing is confusing and not very useful. - Bobet 14:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{db-histmerge}} seems easiest, but I would not object to deleting this. >Radiant< 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that {{Capmv}} is more user-friendly than {{db-histmerge}}. It is a lot easier to use {{capmv}} because it just means "somebody screwed up the history by a cut-and-paste move, please help!". To use {{db-histmerge}}, you need to understand the process well enough to know which of the pages should be deleted. The documentation for this process is currently only directed at admins; user suggestions for cut-and-paste repair should be possible without reading and understanding the process. Or at least it should say somewhere that {{db-histmerge}} needs to be put on the page with the correct title (is that right?). Kusma (討論) 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Kusma's reasoning. --AySz88^-^ 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User pedophile

Template:User pedophile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Needlessly provocative. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• How is it? Only as much as {{User gay}}, {{User lesbian}} and etc., surely. None of which are particularly relevant to Misplaced Pages, at any rate, but as long as we're doing that sort of thing... // paroxysm (n) 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Created in good faith by Paroxysm; doesn't promote a point of view or attack anything, so I don't see how it could be provocative at all. Ashibaka tock 06:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Exceptionally weak keep. It can be considered provacative, and I abhor the viewpoint, but nonetheless, it is helpful to know that a person identifies as a pedophile when working with them on an encyclopedia such as this. --Blu Aardvark | 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Physchim62 (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it provocative? The template isn't trying to offend anyone. If someone is offended by it that's their own business. Ashibaka tock 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Because once again, the honchos are missing the point. Misplaced Pages should have the fortitude to say that garbage like pedophiles, fascists, and racists are not welcome here, have no "rights" other than to leave before they are reported to the authorities for harassment.

Until honchos manage to do that, they should have to bear the consequences of their indecision on their conscience. --Daniel 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just for the record, I plan on indefinitely blocking anyone who uses this template. If someone wants to announce their disgusting tendency to have sexual thoughts about children, so be it. You're not welcome here though. I'd also block anyone identifying themselves as a rapist or murderer. The only user to currently include this template is User:Joeyramoney. He's now been blocked. Carbonite | Talk 14:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And I will unblock anyone you block. Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No question - this is just pathetic. violet/riga (t) 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How so? Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (For crying out loud.) If this isn't a divisive userbox, I don't know what is. If your pedophilia is actually relevant to your activities on Misplaced Pages to the point that you feel you need to express it on your user page, I should hope you could do so in a more well-reasoned manner than just slapping on a silly box. We don't need to encourage people to slap this on without context and explanation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I think self-identifying as a pedophile is an entirely different matter than self-identifying as a murderer or rapist, putting this template on your user page is likely to cause a lot of disruption which is detrimental to what we should be doing here, building an encyclopedia. Junes 15:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you vote to delete {{User Hell}}, {{user disBush}} as well? Those are detrimental templates. Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not an TfD regular, so no, I did not. However, I probably would've abstained on both. I don't really like the political userboxes because of the usual arguments (divisive, diametrally opposed to ideals of Misplaced Pages). However, it seems that people are really attached to these userboxes, so as long they're civilly worded, it seems wisest to grudgingly tolerate them. The reasons I oppose this particular template are best explained by Mindspillage. Junes 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So basically, it depends on how many people support the userbox's POV and how many people dislike it. These TfD debates will never end, then. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely Delete. Awful and disruptive userbox. — TheKMan 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• DAMN IT ALL, SPEEDY DELETE the blasted thing. Now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG delete. Nuke the cute little thing, it is just another stupid userbox, that either is wikijunk (I am ok with) or inflames people, so it is stricly a waste of server space.Voice of All 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - what Mindspillage said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannse (talk • contribs)
• Very strong delete As a child, I am deeply offended by this userbox — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why are we even having this discussion? --pgk 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Because this isn't a discussion, it's a vote on how many people are okay with the userbox's POV and how many people are offended by it. Ashibaka tock 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry but no. Fkmd 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP It isn't about wether you approve of other people's tastes. It's about wether they can express them. And I see no reason why they couldn't. And blocking those users who use this template is blatant discrimination by sexual preference. Larix 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see how this is a personal attack or disrupts the encyclopedia or creates any sort of caballish thing, which are the principal objections to POV userboxes AFAIK. People are allowed to identify themselves as pedophiles on User pages and (as far as I can tell) there aren't any problems with using a userbox instead, so I don't see any reason to delete the box. (Though, I don't know why any sane person would want to self-identify as a pedophile at all, because of the abuse they're bound to attract.) --AySz88^-^ 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteIt's as vile as the people who would want to use it. Giano | talk 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am a kid, and I am not offended by the presence of this userbox.(Or at least, I can't yet. Someone speedied the darn thing). I don't know what's worse. That people would persecue/discriminate against these people, or won't allow them to say who they are. --D-Day 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Userboxes sitting in the main template space have more of an aura of "official approval" to newcomers to Misplaced Pages than might be obvious to old-timers. A new editor comes along, fresh from LiveJournal or whatever, and starts setting up their user page based on the oh-so-convenient menu of choices available to them. It sends an abhorrent message to have this be one of those easily available choices. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Provocative and in very poor taste. Harms the credibility of the encyclopaedia. I note, however, that the boy who was blocked indefinitely for using it is sixteen years old, and was obviously just behaving in a rather silly and immature way. I support his unblocking. AnnH 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should make a boilerplate box hat says: This is a list of userboxes that are to be used on userpages only. The Misplaced Pages Foundation does not support or condone any of the viewpoints expressed here.--God of War 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This userbox is different than the others because it has actually caused disruption (see WP:AN). Apparently, the only person using it was a 16-year-old who was probably attempting to get a rise out of people. I favor a liberal policy on userboxes, but this crosses the line. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as attack template. Anyone undeleting this for "process" is a bloody idiot, and you are welcome to RFAr me if you don't like that - David Gerard 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User wishful

Template:User wishful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template, needlessly provocative. It's one thing to have an opinion, but Misplaced Pages is not a blog or a soapbox. This sort of polemic does nothing to advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but just because it's not used by anyone. If anyone actually wants to use this nasty polemic leave me a comment and I will change my vote. Ashibaka tock 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As the user accepts that Misplaced Pages is NOT a democracy, why are we voting on this? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Tried, but reverted by Ashibaka. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive. Junes 15:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, needlessly provocative indeed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This userbox was not divisive. Self-appointed honchos patrolling free speech on Misplaced Pages is divisive. --Daniel 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to take a look at what this box had said, if possible. --AySz88^-^ 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been speedied see:

15:50, 5 February 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User wishful" (attack - it is one thing to declare a POV - another to declare that the US is not in fact a democracy)

• Keep - I always vote keep on any speedied template for the right to see that userbox. I would like to remind Doc that the U.S. is in fact not a democracy, It is technically a Democratic Republic.--God of War 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just like above: RESTORE and give people a chance to see what a discussion is about. Larix 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good thing we have admins here who are just like regular users except they know better than them. This TfD will now continue based on what we think the userbox might have said. (Hint: It had to do with George W. Bush!) Just kidding, I will restore it again. I would like to see the admins who deleted it while it was on TfD reprimanded. Ashibaka tock 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for restoring it. I saw the template, and although I don't agree with the contents, I don't see why it should be deleted - it doesn't seem offensive at all to me. Larix 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Admit it, userbox-haters. You've lost. Now go back to writing an encyclopedia like we're supposed to do. --D-Day 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - doesn't seem bad, maybe people didn't realize the reference to the 2000 election. Though if someone uses the userbox inappropriately to stack votes or something, block that user. --AySz88^-^ 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no harm in letting people air their political opinions in userspace unless it becomes disruptive for some specific reason. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User black coffee

Template:User black coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Where will it stop? We already have Template:user coffee. Do we really need this? What's next, Template:user black coffee, one sugar, Template:user coffee cream, Template:user decaf, half-and-half, no sugar, Template:user capuccino, double shot espresso, soy milk, artificial sweetener? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Template:user coffee is ambiguous. I wanted one to convey my dislike for all the adulterations you listed above. I can see a flavored coffee one. Lefty 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Unlike most of the userboxes that come up here, this one can't even be construed as an attack template. Your argument that this will result in ridiculously specific userboxes is a wonderful example of the slippery slope fallacy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge in to a user coffee, as a conditional argument. xaosflux /_CVU 05:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - So what if there are a hundred userboxes for coffee. We can lump them all together in their own userbox section and you can ignore them.--God of War 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly. KEEP with milk. Larix 18:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP What is this even doing here? --D-Day 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, completely harmless. We're not running out of server space, are we? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User USA Police State

Template:User USA Police State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Needlessly provocative. It's one thing to have an opinion, but Misplaced Pages is not a blog or a soapbox. This sort of polemic does nothing to advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia, and everything to poison the well and convey the message that the Misplaced Pages community is all about factions identified by reductionist bumper stickers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• The U.S. Secret Services have taken control of my mind and are forcing me to vote delete. Physchim62 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Doubleplus Ungood, per nom. :)--Sean Black 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Subst occurences and delete. We don't need this in template space, but I feel that a user should be allowed to express their opinion on this matter in userspace. --Blu Aardvark | 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You're perfectly free to make a userbox that says "The U.S. is a police state -- and I'd like to make Misplaced Pages one too!" --Daniel 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a coherent argument. I'll ask the closing admin to discount it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And this is not a coherent TFD request. --Daniel 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's a fine argument. Since when do we discount opinions because of the way they are stated. I have seen many TFD votes with no argument at all or a Keep as per so and so.--God of War 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and other simplistic, divisive userboxes. Junes 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this too, because I am a jackbooted thug this is unnecessarily divisive. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The wording may be strong but the platform limited government has been around forever. While the USA isn't a police state right now, it seems to be headed in that direction with the way Dubya is expanding the powers of government, puttting footnotes on bills saying that the law does not apply to the president and consolidating all of the power in the legislative branch of government.--God of War 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and put the creator in jail As per: — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. ~ The godking himself
    • COMMENT The quote above was added by user:Ilyanep who cleverly tries to manipulate the discussion by pretending Jimbo commented on it. Larix 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Freedom of expression. Misplaced Pages isn't a police state. Larix 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above, with the obvious exception of the delete votes. --D-Day 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP, if you want to take it seriously, then we have the right to say it. If you find it funny, then you find it funny and there is no reason to delete it... but it should stay both ways. --Bky1701 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - strongly worded and controversial, but not uncivil or disruptive. As long as people restrict these opinions to their userspace, I don't see why it's such a problem. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:StarWarsWiki

Template:StarWarsWiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Not a Misplaced Pages sister project. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete... while we ♥ other wikis, only Wikimedia projects get the box link, and, I'm sorry, but Wookiepedia isn't a primary source, so doesn't belong anywhere on the main article pages. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* *\o/* 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I wouldnt be against them having an external link template like memory alpha. ive voted delete for other external link templates to other wikis but they were all start-up wikis with barely any content, this seems in the league of memory alpha, I havnt checked thoroughly mind. Discordance 16:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Doesn't the Death Star in the logo violate WP:FUC? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Al-Salam poeti

Template:Al-Salam poeti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template only has one valid link (out of six). None of the sister ships have articles yet, and it's only the Boccaccio 98 which has an "interesting" story. As it is now, there's no point in it. kallemax 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't want to judge the template if there were more functioning links... but, without them it doesn't seem to be worthwhile. gren グレン 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Zxcvbnm 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)