| Revision as of 00:32, 8 April 2009 editNug (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers22,427 edits →Template:Notpropaganda← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:00, 8 April 2009 edit undoNanobear~enwiki (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled12,272 edits →Template:NotpropagandaNext edit → | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| **If it is supposed to be humour, it's a very pooooor attempt at humour. And given it's existence only on contentious articles, it very non-humourous nature and presence can have the potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles. We are here to encourage, not discourage, editing. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | **If it is supposed to be humour, it's a very pooooor attempt at humour. And given it's existence only on contentious articles, it very non-humourous nature and presence can have the potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles. We are here to encourage, not discourage, editing. --] <sup>]</sup> 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ***How exactly would it turn away a new editor if they don't believe they have been biased by a propaganda campaign? Are you suggesting that some people have actually been influenced by such a campaign and so feel harassed and discouraged? ] (]) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | ***How exactly would it turn away a new editor if they don't believe they have been biased by a propaganda campaign? Are you suggesting that some people have actually been influenced by such a campaign and so feel harassed and discouraged? ] (]) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per Alex Bakharev and Russavia. ] (]) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== ] ==== | ==== ] ==== | ||
Revision as of 01:00, 8 April 2009
| < April 6 | April 8 > |
|---|
April 7
Template:Notpropaganda
- Template:Notpropaganda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This is an absolutely horrible template. It is somewhat inflammatory, very pointish and will discourage editors from editing articles, and goes with a long line of similar templates such as {{POV Russia}}, {{Insufficient propaganda}}, and just recently {{Let it develop}}, in that they lack good faith. We don't need such divisive templates on Misplaced Pages, and given the last TfD for this, it should have been deleted back then (consensus was clearly in favour of deletion), instead of being allowed to poison article talk pages for so long. It does absolutely nothing that {{controversial}} can not do, except controversial doesn't assume bad faith like this does. Russavia 22:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Ugly template discouraging editing of the article and harassing editors. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep A humourous template that reminds us all to leave our particular barrows at the door. We all need to lighten up a bit. Don't see how it is divisive, inflammatory or harassing. Could the proponent explain why the template statement "If you feel you are biased by any such propaganda campaign, please refrain from editing this article" would be discouraging or harassing to anyone, other than those who actually have been biased by such a campaign? Seriously guys. Martintg (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it is supposed to be humour, it's a very pooooor attempt at humour. And given it's existence only on contentious articles, it very non-humourous nature and presence can have the potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles. We are here to encourage, not discourage, editing. --Russavia 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- How exactly would it turn away a new editor if they don't believe they have been biased by a propaganda campaign? Are you suggesting that some people have actually been influenced by such a campaign and so feel harassed and discouraged? Martintg (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it is supposed to be humour, it's a very pooooor attempt at humour. And given it's existence only on contentious articles, it very non-humourous nature and presence can have the potential effect of turning new editors away from contributing to articles. We are here to encourage, not discourage, editing. --Russavia 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per Alex Bakharev and Russavia. Offliner (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:CTA Station Needing Image
Has been replaced with {{reqphoto|CTA stations}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: No longer needed anyways as most stations have pictures now. Reub2000 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Road junction types
- Merged to Template:Road types.
- Note: The the new name of the template "Roads and Junctions" is temporary. --75.154.186.241 (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Airportpicreq
- Template:Airportpicreq (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Redundant with {{reqphoto|airports}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Reqimagecomics
- Template:Reqimagecomics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template adds an article to Category:Misplaced Pages requested images-comics, but that is already done more widely with {{comicsproj|image=yes}} and {{reqphoto|comics}}. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Paul London and Brian Kendrick
There is no need for this template as all the individual articles reference the other members a lot and can easily be directed to the repective page without the use of a template. It's pretty much useless and I think it's a bit stupid to include Ashley Massaro in a template named Paul London and Brian kendrick. Jay 10:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It was requested at WP:GTC by reviewers for a different set of articles nominates (which also had 3 articles). iMatthew : Chat 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:Languages of Louisiana
This is a borderline navbox (per WP:NAVBOX. It is the sort of thing that would be better suited to a category. This, that and the other 07:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Template:No dishes
- Template:No dishes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Okay, this userbox made me laugh out loud. But as much as I agree with the sentiment, I can't help but notice that (a) the grammar is a bit off, and (b) it isn't used or linked to. – Quadell 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Relist at MfD because it's a userbox. But if you want an actual opinion then it's a weak delete, because although it's harmless no-one is actually using it and it really belongs in user space. PC78 (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)