Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:10, 3 February 2006

February 2, 2006

Template:EWS CORP

Template:EWS CORP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Ugly, clashes with some pages, needs major cleanup. May as well delete. CFIF 23:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the links presented in this template are completely irrelevant to articles like WCPO-TV. Besides, we already have Category:The E.W. Scripps Company for the curious. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Since there are already templates like Template:CBS and Template:Disney, there's a case to be made to keep this one (even though I don't like these templates to begin with). Major cleanup/streamlining needed if this survives TfD. - Hinto 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, similar templates work fine. Should match the others, however, it's currently a mess. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:PC-461 class coastal patrol ship

Template:PC-461 class coastal patrol ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Only used on one article, and the template name is longer than the contents. Not really useful SeventyThree 23:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ship fate box

Template:Ship fate box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not a template, not used or useful, not an article either Rmhermen 22:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. --CFIF 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:succession box cont

Template:Succession box cont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This page is completely worthless. Its two links have been moved to a more used format and this template is now not used by anyone. Its initial purpose was never necessary to begin with, since a normal Template:Succession box can be compounded with itself. Request speedy deletion.
–Whaleyland 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Sex EducatioN

Template:User Sex EducatioN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Another POV pusher template. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all POV pushing templates until POV pushing is officially banned from user pages and an association of Wikipedians created to enforce that policy. Don't confuse the medium with the message. --Malthusian (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Last Malthusian, theres no policy stating that POV userboxes are not allowed - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - per Jimbo's appeal, political POV templates are not a constructive use of template space, although I don't find this one would prove divisive. --- Charles Stewart 15:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per personal guideline against the use of POV userboxes. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is not by ny steach an attack on anyone, nor is it provocatively worded. it is PoV, but does not seem strongly devisive. Keep. DES 16:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and develop policy against divisive POV userboxes --Doc 18:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have yet to see how Misplaced Pages has actually been divided over the content of a single userbox. I have, however, seen Misplaced Pages divided due to the continued campaign to censor user opinion, and to harass creators of userboxes. --Daniel 06:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why should stating your opinions be acceptable in prose, but unacceptable when surrounded by a box and accompanied by a little picture? This seems to be an issue of convenience rather than actual belief. --Malthusian (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, and stop making these nominations as they accomplish nothing. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Immediate Keep - another POV deletion nomination. This is not deletable. --Dschor 01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Immediate Keep - Misplaced Pages userboxes are for all points of views. --CFIF 01:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't like someone's POV userbox? You're free to a) ignore it or b) make your own. Daniel

• I hope my vote counts even if I created it, because it's keep. The reason is that this user box is directly opposed to template:User Sex Education which I hope has been nominated too in the sake of equality, and fairness. Chooserr 07:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ah, divisive axe-grinding propaganda, JUST what Misplaced Pages needs more of. --Calton | Talk 08:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Looks at userbox and feels instantly divided in the community because of the outrage felt from one single box. Now lets get back to what really happens... - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User admins ignoring policy

Look, we can all be angry at admins who don't follow policy. I'm annoyed by it myself, and wish that people, and admins especially, stick to policy. But adding a link to Kelly Martin's RFC using the word "pissed" is just a personal attack. Hope I am following policy by bringing it here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Definitely a personal attack. -Chairman S. 11:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: perusal of WP:CSD suggests that {{db-attack}} might well apply. Any takers? —Phil | Talk 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if we could, I recommend that we don't. It would just lead to more controversy and more "pissed off" users, and we've had quite enough of that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though the link may not be the best choice, the sentiment is valid. It is not a personal attack, because the user is upset about an action, not a person. If you feel that the link is the source of the problem, find a better page to link to that represents the subject. --Dschor 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A house divided against itself cannot stand. If wikipedians don't believe in wikipedia then what's the point? If you chose to be part of any "team" (marriage, football) and don't like how it's going, either work to fix it, or leave. But hanging around being disparaging isn't a valid option.--Esprit15d 13:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The link has been changed, plus it is on about an action of disregard, not a person. Espirit15d's suggestion is not true. Are you suggesting that every UK resident that didnt vote Labour leave the country? You dont just quit, you fight for whats right. This userbox can send out a warning to admins that people arent happy about them breaking policy - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The answer is for admins to grow up, and stop violating policy. --Daniel 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Divisive userboxes are not a proper use of template space. --- Charles Stewart 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as needlessly divisive. Both sides need to grow up here, but I'm glad to see this one here rather than DRV. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this expresses a PoV about an action, adn a note unreasoanble one. Besides, the box has been edited to remove the link so many above are offended by. DES 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Trolling. —Cryptic (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I've never seen any definition for "trolling" that didn't ultimately boil down to "I disagree with him". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please report problem admins (if any) on RFC or ANI, rather than making attacks on them. >Radiant< 16:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This template says either one of two things: either that the user doesn't think admins should violate policy (which is a truism and therefore useless) or that the user thinks a certain admin or admins has violated policy, but doesn't feel like saying which, which is cowardice. --Malthusian (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Recreate then delete again. Clearly not a personal attack, but still rubbish (as above). --Malthusian (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete trolling, and develop policy against divisive POV userboxes --Doc 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, although I see someone already decided to start another fight by deleting it out of process. Make the link point to WP:ACC or something similar instead of to a user RFC. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and keep speedied. personal attack Trödel&#149;talk 04:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. And might I say that this out-of-process deletion, and other flagrant bad-faith moves is exactly the reason why this userbox should not only be allowed, but actively encouraged. The clique passing themselves off as "neutral" as they make completely biased and subjective decisions need to see that we've got an eye on them. --Daniel 06:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The irony is, that the thing this userbox brings to people's attention has just happened to it. Maybe if admins started doing their job properly, instead of deleting something they didnt like, then this userbox wouldnt have been needed to start with. The solution is for admins to start following policy instead of acting like God in their own little world, deleting stuff without concensus! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Restore because I want to see what we're supposed to be reaching consensus on. Rogue 9 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation end

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete — This template was only a copy of Template:CityRailSydney modified to fit Redfern railway station, Sydney. I fixed that so has made this template obsolete. Harryboyles 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Harryboyles 10:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. -Chairman S. 11:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete if nom is creator. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User CAoW

Template:User CAoW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See also Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanedidona/CAoW, and Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 2.

• Delete — Totally inappropriate. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - attempt to get around previous AfD decision.--SarekOfVulcan 08:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Recreation of deleted content. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Hipocrite. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Tviv and Template:Tviv this

Links to TV IV, an "encyclopedia of TV-related items" project. We don't generally link to such secondary sources unless they're sisterprojects. >Radiant< 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Xol 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• keep seems analogous to {{imdb name}}, {{isfdb name}} and similar external link templates. I think these are a good thing, in general. DES 00:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I doubt TVIV is as notable as IMDb. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* *\o/* 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per DES above. Are you wanting to annihilate Category:External link templates, which seems to include its fair share of "secondary sources"? —Phil | Talk 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not a primary source and WHOA does it have a lot of ads. Boy. I am gonna love going through more External link templates. -- Netoholic @ 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spamcruft. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per DES.

Template:H2g2

Links to H2G2, another "encyclopedia of everything" project. We don't generally link to such secondary sources unless they're sisterprojects. >Radiant< 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Xol 00:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Advertising for the BBC. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* *\o/* 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per DES above. Are you wanting to annihilate Category:External link templates, which seems to include its fair share of "secondary sources"? —Phil | Talk 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's not a primary source. -- Netoholic @ 13:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as spamcruft; we're not obligated to provide template space to the "competition".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nae'blis (talk • contribs) 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Phil. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)