Misplaced Pages

:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 5: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:15, 5 February 2006 editPhyschim62 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers33,631 edits →[]: closing as delete← Previous edit Revision as of 23:16, 5 February 2006 edit undoShii (talk | contribs)21,017 edits →[]: stop wheel warNext edit →
Line 80: Line 80:
**Please read ] and ]. Also, even though I voted delete, I fail to see how this was an "attack template", nor does it fit any other speedy delete criteria that I can see. Let the discussion run its course. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC) **Please read ] and ]. Also, even though I voted delete, I fail to see how this was an "attack template", nor does it fit any other speedy delete criteria that I can see. Let the discussion run its course. <TT>] <SMALL>(] • ])</SMALL></TT> 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
**So we're idiots for wanting to see what the contents were and if they could be improved rather than just sitting and being told by the admins that it's none of our business and to vote '''delete'''? --]-] 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) **So we're idiots for wanting to see what the contents were and if they could be improved rather than just sitting and being told by the admins that it's none of our business and to vote '''delete'''? --]-] 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
*David may I suggest that you close the tfd discussion before deleting?--''']]''' 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) **David may I suggest that you close the tfd discussion before deleting?--''']]''' 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
**Please stop wheel warring over this template, David. Nobody's using it right now, and it's up on TfD, so it's not causing any problems except for the wheel war itself. ] <small>]</small> 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep, i guess*''' i put it on my user page as just a joke, but i can see how some would be offended by it.] 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep, i guess*''' i put it on my user page as just a joke, but i can see how some would be offended by it.] 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - ''It isn't attacking anyone.'' This falls under the exact same category as the debate at ], where people are, ironically, voting massively to keep the offensive image. —<b><font color="darkgreen">]</font></b> <font size="1">(<b><font color="darkblue">]</font></b>)</font> 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC) *'''Keep''' - ''It isn't attacking anyone.'' This falls under the exact same category as the debate at ], where people are, ironically, voting massively to keep the offensive image. —<b><font color="darkgreen">]</font></b> <font size="1">(<b><font color="darkblue">]</font></b>)</font> 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:16, 5 February 2006

February 5, 2006

< February 4 >

Template:ScratchspinImg

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

I've listed a related page at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scratchspin images. This template is basically an advertisement for a private photographer who does not want to release images. I asked User:Carnildo about this before moving on, and his/her response was: "The terms of use on that site restrict re-use too much. In particular, it doesn't allow non-website use, it does not allow certain classes of commercial use, and it does not appear to allow modification of the images. I'd shoot the template and list the images for deletion -- there's nothing special about the images, so they don't qualify under Misplaced Pages:Fair use." Delete. — Rebelguys2 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. -- Dalbury 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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)
    • Comment. (Yes, you're right in the last sentence.) I don't see why the page history merging has to be thought of as something difficult, since the actual process is pretty simple (delete, move, undelete, make sure the better version is on top). I tried to clarify the wording a bit on WP:CSD and the {{db-histmerge}} template itself. The thing is that the capmv template is currently pretty unintuitive (because its name among other things) and the fact that to find it you'd most likely have to find Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen first. If the wording on that page was changed to point to {{db-histmerge}} instead and the usage was clarified there, I'm sure it'd be just as easy to use as capmv, and things would get done faster since I assume more admins look at CAT:CSD than the holding pen. - Bobet 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, agree with Kusma's reasoning. --AySz88^-^ 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (20/10). Physchim62 (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User paedophile

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

Content: Userbox saying "This user identifies as a pedophile" with two related symbols

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)
  • 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)
    take a gander at User:Phyrex/Sandbox. at least i wasn't serious.Joeyramoney 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No question - this is just pathetic. violet/riga (t) 15:19, 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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)

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)
  • Keep User pages don't need to be scrupulously bland and NPOV. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Freedom of speech, user pages are not bound to NPOV, the usual. Plus good political thinking on that democratic republic thing God of War. May i reming you again, user pages are not intended to build the encyclopedia in the sense of articles and other such writing - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • 21:16, 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)

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)

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)

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)