Misplaced Pages

:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 25 - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ActiveSelective (talk | contribs) at 04:44, 3 June 2006 (→[]: answer to GTBacchus). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:44, 3 June 2006 by ActiveSelective (talk | contribs) (→[]: answer to GTBacchus)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25, 2006

Template:Major_programming_languages

Template:Major_programming_languages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
"Major" "Industrial" "Academic" are unverifiable categories masquerading as navigation. It's clear from the archived "Language inclusion criteria I" discussions that this was understood to be excessively subjective, but that was excused on the ground that "the function of the box is not to make claims but to aid navigation". It's clear from those archived discussions that they considered destroying the template in Dec 2004 but didn't because no one had complained! As a reader all I can tell is that these languages are claimed to be "Major", some are claimed to be "Industrial" (whatever that means), some are claimed to be "Academic" (whatever that means), and others defy this unverifiable dichotomy. If "Major" "Industrial" "Academic" are part of a desirable classification then define those categories, and say what they mean. IsaacGouy 21:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Well, of course we have a template for "major" programming languages, as opposed to every programming language ever, which would be unwieldy. If we get rid of this template, we couldn't really have one at all, and I think the template is just too darn useful to delete, despite its problems. Other kinds of articles have a "related topics" template; I think programming languages should too. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a useful template and minor problems with the subjectivity of the categorization aren't really grounds for wholesale deletion. Henrik 14:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - as above. Fix the template matt kane's brain 14:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Inherently incomplete and biased. Consider:
    • SNOBOL? Probably not, but understanding it is important to understanding string manipulations in Perl.
    • Mathematica? Possibly. But MAPLE and Macsyma (if still around) also need to be there. (If this template is to be maintained, there should probably be a separate category of array/symbolic languages including MATLAB, MathCad, Mathematica, MAPLE, Macsyma, and PV-WAVE.)
    • PL/I? Almost certainly not.
  • Comment None of the Keep comments address the fundamental problem of forcing an arbitrary classification into what's claimed to be a navigation tool. None of these comments address the fundamental problem the reader has of understanding what these arbitrary categories are supposed to mean, or why they are not shown as "Categories", or whether "Industrial" "Academic" and "Other" are supposed to be exclusive. IsaacGouy 17:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to remove the classification from the template rather than deleting the template itself. Henrik 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
How do we remove the arbitrary classification into "Major" and ... without removing the template? IsaacGouy 21:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Replace with a template linking to a list of programming languages, which can actually discuss the issues here. {{otherarticles}} is intended for this, but a tailored template of that size could also be useful. Septentrionalis 21:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete or replace as above. Per IsaacGouy and Arthur Rubin. This template has a very limited use: it only lists a few languages instead of langauges which are relevant to the articles it is placed on. Placing related languages in the "see also" section would be a better solution. To browse a larger group of languages, the various lists and categories are much more useful. —Ruud 21:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or at least change big time. I repeat a commment i posted on the talk page below. Plugwash 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • first define whats a language? Borland pascal is very different from iso pascal yet they are lumped in together. Meanwhile modula-2 modula-3 and delphi all get thier own entries. Similarlly assembler gets one entry yet every processors assembler is a different language.
      Then there is the issue of relatively minor languages like D and REBOL I'd also like more info on how that survey quoted above for D works and in particular if single letter languages could be prone to false matches Plugwash
  • Super Strong Delete. Look at the history of the template - extremely un-notable languages were added over and over followed by endless discussions. The real world is: 99% of programming languages are failures, for whichever reason and regardless of their technical merit. In current list these languages could be successfully disputed: awk, ColdFusion, Eiffel (almost complete failure), JADE (what's this?), Visual FoxPro (now dead, why not Paradox or dBase?), LOGO (who is using it?), ML (which dialect is the popular one?) SAS (/very/ specialised tool), Clipper (dead, not that significant in the past), MUMPS (very specialised tool), Modula N (academic language, not used in real many projects - I know some but they can be counted on fingers). For some period of time there was D - language still in beta (nice, with some potential but in beta). Erlang - technical beauty but commercial and non-commercial failure was there as well. I could easily come with half a dozen of others.
The template get frequently misused by fans of this or that language, provides no valuable info (like how or why is the language major), only fools the people with incorrect. I would like to add that real world Isaac Gouy (the nominator) is expert on programming languages and not just some random Wikipedian without clue (check his name by Google). Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It is sort of amusing that most of JohnnyBGood's contribution feels like intentional disrupting of Misplaced Pages, on edge of RfC. Pavel Vozenilek 22:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
That seemed very much like a personal attack to me which is in violation of WP:NPA. Might want to watch yourself there, especially since that comment is totally baseless. Where does it say I can't voice my opinion on a VFU? JohnnyBGood t c 16:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How long until voting is closed? Ideogram 02:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say in about 4 to 5 days. —Ruud 14:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:OntarioLegislatureCopyright

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

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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Elitist

Template:User Elitist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was previously speedied as T1. DRV consensus determined that this speedy was inappropriate, and that the template deserved full debate here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:54, 25 May 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Ideal Dictator

Template:User Ideal Dictator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was previously speedied as T1. DRV consensus determined that this speedy was inappropriate, and that the template deserved full debate here. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 15:50, 25 May 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:John316

Template:John316 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Wombdpsw created this Template:John316 while there is already Template:User_Christian. This John-template opens the gates to creating also Template:John001 to Template:John315 and Template:Mark000 etc. This is generally unwelcome and specifically not according to WP:userbox policy. There are no users using this template. Not even the creator of this template uses it. Unpover 07:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Userfy template, redundant. --Terence Ong 10:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Bible Believers and Christians are distinct from each other. Not all church goers or Christians accept John 3:16 in the Bible as true. I am one that does, hence this user box (which I made), but which has been modified by others. A copy of it in it's original form can be seen on my user page. Wombdpsw 15:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I don't find this a satisfactory explanation -- is John 3:16 to be considered a more important verse in the Christian bible than others? Would you be happy to see a userbox saying someone is a "John 11:35 Bible believer"? What about one that says, "This user believes the entire Christian bible, except Matthew 6:6-6:9"? See the potential problem here? Xoloz 16:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • True, but John 3:16 is such a core belief to those who accept the Bible as true that this user box is valid. There are many, many modern day church goers who disagree on the inerrancy or lack thereof, of the Bible. Wombdpsw 16:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not sure this template makes sense. (how is a "John 3:16 Bible believer" different from a Christian? What is a "John 3:16 Bible believer"?) I think this might be speediable as divisive and inflammatory, but that is contingent on what the phrase means, exactly. Xoloz 16:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • See above. Not all Christians believe the same, that's why there was an edit war with the "Christian" user box. To me, a simple proclamation of what I believe is "see John 3:16". With this method, I am not arguing about doctrine or making universal definitions. Calvinist and Lutheran is not the same as Roman Catholic and they are not the same as Baptist, etc. but all could be Christian. But what about Mormons? A typical Mormom will say he's a Christian, but not all Baptists or Catholics, etc, would agree. I tried to avoid making a definition, but instead made a user box which points to what I believe. Anyone reading John 3:16 will get a good idea of what I am about in that regard, without me trying to "take over" a user box such as "Christian". I'd like this box to stay in the original form I posted it in. Sorry if I offended you, that was not my intent. Wombdpsw 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but reword (and move to Template:User John316), since the current wording isn't clear about what exactly distinguishes a "John 3:16 believer". I do think the argument "This John-template opens the gates to creating also Template:John001 to Template:John315" is nonsense; it is a slippery slope argument with no real basis. John 3:16 holds particular significance above and beyond most other Bible verses. (I know some Christians will quibble with my wording, suggesting that all of the Bible is equally important, but what I mean is that it has more significance to most people than other verses.) If it were any other verse, I'd probably vote "delete", but John 3:16 is widely known even among non-Christians like myself. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is kept, it should be moved to Template:User John316 to match other userboxes. —MiraLuka 00:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I have made the correction to {{Template:User John316}} Wombdpsw 05:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, no policy violation here. JohnnyBGood t c 22:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Misplaced Pages is not your playground. Ral315 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unused. Flowerparty☀ 02:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not "unused". I posted it to my user page with the "SUBT" parameter, which is the correct method. Also, it's a new template. User boxes do not get posted to lots of pages right away. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since:
    1. since John 3:16 is not a religion independent of Christianity, or not a denomination within Christianity.
    2. Userbox with a religious name could be accepted, but not userboxes with (theological) arguments, just like we accept the "i am atheist" userbox but not the "does not believe in invisible gods" (or whatever) userbox. Userboxes should not be argumentative. This one clearly carries a competitive "there are ordinary Christians, but there are also the better John 3:16 Christians who have really understood it" kind of feel. I'm not saying that it is not true, but that it is argumentative and competitive.
    3. Of course, Christians have preferences within their believe. Very well. But that does not allow making userboxes. This is a sliding scale. Next is a Romans 13:1 userbox, according to some the kernel of Christianity. -- ActiveSelective 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are interesting to me. But, I am wondering if you actually looked at the template? As written by me it says "This user is a John 3:16 Bible Believer". The user box itself says nothing whatsoever about Christianity or religion. As to your comment about Romans 13:1, I don't see how that applies here. I am not asserting myself to be a Romans 13:1 Bible Believer, so that argument does not apply to me. In fact, I don't see any argument here at all. This particular user box is about as harmless and innocuous as one can get. Sorry you have been offended by it. But, as I see it, John 3:16 is not something to be offended about. I ask that you table your dismay and not attempt to apply theoretical arguments against this simple and harmless user box. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So you do not believe in Romans 13:1? (do we want such discussions on wikipedia?)
Point 3 is that we'll be having dozens and dozens of userboxes crawling around, for every bible or quran verse one, all because the John-template is being allowed. -- ActiveSelective 07:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason why you would even ask such a question is that you have the mistaken understanding that everyone who reads or likes or believes any aspect of the Bible is accountable to everyone else for all aspects of the Bible or is otherwise somehow a "Christian", etc. For example, with your logic as expressed above, if I had a user box that said "This user believes that East Los Angeles is wonderful", you would ask me "So are you saying you don't like Compton?" It's the same thing here. My user box says one thing about one small thing. But User:ActiveSelective, you are trying to expand that to a controversy where none exists. Active, I will also point out that there is great potential to logically expand upon the themes of the user boxes you are using yourself. In fact, along the lines of your Malcom X, Lenin, Trotsky boxes, why not Bella Abzug, Eull Gibbons, Lynette Fromme, Carlos Castaneda, Oliver Sacks, etc. etc. etc. Certainly there are just as many people for whom article referencing user boxes could be created as there are Bible verses. Why are you only on guard against the risk of faith oriented boxes expanding in number, but not secular biography boxes? Are you sure that you are not letting your personal world view color your arguments here? → Wombdpsw - @ ← 16:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I'm very sorry that I haven't read or heard of Abzug, Gibbons, Fromme, Castaneda, Sacks, etc. etc. etc. I am also sorry that, accordingly, I haven't put them in userboxes either. About my last contrib above, I apologize for having asked you whether you believe in Romans 13:1, when you probably must have skipped that chapter or don't like that part at all. To me, it seemed only a natural question to ask since you wrote "I am not asserting myself to be a Romans 13:1 Bible Believer" (see above) while you assert yourself to be a John 3:16 believer so strongly. I must have been mistaken thinking such question is normal. Finally, I admit, I am probably letting my personal world view color your arguments here. I am glad you are not. You're not partisan but only objectively defending this template.
Now back to serious. Being brought up in a loving Roman Catholic family, I know how to appreciate religion and the Holy Script. I might have fallen from my believe, but I can see in my parents eyes that religion gives them "a heart in a heartless world, a soul in soulless conditions" (words from Marx) and therefore I won't mess with their sacred "opium" which makes them forget unhappy times. I am glad they have something to rely on and something to look forward to. I hope you believe me when I say that it is not my current atheism which makes me say "delete this template". I never objected to religious articles on wikipedia before. It is only the consideration that this template will lead to a mess on wikipedia, because it is an example for making many many more, and because it is argumentative. Look at you and me being unfriendly here over a question on Romans 13:1. Isn't that silly? My prediction is already becoming reality.
I think I made my points very clear. This was my last contrib to this discussion. -- ActiveSelective 18:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It will onlyt be a mess if editors such as Gorgonzilla (see below) make unsubstanted personal attacks or other editors refuse to objectively discuss. My point to you is that your fear of a growing "verse" user box portfolio applies equally to a "notable person" user box portfolio. There are at least as many notable people with notable ideas as there are Bible or Koran verses. Your uses boxes can honestly be objectively said to have no distingusihing features which make them distinct from this one. If you don't quit this dialog, I can show that to you via reason and logic. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 21:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you disputing the fact that the check user determined that you are Merecat? I note that you do not make an outright denial. The allegation has in fact been been substantiated by others. If you wish to dispute those findings you must first deny them. Most biblical scholars would agree that an attempt to deceive is morally no different from a lie. --Gorgonzilla 21:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than make unstubstantiated assertions, why don't you provide a link to the so-called "check-user" which says that I am a sockpuppet. I deny that I am a sockpuppet. Please stop saying that. It's a personal attack. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 21:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete template is not widely used, only known user has been identified as a sockpuppet of the banned Merecat/Rex. This looks like troll bait. -- Gorgonzilla 18:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Again Gorgonzilla misrepresents the facts: I have not been "identified" as a sockpuppet of anyone. Rather some users with an apparent, but clearly misplaced, axe to grind are accusing me of being one. I have denied being a sockpuppet and I regarding Gorgon, I am asking him again to please stop makin personal attacks. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
As I see it, a single post to a closely associated talk page cannot reasonably be characterized as "spamming". In my view, characterizations along those lines reek of mendacity. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 03:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Wombdpsw, there's no reason to get all bent out of shape about one message on one talk page. I also don't see any problem with deleting that message as irrelevant on that talk page. -GTBacchus 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy. Posting to one article talk page isn't really spamming, but you're welcome to remove the post as irrelevant to that article. As for the userbox, it'll move into user space, per Misplaced Pages:The German solution. That's how the userbox wars end, it turns out. I don't see any harm in this template existing separately from "user Christian"; if he considers the distinction and the term meaningful, that's cool, isn't it? -GTBacchus 03:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Good. The irrelevant contrib gets deleted. (Honestly, I didn't like reporting this. It seemed necessary, though, in order to prevent the very userbox war the user's contrib is steering at. Next thing could be someone else putting the same contrib Atheism or Satanism to the page; that shouldn't be done either.) My problem is exactly with this being a template. Yep, I am cool with whatever believe makes other people happy. -- ActiveSelective 04:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:NYCS Brighton far north

Template:NYCS Brighton far north (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used in any New York City Subway articles, which was its intended purpose. Should never be used in the future, either, since I am reworking the service template system. — Larry V (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NYCS Brighton far north local

Template:NYCS Brighton far north local (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See above nomination for NYCS Brighton far north. — Larry V (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NYCS Brighton far north express

Template:NYCS Brighton far north express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
See above nomination for NYCS Brighton far north. — Larry V (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)