Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 4

< February 3	>

February 4, 2006

Template:Organic-compound-start and Template:Inorganic-compound-start

I've nominated these two stub-like templates at WP:SFD. Not quite sure they belong there, though, please take a look. Conscious 10:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-DPRK

A template similar to this was created at the Wikimedia Commons. However, as it was discussed at Commons:Deletion_requests#Template:PD-DPRK, works before 2003 made in the DPRK are not automatically PD, so this template is misleading and not correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Shanel 14:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mohammed

This template has no purpose but to criticize other users' views on a specific topic. It also speaks of a Wikipedia policy that does not exist. joturner 04:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the current discussion on WP:AN/I. Several individuals said that they would block (or support blocks) for removing the image after one warning. If that is indeed going to happen, then it is helpful to have a warning template that doesn't simply accuse the user of generic "vandalism", but instead both (A) expresses sympathy with their concern, and (B) warns them that they may nonetheless be blocked if the behavior continues. If your concern is that these blocks are against policy, I think you have a good point, but remember that Wikipedia also works on consensus and that the consensus is very clearly that the image stays. If you want, we can start an official policy discussion (Wikipedia:Mohammed image use policy?) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good faith effort to deal with a serious problem. Gamaliel 04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see (weak keep). This template is much too specific. We may or may not need a template which points out that WP:NOT:censored, and if we do need such a template, let's keep it generic. The present template is only applicable to a handful of articles, but warnings for specific articles can be placed in the article itself using comments (see George W. Bush for an example). However, it has a useful purpose for the time being, so let's make sure that it doesn't strike any wrong notes and keep it for now. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Speedy rename and reword. The current name is insensitive and uninformative. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to rename and/or reword it if you think that would be helpful. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even after this current event dies down, the article and potential for reversions will remain. But we can rename and reword if there are any issues with that. NoSeptember ^talk 04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per discussion on ANI. If this ruckus dies down, we can delete it then. Johnleemk | Talk 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Userspace templates have a very high threshhold for deletion and this one doesn't come close. —Cyde Weys 2006-02-04 05:45Z
Keep. Necessary. Useful. Effective. Accurate. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is repetitious of the disclaimers. Wikipedia is not censored and you may find images you don't like. I see no reason to specifically warn users about it. -- I read tje discussion on ANI... I don't think this is necessary but pragmatically maybe. I stick by my opinion to delete but consensus overrules, obviously. gren グレン ^? 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Cyde Weys, Jtdirl and Gamaliel. --Aaron 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all others Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wiki isnt censorship is it? Fkmd 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a vandalism warning notice for unconstructive edits on a particular high profile article. We wouldn't delete {{Test5}} would we? ALKIVAR™ 14:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article is being vandalized more than any other article has ever seen. As Johnleemk said, let's discuss discontinuing this template when the fuss has died down. But for now, this is a vital template in maintaining policy and consensus on a sensitive subject. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 14:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.