Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Meegs (talk | contribs) at 07:53, 23 May 2006 (→[[Template:Popular essay]]: delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< May 18 May 20 >

May 19, 2006

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 Obviously the work of an evil/rouge/cabalist admin set out to destroy all userboxes!!~!! (keep-withdrawn). Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 01:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User notconfused

Template:User notconfused (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Reason for deleting is clearly divisive. (The text is "this user is not confused" with "not confused" linking to the bisexuality page)Withdrawn. Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 23:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Do you understand that the meaning (or at least the implication) of this template is "being bisexual is not just being 'confused'"? It is not a criticism of bisexuality; it is exactly the opposite, a defense. Just asking to make sure there isn't a misunderstanding here, and to get a clarification on what's "divisive" about this. -Silence 00:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's right, it is divisive IMHO because it implies that those who are not are somehow "confused." It isn't for my own POV though, so perhaps if you disagree I may be barking up the wrong tree, per se, in which case I apologize. Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 00:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • RN, you clearly don't understand the meaning and context of this template. This template is a response to the common bigoted view that bisexuals are just "confused", and are not genuinely sexually oriented towards both males and females. It's an allusion to and refutation of a stereotype about bisexuals, not an attack on non-bisexuals as though they were "confused". Do you understand now? It is not an attack on bisexuals, nor an attack on non-bisexuals. -Silence 01:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep What's divisive? The nomination, and the nominator. Not the box. --71.36.251.182 00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:35, 20 May 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.

Template:User jessicaalba

Template:User jessicaalba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What makes Jessica Alba so special? If we're going to have this userbox, we might as well have userboxes for EVERY SINGLE CELEBRITY IN EXISTENCE. --Atlantima 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't be referencing proposals. Ardric47 01:05, 21 May 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 speedily deleted as G2 (test page testing self-transclusion of template). Kusma (討論) 18:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xx

Template:Xx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Appears to be used only in test pages, no useful code. Polonium 20:23, 19 May 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.

Template:Infobox_City_mapsize

Template:Infobox City mapsize (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fuctionality has been integrated into Infobox_City and all articles have been converted. No longer in use. harpchad 19:14, 19 May 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: either a nomination of the wrong template, or an attempt at WP:POINT. Either way, speedy keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template User _

Seems to be the root of all evil, I feel that if everything repressented by this template were removed indefintly from wikipedia, the userbox wars could be over today--Ipod person 18:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Is it helpful or noteworthy? Yes, as evident by its extensive use in discussing users with the aim of providing easy information. Is it redundant to another better-designed template? Not that I can see. Is it used? Yes, as evident by its what links here. Does it not express NPOV? No. Does it belong on TfD? No. PoptartKing 19:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think Ipod person was making a somewhat tongue-in-cheek comment. Think about it: "everything represented by this template," and the template represents Wikipedia editors. Therefore, "If everything repressented by this template were removed indefintly from wikipedia, the userbox wars could be over today" translates to "If Wikipedia editors were removed indefintly from wikipedia, the userbox wars could be over today," which, in fact, is true ... no users means no Wikipedia at all. That being said, if that is what Ipod person meant, I recommend he withdraw his recommendation. Cutesy, but not the place. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • where to reply) 20:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:35, 20 May 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.

Template:Popular essay

See also the associated category Category:Wikipedia featured essays. This concept is not part of our official "featured" series and there is no associated peer review for what goes into it (an essential part of featuring anything). Second, the template gives the impression that the opinions presented in some essays are more valuable than others. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. I'm not sure it was a good idea to take this to TfD before the CfD is completed. They are intertwined so everyone will just end up arguing the same points twice. Perhaps you should withdraw this nomination untill the CfD is settled one way or the other? As I said at the cfd, if "featured" has the connotation of per review about it, I can rename the template to popular essays. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and do just that.
    Moreover, the template is explicitly meant to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. It does not say that a certain essay should be heeded or that it is a guideline (it is mentioned that the essay is NOT a guideline and is informal), only that it is popular and is often cited in discussions. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a way of pointing out some essays a Wikipedian should be familiar with, whether they agree with it or not simply because they are going to see a lot of it at discussions. I hope this is sufficient to resolve everyone's objections. Loom91 08:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that the idea of having more popular essays easily identified is a good one, as it is difficult for new wikipedians to identify which essays reflect widespread opinion and which reflect a minority opinion. However, I think there should be a ___location (the category talk page seems like a good one) where one can propose additions and without objection add them, or with objection reach concensus on whether to add or not. I guess I am for Keeping the template and category with with a discussion of the proper name/process (popular is better than featured, but still not completely satisfying - though I can't think of a better name).Trödel 13:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, opinions should not be arbitrarily tagged as more popular without some approval process, and regardless of intent the template gives the impression that the tagged essays are more valuable or legitimate than other essays. --Muchness 09:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Who's to say whether an essay is popular? And the use of the word featured in the template doesn't rub off on me well. The featured article process is quite extensive. On the other hand, the featured essay process is virtually non-existant. Perhaps if there were a better (but not too formal) process that determines whether an essay is featured (or rather, popular), I'd support. joturner 05:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to Deleters. If there should be an approval process, then could you give me some time to devolop a light system to determine which essays can be called popular? This would not be a process to determine which essays are 'good' or 'right', but which essays are popular, as suggested by the new name of the template. This will prevent redundancy with the Guideline process and stop long debates about the subjective issue of whether an essay is beneficial. I'll need some time to this so if you agree with my suggestion then I request that you don't delete right away. Loom91 07:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - featured content represents the best of Wikipedia - that is, for presenting information as an encyclopedia. Featured content is encyclopedic content, regardless of whether it is an article, picture, list, or portal. They all serve to inform and benefit the readers. Essays, especially those dealing with policy and guidelines, do not do that. The idea that they can be tagged as "featured", quite frankly, is premature and ridiculous. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please take your time to read some of the discussion before sticking on that delete vote. It's Popular essays now, not featured. Loom91 06:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, nothing wrong with it. Rename to "good" if featured doesn't work. Stifle (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Flcelloguy, without regard to featured, popular, or good. This template implies that its bearers have been judged better than other essays by the community, but there is no process in place to make this determination. While I do not support developing such a process (essays are supposed to be informal), without it, this label is inappropriate, misleading, and likely to cause edit wars over its inclusion. ×Meegs 07:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GreenLantern

Template:GreenLantern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is highly inaccurate and useless insomuch as there are various characters known as "Green Lantern", and hence each individual character has his/her own page and corresponding template (in most cases). As each Lantern has his/her own character specific allies/adversaries/notable stories, this template does not accomplish the purpose it seems to have been designed for initially. NetK 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Student Fraternity

Template:Student Fraternity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Obsolete template, also wikiprojects can't add templates like these to the articles, just the talk pages and there already is a template for that. I tried to speedydelete this but I guess that was the wrong proceedure. Dspserpico 08:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_19&oldid=54671419"