Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17, 2006 edit

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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xetra edit

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 DELETE, will subst it. -Splash^talk 00:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Freespeech edit

Subst its use on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship, then delete. If someone starts using it I vote keep. 20:44, 18 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 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 DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DEplaces edit

Template:DEplaces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Recently created rival of Template:Delaware. Contains many of the same links (main difference is inclusion of small towns). Should be deleted, small towns can be put on the main template if necessary. JW1805 (Talk) 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete I don't know much about Delaware. If the small towns seem notable enough to put on a template, merge this one with Template:Delaware. If not, delete it. Chairman S. | Talk 01:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Chairman S. MiraLuka 04:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Small towns have been merged into Template:Delaware. OK to delete this one now. --JW1805 (Talk) 21:10, 18 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.

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 moot - Speedy deleted by Doc_glasgow. (t1 polemical and divisive) Head straight to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you need to. - Mailer Diablo 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Same Sex Marriage edit

Template:User Same Sex Marriage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template should not be kept, because the Template:User marriage man-woman was delated, and if that is to be deleated, so should this. I feel it's a plain case under T1, polemical and divisive. SFrank85 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

It's already been speedy deleted by Doc glasgow but it does serve to divide Wikipedians and is somewhat polemical so I would have said it's a valid speedy. I'm assuming good faith that you didn't nominate it in a sort of WP:POINT moment though. David | Talk 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm opposed to this speedy deletion, and to deleting it in general. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userfy both. There is no harm in allowing users to state their opinion. - Mike Rosoft 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'undelete and let TfD run its course. keep as it discloses editor POV, which is good for the 'pedia. stop Speedy Deeing templates that are here for our review. It's very patronizing.Mike McGregor (Can) 22:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What's wrong with voicing an opinion? That's why I like userboxes. --Kinghajj 00:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Duh.Blondlieut 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nothing divisive at all about this. As for the other userboxes, they are in the process of being undeleted. Shame! Shame! Shame! --Dragon695 02:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Undelete Things are being deleted like crazy here. Stop please. MiraLuka 04:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Undelete. Probably would have voted delete, but I only have one Daddy, and it ain't Doc Glasgow. Herostratus 08:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doc Glasgow has no right to ignore the votes here which clearly are to keep it. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:28, 20 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.

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 interesting, but this template was speedy deleted, for consistency with other political party userbox templates. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User CDP-USA edit

Template:User CDP-USA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This was tagged for speedy deletion but (IMHO) does not quite fall into the current criterion: hence I am nominating it here. Needless to say, political userboxes have not been welcome on Wikipedia for some weeks, and this template should be Deleted. Physchim62 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It didn't fit T1, so they're trying to figure out another route to get rid of it. Unfortunately, there will be a consensus to keep it since it isn't contreversial in any way, some Tony Sidaway-esque person will have a hissy fit and delete it, and somebody will recreate it, and the cycle will begin anew. I hope that doesn't happen, but I'm not expecting much considering the closedmindnesses of the people in the cabal recently. Karm a fist 18:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete, nn political party. The website (see the talk page) mentions the party's main site is simply a forum with three members. I agree that it doesn't meet T1. --Interiot 18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "userfy" are you saying make it say "This user is ..." rather than "This user supports ...", because I would not have a problem with that.

Guðsþegn – U T C E – 20:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean either subst:ing it, or moving it to something like User:Guðsþegn/User CDP-USA. Because of the nascent state of the party, I can't believe it will be used by any other user for some time, and also part of the intent behind creating it was probably to advertise (moreover, I don't really see the point of removing the link to the forums, since it makes the party's platform inaccessible, since it's not easily found via Google or via any internal articles. I don't think any of this particularly belongs on Wikipedia given its nn state, but if it belongs anywhere, it's on a user page). Also, per [1], I don't know if appealing to fairness is applicable. --Interiot 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If by advertise you mean recognize its existence as a possible expression of one's self-identity, then yes, but that is true of all userboxes, especially political ones. If by advertise you mean try to create a connection toward furthering political action, then that possibility has been neutralized as you said yourself. So, given the neutralized state, what is the offense?

Guðsþegn – U T C E – 22:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is no reason (except bias) that this userbox should be treated any differently than all political party userboxes. If you allow a Republican or Democrat userbox, then fairness says you must allow this one. Or is this an encyclopedia that believes that the American two-party system must be more entrenched than it already is? Guðsþegn – U T C E – 19:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - of course.--God of War 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yawn. --F a ng Aili 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --Kf4bdy 21:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep "<viewpoint>s are unwelcome here" is hardly a persuasive argument for a community attempting to create a free encyclopaedia. --Marlow4 22:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above opinions Mike McGregor (Can) 22:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ditto -- Greaser 22:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - doesn't seem divisive. --Dragon695 02:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above MiraLuka 04:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Guðsþegn. Delete them all, or don't delete any. Chairman S. | Talk 05:17, 18 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.

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PA navigation edit

Delete per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is there a more general version of this template that we could direct its creator to for his/her information? --M @r ē ino 06:01, 20 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.

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 speedy delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Webcomic edit

I created this template without knowing that there already was a template for this sort of thing. Please speedy delete. (Ibaranoff24 03:44, 17 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.