Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 26

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 March 26)
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nintendo templates edit

A template that only leads to other templates. igordebraga ≠ 18:06, 26 March 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 keep —Andux␅ 13:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User opposes UN edit

Template:User opposes UN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Crossing out official symbols is bad style. Had already been deleted. Recreation for divisive purposes. ROGNNTUDJUU! 14:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This editor seems to have made it his or her goal to remove anything where a flag is crossed out. MiraLuka 20:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My vote seems to have disappeared, so I'm re-adding it. MiraLuka 21:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it was created or recreated to be divisive. And also, is there a guide to wiki (or other) style that specifies crossing out official symbols is bad style? Lawyer2b 21:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Lawyer2b. Procrastinator-General 00:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I proudly state my objection to the habitual uselessness of the UN. I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to express such an opinion. --Michaelk 03:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Has absolutely nothing to do with making an encyclopedia; if you want to proudly state your objection to anything, get a Livejournal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    comment neither do any userboxes. Joeyramoney 15:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Userboxes that show knowledge, instead of opinion, are useful for building an encyclopedia. "This user is an authority on international politics" would be a useful userbox. This is why I think User:Scientologist is useful while User:Anti-Scientologist isn't; the former shows that the user has a practicing knowledge of Scientology, whereas the latter doen't. Pro-UN and Anti-UN are useless; it isn't helpful to know how you feel about the UN, just how much you know about it. Lots of ignorant people have opinions about things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I agreed with your argument, I would disagree with your example. Being against scientology is more an indication of knowledge than being a (low-level) scientologist, as a true scientologist would not be willing to read the secret documents that have been released to (or have escaped to) the web. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The example is less important than the point. This infobox here implies no knowledge, merely an irrelevant opinion. Like I said, get an LJ. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep looks like WP:POINT to me... illuminates POV of editors making for a more open and honest ecylopedia, and thats a good thing. adds creditbility (as opposed to hiding or denying bias)Mike McGregor (Can) 10:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modify – The criossed out flag should be changed only. --13:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for a template. David | Talk 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a battleground. This will not help us write a better encyclopedia. / Peter Isotalo 18:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending decision on userbox policy. (It had been deleted out of process, which eliminates the first two objections by the nominator.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no reason given for deletion. --70.218.15.218 05:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disparaging.--cj | talk 07:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but please also nominate the pro-UN userbox for deletion, in fairness and for balance. Nhprman UserLists 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. if there's a pro-un userbox there should be a anti-un userbox. also, in response to a man in back, i'd reccomend briefing yourself on what a userbox is. modification may be nessesary and i'd understand that.--Preschooler.at.heart 03:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as useful indicator of user position. ProhibitOnions 18:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reveals editor's position. Re offensiveness of the crossed out flag, how can it be alright to verbally reject the UN but not alright to visually do the same thing? Avalon 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your question points to the bigger issue, namely, that some people don't think it is okay to verbally reject anything on wikipedia as it show a POV. I think userpages should be exempt from that requirement. Lawyer2b 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coolgamer 16:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Remember, you could always change the userbox. I went ahead and did that; taking out the flag and put in UN. See how easy that was? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nicer, but you've just changed the WAY in which it promotes a divisive message. It will still lead to more conflict and perhaps lead to a more forcefully worded pro-UN box being created. And the madness continues. Nhprman UserLists 20:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, this is madness because, IMHO, if people paid as much attention to POV expressed in actual articles as they did to userboxes (that are only on people's userpages), wikipedia would be a much better place. Lawyer2b 21:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: They are not "only on people's userpages." They are in the Template Userspace, making it a community problem. If everyone kept their opinions in their own "houses" (the Userpages) and this would be a much better place. Nhprman UserLists 04:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the TFD nomination and it was basically over not about the message of the userbox, but about a flag icon with a giant X through it. Now, that problem has been (I think) resolved, the nomination of this TFD is nearly moot, IMHO. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the flag is replaced by UN. (Though the previous version wasn't a problem for me either.) Misza13 T C 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to delete this statement of political opinion more than any other such userbox. Metamagician3000 03:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a valid POV PPGMD 03:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Hyphen5 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is simply free speech. - Mjg0503  20:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech" (from "What Wikipedia is Not" policy page. Nhprman UserLists 20:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Barring negated symbols is absurd, it is the semiotic equivalent of barring a part of speech! All other delete rationales above are at least as dubious. StrangerInParadise 03:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not offensive or divisive (enough to be deleted at least). Crumbsucker 17:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At this point, with the crossed out logo removed, this should not be deleted. the only change i could see anyone reasonably demanding is for the "strongly" to be removed. if, in that case, the userbox is removed, we should also eliminate the Pro-UN Userbox. I'm not saying "keep" because I already voted keep. -Preschooler.at.heart 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's a pro-UN box; what's the difference? Stringops 10:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, for instance there are plently of "civil rights" templates, why the hell do they keep deleting my anti-"civil rights" userboxes? I'll tell you why, because wikipedia endorses a very, very, narrow, and ultimatly liberalcentric POV, that's why--Copus-corlione 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't endorse any POV. That's why this infobox should be kept. Stringops 01:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. Besides, in this case assuming it is created for divisive purposes is assuming bad faith. Larix 23:36, 4 April 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Single infobox1 edit

Template:Single infobox1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This appears to have been created by a user who didn't understand the template (the history at Weird (song) shows that he eventually figured things out (mostly)). The template doesn't work, and is unused. TimBentley (talk) 04:38, 26 March 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, authors request. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Bennington Battle Day edit

Template:User Bennington Battle Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I tried editing it and munged it up royal. JB82 01:52, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_26&oldid=1138690748"