Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 3

< December 2	December 4 >

December 3 edit

Template:Explicit 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per request of creator. --El on ka 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Explicit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We do not post warning templates on articles that have content that may not be appropriate for some. WODUP 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for minors. Certain topics are explicit inherently; we don't need to put a warning on, say, blowjob. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My old newbie mistake, delete immediately.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (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 section.

Template:ImageCopyrightVandal 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ImageCopyrightVandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This recently created template is a poor substitute for any one of a number of well known, well used templates that convey more, relevant information to the user whose talk page it is added to. AussieLegend (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are better and more informative templates that can be (and are) used. The tone of this message is also not the best. Looks to me like saying "Stop what you're doing right now. We don't like it", and that's not the way it should be done even for a warning. WP:BITE? Chamal ^talk 12:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can imagine a situation in which this template might be appropriate, one where a series of other templates were sent to a user who continues to upload copyrighted images. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, surely the appropriate action when all the existing templates have failed would be to list the user at WP:AN? If the user has ignored all the other templates, what is the likelihood that he or she would respond to this one? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant for newcomers... --Encyclopedia77 Talk 22:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what all the aother templates are for too. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it's disruptive to the point where it's vandalism, then use the existing templates or block the user. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can be useful as vandalism templates don't get the same point across. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 22:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, if those other, well written templates with very clear messages that contain links to the appropriate policies and other articles don't get the message across, it's unlikely the user will respond to this one. In such a case administrative action is warranted, rather than giving them another warning. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2008 (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 section.

Template:VandalNoticeSmall 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VandalNoticeSmall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This recently created template is a poor substitute for {{Repeat vandal}}, which more correctly reflects current policy in a less confusing way. If deleted, two redirects created at the same time ({{VNS}} and {{PlzIndef}}) should also be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of redundant templates. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be a lot of redundant templates, that's no excuse to keep this one. Each template should be examined on its individual merits. This template has none. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template seems to apply to registered users only and is therefore redundant to our internal processes: admins review the block logs before acting (it's at the bottom of the block page), and I don't think this template would or should carry any weight, sorry. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:44, 9 December 2008 (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 section.

Template:Whiggishness 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Whiggishness (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template, though well-meaning and employed on at least some of the five articles it is in use on accurately, the template amounts to a POV-pushing template - the Whiggish view of history is a significant strain of historical thought. To specifically call it out in this form gives the false impression that we are unusually biased against this POV, and that this POV is considered unacceptable for Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to have a template that treats a given perspective as a specific problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too specific, a bit POV pushing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivializes a complex political point of view. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template refers to no Wikipedia policy or guideline. It is unclear how it applies to articles (such as Pythagoras) to which it has been added. It would be more beneficial to the article improvement if the editor concerned would post a discussion on the talk page, with examples of the objectionable Whiggishness, rather than slapping an inscrutable maintenance template at the top of the article as if that communicated what the problem with the article was. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not...encyclopedia-like. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 14:03, 9 December 2008 (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 section.

Template:!vote 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 section.

The result of the debate was to redirect to the Template:not a ballot. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 02:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:!vote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates the functionality of {{not a ballot}}. Brought here instead of speedy deletion because:

The "birthdays" of these templates are close together (but {{!vote}} is younger)
{{not a ballot}} survived a TfD at one point (though it was a speedy keep)
The templates are not identical stylistically, and the WP community should choose which is better rather than simply throw one away.
A desire to avoid drama if at all possible. Thin boy 00 @076, i.e. 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two templates obviously duplicate each other's functionality, but that's a reason for a merger, not a deletion. We should simply settle on the wording and style (perhaps a combination of the two), place the updated code at Template:Not a ballot, and redirect Template:!vote. —David Levy 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Template:Not a ballot since that's the older one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep the redirect. These are near duplicates; we only need one. It might be useful to look at merging {{rally}} as well; it's not an exact duplicate, but close. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to {{Not a ballot}} per the above. I think that template is pretty good as it is, actually - but adding the reference to WP:Canvassing is probably a good idea as well. Terraxos (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Not a ballot}}, the latter seems to be the superior version of the two as far as functionality is concerned. We don't need duplicates. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Not a ballot}}. The "not a ballot" template suffices. Binksternet (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, one way or an other. I feel though that {{!vote}}'s wording is better. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this one is better. Better yet, redirect {{not a ballot}} to this one. --Encyclopedia77 Talk 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether to have two templates or one. In the case of the latter, it can be made to resemble either of the existing templates (or a combination of the two). —David Levy 14:26, 9 December 2008 (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 section.