Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 13
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2008 March 13)
March 13 edit
Template:Prob 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 delete both. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Prob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Dated prob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created as part of the proposal Wikipedia:Proposed blanking. While it is intended merely to illustrate what the template would look like, the template is confusing because it makes it seem as if the proposal has been accepted. This template (and {{dated prob}}, which is also included here) should not be created unless the proposal is accepted... which is very unlikely to ever happen, given that the proposal is effectively one of those WP:PEREN things. Mangojuicetalk 16:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. They can be recreated in the unlikely event that the proposal is accepted. Hut 8.5 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'm tempted to speedy these per CSD T2 (although created in good faith for illustrative purposes, a template for "proposed blanking" is equivalent to a speedy deletion template for a non-existing criterion; however, given that the discussion has started, perhaps its best to let it run its course. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep or project-fy or userfy or somesuch. There are two main problems with deletion. (1) You set a precedent for it to be speedied per G4 if it is ever re-created. (2) Somebody might inadvertently re-create the same thing (probably under a different name) because they weren't able to see that something similar had already been deleted. Perhaps we should have MFD'ed the {{prod}} template back when people were slapping it on articles in early 2006 while Wikipedia:Proposed deletion was still in the {{proposed}} stage? But I see that T2 did not exist until 2007; that explains why Template:Prod wasn't speedied. By the way, T2's addition was controversial and reverted several times, for good reason. I'm going to WP:BOLD and remove that criterion. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- If the proposal is adopted, then G4 would not really be applicable (the circumstances would not be the same) and any application of the criterion would be quickly overturned. Black Falcon (Talk) 19:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You'll notice I'm not trying to use CSD T2 here, so that part of the argument is moot. But in any case, the initial experimentation with PROD was done with lots of support behind it. Also, inadvertent recreation is extremely unlikely, and in any case irrelevant because such a recreation should also be deleted. Mangojuicetalk 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Project-fy (move to subpages of the project page). This will discourage them from being used as templates until such a policy is actually implemented, but will still keep them around as an example. Mr.Z-man 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Also don't want to encourage creation of templates to illustrate experimental processes, as the author seems to like doing. The user that created this is causing a heap of troll-like trouble. He's made at least 3 proposals at VP on top of one-another, plus made some of the same proposals at other policy pages (one proposal is now on 3 different talk pages), removed a CSD template criteria when another of his templates was deleted due to it, and made a number of questionable edits referenced with WikiTruth.
That was all today, I believe.Not all today, but all pretty recent. Equazcion •✗/C • 00:12, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)- There you go dropping the T-bomb. Of course, I guess you're allowed to do that, under WP:SPADE or some shit. Then again, I could argue against you using WP:NOSPADE. This place is ridiculous sometimes, with so many contradictory things one can cite once he decides to delve into that alphabet soup. But I try not to take it too seriously, hence the occasional partly tongue-in-cheek, partly-serious edit, which is often just intended as a jumping-off point to get it into more encylopedic form. The funny thing is, people will permanently delete content just to spite the contributor, or deter them, or whatnot. And then claim, Oh we just don't think that's appropriate for Wikipedia. Hmm, then why did most of your argument consist of "we don't want to leave a monument to this person's trolling" or such? Well, I suppose it's a little of both sentiments. On one hand, the contributor shouldn't matter; ideally, it shouldn't. But on the other hand, it's the whole Cops vs. hippies phenomenon I've had so much to say about lately, in which people who deal with a lot of vandals/t----s on a regular basis end up taking a harder line and jumping the gun when they see something suspicious, and they want to whack them over the head just so they don't have to deal with them anymore. Anyway, I wasn't trying to write a manifesto here, so I'll go elsewhere at this point. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can't argue with me "under" either of those. They're not policies. Essays aren't supposed to be consistent with each other, and can't be used to back up an argument, because they carry absolutely no weight; you're thinking of policies and guidelines. If you expect a medium that's meant to show a particular viewpoint to be consistent across all it uses, then you expect too much. About the contributor, it's not to spite you. It's just that, with a known and respected editor, we're willing to offer leeway because we have faith that with further work they'll do what they can to make it into something useful. This goes the other way too, though. With a contributor that seems to be causing trouble, and material that's useless anyway, we'll be less inclined to offer any leeway, out of concern that the editor may use it to disrupt further. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:15, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh, I guess it's basically checkmate at this point, I can't really do anything to stop you and you've got the support, so that's it. I was pretty much aware that the point about the essays wasn't bulletproof, because they are just essays, but I thought I would pre-emptively mention WP:SPADE in case that were to be brought up. Actually, it's wishy-washy policies that are the more frustrating because it's not clear when they're binding and when they're not. See conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Hardening_the_language. I don't know, it seems like it's more or less pointless trying to change policy, so I think I give up at this point. It's just the way it's designed. There was a time, in the early stages of the project, when things could change, because Jimbo was in charge of making it change. That couldn't go on forever, and eventually he had to step aside somewhat, and now we're kinda locked into where we are. But perhaps there is a way to fix it. I think I have an idea... It'll have to be partially outside of this wiki... Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Things can still change, and they do. You're just doing it wrong, as everyone keeps telling you. Don't blame Wikipedia 'cause you refuse to listen. About the wishy-washy policies, they're meant to be that way -- subjective. Objectivity would mean democracy, bureaucracy, and lawyering, all of which Wikipedia is meant to avoid. If you must have rock-solid laws in place to refer to, this really isn't the place for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:43, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not the only one who took issue with some of the unhardened language; Kim Bruning also did, as noted by the link above. Someone replied to me on ParliParkingLot the other day writing, "I wish you better luck with Wikipedia than I had. I was essentially run off by an administrator who did not follow the rules as they were written and got others to back him up - and yet the rules were never rewritten to say what he said they should mean. Wikipedia's stubborn refusal to adopt any form of governance that is consistent and can be understood by those not in the know will continue to run off valued contributors and doom it to inaccuracy and, eventually, irrelevance." He may well be right. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- We have no shortage of disgruntled ex-employees. That's nothing new. Lots of people feel they've been "run off" by the unjust "leaders" here. Not everyone belongs here. But if you're suggesting this means we must change our core principles due to that, I'd say that's faulty logic. We seem to do well enough. We've got over 6 million members and still growing. If we changed, we'd lose the people who didn't like the change. No system can please everyone. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:02, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, and how many of those six million accounts are mine? Last I heard, there are only about 6,000 active Wikipedians. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yours? I didn't quite get that. As for how many are active, I don't know where you heard that and I don't know if it's accurate, so I can't comment. Even if it were true, I don't see how we can be sure that a change would raise that number rather than lower it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify—in general, Obuibo is referring to the fact that many accounts exist today which are not used to edit. (Some were never used, others were used a few times and forgetten, still others were the creation of vandals and sockpuppeteers.) More specifically, Obuibo is referring to the fact that he has created and used a number of accounts, and very nearly got himself banned for misusing them to promote another one of his proposed policies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Many prolific users, when I look back at early contributors, launched immediately into complex Wikipedia process; clearly they had earlier accounts. Obuibo was blocked for giving an administrator the finger, which he promptly apologized for; the matter of serial accounts -- never used again, once abandoned -- was minor, basically an excuse used to lather up offense based on other reasons. He was never even warned for sock puppetry, and certainly was not blocked for it. In any case, we can confidently assert that Obuibo does not have more than 6,000 active accounts. We'd be lucky if he had one percent of that. I'm afraid, though, that he only has one with current access. If he has more, I'd be amazed. --Abd (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify—in general, Obuibo is referring to the fact that many accounts exist today which are not used to edit. (Some were never used, others were used a few times and forgetten, still others were the creation of vandals and sockpuppeteers.) More specifically, Obuibo is referring to the fact that he has created and used a number of accounts, and very nearly got himself banned for misusing them to promote another one of his proposed policies. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yours? I didn't quite get that. As for how many are active, I don't know where you heard that and I don't know if it's accurate, so I can't comment. Even if it were true, I don't see how we can be sure that a change would raise that number rather than lower it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, and how many of those six million accounts are mine? Last I heard, there are only about 6,000 active Wikipedians. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- We have no shortage of disgruntled ex-employees. That's nothing new. Lots of people feel they've been "run off" by the unjust "leaders" here. Not everyone belongs here. But if you're suggesting this means we must change our core principles due to that, I'd say that's faulty logic. We seem to do well enough. We've got over 6 million members and still growing. If we changed, we'd lose the people who didn't like the change. No system can please everyone. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:02, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not the only one who took issue with some of the unhardened language; Kim Bruning also did, as noted by the link above. Someone replied to me on ParliParkingLot the other day writing, "I wish you better luck with Wikipedia than I had. I was essentially run off by an administrator who did not follow the rules as they were written and got others to back him up - and yet the rules were never rewritten to say what he said they should mean. Wikipedia's stubborn refusal to adopt any form of governance that is consistent and can be understood by those not in the know will continue to run off valued contributors and doom it to inaccuracy and, eventually, irrelevance." He may well be right. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Things can still change, and they do. You're just doing it wrong, as everyone keeps telling you. Don't blame Wikipedia 'cause you refuse to listen. About the wishy-washy policies, they're meant to be that way -- subjective. Objectivity would mean democracy, bureaucracy, and lawyering, all of which Wikipedia is meant to avoid. If you must have rock-solid laws in place to refer to, this really isn't the place for you. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:43, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- Sigh, I guess it's basically checkmate at this point, I can't really do anything to stop you and you've got the support, so that's it. I was pretty much aware that the point about the essays wasn't bulletproof, because they are just essays, but I thought I would pre-emptively mention WP:SPADE in case that were to be brought up. Actually, it's wishy-washy policies that are the more frustrating because it's not clear when they're binding and when they're not. See conversation at Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Hardening_the_language. I don't know, it seems like it's more or less pointless trying to change policy, so I think I give up at this point. It's just the way it's designed. There was a time, in the early stages of the project, when things could change, because Jimbo was in charge of making it change. That couldn't go on forever, and eventually he had to step aside somewhat, and now we're kinda locked into where we are. But perhaps there is a way to fix it. I think I have an idea... It'll have to be partially outside of this wiki... Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- You can't argue with me "under" either of those. They're not policies. Essays aren't supposed to be consistent with each other, and can't be used to back up an argument, because they carry absolutely no weight; you're thinking of policies and guidelines. If you expect a medium that's meant to show a particular viewpoint to be consistent across all it uses, then you expect too much. About the contributor, it's not to spite you. It's just that, with a known and respected editor, we're willing to offer leeway because we have faith that with further work they'll do what they can to make it into something useful. This goes the other way too, though. With a contributor that seems to be causing trouble, and material that's useless anyway, we'll be less inclined to offer any leeway, out of concern that the editor may use it to disrupt further. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:15, 14 Mar 2008 (UTC)
- There you go dropping the T-bomb. Of course, I guess you're allowed to do that, under WP:SPADE or some shit. Then again, I could argue against you using WP:NOSPADE. This place is ridiculous sometimes, with so many contradictory things one can cite once he decides to delve into that alphabet soup. But I try not to take it too seriously, hence the occasional partly tongue-in-cheek, partly-serious edit, which is often just intended as a jumping-off point to get it into more encylopedic form. The funny thing is, people will permanently delete content just to spite the contributor, or deter them, or whatnot. And then claim, Oh we just don't think that's appropriate for Wikipedia. Hmm, then why did most of your argument consist of "we don't want to leave a monument to this person's trolling" or such? Well, I suppose it's a little of both sentiments. On one hand, the contributor shouldn't matter; ideally, it shouldn't. But on the other hand, it's the whole Cops vs. hippies phenomenon I've had so much to say about lately, in which people who deal with a lot of vandals/t----s on a regular basis end up taking a harder line and jumping the gun when they see something suspicious, and they want to whack them over the head just so they don't have to deal with them anymore. Anyway, I wasn't trying to write a manifesto here, so I'll go elsewhere at this point. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Move to user space (or elsewhere appropriate) because discussion should continue, and it might come out that the template becomes useful. I have blanked and redirected an article that was a totally inappropriate (and largely redundant) POV fork, and this was twice reverted as vandalism, even though explained in Talk. The vandal patrol isn't always sensitive to details. This template being there for a period would help avoid that problem.--Abd (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. recreate when proposal accepted. --Fredrick day 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: the proposal has now been marked rejected. Hut 8.5 11:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Problem solved (and it's even GFDL compliant) Now it's documented and we can delete the templates for the above concerns. -- Ned Scott 03:50, 18 March 2008 (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 section.
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 delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Template appears to be orphaned and poorly constructed. Most likely an abandoned project of its creator. — silly rabbit (talk) 12:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as nominator. I also note that the author User:SndrAndrss is an indefinitely banned editor, so certainly the template is unlikely ever to be used. silly rabbit (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2008 (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 section.
Template:User Badminton 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 Close - wrong venue (userboxes go to MfD regardless of namespace per TfD and MfD) (non-admin closing) Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
A template which duplicate with {{User:UBX/badminton}}. — Aleenf1 09:09, 13 March 2008 (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 section.
Template:Acid tests 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 keep. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Only three items listed; "see also" sections and inline links should work just fine for navigation. — -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - It just wouldn't look as nice that way. Using the template, we get a nice box that bolds the article you're currently looking at and provides links to the other two. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Remember the dot. I also don't buy the deletion rationale. Pretty much every navbox could be deleted for the same reason. silly rabbit (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2008 (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 section.