Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 11: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Dschor (talk | contribs)
811 edits
Line 23: Line 23:
*'''Subst and Delete''' unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Subst and Delete''' unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--[[User:Doc glasgow|Doc]] [[User talk:Doc glasgow|<small><sup>ask?</sup></small>]] 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' on this and subsequent templates: the solution I tend to prefer for these is to suggest userfying them, moving them to be child pages of the creator's user page, with the warning that they should not be used outside of the user pages in general. However, I don't have feelings for any of these nominees in particular - thus I merely put this comment out for consideration. User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' on this and subsequent templates: the solution I tend to prefer for these is to suggest userfying them, moving them to be child pages of the creator's user page, with the warning that they should not be used outside of the user pages in general. However, I don't have feelings for any of these nominees in particular - thus I merely put this comment out for consideration. User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
*'''Userfy''' or '''Keep''' thanks for having the decency to nominate for deletion, rather than speedy deleting them. --[[User:Dschor|Dschor]] 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


==== [[Template:User crazy]] ====
==== [[Template:User crazy]] ====

Revision as of 01:04, 12 May 2006

< May 10 May 12 >

May 11, 2006

Template:Nudity warning

Wikipedia is not censored. --Doc ask? 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It not a censor, it does not remove images in fact it warns viewers not to censor and it directs them to a disclaimer explaining why. --BerserkerBen 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it against wikipedia policy?, how does this message censor images? and how are people suppose to know about a disclaimer: are we suppose to put giant disclaimers at the top of every article?--BerserkerBen 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User I2P

Template:User I2P

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on this and subsequent templates: the solution I tend to prefer for these is to suggest userfying them, moving them to be child pages of the creator's user page, with the warning that they should not be used outside of the user pages in general. However, I don't have feelings for any of these nominees in particular - thus I merely put this comment out for consideration. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Keep thanks for having the decency to nominate for deletion, rather than speedy deleting them. --Dschor 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User crazy

Template:User crazy

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ding

Template:User ding

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Gaia

Template:User Gaia

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User goon

Template:User goon

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-1

Template:User Hattrick-1

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-2

Template:User Hattrick-2

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-3

Template:User Hattrick-3

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LUElinks

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LEO contributor

Template:User LEO contributor

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Neopets

Template:User Neopets

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Onion

Template:User Onion

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User RMP

Template:User RMP

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Snopester

Template:User Snopester

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SG

Template:User SG

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unproved

Template:Unproved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template isn't particulary helpful, since all it does is to inform the reader that the factual accuracy of the article in question might be disputed or in any other way be considered unreliable. I consider that a bit too vague to be really useful or helpful. There are also plenty of already existing templates available that would substitute this one, in a more specific and helpful way (such as Accuracy, Neutrality, Controversial and Unencyclopedic), making this one redundant. And finally, in my opinion, this one is not NPOV, since even proven theories are frequently disputed, while some theories are never proven, but accepted anyway. Allowing a template like this might trigger edit wars between believers and skeptics in various articles around Wikipedia. Magore 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncertain wording and other templates are applicable. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template is redundant and silly, it talks down to the reader; if topic is theoretical, it will be stated in the article Judgesurreal777 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the nom and the above, there is also Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates.--Andrew c 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire

Template:Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A navigation template which is way too large to be useful. bogdan 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

----------------------

Given the fact that there are more links at the template of "countries in asia" or very close in "countries in Europe" the quantitative arguments about the size is not really valid. Also the template comes as hidden division, which only covers two lines in its hidden state. People who want to use it can open the (through the link on the right side) division and work with it. Both of these arguments defends the opposide side "Not To Delete"--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative remarks about the usefullness, which is linked with the organization of the empires, seems to be valid. There should be a better organization than categorizing through centuries. However these questions should be covered in its talk page. However, these talks are develop the arguments toward the need to keep the template. This paragraf is about "Not To Delete" side.--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it's better, but still, I think a "See also: List of empires" would be better. bogdan 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nintendo series developers

Template:Nintendo series developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Useless, mangled, redundant with the much more useful {{Nintendo developers}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headgear

Template:Headgear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Request is to deprecate this template, replacing its use with Template:Headgear box, which is designed as a box for placement at the bottom of affected articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: having a navigation box like that is just a little bit ugly. Looking at a page like Apostolnik, I'm convinced that a bottom of the page box would be more suitable, and as one already exists (nicely created, too), there's no need for this to remain. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no real unifying factor with headgear. An infobox is completely inappropriate! A category is more then enough for this. Jon513 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most effective boxes to come from a project on WP, which links themes and topics in a uniform style and link. Far superior to the frankly amateurish and frankly hideous headgear box. But at least this time Schuminweb is consulting, as opposed to mass deletions of a box he wanted axed across dozens of articles, an action that led to his blocking. This whole issue was voted on in February. It is a waste of time constantly revoting on issues over and over again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category should be sufficient here. MiraLuka 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems more like a content issue. Should the box be a header or footer? Should the topics be organized according to relation? What should the design of the final box look like? I think those issues should be worked out before we decide to delete one of them. My two cents, I personally prefer the way the newer box looks. But simply centering the lines and changing the semi-colons to em dashes would make the nom look better. In the long run, one of these boxes need to go because they are redundent. I do not feel that this TfD followed process. It seems like an eager editor created a new box as opposed to editing the existing box, and as the above comment points out, there is not community consensus on removing the old one.--Andrew c 22:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no harm, it may not be an example of WP's best work, but it is informative for those who are interested in headgear and the different varieties. --rogerd 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfa cliche1

Template:Rfa cliche1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unuseful template, may as well just be typed out. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11&oldid=52760204"