Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ejrrjs (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 10 April 2006 (→[[Template:User separation]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< April 3 April 5 >

April 4, 2006

Template:Quetta-infobox

Template:Quetta-infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with Template:Pakistani Cities as far as I can tell... only real difference is that the generic template has a slight color difference and a field for websites.gren グレン 22:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - About a month ago, I found several Pakistani cities each had single-use templates which mimicked each other's contents. Most of them were replaced by the generic template but for some strange reason I must have overlooked this one. Anyway it's redundant now as I have put the generic one into the article, so delete please. Green Giant 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Andy123(talk) 16:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British legislation lists

  • A large template that has too many links and that I don't know what to do with after splitting one of the lists it links to (which was Wikipedia's largest article prior to my split) into 4 separate articles. Georgia guy 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... my rationale is that it is on many lists that don't have pictures or anything else that this box is conflicting with. Therefore it is better than nothing. If there were a competing idea that was better I'd delete this one... but, there doesn't seem to be. gren グレン 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Too many links and that you don't know what to do with is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. The template is meant as a navigational aid for allowing people to find British legislation. The lists that it links to are far from complete, but the reason there are so many links is that the lists they go to are, or will be when complete, far too big to be on one single page. For example, a list of Statutory Instruments for a year could have anything from 2000-3000 items in it. Splitting up such a list, as you have done to the 1996 version, won't really help matters since to navigate around it properly would require even more links in the template. How else do you propose people easily get round the lists? David Newton 07:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the template, but I don't dismiss Georgia guy's concerns as it is growing ever larger! Probably what is required is a new template with the full details of Statutory Instruments and brief details of Acts of Parliament, and this one should link to the main list of Statutory Instruments. Hope that makes sense Kurando | ^_^ 12:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User separation

Template:User separation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Divisive template if I've ever seen one, not so sublte way of creating an anti-religion userbox, delete with all due haste--Copus-corlione 20:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also see the template User opposes MLKjr which Copus-corlione created. —Mike Tigas 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not divisive, not anti-religious. --Zegoma beach 20:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There actually was an antireligious one that I liked much better, but it was deleted so I switched to this one. Not divisive as far as I'm concerned. -- eo 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Why are we even considering deleting this one? C'mon...--Manwe 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Anti-religious? Give me a break. Most democratic nations have embraced or even constitutionalized the seperation of church and state, and the majority of their citizens evidently support it, despite the fact that most are religious. The seperation of church and state enhances religious freedom, if anything, by preventing legal discrimination based on religion. It's odd that out of all the userboxes on Wikipedia, this one has been termed "divisive". WGee 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The opinions of most democratic nations and the benefits of the concept do not have bearing on whether a belief is divisive. --Constantine Evans 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, didn't think of it in that way. But still delete =) --Mboverload 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a reference to religion that is the problem, it is the statement of a belief. Thus a userbox saying that one is interested or knowledgeable in a particular religion is not divisive, and helpful to Wikipedia (eg, as a way to locate editors for an article), while a userbox stating that one believes or practices a religion is divisive and not helpful. So yes, I do believe that most of the userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion should be deleted.--Constantine Evans 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Seperation of Church and State is NOT anti-religion. Keeping religion away from government It is a proven and good method of running a government. It could even be called pro-religion since it keeps one relgion from legislating other religions away. I'll stop there since this isn't a a place to debate the validity. Anyway, NOT ANTI-RELIGION, STRONG KEEP.
  • Weak Delete - While I believe in separation of church and state, this is nevertheless divisive, as are, in my opinion, all userboxes expressing a user's belief, so long as there are others who do not share that belief. Just because the belief is very popular and rational does not mean that the userbox should be allowed. However, I will admit that my view is not entirely in line with the inflammatory and divisive requirement for T1. --Constantine Evans 17:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the rationale provided by the above user is not justiciable. --Andy123(talk) 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree or disagree, it's an interesting perspective, but in the wrong venue. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (The issue can certainly be interpreted as inflammatory and divisive, since announcing this viewpoint inflames opinion and is meant to divide WP into camps of pro and con.) On an aesthetic note, the U.S. Capitol building does NOT represent "state" except in the United States. This is an internationally used encyclopedia, therefore it is too specific. Nhprman 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until someone creates a template that says, "I support the ENTIRE 1st Amendment". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-encyclopedic content not appropriate for template-space. --Cyde Weys 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep I have read through the new userbox policy, and I didn't come away with a feeling that it is against something like this. I interpreted it as banning userboxes that say things like "Kill Jews". Someone explain =( --Mboverload 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It doesn't take "kill ..." to make it divisive. There are numerous political and "belief" boxes that serve to line people up on one side or the other of an issue. If it DIVIDES people in this way, then it's DIVISIVE. That's a criteria for deletion, and an appropriate one. I would classify any box about religion, secessionist movements, the topic of race, any political issue (Bush, Iraq, Blair, Howard, parties, issues, etc.) as divisive, however benign these may be expressed in the box. The Founder has spoken about this and has expressed his view that this is not meant to be a social networking site, a free speech zone, or an experiment in Democracy (or political campaigning,) and that Userboxes "need to go." I do admit that deleting ONE box, usually the weakest side of the argument (numerically - measured by number of supporters on WP, not on the issue's merits) is problematic. But until the Founder steps up and bans all such boxes, or says "Sure, go ahead and use them," we have to use our judgement and the growing consensus is against their use. Hope this helps! Nhprman 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response I believe showing our political hands and being able to see what other people believe helps the community rather than hurts it. I feel less divided when I know where people stand in just a few seconds. It lets me evaluate any potential biases (though I assume good non-biased faith unless an edit is completely one-sided) However, you do make a good argument. I removed the political userboxes on my page a few days ago but I feel there is a reason to keep these kinds of things. Because of your good argument, I'm downgrading my position to "Very Weak Keep". Thanks for taking the time to explain the issues to me Nhprman! --Mboverload 22:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I had some effect! ;-) The argument that is often used, that it's good to see others' biases, is great when you're assessing who to vote for at the ballot box, and I can see it could be useful in some cases online, but in practice, here on WP it simply inspires opponents to create other Userboxes, usually ones that escalate the debate in unfriendly and divisive ways. Nhprman 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Yet another — clearly wrong, IMHO — definition of divisive. We have articles which would fit that description. Brittanica has articles which would fit that description. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, so does Wikipedia. Announcing biases is often completely unnecessary, considering some users' edit history and blatantly stated intentions to "slant" an article in a certain way. Userboxes simply reinforce and give another outlet to POV-pushing. Nhprman 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can be divisive (especially when dealing with divisive topics, such as, say, The Holocaust). But there's no reason we should have divisive userspace templates. That's just common-sense. --Cyde Weys 03:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an extremely divisive userbox. Not only it divides fellow Wikipedians into 3 factions (those who support the idea, those who oppose it and those who don't give a #@&%), but also supports division in real life. It is also extremely inflammatory, twisting people's minds, spreading ill will towards admins and causing me to waste my time here. It is also responsible for so many people acting in bad faith, for 9/11 attacks, hunger in Africa and tsunamis. I believe there can be only one jugdement: keep. --Misza13 T C 13:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly it is not divisive. grafikm_fr 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Antidisestablishmentarists are wasting their time. Kevin Baastalk 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't assume that people who support deletion here are necessarily antidisestablishment. I am an atheist - I just don't think there should be any statement of opinion userboxes at all. One's opinion on separation of church and state should not have any bearing on deciding whether to delete. --Constantine Evans 02:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I happen to be a religious person who supports the division of church and state, and I take strong exception to people who assume that holding such an opinion makes a person somehow "anti-religious". This is NOT an anti-religious template. Asarelah 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY, VERY, VERY strong keep someone should have the right to express their own views on their own userpage. Its not like this is in an article. To delete this would just be a form of censorship. IF WE DELETE ONE USERBOX WHICH SAYS A PERSON SUPPORTS SOMETHING, WE MUST DELETE ALL USERBOXES SUPPORTING SOMETHING. This is PC run amuck! PDXblazers 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I totally agree with this. Make it all, or none. Some great examples: Anti-Communist, Fascist, and Anti-Marx boxes were deleted, while all pro-Communist boxes have been "saved." And I have to say that this "voting" process to determine whether a box stays or not is highly biased, and contrary to the "no voting" concept here: [1] What we have here is voting, or more accurately, the Mob rallying to *certain* political boxes to protect them, while less popular opinions, or ones with weaker "networks" are erased. Fair? Nope. Nhprman 14:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There is nothing socially "divisive" about a desire for separation of church and state. It is a simple statement of a political principle--that government and religion should not be intertwined. If we delete this, then to keep all userboxes which have political or religious overtones is nothing but pure hypocrisy. --Eastlaw 06:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Not divisive, not anti-religious. FinFangFoom 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly not anti-religious. However the cross may be removed so that it doesn't focus on a specific religion.--Conudrum 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Then the wording should also say "religion and state" and not "church and state", aye?
  • Keep. Stop the damn userbox removals.
  • Super-dee-duper Strong Keep Like a million other people have said, if we delete all userboxes some Wikipedians consider "divisive", then we have to delete all userboxes. If there isn't one (I havent looked into it) maybe we should make an anti-seperation of church-state userbox? Just to keep things fair. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 19:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why has Church to meddle in everyday's businesses? User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InfoboxMedalLine

Template:InfoboxMedalLine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Not used as far as I can tell, I think all the various medal count pages use just {{flag}} these days. Sherool (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UAlbany2

Template:User UAlbany2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_4&oldid=47847274"