Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 25



Template:Interstatedis

 * 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 (7:3). --William Allen Simpson 12:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete — also Template:Intdis, Template:Rdab and Template:Roadis which are redirects - templates not needed as every page that could use the template is already in Category:Interstate Highway disambiguations directly - Template:disambig should be used on all these pages to put them in category disambiguation and since they're in the category they can be found that way as well Tedernst | talk 20:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - One disambig template to rule them all. -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gah. Read the fucking talk page. I used them to make it easier to find disambiguation pages to fix links to. But I probably won't be doing any of that anytime soon. Keep if anyone else votes the same . I see Tedernst has ALREADY gone and removed it - what the fuck. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 21:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice language. I removed it based on the consensus at MoS:DP AND I put all of the pages into the category manually so no information is lost. Tedernst | talk 22:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you bring it here first, given that you know it's going to be deleted? I fail to see the problem with keeping it around. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should've linked to this discussion and poll. Tedernst | talk 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I gave a good reason for this on its talk page. You are ignoring that. Bite me. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Your reason was that a seperate category is helpful. I preserved the category.  It's just the dab template in questions, not the category.  Also, I'm not sure if your negative attitude is helpful here.  Tedernst | talk 22:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have edited the template to be the standard one with the extra category. Now there is no reason to delete. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 22:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason to delete is the overhead it takes to maintain it and explain its use. When a person comes upon a dab, the idea is they see one and only one template, and then a category if one is needed, like for interstates.  If there is a different template for each type of dab, its more confusing for newer editors, plus requires more explanation in the MOS. Tedernst | talk 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as it provides a more specific explanation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)  23:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Needlessly overspecific. older ≠ wiser 02:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the category has not been added to all pages, as Netoholic redirected the 3didis redirect to disambiguation. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 03:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons mentioned in the talk page. It should have been brought here first before removing all of them. That poll was only seen by those who look at those pages; by doing a proper TFD, anyone who goes to a page that uses it will see it. --Chris 03:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. All I want to do is get to the damn page.  I don't care about whatever extra information, and incidentally, I'm quite smart enough to realise a page "Interstate 88" is about an interstate highway, but I just want to find my way around.  Unnecessary cluttering wording. Neonumbers 04:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, which in inevitable anyway. The reason for this template appreas to be so that eager editors can track down Interstate dabs and fix the links. Great! This will soon be covered by a categorisation system (link), making this template redundant. The problem with having the extra template is that it can be incorrect. What if the film or book Interstate 88 is created - the template is useless. Also, dab pages aren't here to provide information to the reader - they are here to get the reader to their desired destination. The speicifc explanation is redundant, if a reader doesn't know what an Interstate is they can click on one the links and find out.--Commander Keane 09:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all four templates: Best handled with several categories. Please join us at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation to talk about how to organize the categories. However, Tedernst has a history of random deletion/redirection without following TfD procedure, and had promised to stop working on Disambiguation pages (which he just violated). We share your frustration. I fixed Ted's incorrect listing procedure. --William Allen Simpson 13:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added template:3didis as well since it's the same as the others. Tedernst | talk 16:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Delete 'em all. I second everything Commander Keane said. Chris the speller 02:21, 29 January 2006 (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 page.

Template:User_homosexual-no

 * 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 deleted, obviously. This is a attack template, as per standard Wikipedia definitions stretching back years. It certainly isn't "needed". James F. (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete — I accept users may wish to say they are homosexual/hetrosexual ect. however I feel that labling peoples sexual decisions as 'immoral' is unacceptable. Please also note the image of the homosexual flag with a stop sign overlaid was speedy deleted at commons. Ian13ID:540053 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: Template:User marriage man-woman can be considered as the opposing view, and I would also support its deletion, but it is not included in this vote as I do not consider it as incivil etc. Ian13ID:540053 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Errr, how is that the 'opposing' view? First of all, one is taking about sex, the other about marriage, and secondly, they both seem to be from the "homosexuality is immoral" camp. (I realize that's not why this one was made, but that's the target audience). -- nae'blis (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What I mean is people may interpret them both to be implying the same opposition to homosexuality, however I was listing why I only nominated this one. Ian13ID:540053 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. See Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Sexuality for the discussion that led to the creation of this template. Three people agreed that a template expressing such a common, noteworthy view, as long as it is worded carefully so as to target a sexual practice rather than a person, is no more or less inappropriate than the many "anti-racism" userboxes we have on Userboxes/Beliefs. There is little real difference unless we factor in whether we agree with the views expressed in the template, in which case we are censoring views based on how palatable we find them, which is not good practice for promoting an open and friendly environment on Wikipedia, where people are permitted to express themselves (so long as they are dedicated to improving Wikipedia's articles and remain civil and tolerant of other editors' views as well) regardless of how unpopular or offensive their views may be. I believe that the only two factors we should consider in templates like this is (A) whether the view expressed is common enough to make for a decent userbox (i.e. whether enough people will use it on their page, which it's too early to decide on since this template was only made yesterday), and (B) whether the view expressed is noteworthy enough to be a helpful distinction. Both apply here. It is not incivil to have an ignorant and false opinion and wish to express that in a colored rectangle; such opinion boxes should be used to open a dialogue between disagreeing parties, and to draw on the resources of people with unusual opinions on Wikipedia for articles they may be able to help with, not to factionalize and start wars between individuals. As soon as we fall into the trap of deciding which opinions are or aren't "acceptable" for userboxes based on our own morality and understanding of the world, we run the risk of seeming to be supportive of every other userbox we have; by not deleting this view, we show that userboxes are not a value judgment of whether the opinion is "good" or not, just a way for people to express in an honest and open way what they believe to facilitate dialogue and understanding and prevent misunderstandings and the oppression of unpopular views (even when those views are despicable). -Silence 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggested against its creation, which you seem to discredit, and 3 is not a whole concensious in my view, plus I only count 2 vague supports for its creation, oppising what I say does not automatically make you support the other party. To create it during an ongoing discussion was initself a little incivil. Ian13ID:540053 18:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believed that your points had been adequately addressed in the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Userboxes/Sexuality, Template talk:User marriage man-woman, and Template talk:User homosexual-no. I was not under the impression that we needed to arrive at consensus before creating userbox templates, and I would note that you are the only one who opposed this template. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Please read the discussions of this issue at Template talk:User homosexual-no and Template talk:User marriage man-woman before voting.  I am contesting the deletion of the image at the Commons because it definitely did not fall under any of the speedy deletion criteria there, but I don't know my way around the Commons very well so it may take a while.  I believe this deletion was completely inappropriate and have explained why at the Commons VP.  I am just wondering, what kind of NPOV do we have if it's okay for us to have six userbox templates expressing various LGBT-acceptance views and not one that states simply, calmly, and politely that the user believes homosexual intercourse to be immoral?  If we can have userboxes opposed to religion, war, monarchism, Marxism, and so on and so forth, why not this one?  If we can't bear to even speak of this POV on userpages, how are we supposed to represent it neutrally in articles? - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just for the record. I have opposed boxes that attack religions as well. -- Sneltrekker †My Talk 18:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This box has no use except offending. The marriage one states an opinion, this one just says we are immoral people. -- Sneltrekker †My Talk 18:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This would be easy if the text were "This user considers being black to be immoral." Come on now. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To both of the above - read the userbox again. It does not say, and has never said, "This user believes homosexuals to be immoral."  It says, "This user believes homosexual intercourse" to be immoral.  There is a big difference there. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see a big difference. There is a difference, but it's only the PC'ness of the wording. Wouldn't a box like: "This user is straigth?" Be a better opposite for the LGB boxes? -- Sneltrekker †My Talk 18:46, 25 January 2006 (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 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 per authors request → Aza Toth 23:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:RDT
Delete — This is a shortcut (redirect) I have created to the now-obsolete Template:Reference desk-Topic, which is also on TfD. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete okay Tedernst | talk 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Author request; to-be unused redirect. -Xol 22:04, 25 January 2006 (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 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 per authors request → Aza Toth 23:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Reference desk-Topic
Delete — This is a template I have created as an alternative to Template:Reference desk. The addition has been incorporated into the latter, and this one is obsolete. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 12:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete okay Tedernst | talk 21:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - author request; merged with another template. -Xol 22:03, 25 January 2006 (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 page.