Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 18



Template:Non test ODI cricketer

 * 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 suckas. // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Unused. Uses defunct hiddenStructure. Ligulem 22:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No use for it, and it can be undeleted later. --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 02:24, 27 October 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:Wr &c.

 * 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 Keep all. important templates for communicating and warning other Wikipedians. Madchester 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)



As has been evidenced in endless discussion on WP:ANI, Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings and various other places, the wr series of templates causes a lot more harm than good, endorsing harrassment and edit warring on others' talk pages. This one is particularly problematic because administrators generally just don't block people who remove warnings. An attempt was made to reword it, and that attempt did have a tiny bit of merit, but that keeps getting reverted so maybe deletion is a better answer. JYolkowski // talk 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as a consensus was reached to keep all of the warning removal templates in the previous TFD discussion. Furthermore, the outcome of Removing warnings poll would seem to indicate a supermajority consensus to prohibit the removal of legitimate warnings.  I explained the rationale for prohibiting the removal of legitimate warnings here. John254 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That poll was stacked, which is a perfect demonstration of why we discuss, don't vote. JYolkowski // talk 01:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as per above. If we've templates have been chosen to be kept before, we should keep them. Additionally, I understand that "a supermajority doesn't mean consensus", but it's certainly a lot more than a superminority. I think you see what I'm saying. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The templates were all nominated together last time. Since some are better than others, some people may have chosen to keep them all.  Furthermore, last time they were nominated there wasn't so much fallout from people applying the other templates.  JYolkowski // talk 01:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per John254. This is the warning-removal warning I use most often, as well, and it often seems to give the message.  -- FaerieInGrey 01:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I don't use it often but it needs to be there for some cases of obstinate talk erasers. -- Armadillo From Hell 03:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but reword to match actual practice. Despite what the template implies, people do not generally get blocked for removing talk page content.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless reworded -- I've added the entire series of wr templates; they should be managed as a unit. I'm the fellow who tried to moderate the language from dishonest and pompous to straightforwardly confrontational. All kinds of principles go by the board when templates of this kind are left on user talk: AGF goes right out the window because the presumption is that the user is doing wrong; civility -- while necessary -- cannot be blown up into a little cotton candy ball of indirect euphemisms because we assume that the user is having a hard time getting the message. Anybody who applies one of these templates does not speak for the community when he threatens to block; it's not a blocking offense to remove other warning templates -- however foolish it makes one look.


 * I've been attacked, threatened, and blocked for trying to introduce some reality to these templates. My efforts to improve them by supplying a consistent look and proper documentation have been ignored. My last comment was that I was the best friend of the pro-RM faction outside that faction -- because I do agree that removing warnings is a good sign that somebody doesn't want to be a part of the community and needs help to leave. But that's my opinion. The proposal to make removing warnings a blockable offense has failed three times on three different pages, all heavily advertised on cent; that's a fact.


 * Let me emphasize an important point about TfD. We do not get to decide here what the content of these templates is going to be -- although we can try to influence it. Any or all can be reworded in order to salvage the idea -- in the face of the failed proposals. I have advanced the argument -- so far disregarded by the needy faction -- that IAR and admin discretion permits blocking for removing warnings so long as the blocking admin takes personal responsibility for it. That's a slender thread but I'd be happy to see the templates remain under that umbrella. If they are consistently reverted to hostile, nasty, arrogant assertions of policy-that-is-not, then we must take the scissors away from baby. John Reid 18:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment John Reid was recently blocked for "Trolling, disruption." because of his disruptive edits to template:wr3 and his threats against me. Although he attempted to nominate template:wr3 for deletion, he was unable to place a TFD notice on it because the template was fully protected to prevent him from making further disruptive edits to it. John Reid is now continuing his disruption by making personal attacks against me in this discussion: he claims that if his disruptive edits to the warning removal templates are not restored, "then we must take the scissors away from baby." The fact that John Reid has now resorted to personal attacks suggests that his argument is so untenable as to be indefensible in civil language. I will, however, respond to one of John Reid's contentions. His claim that"The proposal to make removing warnings a blockable offense has failed three times on three different pages, all heavily advertised on cent; that's a fact."is offered without any supporting evidence whatsoever. John254 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you take everything personally, then everything is going to look like a personal attack to you. I haven't yet said anything at all about you as a person, nor shall I; your comments say enough. I'm only concerned about these templates; the way they read and the way in which they are used.


 * How do you hope to influence this discussion by citing the blocking you prompted? I could have been unblocked immediately if I had requested it -- but I prefer to serve out all blocks, no matter where they come from; I think it's better to uphold process than provoke a wheel war. It's not as though I can't use a day off -- or a week. Calling my criticism of wr-series "trolling" does not make it so. Calling it "disruption" doesn't relieve you of the necessity to answer my objections in civil fashion.


 * I have nominated all wr-series templates for deletion; the tfd notice is on the corresponding talk page. Do you think you can protect a template to avoid TfD? Sorry, that's not how this works.


 * I'm not calling you, personally, "baby"; I'm making a general statement about the template and its users. If all those who use these templates cannot edit them to include temperate and honest language, then we, as a community, must take these dangerous toys away. Sorry.


 * When Removing warnings failed to achieve consensus, pro-RWs tried to jumpstart it again with Removing warnings poll. That failed too, despite vote-packing. Now you've got a page up at Centralized discussion/Removing warnings; it's not doing any better than the others. You've also failed to edit Vandalism to your taste. The community does think removing warnings is "bad" -- wrong, foolish, what have you. It does not think this is a blocking offense.


 * Since community consensus does not support blocking for warning removal, the passive voice and the royal we are inappropriate. Since policy does not exist to support your position, insinuations to that effect are inappropriate. Since you, personally, intend to go out on a limb and block a user anyway, you need to be honest enough to say so and take personal responsibility for your actions.


 * Even if I am a rude, offensive, nasty fool, this does not let you off the hook. Intellectual honesty demands that you discuss substantive issues logically and rationally. My arguments are lucid and you have failed to address them in any way. You've made patently illogical arguments, such as:


 * "...these templates are generally applied by users with the substitution syntax, so that the current text of the templates is inserted into the edit history of the users who apply them...." (therefore) "...reinsertion of highly uncivil language bordering on personal attacks...into these templates could be interpreted as disruption."


 * Show me how one thing follows from the other. Indeed, your argument is just the reverse of reality; if a template is transcluded and later edited, one might feel that one's words had been retroactively altered. But if you substitute a template, then regardless of later edits, the original words stand as they were. So, whatever are you trying to say?


 * You cannot dictate community consensus by sheer volume and venom. You need to reply to my comments without personal attack, allegations of personal attack, threats, and the occasional beating. Most of all, you need to swallow the bitter pill than not everybody agrees with you -- nor must they. John Reid 14:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not employing the fact that an one administrator reverted John Reid's edit to template:wr3, another administrator protected template:wr3 to prevent further disruption, and a third administrator blocked John Reid for disruption based, in part, on his edits to template:wr3 as a ad hominem argument. Rather, these administrative actions reflect an expert judgment that John Reid's edits to template:wr3 were disruptive and inappropriate.  This is not a personal attack on John Reid, it merely describes his actions. The disruptive nature of the refactoring of template:wr3 is relevant to this discussion because John Reid is arguing that the warning removal templates should be deleted because his refactoring was reverted.  Furthermore, my characterization of John Reid's arguments as personal attacks describes the arguments, not John Reid, and attempts to directly criticize the arguments themselves, not to criticize John Reid and his arguments by extension.  The insertion of highly uncivil language bordering on personal attacks into warning templates applied with the substitution syntax is disruptive because the highly uncivil language is being placed in the edit history of the users who apply the templates, even if such users are unaware of the current state of the template, and do not wish to use highly uncivil language.  Finally, the red x marks on Removing warnings and Removing warnings poll are part of template:historical, and denote the historical status of the pages, not rejection. John254 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 254, if you're not bashing me personally, why does my name come up in your comments so often? John Reid 02:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because I'm responding to your comments, which argue for the deletion of the warning removal templates on the basis of the fact that your edits to these templates were reverted. John254 02:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No. You are absolutely wrong. I argue that these templates must be deleted or edited on the merits of the language used, not on who wrote it. This is only personal to you. John Reid 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I use these all the time. I can't really see what harm they may cause.-- Hús  ö  nd  00:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per the consensus that warning removal is inappropriate. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment as for the re-wording I'm starting a project to harmonise all talk page templates and warnings. Once I have all the warnings listed and a direction, I will then approach the community for suggestions and people willing to participate. Please see here Regards Khukri ( talk  .  contribs ) 09:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete at least wr3 and wr4 as uncivil and too often used for harassment of good faith editors. And they are not as essential as people say they are: if you see a vandal vandalizing, you check his contributions anyway, so you'll see whether he edited his own talk page and you will know if he has removed warnings. Then you revert the warning removal and add a new warning. Block vandals for vandalizing, not for editing their talk page. Kusma (討論) 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I don't consider template:wr3 and template:wr4 to be any more uncivil than template:test3 and template:test4, on which they are based. Furthermore, all vandalism warnings are doubtless misused "for harassment of good faith editors". Is the deletion of all vandalism warning templates justified, merely because some people misuse them?  Finally, in many cases cleaning up warning removals may not be accomplished by simply "revert[ing] the warning removal and add[ing] a new warning" if subsequent warnings or other comments were added after the warning removal.  In this case, warning removal can produce a fragmented talk page in which each warning is only visible in its own revision.  This problem can be corrected; however, doing so may require a significant amount of effort.  Users participating in RC patrol should not need to spend a large amount of time refactoring vandals' talk pages, simply because the vandals insist on removing legitimate warnings. John254 01:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per above and these templates are very useful especially for those on RC patrol who don't have the time for a thorough check of the history for all the vandals. --WikiSlasher 14:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep as WikiSlasher says, very useful for RC Patrol. Also, some users may not realize that they shouldn't remove warnings from their talk pages.  RedRollerskate 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, yes, these templates are useful. So is a power saw. We build saws so they cut wood, not people. These templates, as they stand, do more harm than good. If you think you need such tools, build them so that they do no unavoidable harm. John Reid 08:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I don't see what's so bad about these templates. All they say is "please stop doing this or we'll be forced to punish you."  I don't see what's so harmful about that.  I believe in being civil, but at the same time, people need to know we're not playing around when we tell them to quit vandalizing.  RedRollerskate 19:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. The problem, however, is that we don't punish (i.e. block) people for doing it, even though we discourage it.  I had nominated wr4 independently of the others for this reason (there's no point in threatening to block people if no-one will actually block them).  These templates aren't for vandalising, these are for removing warnings.  The consensus on removing warnings is that attempting to enforce non-removal of warnings causes more harm than the removal of warnings does.  JYolkowski // talk 20:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? I could have sworn I'd seen somebody get blocked from editing their talk page for removing warnings.  I might be wrong, though.  RedRollerskate 22:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Like any other warning template, these can be used inappropriately. I agree that there is a gray area regarding what constitutes a "legitimate" warning, but there are enough obvious cases where it's quite useful to have these. I suspect that most RC patrollers use them like I do; to warn folks who are trying to hide the fact that they've been warned about spam/vandalism/nonsense articles, or to be disruptive. I don't see any issues with the current warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohnoitsjamie (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 October 2006


 * Keep as per ArmadilloFromHell above. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? The only people who seem to be keen to get rid of these are the vandals. No way. Gl e n 23:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Your argument is a straw man and hence isn't really valid in any way.  Take a look at Centralized discussion/Removing warnings for a large number of examples contradicting your position.  JYolkowski // talk 01:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep because some vandals think it's fun to alter warning messages to completely different meanings that would not necessarily be covered by the templates.  While I don't recall seeing anybody blocked for going past  and usually the vandal does something else to warrant a block, sometimes these templates are necessary.  It could use a little rewording, but not deletion. -- Gogo Dodo 03:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful. --kingboyk 14:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. TfD is not the place to change current practice (these are heavily used templates); at least a new guideline will be needed for a delete verdict here, and possibly a new policy. Even if users are rarely blocked for going past &#123;{subst:wr4}}, the fact that they're removing warnings suggests that they're getting warnings. If an editor is given an incorrect warning they can just strike it and place a note explaining why. The lower-numbered templates (1 and possibly 0 and 2) are useful as informational templates to let people know what the rules are (going again by common practice rather than poll results); maybe the higher-numbered ones aren't as useful, but I still think they're worth keeping. --ais523 08:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - These templates should be kept, at least until a consensus is reached on Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings. Apart from that, my personal opinion is that these templates are needed. --Nehwyn 16:36, 24 October 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:La Salle University campus

 * 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 ? // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Unused. Uses defunct hiddenStructure. Ligulem 22:50, 18 October 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:Youngest person with a Wikipedia article

 * 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 putting it in a box. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 21:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

UE, unnecessary, doesn't contribute to the encyclopaedia, only transcluded once, and that's on the creator's userpage. Rory096 20:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Either subst and delete or userfy, depending on what the creator wants. JYolkowski // talk 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Been userfied - now found at User:Brandnewuser/Youngest person with a Wikipedia article. That should save a pointless discussion. Btw, substing the template would be pretty pointless.--Dangherous 08:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy it to your own space, not a blocked sockpuppet. pschemp | talk 21:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone should enclose this in a box - the discussion is over. --WikiSlasher 07:23, 23 October 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:Infobox Lost season one

 * 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 // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Template is no longer in use. Was replaced for the most part by List of Lost episodes and Template:LostSeason1. -- Wikipedical 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. --  Wikipedical 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No longer in use. --Elonka 05:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete', per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:22, 26 October 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:Infobox Lost season two

 * 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! // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Template is no longer in use. Was replaced for the most part by List of Lost episodes and Template:LostSeason2. -- Wikipedical 20:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. --  Wikipedical 20:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No longer in use. --Elonka 05:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete', per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 02:22, 26 October 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:Subtropical Storm One (1982) Rainfall

 * 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 // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned template, and originally was only used on one page. Delete, as nominator. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, single use template. Tito xd (?!?) 03:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. —dima/s-ko/ 02:23, 26 October 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:Disturbing

 * 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 as G4. We see this every week, and we don't want it. See also WP:NDT.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)



Highly redundant and subjective template. (a) If someone is coming to an article, they are bound to know it contains disturbing content. (b) WP:NOT censored. (c) This is being used on Tyke (elephant) and Captain Howdy. I can think of at least 10 articles I find more disturbing - child labour, AIDS, Martha Stewart, etc. This highlights how subjective it is. This template could belong on every article, or it could belong on none. riana_dzast a  16:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 16:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Guanaco 20:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't even remember which article I created it for, or whether I actually used it on anything. There's prolly more appropriate existing templates. Gus 01:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Before GusGus's recreation, the template had been blank for about a year, so it was by all effects deleted. GusGus now agrees with the deletion, so it becomes a WP:CSD speedy. Tito xd (?!?) 03:09, 19 October 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:Infobox NBA PlayerB

 * 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 del. // Pilotguy  ( Cleared to land ) 01:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Uses defunct hiddenStructure. Is unused. Before I convert this to ParserFunctions I would like to know if anybody still needs it/wants to keep it. If there is no objection, I would propose to simply delete it. Ligulem 17:01, 18 October 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.