Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 7



Template:User countries visited

 * 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 Userfied as per the German Userbox Solution. EVula 18:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)



User:Reywas92/Userboxes/Continents Visited (sorry, I don't know how to include a template code without including it...something like that...) is the userspace equivalent of this userbox, which uses the template space and should thus be deleted. Xiner 03:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You positively sure the username above is correct? --Nehwyn 06:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Reywas92/Userboxes/Continents Visited is not the same as the countries visited box (continents <-> countries). Still you could probably adopt the box or add it to one of the existing archives, if you wanted to. CharonX /talk 08:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone should userfy Template:User countries visited.  User:Reywas92/Userboxes/Continents Visited is a completely different box.  Reywas92 Talk 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I missed the difference. I am keeping the nomination for the same reason, but yes, someone please userfy it. Thanks. Xiner 00:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy - I'd be happy to take it. --GW_SimulationsUser Page 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * GUSed to User:EVula/Userboxes/countries visited. EVula 16:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Finished redirecting all links to the old location (except for misc. links like this page and a single userpage that I just couldn't do it without recoding his page), so I'm closing this (not much else to debate). I hope I'm not stepping out of line in doing so. EVula 18:28, 8 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:Unencyclopedic

 * 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 to keep. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"This article may be unencyclopedic." The problem with this tag is that it's unclear what that means, and that the tag is used for a variety of different circumstances, such as cleanup, importance and npov. Simply put, this tag is confusing because of its unclear usage; people should be encouraged to instead use tags such as the above, which are clearer and better established.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:30, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As another member stated, there is no other template for tagging WP:NOT in general. Discussion should always take place on the talk page anyway, so what's the beef? Alan.ca 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a useful template.  All of these warning templates need further explanations on the Talk page of the article.  This template can be used  for an article that is just short of , but is in need of a message stronger than  . WVhybrid 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, for reasons stated by WVhybrid. Brimba 15:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * weak keep nom makes a point this is rather vague in its usage, but it's widely used nonetheless, perhaps it could mention the common reasons people add it, hoax, original research, npov, etc. though I don't think cleanup is really a good one in terms of an article being unencyclopedic. --W.marsh 22:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also similar to the cleanup template, it could suggest using a more specific tag. --W.marsh 22:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete instruction creep. We don't need templates for every single grey area. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thought about it.. and.. yes.. I changed my mind.. Keep. -- Ned Scott 00:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - unfortunately cleanup, importance and npov dont cover WP:NOT as this template does. Specifically lists, galleries, misc cruft and others covered by Wikipedia is not a directory and/or Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Gl e n 13:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This is useful as a prompt to the editors of the page that is less harsh than a prod or AfD listing. Dekimasu 15:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's certainly less harsh -- it doesn't say anything. Let's say I'd like to know in one paragraph (pretty generous I think) what you would improve specifically on a page with this tag? Could you tell me? Xiner 21:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It appears that the above 'keep' voters disagree with one another as to what the template should be used for. I'm sure there's room for "intermediate" templates (and we have several already) in general but nobody has yet explained in a non-ambiguous way the need (or indeed, purpose) of this one specifically.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per W.marsh. This template is very general and should be changed to any of these templates, but in cases where the text doesn't sound encyclopedic for other minor reasons, such as too much quoting, it should be kept. Michaelas10 14:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If the reason is minor, then the punishment is certainly way out of line compared to the crime. And it doesn't help editors; no one ever knows what problem these generic tags refer to, and they never seem to come down. We should instead treat such "minor" problems like we treat every other. Xiner 13:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Very Conditional Keep. If I chance upon a page with this tag, I'd have NO idea where to start. The term is so broad that it could be construe to refer to most problems on a Wikipedia page, thus providing editors of the page with no help whatsoever. Only if a more specific explanation can be required to accompany the tag do I vote to keep this template. If an article is so bad that it could be defaced with this tag on the top of the page, it should instead be defaced with a one-liner on the top explaining the situation much better. Xiner 01:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This very general tag seems most effective at giving the lazy Wikipedian an official-looking way of declaring, "I don't like this article's style." Much more clear, specific, and useful templates exist and may, without extravagant effort, be created. —DCGeist 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * '''Strong keep"" per Dekimasu. Addhoc 11:17, 15 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 VG large:image left

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 03:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unused. Uses hiddenStructure CSS hack. Ligulem 11:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant with Template:Infobox VG anyway, in addition to those reasons. LittleDan talk 16:49, 9 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 CVG large:image right

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 03:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Unused. Uses hiddenStructure CSS hack. Ligulem Ligulem 11:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant with Template:Infobox CVG anyway, in addition to those reasons. LittleDan talk 16:50, 9 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 CVG 2

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 03:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Used in one single article. Uses hiddenStructure CSS hack. Fork of Template:Infobox CVG. Ligulem 11:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Now it's not used in any articles
 * Delete Redundant with Template:Infobox CVG. LittleDan talk 16:50, 9 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 CVG2

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 03:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Used in one single article. Uses hiddenStructure CSS hack. Fork of Template:Infobox CVG. Ligulem 11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant with Template:Infobox CVG. LittleDan talk 16:51, 9 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:The Simpsons season 1

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 03:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is redundant, as all Simpsons season 1 episode articles (in fact: the articles of all Simspsons episodes) already have a list of episodes of the current season integrated into their infobox. See Template:Infobox Simpsons episode. The template is redundant. — Mütze 15:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Reywas92 Talk 16:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 13 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:User Idolatry

 * 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 deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 03:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This userbox makes no sense whatsoever. It claims the user is against racism, but doesn't admire three random social activists. There is also a picture of Hitler for which no reason is given. Thirdly, the name is not applicable to the contents. Lastly, it's only used on two userpages. --Keitei (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Idolatry has exactly... nothing to do with racism, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Malcom X, nor Hitler. Even if this were modified to say something like "This user worships objects, idols, or ideas as opposed to a supreme being" it would still be innapropriate. In essence, this is two userboxes, neither of which should exist.--SB | T 22:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, this makes no sense at all. Dekimasu 15:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ...just odd. EVula 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy If some people like this userbox, they should be able to keep it as per the German Userbox Solution, as long as its in the user namespace. There is nothing really wrong with the content of the userbox, even if it may be offensive to some people. LittleDan talk 17:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Being offensive to some people means there's something wrong with the content. This is not something that should be used on userpages.--SB | T 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia is not. Just because something is offensive doesn't mean it should be removed, especially for content in userspace. Gayniggers From Outer Space may be offensive, but that doesn't mean we should delete the article.
 * My vote for deletion had more to do with its nonsensical mish-mash of concepts than anything else. EVula 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's utter nonsense. Not being censored applies to not deleting articles or images that are informative and encyclopedic simply because they may offend some people; it means nothing when discussing userpages. Userpages are for explaining information about an editor only insofar as it is relevant to Wikipedia. Any material unconnected to Wikipedia &mdash; especially content that is "divisive and inflammatory" &mdash; must be removed immediately.--SB | T 22:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ...okay. Sorry, poor argument wording on my part, but it should be pointed out that "divisive or inflammatory" isn't quite the same as "offensive". However, this is all a moot point; I've userfied the template to User:EVula/Userboxes/Idolatry. Moving on... EVula 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete only used on talk pages and makes no sense. Cedars 01:19, 14 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.