Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 1



Template:Ninoy Aquino

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The template is a collection of links to the Philippine history by which former senator Aquino was elected, some of them is national and some are local, and many of them does not even mention his name. The events are too large enough to cover him in detail (for example, he didn't initiated those events, it's just a series of events by which he is a senator that time. Apart from the article of his namesake, the airport and the Ninoy Aquino Day (the wiki article for Manila Stock Exchange is a redirect and does not mention him so far) articles are wholly and have direct relation to him. We have articles for presidents and major political figures, but a navigational template which is a collection of election links and links not direct to him implies redundancy. JL 09 q?c 14:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Particularly he never become a President, but the template was insufficient and became a senator for at least 4 years until was given guilty during Plaza Miranda bombing in 1971, then declaring martial law in that country, and imprisoned in Fort Bonifacio at 1973 until his exile in 1980. ApprenticeFan  work 02:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete most of the electoral history links should be in his article. They are less useful to the other articles where this is used. Regarding the rest of the box, delete per WP:NENAN.  Imzadi  1979   →   09:17, 2 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Caitlin Crosby

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This template consists of the artist article, an album article and a redirect. A navigational template is not needed for two articles that are already connected to each other. Aspects (talk) 06:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NENAN.  Imzadi  1979   →   09:15, 2 August 2010 (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 section.

Template:Kipzock

 * 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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. On the subject of 'users displaying this template when it is impossible to qualify for'; I would point out that a duck can call itself a swan, but that doesn't mean the other ducks won't laugh at them, knowing they are, in fact, a duck. – xeno talk 20:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete template's only use outside of the Service awards page (and supporting pages) is by two users (12) who have nowhere near the edits required for this level service award, amd are more than a little "Snarky" when reminded of this fact. Delete it now, and recreate it in a decade or 2 when there may be some editors that deserve it. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  01:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and place a note at the Service Awards page that the award level exists. I would likewise delete the other related templates and userboxes. When a user does qualify, I'm sure they'll comment on the talk page at that time so the template can be recreated.  Imzadi  1979   →   09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This template is an integral part of of a Service Award Scheme. The award(s) is intended to be given by editors themselves at their own discretion. Discussions elsewhere clearly indicated an opposition to a strict entitlement policy. Editors must be trusted and allowed to choice the right/ wrong award at their own discretions, as statement of their own capabilities and intellect. Wikipedia does not operate dogma-based policies. Mootros (talk)
 * Keep It seems a bit unusual to me to delete it only for it to be recreated again later on. It's not causing any harm to the project at the moment. Also, the milestones may be changed in the future so that editors can achieve the top award. Thanks.  Set Sail For The Seven Seas   295° 20' 15" NET   19:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CRYSTAL. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is speculating about anything in this template; it merely states that in order to put this on your userspace you need fact x and y. Mootros (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Award is currently unawardable, and is used only fraudulently. Recreate if and when there's actually a purpose to the award.  Not only is it pointless now, but the form of the award should be left to those preparing to legitimately award it, not based on what some other editors though, ten years earlier in 2010. TJRC (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Fraudulently? This template is intended for userspace; people claim all sorts of things on their userspace. Will we be deleting more userboxes? Mootros (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is part of the whole Service Awards ladder which has been talked over and worked out by many editors over the years. It seems odd to delete something which is just going to be re-created later, and also to have as space more or less saying "there is an award here, but we can't show it to you now because it's not allowed to exist yet". It's not really hurting anyone, it gives people something to aspire to, and it's part of an integrated structure. Herostratus (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The service awards are a bit silly as a whole, and the award will be useful not too far in the future. — the Man in Question (in question)  02:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Not far in the future" is a matter of some debate, with the earliest legitimate use of this template occurring in 2016. Wuh Wuz  Dat  19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's already legitimately in use today for aspirational purposes, as a symbol of something editors are working towards. Mootros (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Deleting it on the basis that it is used, even undeservedly so, is no argument for deletion. These awards are meant to be fun and anyone can use them at any time without obligation to adhere to the eligibility guidelines as is specifically mentioned on the awards page. This fact renders all complaints about fraudulent use moot. Plus as Herostratus mentions it is part of an integrated structure. Deleting it distorts that structure without good reason. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: the structure has already been distorted, by extending it beyond reasonable use at this time, removing this and the other offending templates restores the structure to a usable extent. Wuh  Wuz  Dat  19:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any distortion only incrementally changing requirements for the award. Mootros (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Something which is used only to deliberately post misinformation is not helpful. The arguments for keep because it will be used sometime don't hold water: it can be restored at that time. As for "anyone can use them at any time without obligation to adhere to the eligibility guidelines as is specifically mentioned on the awards page", where on earth does it say that? I can't see it. If it is a reference to "you just judge for yourself which one you are eligible", there is only one intelligent way of reading that in the context (particularly coming in the sentence after "It is achieved strictly by a mechanical count of time registered and number of edits"). In the context it is clearly intended to mean that you check for yourself when you have achieved the necessary level of experience, not that you are free to lie and claim you have when you haven't. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support deletion (since IPs aren't allowed to vote :-) per JamesBWatson. The purpose of this template is very clear, and nobody can earn it before Wikipedia's 15th birthday in 2016. Using it now perfectly meets the definition given in WP:HOAX; "an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real". For the same reason, templates Template:Vanguard Editor, Template:Bordonth and Template:Ultimate Editor should probably go as well. 86.136.141.230 (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also a great example of instruction creep, trying to specify how Wikipedians will organise themselves in 6 years' time, without a good reason for such prescription. Reminds me of WP:Requests for process :-) 86.136.141.230 (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with the IP editor., template:Ultimate Editor, Template:Bordonth, Template:Ultimate Editor Userbox, Template:Bordonth Userbox, Template:Ultimate Editor Ribbon, Template:Ultimate Editor Ribbon, Template:Vanguard Editor Userbox, Template:Kipzock Userbox, and Template:Vanguard Editor Ribbon all will not have a legitimate use for 3 to 6 years each, as Wikipedia itself is not old enough to have users with the length of service required for these awards (unless the users claiming these service awards have the use of a working time machine, and are willing to risk a paradox by using them). Wuh  Wuz  Dat  01:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unregistered users are in fact allowed to vote (or !vote, or whatever) in deletion debates. They can't in RFA, and they can't create AFD pages but they can contribute to them (see here) and to other XfDs. I therefore propose that the IP above be permabanned for misquoting guidelines, not to mention missing a ). Olaf Davis (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Will the deletion of this template protect us from the possibility of so-called "hoaxes"? Will we be deleting the entire service award scheme, in case "hoaxes" occur with other templates ? Mootros (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't we just delete them when/if they're created? It's not like this one is hard to identify as inapplicable to present editors. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so no need to delete the template(s) now? Mootros (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I meant. You asked if we'd be deleting the whole award scheme to protect ourselves from silly ones - but I see no reason we can't keep the scheme but delete any individual one which is deemed to be a hoax. If people agree this one is pointless we can remove it - and if someone creates another pointless one that too - without prejudicing the whole system. Olaf Davis (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Would removing this template (on the grounds that it can be used for a hoax) not logically mean that all other templates ought to be removed, because they too can be misused (regardless whether they are generally awardable or not)? Put in another way, is this template not equally open to misuse as all the others? Why two different yardsticks? Mootros (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But the point is this one can only be used as a hoax (and that will remain so for over five more years). Anything that has a legitimate use can also be misused, but this has no legitimate use in the near future. But to be honest it's really not that important - I think we've already spent more effort discussing this issue than it's really worth, and certainly more than I expected to when I corrected the editor above. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is its legitimated use not its purpose of being an upper level (of an integral scheme) to which people ought to aspire? Mootros (talk) 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep&mdash;harmless. –Grondemar 03:43, 9 August 2010 (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 section.