Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 27



Template:User blp delete

 * 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 to delete

Unused and unhelpfully divisive template. (I many not be a BLP deletionist, but I certainly am a userbox deletionist.) Scott Mac (Doc) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I find all such wiki-philosophies (inclusionism, deletionism, immediatism, eventualism, et cetera) to be equally unhelpfully divisive - that is, the act of identifying with such philosophies is divisive, never mind talking about your identification. Editors do already identify with such philosophies, however, and they are allowed to say that they do so, and they should be allowed to do so - it is a disclosure of potential bias, and therefore of use to the community. The act of placing tiny rectangles around such a statement doesn't change any of the preceding, so there's no reason to delete. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is wanting to ban people identifying themselves with wiki-philosophies. However, if it is unhelpful (as you agree it is) then we shouldn't encourage it by providing ready-made bumper stickers. People may hardcode this if they must.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi Scott! I created the template to give an identity to administrators who'd want to tell the world their orientation towards BLP deletion. Wrt your view about this being divisive, I think the BLP issue has itself been divisive to a larger extent in the context of what you mean. Therefore, give the template a few months, and see how its usage grows. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  10:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Better the talk about differences than to label on another like this. Of course people are free to do it, but why do you think it helpful to the goal of the project to encourage them to do so? Tell me how creating this helps wikipedia?--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Scott. Frankly, if you're feeling too strongly about the template being kept, I'm in general not too non-ambivalent on the issue as the template, in its current form, really doesn't matter. Nobody knows about it; it'd have anyway gone into disuse in a few weeks from now. In other words, feel free to delete it if you feel strongly about it. I'd rather keep a good administrator on the project than a template he disputes. '' ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣  03:37, 1 February 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:Joan Alexander

 * 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

Unused, and are these types of templates not deprecated for actors? &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. As the nominator correctly points out, creating actor templates to link individual works that said actor happened to be in would lead to galloping templatitis as each individual work could have a dozen or more of them. And it's not as though Joan Alexander occupies some special sphere of notability so rarefied that there'd be a compelling reason to make an exception just for her. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 29 January 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:Vicki Vola

 * 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

Unused, and are these types of templates not deprecated for actors? &mdash; TAnthonyTalk 04:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep . Why not add it to all the articles it refers to? It seems like a perfectly good template to me. ike9898 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the concept of not having actor templates is that for any movie you could then have like half a dozen such templates for the main actors.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 05:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm convinced. Delete. ike9898 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. As the nominator correctly points out, creating actor templates to link individual works that said actor happened to be in would lead to galloping templatitis as each individual work could have a dozen or more of them. And it's not as though Vicki Vola occupies some special sphere of notability so rarefied that there'd be a compelling reason to make an exception just for her. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 29 January 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.