Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 September 17



Template:Uw-talkpageremoved

 * 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) 16:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Uw-talkpageremoved

At my talk page, recently  regarding this template. While I do note that Uw-blocknotalk also covers removal of talk page access, that template is designed for blocks with immediate removal of talk page access, while this template (Uw-talkpageremoved) should be used when an already-existing block is modified to remove talk page access. Personally I'm not sure either way, whether to merge this template with Uw-blocknotalk or not, so I'm bringing this up for discussion. Hey Mid  (contribs) 16:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Removing talk page access due to abuse is typically a pretty exceptional activity. I'd rather that admins left personal messages when doing so rather than just templating. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, I agree with Chris.  Alex discussion ★ 10:50, 18 September 2011 (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:Anatomical

 * 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 moved to Sfan00 IMG's userspace and deleted. lifebaka ++ 15:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Anatomical

Contrary to established policy of NOT CENSORED. I would have speedy deletion under T2, except its obviously going to be controversial. See.  DGG ( talk ) 17:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it, for now. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the template isn't actually censoring the images concerned, is it? It's just a textbox below the image. In which case WP:NOTCENSORED is not a relevant reason for deletion. There seems to be broader discussion going on in terms of image filtering &c, and I wouldn't be surprised if this template could be used by one or more automated tools in a fashion related to the badimage list. If that broader discussion ends and these templates still aren't used, I would support deletion then, but that would be because they're redundant rather than because of any supposed censorship. bobrayner (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete. Terrible, awful, horrible, no-good, very rotten, bad, bad, bad idea. Call it "warning", "rating", or whatever you like - but censorship by any other name smells just as rank. We already have a sensible enough "bad image" list, and I'm sorry, Bob, maybe I'm mis-reading you, but you're coming across as somewhat eager to see these templates eventually become some sort of preemptive bad image system - and I find that absolutely chilling. These templates should be deleted for much the same reason that we got rid of and other such misguided templates. Badger Drink (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a redundant and unencyclopedic disclaimer. Prolog (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now unused. I still think some kind of advisory mechanism is needed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:NOTCENSORED; WP:NODISCLAIMER.  No advisory mechanism is needed as that would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NODISCLAIMERCurb Chain (talk) 11:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The template should have been speedied because if the creator did want input on these templates, as evidenced in the ANI thread, he should have created them in his userspace.Curb Chain (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Per, comment -> Userfy pending further debate? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Now moved to userspace... Further comments should be made there :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't have a problem in principle with tagging some images as potentially offensive. But we already do that: it's what the Bad image list is for. The creator of this template claims it's 'intended to be used independently of badimage', but I don't see how it isn't simply redundant to that existing template. Robofish (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2011 (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:Kinky

 * 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 speedy delete under G7, per Sfan00 IMG's comments below. lifebaka ++ 15:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kinky

Contrary to established policy of NOT CENSORED. I would have speedy deletion under T2, except its obviously going to be  controversial. See.  DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it, for now. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the template isn't actually censoring the images concerned, is it? It's just a textbox below the image. In which case WP:NOTCENSORED is not a relevant reason for deletion. There seems to be broader discussion going on in terms of image filtering &c, and I wouldn't be surprised if this template could be used by one or more automated tools in a fashion related to the badimage list. If that broader discussion ends and these templates still aren't used, I would support deletion then, but that would be because they're redundant rather than because of any supposed censorship. bobrayner (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Strong delete. Terrible, awful, horrible, no-good, very rotten, bad, bad, bad idea. Call it "warning", "rating", or whatever you like - but censorship by any other name smells just as rank. We already have a sensible enough "bad image" list, and I'm sorry, Bob, maybe I'm mis-reading you, but you're coming across as somewhat eager to see these templates eventually become some sort of preemptive bad image system - and I find that absolutely chilling. These templates should be deleted for much the same reason that we got rid of and other such misguided templates. Badger Drink (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as a redundant and unencyclopedic disclaimer. Prolog (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now unused. Can be speedy as user request. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete should have been speedied because it misrepresents protocol and would not be controversial.  WP:NOTCENSORED; WP:NODISCLAIMER.Curb Chain (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The template should have been speedied because if the creator did want input on these templates, as evidenced in the ANI thread, he should have created them in his userspace.Curb Chain (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy as original creator request. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, same reason as above: seems entirely redundant to the existing badimage template. Robofish (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2011 (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:LC-cwpb

 * 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) 16:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * LC-cwpb

Redundant to Information and LOC-image. Kelly hi! 00:38, 17 September 2011 (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.