< March 24 March 26 >

March 25, 2006

Template:Cvdis

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cvdis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 16#Category:Character-video game disambiguation, but should be listed here for the template itself. --William Allen Simpson 23:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 per T1. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Profanity[edit]

Template:Profanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template created by a single user to signal his disagreement with Wikipedia's non-censorship policies. Represents its author's POV, and clearly inappropriate. Monicasdude 13:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Town

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Town (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created by mistake by User:Coolgreen almost a year ago. Not used anywhere and initially probably intended to replicate Template:TownBG. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 13:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
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 Raul654 20:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article[edit]

Template:Good article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A major policy change has been implemented with this template, without any prior consensus or discussion. This template is intended to be placed on the *main article space* to indicate an article is "good". There is an already existing in-use template which goes on the article talk page. The whole concept of "good articles" is not currrently accepted as policy, and yet this template attempts to put it on a par with the star for featured articles (which itself was highly contentious). there are now hundreds of articles displaying this star, as a result of some automated bot adding it without bothering to ask anyone first. current standard practice is to just put a GA tag on the *talk page* only. i suggest deleting this template for now, until GA becomes official wikipedia policy. then the issue can be further discussed. Zzzzz 09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please see clarification and proposal for action at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#The good article tag on main article space. Basically we revert the "gun-jumping" addition of the template to hundreds of article main pages, but we keep the template itself until a vote about the policy change takes place. this is not an attack on you, your articles, or the good articles process. it is simply about following wikipolicy where big changes to policy are concerned. wikipolicy was not followed here. Zzzzz 16:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


While investigating, out of curiosity, the unusual prevalence of "strong" votes in this debate, an organized campaigning attempt was detected. User:RJN appears to have spammed multiple user talk pages with identical messages, specifically directing all those users to vote "keep". The concerned users uncovered so far include:
User talk:Bremen, User talk:Bob rulz, User talk:HereToHelp, User talk:Joturner, User talk:Air.dance, User talk:Gflores, User talk:Postoak, User talk:Eagleamn, User talk:Jareha, User talk:Walkerma, User talk:Homestarmy, User talk:Slambo, User talk:Wiki amateur, User talk:Jleon, User talk:Katefan0, User talk:TheGrappler, User talk:Scm83x.
While a small number of targetted messages bringing attention to the vote may indeed be considered acceptable in some circumstances, specifically ordering dozens of users to vote "keep" via talk page spam is certainly not in order. Official policy in these instances is clear:

"It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia." Also: "internal spamming means cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc"

Please consider any votes from the listed users especially carefully when tallying, and may i advise all parties involved, on both sides, to continue this debate in a "civil" manner. Using the word "strong" has no particular influence here. Thankyou. Catherine breillat 14:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you already defaced the articles by putting this non-discussed template on them in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
supporting to promote something? oh dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
funny how the creation and mass addition of this template did not require any discussion, but the deletion does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
difference: prod was an extension to the *policy* articles for deletion. this is an extension to a non-policy which is suddenly now extended to attack main article pages. second: prod went through full policy approval at all stages, it wasnt suddenly imposed out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
there is already a talk page template. so dont need another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
Conmment On reflection I'd like to second the points made by Vir - Neutral (revert to Strong Keep if GA can be approved soon.). I can see that it is not acceptable to use the template without discussion and acceptance by the community. I am surprised by the nastiness of some if the delete voters though. This is a new project and one which I think will be invaluable when properly positioned in a larger scheme. What I mean by that is: If peer review, article assesment, FA, GA, 1.0 and other separate drives can be brought together a little bit, we should see a better all round process for bringing articles from a basic beginning, through to standardised formatting and quality writing, review and verification. The GA process needs more editors and can easily be used to ensure articles are at a basic level of acceptability before domain experts need to get involved checking the content. It would be a shame if this template issue put people against the GA process instead of helping to shape it into a useful vetting process that will enhance the encyclopaedia, given time. SeanMack 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is already a talk page template. dont need another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
  • Every "good article" in existence already has a huge, pointless box at the top of its Talk page specifying exactly that; are you endorsing that two identical boxes be put on the talk page? Furthermore, every article that's ever been a "good article", according to a single user's opinion, even if it's now FAd and that's irrelevant, has a pointless box on its page. Wikipedia:Good Articles is not remotely helpful to the encyclopedia, but what it is remarkably good at doing is self-promoting itself, since its users are constantly trying to find more and more and more ways to advertise WP:GA on every aspect of Wikipedia articles, even though WP:GA is a highly subjective, speculative, still-under-construction new system that a lot of users oppose. This is because WP:GA, very much like WP:UBX (but vastly more intrusive, since it infests articles and their talk pages rather than userpages), is a highly successful self-promoting Wiki-meme: the more articles are promoted to "good article" status, the more billboard advertisements for WP:GA get posted to those articles, and the more readers see them and want to support their own articles by marking them as "good articles", so they add all their favorites and spread the billboard-advertising further. This is how WP:GA has flourished despite being an ill-conceived, disorganized, inconsistent, time-wasting retarded younger brother of WP:FA—by propagating itself through the self-congratulatory egos of editors. A vicious cycle indeed. And now it's escaped the confines of talk pages, where at least it only consumed lots of useless space for editors, to try to take over articles as well, essentially becoming editor-sponsored vandalism of articles. Really, it's a fascinating process; someone should write a sociology paper on how something so useless to the Wikipedia project has so effectively infected Wikipedia's articles without even the shadow of any consensus support. -Silence 01:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, while I have said (I believe we discussed this before) that I think GA is rather inane and pointless ATM, I think it's proven beneficial to the 1.0 project. I do agree, however, that most people are getting into GA for the glamour of it than for improving Wikipedia, but if the end result is the same, what's the fuss? (I do think that the project could still be just as useful if nothing on article or talk pages indicated that the page in question is a GA.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Strong keep" is my vote, not based on the recommendation or request from another user. Thanks Postoak 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note I wish the small minority of people who obviously don't like the whole GA process would actually bite the bullet and nominate it for deletion rather than just continually taking every opportunity to ridicule it and those who take part in it - it's far from helpful or productive. Worldtraveller 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:Geodis

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 -- Circeus 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geodis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After discussion in several places, including the recent Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 16, the category is highly desired, but may overlap with other subcategories such as human names. Replace with {disambig} followed by Category:Lists of ambiguous place names that conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. --William Allen Simpson 09:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:Hndis

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 -- Circeus

Template:Hndis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After discussion in several places, including the recent Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 16, the category is highly desired, but may overlap with other subcategories such as place names.

Options:

  1. Replace with {disambig} followed by Category:Lists of ambiguous human names that conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. --William Allen Simpson 09:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Another option might be to keep the template, but use exactly the wording in ((disambig)), so that when there are placenames on the same page, then the additional categories can be easily added without disturbing the look and feel. --William Allen Simpson 13:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Changing Hndis to usually be subst, with an output as in #1. (I've been finding rather a lot of Subst'd Hndis in the category and fixing them). That would make it easy to use, but the final output would always be ((disambig)), so the rampant disambiguators that found templates confusing might be happier. We'd know which template was on the page (without edit) as it would always be the same. And there wouldn't be text display conflict where there are both human names and place names (of which I'm finding quite a few). Heck, there are pages with both templates on them! --William Allen Simpson 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((hndis|Arnold, Benedict))
instead of
  • ((disambig)) and [[:Category:Lists of ambiguous human names|Arnold, Benedict]]
Isn't this why we had templates in the first place? -- User:Docu
I certainly agree! Deletion of this template was just one of the things "decided" at a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories, where you and I lost (3:8) "Should human name templates be used?".
But now vox populi has decided we want subcategories after all. So, I was trying to move toward a compromise solution (keep the category but toss the template), a strictly literal interpretation of the question.
--William Allen Simpson 13:03, 25 March 2006
I just looked at the template, and the edit summaries there explain what Docu was doing, but the explanatory summaries were not on the category's edit history. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, it's just hard to keep up when the instructions change hourly. Chris the speller 04:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even my post above got updated! .. Anyways, I think it's preferable to have a somewhat different wording otherwise one needs to hit edit to find out which template is on a page. -- User:Docu.
The point is essentially moot, anyway, since MoS:DP calls for ((disambig)), and specifies no other template. My objection (above) was to the category instructions, which were changed to encourage the use of ((hndis)), which has never been approved by any guidelines, as far as I know. Please don't be hard on an editor who has been jerked around and had his work disrupted by a flurry of conflicting instructions, and who has remained very cooperative in spite of this.
Agreed. To clarify, the example for the template should include the "name=" parameter, but the category should not:
  • ((hndis|name=Arnold, Benedict))
  • [[Category:Lists of ambiguous human names|Arnold, Benedict]]
and, for those unfamiliar with this person, "Arnold", although a common given name, is his surname. Chris the speller 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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:L'Isle

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:L'Isle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, and rather strange and pointless-looking. Alai 06:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 shopping mall x

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox shopping mall x (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Content transferred to Template:Infobox shopping mall as extension and therefore no need anymore CeeGee 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More