< April 4	April 6 >

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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPKU Related (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I do not believe a template is necessary for such trivial information. -- Cat ^chi? 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Used once. Subst and delete. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteMust.^{T C} 11:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Baristarim 12:57, 13 April 2007 (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 section.

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 deleted by Night Gyr. --Iamunknown 15:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free (copyrighted) image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First off, IANAL. Now, this template is too close to legal advice which, as layfolk, we are not qualified to give; it is redundant to any copyright license and image copyright tag, since unauthorized reproduction of any image (even GFDL) is in violation of a said license; and it is such a tiny amount of text that is unlikely to change drastically that a template is definitely unnecessary. Iamunknown 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to speedy it because it seems to have been created as an experiment and isn't used anywhere. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:49, 5 April 2007 (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 section.

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. - Mailer Diablo 10:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a maint. template with no policy or guideline listed to back it. Template is barely readable. Matthew 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, it's a cleanup template that cites no policies or guidelines. Additionally, the formatting is ungainly and the wording is highly POV. --Muchness 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia has a page WP:NOT. It is obviously things wikipedia is not. The section that supports this template would be found at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. As you might be able to tell from the title, Wikipedia should not have too much trivia, this template says the same. And as to the style - A) I have no trouble reading it - however that may be the browser I'm using, so I'll try to look at it with different browsers and should a problem arise I'd be happy to fix it B) Since when has the style of a template been reason to DELETE? But all in all I'm actually somewhat shocked that this template was nominated for deletion. I have merely used it twice (in both cases I felt it was very much so needed) and the nominator did not raise any objections on the talk page. While obviously this is not requierd, I believe that per common courtesy and per WP:Assume_Good_Faith, it would have been nice to have some lines of communication as opposed to dealing with the situation like robots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Naturally given the raised concerns I will be glad to cite the WP:NOT in the template— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• Delete, Daniel we already have ((trivia)) which is standardized, less abrasive and more objective ("This article contains a trivia section" versus "creating an obnoxious look"). Template:Obnoxious is off-putting, whether you intended it to or not. Some person spent time to research those "insignificant facts" and arrange them in a way that puts off an "obnoxious look"; we could at least do the common courtesy of not marginalizing their work. --Iamunknown 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Matthew - I have yet to check the color problem you described, but how does the current version look text-wise (as I have added the guideline aforementioned)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Well I have actually fixed the wording a bit - however while that template is refering to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles (you'll note the word 'avoid' in that - since it is merely avoid - my template is still needed (since trivia sections are allowed)) mine is refering to the aformentioned (sorry, it's a long link - the wp:Not link above). That also means that standardization would not apply since they serve two different goals - however even then I would like to point to the abundance of citation missing templates that have slightly different details. for example, ((Citations missing)) and ((unreferenced)) both say citations are missing, but ((unreliable)) says that the sources aren't reliable and ((Citations_broken)) says that the links are dead. (What I'm saying is, while both of the templates mentioned refer to the same subject - they are still slightly different, metaphorically the one you mentioned might be ((unreferenced)), and mine might be ((unreliable)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• As Iamunknown states: "we already have ((trivia))". This is an obtrusive template which goes against a standard uniform look across Wikipedia. We also already have dispute templates/etc for editors expressing concerns. Frankly I'm not seeing any benefit to this template. Matthew 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh matthew - i just looked at the template with IE and I now see the problem - I'll fix that right away (well I'll start right away, gotta find colors that look good together)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Uhmm... as I said ... just above you ... they're different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

AHA! Ahh I personally believe I got very lucky with the new color - even better than the ones before - but more importantly - they show up the same on both browsers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

I truly believe that the templates serve different purposes - as you can tell from the wording even (one is to delete, one is to reduce AND the one that is for reducing (mine) can be used in a "Pop culture references" section - the other can't), and it seems like a lot of the problems are with the colors or the text - and I just wish that SOMEONE would either do it themselves or tell me how I can improve the template and make it fit the standards. And by the way - is it standard to remove the template from the pages they were on before the template is deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• Daniel, a minor favour: could you please refactor your signature to something more simple like Danielfolsom (code: [[User:Danielfolsom|Danielfolsom]])? I'm finding it really difficult to follow the conversation. FYI, almost all templates used in the main namespace are similar. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for examples; this one really should not be significantly different. --Iamunknown 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will change my sig right after this, sorry about that - however if nearly all the templates are simmilar - why delete this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• Delete Hard to read, totally wrong colours for a maintenance template, you could just use ((unref)) at the top. Tellyaddict 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? How does a citation template say that a trivia section is too long? And as far as color those - I'm pretty sure that given the allowed template color has not been stnadardized. See [Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup]] - where you will find a lot of light blue backgrounds, a lot of shades of blue, a lot of orange backgrounds, and even a lot of pink backgrounds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

I must say I have a hard time believing that there is no alternative to deletion (for example, improvement). As I have stated, the template is unique, however may share a common goal with ((Trivia)) (as any of the abundant number of citation templates do). Thus based on the reasons for deletion mentioned on this very page - there is not enough of a reason to delete (the template is an improvement template, thus it is helpful, the template is unique, them template is not used since it was only recently created and even then on the pages it was used User:Matthew decided to delete it, and the template is just as NPOV as a template saying that the opening section is too long is (meaning it really isn't npov since long is a matter of opinion- but the point is the latter mentioned template exist and backs a policy that uses long)Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)} 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Hostile, abrasive, and obnoxious. I'd say speedy because it's divisive and inflammatory. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it any of those things? Oh yea, "Please consider shortening" is practically a death threat...Daniel()Folsom |\^T/|\_C/|\^U/|^{(Can you help me with my signature?)}

• Delete, it fails to be funny. >Radiant< 11:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked the qualifications for deleting a template did not include "Not funny". It's not supposed to be funny - I ad used obnoxious in the wording before without realizing how negative that was - that's why the template is called that - I will, however, move the template if it passes the tfd. I really think that you guys are being to quick to delete this - in my comments I've listed why it passes every aspect it has to (based on the qualifications listed on this very page - and yet no one has responded to that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• Delete, redundant to ((laundry)). but with an unacceptable name and a non-standard, overly-flashy design. I'm also concerned about the whiny tone and lack of useful suggestions for fixing problems, as compared to, say, ((laundry)). Xtifr _tälk 23:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - didn't know that existed, and while that's probably the best argument here - I would say that "list" can be confusing - and may not be attributed to, say, a pop culture references or trivia sectiondanielfolsom ©

• Strong delete as redundant to other cleanup templates, having PA overtones and (while not really a valid reason for deletion) an assault on the eyes. Calling this a template leads me to strongly doubt the creator understands what templates are for. Daniel Case 03:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template is, well... obnoxious. szyslak (t, c) 07:23, 7 April 2007 (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 section.

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 no consensus —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 00:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English pseudo-dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The term "pseudo-dialect" is POV and a neologism not used by any respectable source. The term "mixed language" is used in linguistics, but to mean something quite different to what it apparently is being used to mean here. Whoever put this template together failed to distinguish between sociolects (Valspeak), ciphers (Leet) and transliterations (Greeklish), language contact phenomena (Spanglish) and mistakes made by non-native speakers (Engrish). Additionally, I suspect some of these "pseudo-dialects" are original research. Ptcamn 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the template title is a neologism. The categories included are used in a sense different from the standard terminology. And none of the included languages belong in the categories in which they are put. Complete OR and nonsensical neology.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename and possibly rearrange into new categories (sociolects, pidgins, dialects etc) Pictureuploader 23:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Ptcamn. This category lumps a bunch of topics and languages together that have very little in common (internet slang with Spanglish??). The OR problem more applies to the individual articles the template is placed on, though, rather than the template itself. --Miskwito 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• reorganize/reorganise We need a template for the mixed languages. Speaking as an English native speaker living in a region where English is a minority language, I can attest that our dialect has shifted from Standard American/Standard British, and the omnipresence of the local (non-native) dialect. Maintaining the template allows us to compare various spoken non-native dialects/idiolects/pidgins/creoles of English. There is, however, virtually no qualitative distinction between forms listed under pseudo-dialects (such as franglais) and those listed under mixed languages (such as yinglish). I do feel that "internet slang" and "leet", don't belong on the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samwaltz (talk • contribs) 18:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

  Firstly, these are not actually mixed languages. A template for mixed languages would have things like Michif and Media Lengua.

  Secondly, having a template to compare "various spoken non-native dialects/idolects/pidgins creoles of English" would be a bad idea for two reasons. a) It would make it seem like creoles, pidgins, foreign-influenced dialects, and mistakes made by people with poor English are all more or less the same thing, when they're worlds apart. b) Do you have any idea just how big such a template would be?? There are far too many to list on one template. --Ptcamn 20:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Foreign accents are not "pseudo-dialects". Peter ^Isotalo 11:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: such a template is a good idea, and if properly named it would be a good template. Nyttend 01:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any name that would accurately describe the disparate contents of this template? "Portmanteaus involving the word English"? --Ptcamn 02:30, 12 April 2007 (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 section.