The result of the debate was delete as inactive. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be an attempt to restrict editing rights, and possibly a violation of WP:OWN GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
*Keep I created it to encourage people to discuss changes on the template talk page rather than making broad sweeping changes
like this that make little sense and ignore consensus. It doesn't restrict editing rights because it only says that major changes.. based purely on your personal opinion... will likely be reverted. It's only a notice stating what the convention among other editors is about edits that break the layout of the template, it doesn't restrict editing rights in and of itself. The point is that templates with it can still be edited, and furthermore, the wording of {{
contains link}} can be customized, so if you feel that it violates
WP:OWN I suggest you
fix it instead of deleting it. --
DavidH
Oz
Au 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
*Comment
The objectionable text has been removed by
Sean Black, and I have
added text to indicate that the notice should not be left in place permanently hence complying with
WP:BOLD and
WP:OWN, respectively. I would like suggest
Speedy Keep now that the issue with this template has been addressed. If there are any other possible ways to make the template's purpose more obvious, please let me know. Thank you. --
DavidH
Oz
Au
01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposed template merge - Infobox magazine is apparently duplicated by Template:Infobox Magazine (naming difference is one capital letter). Template:Infobox Magazine (capital M) has more detail and usage. Dl2000 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensous,keep // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 03:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This should not need a separate template, this is just a defining principle of Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright tag including a speedy (db-noncom). Also includes a specific author's name on the copyright, is not used currently (unsurprisingly, given its nature), is unlikely to be susbt'd, and isn't on the drop-down list of copyrights when uploading an image; in short, it's unused and unlikely ever to be used in the future (although judging by the backlinks and its existence, it may have been used in the past). The corresponding project page ( Wikipedia:Scratchspin images) was MfDd. -- ais523 10:59, 4 September 2006 ( U T C)
The result of the debate was no consensous, so keep. // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
While I can see how this template might be useful in some cases, I think it has far too much potential for abuse. A malicious user could add it to a userpage, especially that of an inactive user. That said, a user who wants to warn others about mental health issues can easily say so on his or her userpage, without need for this template. szyslak ( t, c, e) 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Should be deleted for exactly the same reasons as Template:Arsenal F.C. Reserves Squad below. Qwghlm 09:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete as inactive. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This appears to be an attempt to restrict editing rights, and possibly a violation of WP:OWN GW_Simulations User Page | Talk 18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
*Keep I created it to encourage people to discuss changes on the template talk page rather than making broad sweeping changes
like this that make little sense and ignore consensus. It doesn't restrict editing rights because it only says that major changes.. based purely on your personal opinion... will likely be reverted. It's only a notice stating what the convention among other editors is about edits that break the layout of the template, it doesn't restrict editing rights in and of itself. The point is that templates with it can still be edited, and furthermore, the wording of {{
contains link}} can be customized, so if you feel that it violates
WP:OWN I suggest you
fix it instead of deleting it. --
DavidH
Oz
Au 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
*Comment
The objectionable text has been removed by
Sean Black, and I have
added text to indicate that the notice should not be left in place permanently hence complying with
WP:BOLD and
WP:OWN, respectively. I would like suggest
Speedy Keep now that the issue with this template has been addressed. If there are any other possible ways to make the template's purpose more obvious, please let me know. Thank you. --
DavidH
Oz
Au
01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was merge // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Proposed template merge - Infobox magazine is apparently duplicated by Template:Infobox Magazine (naming difference is one capital letter). Template:Infobox Magazine (capital M) has more detail and usage. Dl2000 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensous,keep // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 03:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
This should not need a separate template, this is just a defining principle of Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright tag including a speedy (db-noncom). Also includes a specific author's name on the copyright, is not used currently (unsurprisingly, given its nature), is unlikely to be susbt'd, and isn't on the drop-down list of copyrights when uploading an image; in short, it's unused and unlikely ever to be used in the future (although judging by the backlinks and its existence, it may have been used in the past). The corresponding project page ( Wikipedia:Scratchspin images) was MfDd. -- ais523 10:59, 4 September 2006 ( U T C)
The result of the debate was no consensous, so keep. // Pilotguy ( Have your say) 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
While I can see how this template might be useful in some cases, I think it has far too much potential for abuse. A malicious user could add it to a userpage, especially that of an inactive user. That said, a user who wants to warn others about mental health issues can easily say so on his or her userpage, without need for this template. szyslak ( t, c, e) 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10 (Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Should be deleted for exactly the same reasons as Template:Arsenal F.C. Reserves Squad below. Qwghlm 09:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)