Template:VfD entry - a template created (by me) prior to the latest restructuring of VfD, which turned out to be unusable because parameters don't work with subst.
—
Gwalla |
Talk 23:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment. How is this trolling? Absent context, it looks like a perfectly good template to me. --
Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
Comment: I see that this could be construed as a troll, but please provide evidence that it is one, rather than just a pet project that hasn't taken off yet. --
Twinxor 23:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
... I don't quite understand why you're listing this separately here. I mean, yes, it should be deleted, even if only because it's going to be an orphanless template after the main deletion goes through -- but won't that deletion just take place from VfD proper, along with the rest of the MCotW entries? --
Aponar Kestrel (talk) 05:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
No, the VfD listing is only for the article and not for the accompanying template.
RickK 19:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Delete. --
Twinxor 07:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Template:Definition of - originally thought to be used for in-line definitions, but not very flexible. Better served by just creating the links manually as needed. --
Netoholic@ 16:20, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
As creator of template, no argument.
—
siroχo 20:40, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Template:Google - Maybe this is just a pet-peeve of mine, but "Search Google for <name>" is not in my mind a legitimate "External Link" to be included in an article, and that seems to be primarily what this template it for. Why don't I think it is legitimate OR a good idea? Because 1. the results are NOT often useful or anything we'd necessarily want to send people off to (
Google bomb, anyone?) by default (External Links should only be for "approved" sites relating to the topic), 2. it privileges one search engine over many others for no real good reason (not that I don't use Google for everything either, but as a matter of principle it's a little silly), 3. if somebody wanted to search for the topic in google, they certainly could have done that already if they could have searched for it in Wikipedia (i.e. it is pointless, useless, redundant). A legitimate external link might be for the page creator to use google, find a decent link, and then put it into the article. Just pointing to Google is a cop-out, and one which can easily lead to Wikipedia willingly pointing people to completely false information. Okay, got that off my chest, willing to hear what others think about it. Examples of pages with this are of course available
here. My gripes here do NOT necessarily apply to Google Category/Directory/Group links, which are often good external links. I also see that some people use this as a functional category for Talk disputes, VfD, etc. I don't have a problem with that, clearly, but only with it being used in articles, but I'd like to see if I could reach some sort of consensus before I murderously go purging Google searchs from Exteral Links. --
Fastfission 15:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree; delete.
–
Quadell(
talk) (
help)[[]] 03:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it should be deleted. People can search Google for themselves. [[User:JoshG|
Josh |
Talk]] 04:20, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - templates used just to create simple external links are quite poor. With all of these hitting the bin, I think we're close to being able to set this as policy. --
Netoholic@ 18:43, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Template:Sex is flat-out ridiculous. There are those to whom a display of anything beyond the face and wrists is immodest and offensive; are we going to put this message on any article that contains an image with such a display?
—No-OneJones(m) 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support deletion.--[[User:Neutrality|
Neutrality (
hopefully!)]] 00:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, delete. --
Netoholic@ 00:57, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Keep. Surely this is useful. There's a warning on
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, for example, but it seems like it would be better to have it standardized. Yes, it would be hard to determine what merits the warning and what doesn't, but that's not an excuse to not try, IMO.
–
Quadell(
talk) (
help)[[]] 01:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, DELETE, DELETE. Is Cantus John Ashcroft in disguise? Or, now that I think of it, why not simply drape all images of vaginas, penis, and clitorises in Wiki with a burkah -- they'll still be there, but they will be shielded from innocent or offended eyes. Maybe we could bring in an Mullah or two to give us expert guideance on these sensitive matters....
Hayford Peirce 02:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But this is not a forum to share your favorite sex pictures :) --
Cantus 02:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Strong delete. I've given arguments against such templates before so i'll summarize them here: It will cause useless revert wars, and its not our responsibility to warn people about the content. Its a bad direction for Wikipedia to head.
—
siroχo 06:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Endless arguability gives birth to senseless edit/flame wars. --
Oop 23:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If images in an article would not be shown on daytime TV so as not to shock younger viewers, then this article requires a warning. Do any of the votes have children, by any chance?
JFW |
T@lk 16:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This cannot shock younger viewers unless their parents hit them when they ask waht it is. Wikipedia should not endorse bad parenting.--
Jirate 17:44, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
delete. users should use wikipedia at own risk. this is alreay covered in the general disclaimers --
Jiang 09:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If these do end up being deleted, there are also some leftover redirects, like
MediaWiki:Inuse30, which can go as well. Check each template's "What links here". --
Netoholic@ 18:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Delete. Obsoleted by superior new template.
—No-OneJones(m) 17:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete as above --
Phil |
Talk 10:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete as above --
Alphax(talk) 15:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Template:Working - i dont see the point of this. Every article is work in progress. --
Jiang 22:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's odd, thought this one was a no-brainer. Any reason? --
Netoholic@ 05:19, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
Mostly because my sense is that we move a lot of recipes and it's probably useful to indicate where in Wikibooks the thing should go, as Wikibooks is rather large.
Snowspinner 06:45, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
if it's not used then delete--
Jiang 06:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Quite useful. -
Ta bu shi da yu 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's your point? I'd like it if the stub template didn't have anything linking to it, but we'd keep that in case future stubs come our way. There's a very good chance more recipes will be placed on Wikipedia, and then we'll need to use it! -
Ta bu shi da yu 16:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Decision: Delete: 2 votes, Keep: 2 votes. Consensus is not to delete. -
Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Template:VfD entry - a template created (by me) prior to the latest restructuring of VfD, which turned out to be unusable because parameters don't work with subst.
—
Gwalla |
Talk 23:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Comment. How is this trolling? Absent context, it looks like a perfectly good template to me. --
Aponar Kestrel (talk) 15:45, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)
Comment: I see that this could be construed as a troll, but please provide evidence that it is one, rather than just a pet project that hasn't taken off yet. --
Twinxor 23:34, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
... I don't quite understand why you're listing this separately here. I mean, yes, it should be deleted, even if only because it's going to be an orphanless template after the main deletion goes through -- but won't that deletion just take place from VfD proper, along with the rest of the MCotW entries? --
Aponar Kestrel (talk) 05:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
No, the VfD listing is only for the article and not for the accompanying template.
RickK 19:07, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. Delete. --
Twinxor 07:21, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Template:Definition of - originally thought to be used for in-line definitions, but not very flexible. Better served by just creating the links manually as needed. --
Netoholic@ 16:20, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
As creator of template, no argument.
—
siroχo 20:40, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Template:Google - Maybe this is just a pet-peeve of mine, but "Search Google for <name>" is not in my mind a legitimate "External Link" to be included in an article, and that seems to be primarily what this template it for. Why don't I think it is legitimate OR a good idea? Because 1. the results are NOT often useful or anything we'd necessarily want to send people off to (
Google bomb, anyone?) by default (External Links should only be for "approved" sites relating to the topic), 2. it privileges one search engine over many others for no real good reason (not that I don't use Google for everything either, but as a matter of principle it's a little silly), 3. if somebody wanted to search for the topic in google, they certainly could have done that already if they could have searched for it in Wikipedia (i.e. it is pointless, useless, redundant). A legitimate external link might be for the page creator to use google, find a decent link, and then put it into the article. Just pointing to Google is a cop-out, and one which can easily lead to Wikipedia willingly pointing people to completely false information. Okay, got that off my chest, willing to hear what others think about it. Examples of pages with this are of course available
here. My gripes here do NOT necessarily apply to Google Category/Directory/Group links, which are often good external links. I also see that some people use this as a functional category for Talk disputes, VfD, etc. I don't have a problem with that, clearly, but only with it being used in articles, but I'd like to see if I could reach some sort of consensus before I murderously go purging Google searchs from Exteral Links. --
Fastfission 15:11, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I agree; delete.
–
Quadell(
talk) (
help)[[]] 03:55, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it should be deleted. People can search Google for themselves. [[User:JoshG|
Josh |
Talk]] 04:20, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete - templates used just to create simple external links are quite poor. With all of these hitting the bin, I think we're close to being able to set this as policy. --
Netoholic@ 18:43, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
Template:Sex is flat-out ridiculous. There are those to whom a display of anything beyond the face and wrists is immodest and offensive; are we going to put this message on any article that contains an image with such a display?
—No-OneJones(m) 00:55, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Support deletion.--[[User:Neutrality|
Neutrality (
hopefully!)]] 00:56, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, delete. --
Netoholic@ 00:57, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)
Keep. Surely this is useful. There's a warning on
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse, for example, but it seems like it would be better to have it standardized. Yes, it would be hard to determine what merits the warning and what doesn't, but that's not an excuse to not try, IMO.
–
Quadell(
talk) (
help)[[]] 01:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete, DELETE, DELETE. Is Cantus John Ashcroft in disguise? Or, now that I think of it, why not simply drape all images of vaginas, penis, and clitorises in Wiki with a burkah -- they'll still be there, but they will be shielded from innocent or offended eyes. Maybe we could bring in an Mullah or two to give us expert guideance on these sensitive matters....
Hayford Peirce 02:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But this is not a forum to share your favorite sex pictures :) --
Cantus 02:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Strong delete. I've given arguments against such templates before so i'll summarize them here: It will cause useless revert wars, and its not our responsibility to warn people about the content. Its a bad direction for Wikipedia to head.
—
siroχo 06:51, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Endless arguability gives birth to senseless edit/flame wars. --
Oop 23:09, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. If images in an article would not be shown on daytime TV so as not to shock younger viewers, then this article requires a warning. Do any of the votes have children, by any chance?
JFW |
T@lk 16:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. This cannot shock younger viewers unless their parents hit them when they ask waht it is. Wikipedia should not endorse bad parenting.--
Jirate 17:44, 2004 Oct 21 (UTC)
delete. users should use wikipedia at own risk. this is alreay covered in the general disclaimers --
Jiang 09:01, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If these do end up being deleted, there are also some leftover redirects, like
MediaWiki:Inuse30, which can go as well. Check each template's "What links here". --
Netoholic@ 18:27, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
Delete. Obsoleted by superior new template.
—No-OneJones(m) 17:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete as above --
Phil |
Talk 10:39, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Delete as above --
Alphax(talk) 15:50, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
Template:Working - i dont see the point of this. Every article is work in progress. --
Jiang 22:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That's odd, thought this one was a no-brainer. Any reason? --
Netoholic@ 05:19, 2004 Nov 6 (UTC)
Mostly because my sense is that we move a lot of recipes and it's probably useful to indicate where in Wikibooks the thing should go, as Wikibooks is rather large.
Snowspinner 06:45, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
if it's not used then delete--
Jiang 06:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Quite useful. -
Ta bu shi da yu 15:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What's your point? I'd like it if the stub template didn't have anything linking to it, but we'd keep that in case future stubs come our way. There's a very good chance more recipes will be placed on Wikipedia, and then we'll need to use it! -
Ta bu shi da yu 16:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Decision: Delete: 2 votes, Keep: 2 votes. Consensus is not to delete. -
Ta bu shi da yu 05:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)