The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 17:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be mostly redundant to {{ infobox character}}. Although there are fields in this template which are not in the generic character template, it's not clear that all are entirely necessary, and why those that are necessary couldn't be merged with the more generic character template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Resolved Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This documentation page for the template: {{ Redirect-distinguish}} is obsolete as it can be (and has been) replaced by the much more complete documentation page here Template:Other uses templates - documentation as is consistent with most of the other " Other uses templates". Captain n00dle \ Talk 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Userfied by author Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Marking your user/user talk page everything you go for sleep would be overkill. Not used, and not necessary. The Evil IP address ( talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Userfied by author Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused, uncommon, "AFK" is more necessary in live video games rather than here at Wikipedia because everything that you want to see is logged within the page histories, so it's impossible to miss stuff. The Evil IP address ( talk) 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 17:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing that requires an own template, simple wiki syntax. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per T2 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Was in use in one article, there substituted now. Should not be used in this way. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:SIG#NT Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Confusing signature, user template that doesn't belong in template namespace. May be userfied if wanted. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion; default to keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This template violates Wikipedia speedy-deletion policies and causes the speedy deletion of files/images that do no merit such automatic deletions. It defies Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for files. According to CSD, a file that, for instance, violates NFCC8 does not merit speedy-deletion. (Although, according to NFCC, such a file still merits normal deletion.)
Other than that, this template is redundant, as other specialized and better templates already replace its function. For instance, images which violate NFCC7 are speedy-deleted via {{ Di-orphaned fair use}}. NFCC1 violators are addressed via {{ Di-replaceable fair use}}. Etc. Fleet Command ( talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, now, Stifle. Please pace yourself. You are one of the very respected administrators here and it would deter your standing to use substandard language like this. Take a break and whenever you are ready, tell me how I am misreading it:
WP:F#Enforcement explicitly states "Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion." I read CSD and found no ground for speedy-deleting violators of NFCC8, NFCC3a or the others that I mentioned. If feel otherwise, please clarify me by directly answering questions 2, 3 and 4.
Fleet Command ( talk) 04:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)First, there is nothing faux-polite or faux-anything-else about me. If you had visited my user page, you'd have seen that for a long time now you are one of the only three Wikipedia Administrators for whom I hold the most respect. Do not assume good faith in me; Be Certain of Good Faith! I'm not faux-polite; I am polite; because I respect you!
Back to our discussion: Granted, you told me that there are many other avenues of deletion and I acknowledged. (Indeed, I once again studied Wikipedia Deletion policy and Wikipedia Image Deletion Guideline.) So, for the third time, please, quote a policy page – any policy page, not just WP:CSD – that sanctions speedy or discussion-free deletion of:
Fleet Command ( talk) 18:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:F.
At this point in time, if I have not convinced you, I will not be making any further attempts to do so, as I would consider it futile. I'll leave it to the closing admin.
P.S. thank you for specifying me as one of your most-respected admins.
Stifle ( talk) 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay then. The closing admin it is... See you around.
Objection Stifle only mentioned WP:F#Enforcement (he did mention WP:PUF, WP:OFFICE and WP:BLPPROD but they obviously don't apply here). However, WP:F#Enforcement explicitly states:
“ | Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. | ” |
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Per X
— Fleet Command ( talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect to {{ External links}}. Ruslik_ Zero 08:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
External links should not be used as references, and this is already covered by {{ unreferenced}} (or using {{ nofootnotes}}). — fetch · comms 23:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
First {{ nofootnotes}} implies that information contained in the External links section might serve as a reference if an inline citation pointed to it. Furthermore in the absence of a citation needed within the body of text or the inclusion of a quotation therein, no requirement for an inline citation is demonstrable. Regarding the {{ unreferenced}} tag, Although technically accurate to the situation, many editors who are unaware that external links do not serve as a reference will remove the {{ unreferenced}} tag under similar arguments as above (ie no requirement for an inline citation). I will demonstrate these assertions below as well as situations where the {{ Source Style}} formerly called {{ Sourced wrong}} tag has been effective for consideration. Notice the actions taken to each particular tag.
My thanks to everyone motivated enough to add comments to this section. My76Strat ( talk) 04:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Out-of-date fork of {{ Taxobox}}. Unedited since 2008; single instance in article space. Clearly no consensus for widespread adoption. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused template from August 2008. There is also Template:Portaltitle/doc, half in French. Fram ( talk) 08:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If a category is to be converted into anything else, it's probably a list; for that situation, we have the almost never used {{ cfl}}. I think that 2 templates for a situation that nearly never arises is too much. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete. Author Requested. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears the only purpose of these templates is to generate the phrases, "Please substitute this template" and "do not substitute this template". I don't see why a template is needed, and it would be better to just add say {{ substituted}} to the template in question, since that would also add it to the necessary category. In addition, {{ dns}} is easily confused with "domain name server" and {{ sub2}} is easily confused with {{ sub}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 17:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Appears to be mostly redundant to {{ infobox character}}. Although there are fields in this template which are not in the generic character template, it's not clear that all are entirely necessary, and why those that are necessary couldn't be merged with the more generic character template. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Resolved Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This documentation page for the template: {{ Redirect-distinguish}} is obsolete as it can be (and has been) replaced by the much more complete documentation page here Template:Other uses templates - documentation as is consistent with most of the other " Other uses templates". Captain n00dle \ Talk 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Userfied by author Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Marking your user/user talk page everything you go for sleep would be overkill. Not used, and not necessary. The Evil IP address ( talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Userfied by author Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused, uncommon, "AFK" is more necessary in live video games rather than here at Wikipedia because everything that you want to see is logged within the page histories, so it's impossible to miss stuff. The Evil IP address ( talk) 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 17:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing that requires an own template, simple wiki syntax. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per T2 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Was in use in one article, there substituted now. Should not be used in this way. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:SIG#NT Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Confusing signature, user template that doesn't belong in template namespace. May be userfied if wanted. -- The Evil IP address ( talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was no consensus to support deletion; default to keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This template violates Wikipedia speedy-deletion policies and causes the speedy deletion of files/images that do no merit such automatic deletions. It defies Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for files. According to CSD, a file that, for instance, violates NFCC8 does not merit speedy-deletion. (Although, according to NFCC, such a file still merits normal deletion.)
Other than that, this template is redundant, as other specialized and better templates already replace its function. For instance, images which violate NFCC7 are speedy-deleted via {{ Di-orphaned fair use}}. NFCC1 violators are addressed via {{ Di-replaceable fair use}}. Etc. Fleet Command ( talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Now, now, Stifle. Please pace yourself. You are one of the very respected administrators here and it would deter your standing to use substandard language like this. Take a break and whenever you are ready, tell me how I am misreading it:
WP:F#Enforcement explicitly states "Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion." I read CSD and found no ground for speedy-deleting violators of NFCC8, NFCC3a or the others that I mentioned. If feel otherwise, please clarify me by directly answering questions 2, 3 and 4.
Fleet Command ( talk) 04:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)First, there is nothing faux-polite or faux-anything-else about me. If you had visited my user page, you'd have seen that for a long time now you are one of the only three Wikipedia Administrators for whom I hold the most respect. Do not assume good faith in me; Be Certain of Good Faith! I'm not faux-polite; I am polite; because I respect you!
Back to our discussion: Granted, you told me that there are many other avenues of deletion and I acknowledged. (Indeed, I once again studied Wikipedia Deletion policy and Wikipedia Image Deletion Guideline.) So, for the third time, please, quote a policy page – any policy page, not just WP:CSD – that sanctions speedy or discussion-free deletion of:
Fleet Command ( talk) 18:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:F.
At this point in time, if I have not convinced you, I will not be making any further attempts to do so, as I would consider it futile. I'll leave it to the closing admin.
P.S. thank you for specifying me as one of your most-respected admins.
Stifle ( talk) 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay then. The closing admin it is... See you around.
Objection Stifle only mentioned WP:F#Enforcement (he did mention WP:PUF, WP:OFFICE and WP:BLPPROD but they obviously don't apply here). However, WP:F#Enforcement explicitly states:
“ | Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. | ” |
Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Per X
— Fleet Command ( talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Redirect to {{ External links}}. Ruslik_ Zero 08:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
External links should not be used as references, and this is already covered by {{ unreferenced}} (or using {{ nofootnotes}}). — fetch · comms 23:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
First {{ nofootnotes}} implies that information contained in the External links section might serve as a reference if an inline citation pointed to it. Furthermore in the absence of a citation needed within the body of text or the inclusion of a quotation therein, no requirement for an inline citation is demonstrable. Regarding the {{ unreferenced}} tag, Although technically accurate to the situation, many editors who are unaware that external links do not serve as a reference will remove the {{ unreferenced}} tag under similar arguments as above (ie no requirement for an inline citation). I will demonstrate these assertions below as well as situations where the {{ Source Style}} formerly called {{ Sourced wrong}} tag has been effective for consideration. Notice the actions taken to each particular tag.
My thanks to everyone motivated enough to add comments to this section. My76Strat ( talk) 04:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Out-of-date fork of {{ Taxobox}}. Unedited since 2008; single instance in article space. Clearly no consensus for widespread adoption. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Unused template from August 2008. There is also Template:Portaltitle/doc, half in French. Fram ( talk) 08:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
If a category is to be converted into anything else, it's probably a list; for that situation, we have the almost never used {{ cfl}}. I think that 2 templates for a situation that nearly never arises is too much. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete. Author Requested. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears the only purpose of these templates is to generate the phrases, "Please substitute this template" and "do not substitute this template". I don't see why a template is needed, and it would be better to just add say {{ substituted}} to the template in question, since that would also add it to the necessary category. In addition, {{ dns}} is easily confused with "domain name server" and {{ sub2}} is easily confused with {{ sub}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)