Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9

[edit]
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 Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Event y

[edit]

Templates that just create categories makes that space hard to maintain... ask anyone that works WP:CFD. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 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. -Splashtalk 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Locale length

[edit]

Meta-template. Uses the "P" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

eg. {{Locale length|10}} gives {{Locale length|10}} and {{Locale length|1000}} gives {{Locale length|1000}}, useful when metric measurments (without imperial feet) are encountered in some pages. Also can be used to in sed no-line-break-space after the between number and unit. eg 1000 m, this is commonly missed and leads to messy pages. - NevilleDNZ 09:27, 11 January 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. -Splashtalk 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country GB, etc.

[edit]

(Template:Country GB, Template:Country PT, Template:Country NP, Template:Country NZ)

Meta-templates. Used with the "event" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 9 January 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. However, I'm not going to go trawling for the list myself. I'll drop Netoholic a note. -Splashtalk 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

(all templates in the form of "P#", Template:CentaryN, Template:MonthN, Template:Convert month, Template:Month name, Template:Born, Template:Died, Template:Battle, Template:Disaster, Template:Event)

I stumbled onto a pretty arcane series of nested meta-templates. They seem basically devised to compose a complicated structure around converting numbers to months and back again. Template:CentaryN and Template:MonthN seems to be used only for sorting articles into strict time order within categories. This can be achieved manually without all this template-within-template structure. Born, Died, Event, Battle, Disaster, and others create four-layer-deep meta-templates that seem to be used to present dates in a non-standard format (see Edmund Hillary). -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 9 January 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 keep. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-AmE-0

[edit]

Template:User-AmE-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete remove this one but add British English equivilent of AmE-5, unless there already is one, i cant find it.
  • Delete — Quite rudely claims that American English isn't English and is actually spelling and grammatical errors, in contradiction to official policies here. Serves no purpose other than nationalistic arrogance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)
  • Keep this and all American English templates. Someone should make a policy about userboxes so these don't keep coming up. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This TFD discussion is tainted by talk page spamming by Jamal al din: e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Demi T/C 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Tainted'? Are those people's opinions unworthy of consideration because they had to be told there was a vote? Do you think they are only voting because somebody else wants them to? ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Templates like these are the reason why everyone wants to delete useful Babel templates now, without taking to drawing up a policy proposal. And cookiecaper, there is a policy discussion on userboxes: WP:UBP. This template is just for user-fun and bears no relevance to writing an encyclopedia or translating. If it has to be kept the wording needs to be changed because as accessed now it is offensive. --Fenice 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it's offensive. There aren't enough offensive templates on Wikipedia right now. Templates by and large tend to be far too pleasant and civil; it's repulsive and runs contrary to our interests here, which is to create a hostile and factionalist environment for inefficient and contentious editing. However, I vote to keep this template only on the grounds that I can also make a template calling all of the Romance languages "poorly-spoken Latin" in a similar way to how American English is poorly-spoken English. Fair's fair. -Silence 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is another userbox with the same text {{Template:User AmE-0}}. In itself it is not any more offensive than {{Template:User AIM-0}}, {{Template:user gb-0}} or {{Template:user 1337-0}}. -- Sneltrekker 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm ambivalent about this style of userbox (I've removed the joke userboes I created for myself), but I think we should hold on ad-hoc deletions until there is some consensus on a coherent policy about userboxes. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and its counterpart that insults users of Commonwealth English, if it exists. Not useful for user categorization. Wikipedia itself is dialect-neutral; if its users aren't, there's no reason to allow themselves to factionalize like this. android79 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I live in America so I speak American English; saying things like color and fall. I don't find this offensive at all. I have no problems with people stating their choosen dialect.--God of War 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this applies to me as well; it's all very silly, isn't it? Like linguistic nationalism. Fact is, some Americanisms are more linguistically efficient than the Britishisms ("color" is simply faster and simpler to type than "colour"), some Britishisms are more linguistically efficient than the Americanisms ("arse" rather than "ass" makes sense as a handy way to avoid confusion with the donkey "ass"), and most variations are just too trivial for any sane person to make a fuss about. If I was the God of Language, I'd just hold a giant international superpoll and have all the neutral parties go through every spelling and meaning variance and pick the most coherent, efficient, simple, and clear form for each and forget about the rest. But since I'm not that, best to just live with it, and to let people hate on (or poke fun at hating on) whichever dialect they want. -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The idea behind these userboxes is to entertain. While I'm no longer a member of the userboxes project (and not particularly such a large fan of userboxes anymore), let 'em have their fun. Cernen 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete immediately - while I am a big fan of British English and sometimes make fun of American English, I do believe that this opinion espressed in such a way is far too vulgar to be accepted by anyoneMsoos
    • Comment For the record, British English is just English (its not a version of the language, it is the language) and it's not exactly immoral. People get offended by anything nowadays. Seeing as it's not hugely bad, can't you just resort to not using it? An American above said they werent offended, maybe if people were as sensible as him we wouldnt have a backlog in the deletion section - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that it isn't accepted by anyone (in which case the template won't find any use and can be deleted as an orphan (just as we do with human orphans)), or are you saying that we shouldn't let it be accepted by anyone? Both seem like strange statements to make; I can understand saying that we should make people express this opinion in customized or fully userfied templates, or simply have them express it in prose, but saying that it's too vulgar to be expressed at all seems a tad odd... What's so terrible about being vulgar every once in a while? -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, for the record American English is closer to the original version of English than British English. Studies show that people living in the Appalachia Mountains are closest to Elizabethan English... not that it is somehow better for that. You might want to go educate yourself instead of assuming that your version is somehow more correct. The point, however, is that nobody should be mocking anyone, especially ikn a way that goes against clear Wikipedia policies that American English is just as real as British English. DreamGuy 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The moon is made of cheese. See, i can do it too - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's telling the truth. Spoken American English, at least the Appalachian form, is more like spoken Elizabethan English than any other form still around today. Given the inconsistency of spelling in Elizabethan times, no form can be said to be the most similar in spelling. - Cuivienen 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as a user of american english). This is an expression of opnion. Any edits in which such a user attempted to "correct" such "errors" would be in violation of policy, and would I trust, be promptly revted. But I see no reason why the suer should not be entitled to express such a view, at elast until there is a more comprehensive policy on user boxes. If a user had such a statement on his or her user page not in a box, how far would soemone get who wanted to remove it as a policy violation? DES (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a supporter of userboxes in general, but this one is just so silly I have to vote delete. I mean gees, all languages evolve. That doesn't make one more "right" than the other. --Fang Aili 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
en-us
-5		This user can contribute at a professional level of American English.
Definite American bias here - but that's not surprising when such a large portion of editors are American..--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume god faith, will ya? And yes, I hope that one is deleted too.--Sean|Black 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you are aware that American (English) is based on English, should that make a difference? - Keith Greer 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And America was originally under British rule. Does it matter? No. If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt, so i think you're exagerrating a bit. Take a look at the discussion I linked to a few points up. For every person who voted delete on POV userboxes, over 6 people voted keep. O and Valmi, you sum up my opinion completely. If there is any disgrace, it's American English (which is not an official language, it's a version - look up America on this encyclopedia if you want). NPOV does not apply to user pages, which is why POV userboxes should stay. We dont need this discussion. Such a lareg amount of POV userboxes were voted on based upon the fact that they were POV, not their individual content - and the overwhelming result was Keep. I'll fight to keep as many as these POV userboxes as possible, but I'd appreciate it if you didnt nominate so many of them. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt Actually, he -- tangentially -- has, leaving a comment at [Category:Wikipedians by politics:
'Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more garbage templates. Djegan 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not very professional. Thumbelina 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Provincialist attack. Inferiority-complex issues ought to be acted out elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst I would never advocate actually banning American English, the thought of it is quite entertaining, and people expressing that view on their talk pages is fine. --New Progressive 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a huge USA patriot and I don't find this opinion offensive at all. Lawyer2b 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a) because it is a light hearted piece of humour and b) because we need definite Wikipedia policy on userboxes before we start culling them. --Loopy e 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can mark me as another American who thinks you're all being far too touchy. Kairos 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly offensive. -- JJay 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly the wikipedia userspace has gone beyond the boundaries of being "encylopedic" in nature. Besides, who cares. I rest easy at night knowing that I'm heeding the advice of my mother who said, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." But if some other jag-off (there's an Americanism for you, specifically western-Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh area dialect) wants to show how much of a jerk he or she can be, who am I to stop them? Here's another thing my mom used to say, "actions speak louder then words." Lucky for us here on the WP we have both at the same time. --Easter Monkey 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be insulted at something you have to have cared of their opinion. It shows to people that there is different types of the english language and its only a laugh. The userspace of WP is separate to rest of WP therefore IMO NPOV should not need to apply, if it does then there is no point to the userspace. --Neocal 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Harmless, amusing, etc etc. --Gary Kirk (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The general reason people are giving for deletion is the fact that is may be offensive. But you can't delete something based solely on the fact that it offends (except if it is completely immoral, which this isnt). In an ideal world, everyone would live in harmony, peace on earth, etc etc. But you have to wake up because that is never going to happen. We will never have world peace, and there will always be offense in one form or another. Its called reality. This template, as well as others, is going to offend someone somewhere. Im sorry that's true, but its not hugely contraversial. All other Babel templates have one that says This user does not like x language, but i dont see those here for deletion. Do you? What i think is happening is everyone falling into this pro-America thing going on, creating different rules for anti-AmE templates. You can deny it as much as much as you like, like all the "official" opinions that exist, there is always some fabrication in there. Once again, i call for the deletion for any babel templates with opinion in them to be deleted if this template does get deleted. If we are going to have a NPOV thing going, it must apply to deletiong similar userboxes. Pro-USA bias just wont cut it. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it quite useful in letting people know in a light-hearted way that I don't really want my articles "Americanising" where people change all the words/terms to American variations. Anyway it's just a bit of fun and it's an over the top reaction. I wouldn't care if it was the other way round. Rule Britainnia! Englishrose 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep seriously get over it, it's just a bloody userbox. Our userpage is a place for our own personal opinions and information, and if i prefer to use UK english over US english then so be it. If i want other people to look at my page and see that i use UK english and not US english then they can. If you really have something against it then create your own userbox saying "US english is the ultimate english and all other forms are inferior and wrong".
And if your Seriously taking offence to this, then think about this...
Every other country in the world is getting your American crap beemed onto their TV's and movie screens. So think about all those people that have to hear your bloody annoying accents and pronouciations! e.g. "Skeduel" instead of "Schedule" and "Aluminum" instead of "Aluminium".
So in conclusion i tell you... GET A LIFE! stop complaining about something that doesn't need complaining about. We put up with your crap everywhere everyday! and we don't file complaints or law suits or start bitching about it, we just sit back and say "bloody Americans". And being offended by the personal opinion of a userbox is just childish...
Frexe 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amen to that. People can show their POV on their userpages if they want to. If you dont like it, tough. Trying to get this deleted is totally over-reacting. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree less with Cernen. Jimbo is not the autocrat of Wikipedia, and I do not agree with his assessment. Anybody should be allowed to put whatever they want in terms of POV userboxes on their userpages, and this is no exception. Niffweed17 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frexe 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this template: I don't think that this template is meant to be offensive. It may be taken as such, however, you have to admit, "American English" is different from "English (ie. of an origin from England) English". Furthermore, Americans do tend to have not so good American (no offense). American myself (see MYT), i hear people incorrectly use grammar, and, when corrected, neglect the correction and even take offense sometimes. (Please don't be offended by my comments. They are not meant to be offensive, but rather just what I know from experience).MYT 22:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and I'm perfectly aware that what I write is an awfull mix of US and proper English. // Liftarn
  • Very Strong Keep Keep it and don't change it. Duke toaster 13:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeper it's great just the way it is. And there is the one mocking commonwealth english, so it's even. I use commonwealth english (in canada it's about half and half), and I laughed at the "how quaint" one as much as I did at the american one. The deletionists just have no sense of humour...if you can't laugh at yourself (and everybody should be able to do this - keep an eye on my user page for a good example) then you really have to learn to lighten up. It's a joke, it's a break from the seriousness of encyclopedic work. bcatt 14:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sense of humour should be allowed. KittenKlub 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "OMG we msut deleet it becoz it mite OFFEND sum ppl!!!!!!! If ppl get OFFENDED their gonna be emosionaly scared 4 lyfe!!!! 0h n0es!" Darobsta 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly, what happened to the time when people didn't care if something offended people? Its called stading by your views and putting freedom of speech over the fear that it might offend someone. Be Bold and voice your opinions! Plus AmE is an annoying "language". It gets beamed out all over the world and you expect us to put up with it! Im absolutely behind this userbox, and it was the second userbox i added after User en. Rule Britannia! - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 12:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am 100% behind this userbox. Ok, it might need a juice up in the humour department, but a lot of us Brits hate the way American English is sliding into laziness. Especially since more and more it is sliding into the "hai ppl rnt i kool cos i kant spel or rite propa" - which drives me insane
    • Besides, It's better then the 'Commonwealth English' which is boring as hell

C.B 03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont think 1 userbox is going to take up heap loads of space. People should be able to express their views however they want - • Dussst • T | C 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk
  • Keep Harmless bit of fun. Eurosong 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What are the reasons for deletion? 1) Causes offence: sorry, not intended, but sometimes we all need to pause before pressing the PC button - don't be so humourless; 2) Pointless: if it expresses either POV or humour, well it's on a user page, don't tell others how to think; 3) No place in Wiki: certainly not in the encyclopaedia, but don't try to censor other people's user pages (it won't work). I reckon if I wish to use any box on my user page, then that's my privilege. Others can judge me on that and take appropriate action or discuss it there. IMO, American English has its own validity and cannot be harmed by a harmless, silly, humourous, personal comment. Neither is Wiki damaged. Vive la difference!! Now let's all do something useful. Folks at 137 20:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep common, live a little.Mike McGregor (Can) 06:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (1) It relates directly to language use and editing behaviour. (2) It's nowhere near as offensive or divisive as some of the discussion about getting rid of it is (3) The equivalent templates "insulting" users of British English and Commonwealth English aren't being marked for deletion alongside this, which smacks of bias. - Synapse 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's for user pages, and it's only a joke! D. Wo. 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly KeepI stongly object to its deletion, since there is an equivalent template that claims american english is the only correct english possible. as a user of commonwealth english, i want this bias towards american english halted.WoodElf 04:54, 21 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9&oldid=1136431877"