Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 March 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< March 18 March 20 >

Contents

[edit] March 19

[edit] Template:Logo tag

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Logo tag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, unnecessary. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Created on October 2007, currently only linked from sandbox/test page --Enric Naval (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Template:Default tag

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Default tag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused, unnecessary. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Created on October 2007, currently only linked from sandbox/test page --Enric Naval (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Template:The Guestbook Barnstar

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Guestbook Barnstar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Per WP:TFD, The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). The only purpose for which it could be considered helpulf is for helping wikipedia to become more of a social network, which violates WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. This template rewards users for converting wikipedia into a social network and, as such, should be discouraged, deleted and stamped upon until it becomes very small pieces of barnstar and then buried on an unmarked place because there is already a big push by users to make wikipedia become a social network, and the last thing we need is a template that encourages it. My proposal for the deletion of this template is *not* related to any proposal of deletion of any guestbook on userspace and should not be constructed as such. A discussion was already held at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:NOT.23MYSPACE but no conclussion was reached — Enric Naval (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per NOT. BTW, ITYM "construed". :) — the Sidhekin (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Guestbooks are fine. Secret pages are fine. WFYB. If an editor is a secret pager/guestbooker and adds useful content to the encyclopedia, its a net positive. If they are only here for the former, and never do the latter, they'll get rather bored and eventually drift away. No net negative. But the former should not be "rewarded" with barnstars being handed out for typing ~~~~. Yikes, that just smacks of a bit of a stretch as to its validity here. Not needed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
To Keeper76: This barnstar can be awzrded to first or tenth signer of guestbook, not to all signers! Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Kubek15, thanks for the clarification, I see that now. For some reason, and I sincerely mean this in good faith, that makes it worse. Even more like a contest or game. How, Kubek, do you feel specifically that the Guestbook Barnstar builds an encyclopedia? (and please note, I said directly above that I'm not anti-guest book or anti-secret page (cripes, I think I even still have one of my own). But a barnstar for signing a guestbook at a certain "place" (1st, 10th, whatever) is a distraction. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Right along with Keeper76. We don't need barnstars for social networking, and certainly not ones with added instruction creep. szyslak (t) 15:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment:
  1. it's still rewarding, and people will still compete for the first or tenth place to get the barnstar (actually, I think it would be even worse) so it's still violating WP:NOT.
  2. the barnstar wording doesn't say "first signer" so it could still be awarded to all signers. You yourself already entered a slippery slope, going from awarding the barnstar to the first signer to awarding it to fifth, tenth, etc [1].
  3. I suggest you provide your reasons for non-deletion on the actual vote, and then refer them on your comments: right now your comment is easy to find because your comment is very near to your vote, but it may wind up very far if your comment gets answered many times. This way people will also answer your reasons under your vote
  4. next time you vote on someting you created, it's better that you identify yourself as the creator right away, so you don't give others the opportunity of pointing it to you, like I am doing right now. Other people would profit from this circumstance to accuse you of WP:COI and whatnot (there is very bad people on the world)
--Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MYSPACE. Honestly, this is a borderline T2 speedy. Not that I want to stop users from running a "how many times can you type ~~~~" contest if they want to. szyslak (t) 15:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I doubt a barnstar could be easily a blatant misrepresentation of a policy. When T2 was created, it was intended for administrative templates, like (hypothetically) {{db-stupid}}. Regardless, I am in favor of deletion, given that the guestbook system is contentious enough without needing incentives for more people to get involved in it. GracenotesT § 18:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that it's not a "blatant" misrepresentation ... which is why I called it a "borderline" speedy, and why I !voted "delete" and not "speedy delete". szyslak (t) 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have an entry for the contest! User:Crazytales/desk/SigContest –Crazytales talk 00:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Guestbooks are barely tolerated as a somewhat retarded and childish habit by some. But actually having a dedicated barnstar for that sort of nonsense is outragous. Dorftrottel (talk) 19:20, March 19, 2008
  • Burninate, or at least userfy. Does absolutely nothing whatsoever to build the encyclopedia. –Crazytales talk 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but can you say what is burninate, cause I don't know ;) unsigned comment made by Kubek15 on 20 March
Trogdor likes to burninate, Destroy all opposing edit counts, afD, and featured articles. "Suddenly the wikipedia was aflame, everything burning like web2.0-roof blogs." cost: 800 edits --Enric Naval (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The template has been userfied by other editor as a mean to end the nomination, but I think that, if the result of the nomination is deletion, then it should be deleted even if it is in userspace, since the whole point is that the guestbook should not exist in wikipedia at all --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy This isn't something that you can actually delete. Even if there is no on-wiki copy, there is nothing stopping anyone from pasting the code onto a user's talk page, just as if it were subst'ed. You can't XfD the act of giving the barnstar. -- Ned Scott 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Of course that you can always give a barnstar by writing the code yourself. It's about having a template that encourages and facilitates rewarding the use of wikipedia for strict social network purposes --Enric Naval (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Consider myself neutral on this, then. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Userfy as per various above statements. --Merovingian (T, C) 19:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

*Keep This barnstar made me feel good inside recieving it. I would really like to keep this barnstar. I think it is OK to have. All barnstars are OK to have unless they have vandalism in them. If not reciving it makes you feel bad, you can always give out the kindness barnstar. Please do not delete this barnstar.--RyRy5 talk 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment This is the WP:ILIKEIT argument. The decision of deletion should be based on wikipedia policies and not on whether it makes you feel all warm on the inside. Also, as you say, there are other barnstars. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Like so many such things, while I don't necessarily think direct damage is being done, things like this still encourage the viewing of Wikipedia as a social networking tool. I'm aware of the arguments against that -- especially the fact that Wikipedia is a social networking tool of sorts -- but we should do what we can to discourage that notion, lest Wikipedia actually start leaning towards that goal. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:07, 22 Mar 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Keeper76. We shouldn't actively facilitate rewarding users who type "~~~~". Black Falcon (Talk) 23:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - its only use it to encourage the spam and MySpaceification of Wikipedia. I'm of the opinion that all barnstars should be nuked from orbit. -Halo (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete barnstars and other awards should only be given to people for actual contributions, not simply for Myspace-style social networking. Hut 8.5 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not what WP:BARNSTAR was created for. It is designed to actively reward user's contributions to the encyclopedia, and not a user's guestbook page. PeterSymonds | talk 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Template:New Era University

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:New Era University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unused template. Was created most likely as a test. Is named for New Era University but links everything to Cornell University. Should be deleted. — Eóin (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Fix? - New Era University indeed links to it, which confused me at first, but it is merely a {{tnavbar-collapsible|...|2=New Era University}} that does it. However, that section of New Era University could easily be moved to the template, and the template used instead. But would that end up as a single-use template? If so, it were probably best deleted in any case. — the Sidhekin (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The template would become a single-use template if the information on the New Era University article was moved to the template. There are no other associated articles with New Era University. Eóin (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
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.