Knowledge:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 11

5689:. I uphold WP policy, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. Schuminweb unilaterally doctored the content of a project page to create the opposite impression to that created by its authors. He then proceeded to use his falsified version of the page to mass delete a template and replace it with the one he had pretended, through doctoring of the page, was the project template. No user can do that. He was repeatedly warned to stop. Other users asked him to stop. He ignored all calls to stop. As a result, in accordance with WP rules, after being warned he was blocked. That is standard procedure and is done by whichever admin finds it happening. No user is allowed to falsify contents of protect, naming convention or manual of style pages and then begin mass deletions on that basis. He was only blocked for 24 hours. Other users have in the past been blocked for such antics for far far longer. One some months ago was blocked indefinitely by another admin. Schuminweb was 934:!, By many arguments here every article would have a NPOV tag, because someone will object to something on the article eventually, lets delete the NPOV tag! This tag is only intended for articles were editing has been done to censor images (censorship vandalism) specifically of nudity, if you wanted to extend the capability of this tag or make a class of such tags they would be limited to articles were censorship vandalism has ALREADY occurred, not will occur thus not every article with possibly objectionable information needs such a tag. Also because of the present policy on censorship here at wiki there is no enforcement, thus the need for such a tag on a article is up to the will of the editors editing that individual article, the tag would not become required on to all applicable articles. -- 5851:-- completely useless as encyclopedic content, at best it's a category or See alsos, absolutely pointless as a big boinking box on the page, should not be replaced with any template either, just needs to go... Infoboxes absolutely as a matter of policy should not be forced onto articles without the clear and direct consensus of editors on ALL affected articles BEFOREHAND. This is common sense here. Instead we have someone coming up with these useless things all on their own without any sort of input and forcing them everywhere and then complaining when they are removed (and if Jtdirl above is accurate that someone was blocked for removing the template, the admin who blocked him should lose admin status and be laughed off the entire project). 3393:- Whether a box advertises or not, or is "cool" or not, or is "neat" or "useful" or "funny" or not is irrelevant. Deleting simply takes them out of template space and allows users to continue to use them on their User page ("User Space"). It's a technical change that has become a rather shallow popularity contest over the content, which is not really the issue. This particular one is "Unencyclopedic" because it's in template space, and ads pointing to other sites, however, great, aren't really the point of Knowledge's template space. Saying "Subst and Delete" simply moves it to User space, and ends these endless deletion exercises. Please reconsider your positions. Thanks. 915:. The intent is well-meant (although the defense is a bit overwrought), but keeping this template sets a dangerous precedent. Why warn about nudity, but not warn about other controversial things? There are lots of things that many people find much more offensive than simple nudity. If we keep this, we open the door to disclaimers at the top of nearly every article that contains anything someone might find offensive. (Plus, it clutters up the page. If I go to an article titled 5917: 5877: 5706: 5641: 5761:

prefer the way the newer box looks. But simply centering the lines and changing the semi-colons to em dashes would make the nom look better. In the long run, one of these boxes need to go because they are redundent. I do not feel that this TfD followed process. It seems like an eager editor created a new box as opposed to editing the existing box, and as the above comment points out, there is not community consensus on removing the old one.--

4233:, all the userboxes are advertisements - for what is personally important for the user. Their music taste, their edit count, processor brand, ISP, favorite browser, email service, keyboard layout, country-location, and the fact that they use ratemyprofessors - a semi-wiki raiting system. User Boxes are advertisements, promotions, whatever you want, they are all uncncyclopedic - according to your definition. 3802: 1286: 4457: 708:. I think the no disclaimer rule is a good one. Because we can add disclamers on pretty much every article, based on a multiple of arguments. Are we going to label all controversial articles as well, and all articles that contain homosexuality aspects, and all articles that are of the wrong religion? Spoiler warnings are the sole exception, as you cannot undo knwowing something. 6380: 4067: 3558: 2596: 4668:), making this one redundant. And finally, in my opinion, this one is not NPOV, since even proven theories are frequently disputed, while some theories are never proven, but accepted anyway. Allowing a template like this might trigger edit wars between believers and skeptics in various articles around Knowledge. 2216:.) However, by stubbornly supporting "Keeping" this in the template space, you risk having it deleted again and again. But if it is Deleted from template space now, it 1) remains on your User page 2) is protected from further deletions 3) can be shared with other users as code. What's the problem with that? - 2199:- Gaia has a lot of users, it's just as useless as the other userboxes for websites like Slashdot or even Google - if anything, it does help people get in touch with each other, and while this isn't a social networking service, people do need to get along to edit and having something in common helps -- 5038:

I do not know the elementary education in your country, but there is a unifying topic called "World civilizations" which organizes (classify) the topics around empires. There is an idea that an empire is a reflection of its civilization, which can be arguable but in any sense it is here as a teaching

4934:

Given the fact that there are more links at the template of "countries in asia" or very close in "countries in Europe" the quantitative arguments about the size is not really valid. Also the template comes as hidden division, which only covers two lines in its hidden state. People who want to use it

4248:

All userboxes are not advertisements for other sites. Clearly the ones you mention aren't. If you vote "Delete,' this box will not disappear, it will simply be transformed into a text-based box that looks exactly the same. It will just be taken out of the template space. Hense the rather undiplomatic

5130:

Christian Empire is a classification, like colonial empire. I do not like it, as I do not like the idea of caliphate as an empire but these concepts do exist. I do not see how you can get rid of a concept by deleting a navigational bar. I have a difficulty in understanding if you object the empires

952:

will not, therefore, be effective at reducing the number of people gratuitously offended by our textual content. A note saying "this article contains nudity" will not upset the people who would be upset by the actual nudity; moreover, it wouldn't lead to embarrassing situations at work or school or

4044:

It's not just semantics at issue here. Templates should be set aside for assisting in the editing of articles. Funny templates simply don't advance that cause. Still, I agree there should be a separate place for them. Good solution. By voting "Delete" and deleting them from the Template space, they

3429:

There are many reasons to move them. Templates are being abused to stack votes in deletion reviews, "gang-edit" articles to reflect a certain point of view, and create "clubs" of users. All of which are a perversion of Knowledge's mission: to write a NPOV encyclopedia. A Userbox is not a "tool" for

869:

does it say that this is censorship or that disclaimers are wrong? Many of you seem to be citing evidence for deletion that does not exist! Please someone quote a actually violation! Also many of you seem of have forgotten that there are plenty of disclaimers and warning tags all over wikipedia for

314:

censored, and that the reader should expect ALL details of a film, not just the usual review they may expect to read in the paper or elsewhere online. It's a common courtesy, because "censorship" isn't usually used in connection with movie reviews (exept perhaps self-censorship.) The double warning

5760:

Comment: This seems more like a content issue. Should the box be a header or footer? Should the topics be organized according to relation? What should the design of the final box look like? I think those issues should be worked out before we decide to delete one of them. My two cents, I personally

5189:

I am not opposed to navigation templates when they are part of a whole subjects that some reader would want to learn about in full. No one wants to read about all the empires in the world; some want to read everything there is to know about a particluar religion. I can't image that anyone who is

5094:

Once agian, completely and totalyl pointless. Anything that could be served with a simple CATEGORY should be a category. If category doesn't quite do it, then a See also to an article with a list on the topic. Making all text infoboxes on such large range of descriptors of no particular purpose is

4944:

Qualitative remarks about the usefullness, which is linked with the organization of the empires, seems to be valid. There should be a better organization than categorizing through centuries. However these questions should be covered in its talk page. However, these talks are develop the arguments

3443:

I'd be fascinated to know under what scenario you think this userbox could possibly be used for vote-stacking, to "gang-edit" articles to a reflect a certain POV, or create "clubs" of users. Being a contributor to LEO is like being a contributor to Knowledge or Wiktionary. It's a project to allow

721:

might prefer to see some genitals than to have plot details spoiled, but not everyone would agree with that (although most Knowledge editors might, it's harder to poll readers). As for the slippery-slope argument, there's nothing wrong with deciding on a case-by-case basis when something will be

6023:

Comment: I'm the original author of the template. I've not been around on wikipedia much for a year or two, so I was surprised to find something I did so long ago part of such a heated debate! The info-box pre-dated categories, and was designed to do what categories now do. It does seem somewhat

4651:

This template isn't particulary helpful, since all it does is to inform the reader that the factual accuracy of the article in question might be disputed or in any other way be considered unreliable. I consider that a bit too vague to be really useful or helpful. There are also plenty of already

3319:

archive of open-source software and online dictionaries. It's an extraodrinarily useful tool for those of us who, say, want to translate articles between English Knowledge and German Knowledge. Except for the fact that LEO isn't a Wikimedia project, having this userbox on one's user page is no

1468:

on this and subsequent templates: the solution I tend to prefer for these is to suggest userfying them, moving them to be child pages of the creator's user page, with the warning that they should not be used outside of the user pages in general. However, I don't have feelings for any of these

1085:

preclude us from warning our readers of this fact when relevant. Our mission is not furthered if we gratuitously offend users; how many people view Knowledge as filthy or immoral or what have you due to the absence of such a template? How does this further our goals, rather than hinder them?

5628:. But at least this time Schuminweb is consulting, as opposed to mass deletions of a box he wanted axed across dozens of articles, an action that led to his blocking. This whole issue was voted on in February. It is a waste of time constantly revoting on issues over and over again. 511:

I have yet to see anyone describe how this is censorship or show were it violates wikipedia's non-censorship policy (All the links provided above say nothing of warning tags), I am open to any changes to what the tag says, at present this is what I have come to on the

5811:

1) it is not a matter of doing no harm. if there is no point it does not belong. and taking up space is harm. 2) who is going to be interested in learning everything there is to know about headgear of every different time and culture. people don't work that way!

3911:- It still can be, even if deleted from Template space. It will exist as text in User space, and you can still use it. It just shouldn't be in Template space, because that's where the articles are. This distinction doesn't get explained very often. Hope this helps! - 641:

censored, template is self-referential - and by the time you see the template it's too late anyway. Template is pointless, it diesn't even add articles to a category which could be used to filter nudity out of mirrors. I don't see any encyclopaedic purpose for it.

2498:

The AIM one probably because it's actually useful for getting in touch with other users. The others, probably because the most egregious cases or least-used or lamest or randomly-selected or whatever were chosen...I doubt it's bias so much as "not done yet." -

1292:. It's a pity that administrators, who are supposed to be some of Knowledge's most valuable contributors, choose to waste their and other contributors time with such pointless activities instead of spending it in the betterment of WIkipedia's content. 4031:- I don't see pollution of the Template space as a real problem. It's there to support the rest of wikipedia and it's accessed directly by casual readers. If it's that much of a sematic problem, there should be some sort of 'User template' space. -- 976:. i think that something like this would be useful, however the style it's in now doesn't look very good. possibly an infobox would be better. i understand that we don't censor nudity, but i don't think we should make it a point to show it off. -- 3408:

irrelevant. There is no reason whatsoever to remove this from template space. Templates are convenient tools for text that is to be repeated in multiple locations, such as this one. Deleting it from template space would not improve Knowledge.

1490:

thanks for having the decency to nominate for deletion, rather than speedy deleting them. Please consider this a comment on all the User templates below (or let me know if you prefer that I post this comment on each and every one of them).

1839:. Bashing =/= advertising, and since it's a userbox, and intended for user pages only, it's less of a nuisance in practice than everyone says it is. But I agree that it doesn't help build a better Knowledge, so I approve of T-rex's plan. -- 947:

a fair treatment, or by mentioning it, they'll be equally upset by a hatnote saying "this article discusses pedophilia", and nobody will be warned off by something like "this article discusses controversial topics". Summaries of offensive

3518:

has mentioned similar (or IMHO even less encyclopedic) templates and I fully agree with him. Btw, there're both a link to the Knowledge article and an external link to the Web site itself. If this template provides free advertisement (as

1304:

TfD does not exist for this sort of petty officiousness. Nominator would do well to take Jimbo's advice and WP:JOU|relax a notch or two]]. He would do even better to stop closing his own nominations, prematurely and against consensus.

3489:

such as "This user tracks what they listen to on Last.fm", "This user buys and sells on eBay", "This user loves using Google Earth", "This user contributes to the Internet Movie Database" and came to the conclusion that it is

5076:- I find the comments by Jon513, below - that the subjects are generally unrelated - rather convincing. I'd like to see the template's creator make an "Ancient Empires" template, however. That would be useful and consistent. 5156:

article which can discuss these distinctions, but a template undermines the differences. -- The concept of a "Christian empire" (has anyone defined this in Knowledge?) raises particular POV issues. Why classify the

260:, though I am sympathetic with the creator's cause. One way to monitor such articles would be to properly categorize the images themselves and monitor the what-links-here listings for said images. User:Ceyockey ( 147:, goes directly against Knowledge policy. The applicable Knowledge policy is that Knowledge is not censored and that pages do not have disclaimers. The only disclaimers on the whole site are all in one place: 3531:, templates for users enjoying working with IE or Mozilla and lots of other templates and articles do the same in a much more extensive way for exclusively commercial projects (which LEO is not exactly one of). 899:

talk page, for which I know that at least one person want to add the nudity warning template as well as a homosexuality warning template. The question to answer is, were does this stop if we go this way?

757:

per Kim. Qiute some time ago, there was (maybe still is) categories in Russian section of wiki such as "Sins in christianity" for abortion, homosexuality, etc. so NO to disclaimers, no to censorship. --

5057:- Helpful template for seeking out historical empires. Issues have been raised about the "Irish Empire" and more than a few could be raised about "American Empire," which seems like a POV inclusion. - 213:

Where is it against wikipedia policy?, how does this message censor images? and how are people suppose to know about a disclaimer: are we suppose to put giant disclaimers at the top of every article?--

5864:

The usual personal abuse. Some things never change with DG. lol When the last attempt to vote this template off was defeated, DG responded by blanking it. His standard of behaviour never changes.

5677:

for removing/changing this template, timestamp 2006-05-09 19:31:25. A questionable block, since it might have been made in order to gain advantage in a conflict with another user on Knowledge. /

3430:

helping write an encyclopedia in any sense of theword. However, they can be fun, and they'll remain on Wikipedian's user pages AS IS - if they are deleted here and go into the User space. -

3363:; useful to users specialising in German - English translation and the wider German-speaking en.wikipedia community, and equivalent to templates pointing to other open-source projects. 1205:

I didn't feel like copying my vote multiple times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below:

3946:

Template space (like article space, but unlike user space) is still a part of the official project, which is working on an encyclopedia. This does nothing to advance that project. -

5624:

One of the most effective boxes to come from a project on WP, which links themes and topics in a uniform style and link. Far superior to the frankly amateurish and frankly hideous

2012:

if people really want to advertise that they are fashion victims let them do it at their own expense, as it were. In what way do crazy frog ringtones help build an encyclopaedia?

4778:

Well, I guess that depends on how likely you think it is that mad scientists use Knowledge as a resource. Personally, it hasn't done a thing for my doomsday weapon research. -

567:

There is real pressure on Knowledge to censor itself. This template helps keep Knowledge uncensored by giving people fair warning before they get offended or embarrassed. --

3498:

article, but the person who kindly made the box for me made it into a link straight to the Leo site. If that is a problem, I'm afraid I don't know how to change it myself.

3351:. LEO is a fellow reference site, legitimate need to organize collaboration could arise (confer planetmath and mathworld). This is probably a misinformed nomination. - 3924:

Articles are in main space. Userboxes, and every other template, are in template space. They are not in the same space. They are two distinctly different namespaces. –

42: 37: 5131:

as a navigational bar or classification of the empires based on christian. The second can be removed, which is arguable, and would that cover your dissatisfaction?--

3444:

people to inform each other of the best way to translate phrases between English and German. And if deleted, this userbox will remain on Wikipedians' user pages

2571:" userboxes advertising? What about books the user likes? Either way, this is quite useful for collaborative purposes, and it's potentially a large category. -- 892: 5585:, I'm convinced that a bottom of the page box would be more suitable, and as one already exists (nicely created, too), there's no need for this to remain. 5800:

I see no harm, it may not be an example of WP's best work, but it is informative for those who are interested in headgear and the different varieties. --

984: 3168:

There is no reason for it to be deleted. Other internet communities have them and it does not provide advertising. Bttfpromo 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

1341:: Many of the "keep" votes below are by users who probably think that the content will disappear if they are deleted (as opposed to being userfied). 2485:- Based upon the reasons supporting this particular nomination (social networking, free advertising, etc.), why aren't the rest of the userboxes in 896: 599:. Knowledge is not censored and that's great, but school kids do use this resource and I cannot see how this template can possibly do any harm. - 2529:. Deconstruction of the implied aims of the template creator shows a high degree of compatibility with the encyclopedic purpose of this project. 367:

This might be of some users to people unfamiliar with Knowledge, but I suspect such content would only be on intended pages and thus expected. --

4935:

can open the (through the link on the right side) division and work with it. Both of these arguments defends the opposide side "Not To Delete"--

5720:

Without taking this much further off topic, what other users asked me to stop? From what I can tell, the only user who asked me to stop was

895:

where this exact discussion also arose and that would be the perfect example of the next disclaimer. Or have a look at the discussion at the

808:- it warns those who might feel offended, without cmmitting the worst crime in virtual reality, censorship, objectively helping either side 6373: 5387: 4793: 3961: 2514: 1826: 1796: 477: 21: 462:

censored/disclaimered, unless this is only being used as a talk-page template, in which case I don't like it but I think it's harmless. -

164:

What policy says no disclaimers? (That goes for all the people who saw no need to say anything other than "delete per Cyde/nom", too.) —

4769:

it seems to warn against readers from testing out string theory in their basements, thats not really much of a concern... (or is it?) --

133:

It not a censor, it does not remove images in fact it warns viewers not to censor and it directs them to a disclaimer explaining why. --

5612:: There is no real unifying factor with headgear. An infobox is completely inappropriate! A category is more then enough for this. 3994:

what's a matter with this? This definitely can't be accused of being a "stupid joke" userbox. It is certainly not useless clutter.

4715: 3933: 277:, Knowledge should not have disclaimers. (Unfortunately I think we won't manage to delete the most-widely used disclaimer template: 183: 487:

How are censorship and disclaimers so closely connected that they can be lumped together as "censored/disclaimered"? And where on

6168: 6151: 5777:

and make the various adjustments to the articles to make the new box design fit, and was rolled back and subsequently blocked by

5595: 1095: 1051: 962: 794: 731: 694: 500: 414: 353: 173: 17: 6404: 2000:

is an important aspect of pop culture. There is debate about it, and the idea of supporting or hating Crazy Frog is important.

1263:. There should be no kanguru court of userboxes. Each should be evaluated separately on merit after a comprehesive discussion. 5339: 662:

Self-reference is generally accepted as being okay in limited cases for templates. Or should we edit all disambig templates,

6419: 5017:, there is no substantial connection between most of the topics included in this template. Why would someone looking at the 3364: 989: 620: 685:

Would you consider avoiding gratuitously alienating a nontrivial segment of our readers not to be an encyclopedic purpose? —

5728:

questioned my removal of a comment when I moved the box (which I explained), but no one else explicitly asked me to stop.

5039:

tool. The empires page is a good point for you if you have hard time following this idea... Please reconsider your wote. --

1006:

as the only disclaimer I favour is "spoiler". All the rest are implied by WP not being censored. Slippery slopes scare me.

6478: 5347: 3540: 3486: 2486: 836: 579: 5330: 5323: 428:-- keeping this would be a significant change in policy, but is a simple warning like this really that bad of an idea? -- 5599: 5366: 4702:

template is redundant and silly, it talks down to the reader; if topic is theoretical, it will be stated in the article

4533: 4382: 4222: 3872: 3697: 3300: 3157: 3027: 2897: 2767: 2388: 2143: 1967: 1669: 1519: 821: 310:

from me, this differs a bit from the spoiler template in sort of an ironic way in that the spoiler is a warning that WP

148: 887:

I do not see such any disclaimer templates on that page for on the main article. I agree with you that the pointing at

6409: 4018:. Ditto Friendly, and besides, technically, the "user Knowledge reference" infobox is ALSO advertising in that case.-- 871: 6251: 2443:- I don't see the harm in any of the self identification userboxes. It's not like most readers will ever see them. -- 315:

isn't needed here, since the "WP not censored" policy, had sexuality and nudity already in mind when it was created.

5967: 5510: 5219: 4871: 3465: 3418: 3339: 3222: 1322: 764: 745:

to talk page as a warning against image deletion. On the main article page it just acts as more text pollution. --

90: 6548: 6063: 6044: 5489: 5470: 5301: 5282: 4850: 4831: 4600: 4581: 4419: 4400: 4289: 4270: 4133: 4114: 3768: 3749: 3608: 3589: 3200: 3181: 3064: 3045: 2934: 2915: 2804: 2785: 2674: 2655: 2274: 2255: 2054: 2035: 1882: 1863: 1580: 1561: 1391: 1372: 1179: 1160: 1027: 979: 69: 6547: