< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

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 templates's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. _→AzaToth 20:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Frown[edit]

Delete — POV. Non-encyclopedic. Created in response to the failed AfD of Saugeen Stripper. Wrathchild 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uncivil. --Rob 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No problem with it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sour grapes. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no business deleting it. Niffweed17 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-POV Dustimagic
Delete — Uncivil, POV, and unencyclopedic. — Seven Days » talk 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid POV for a userpage Keith Greer 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just being mean, if it's userpage material move it there. Ashibaka tock 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created and intended to be used as a "useful thing" (quote from creator's userpage) to be used in an uncivil manner (see Talk:Saugeen Stripper#WTF?); isn't intended for use on userpage itself. --Qirex 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only appropriately used in one person's userspace, no need for it to be a template. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I softned it, now it could be almost cute if used correctly.--God of War 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No civil purpose I can see. Definitely no purpose that might help the encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per other supporters. --CJ Marsicano 07:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV, plain stupid, waste of space, not encyclopedic. — Wackymacs 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a userbox that's fine on a user page, but not in the context that it was created for, as a commemoration of a failed AfD, and used on its talk page. — TheKMan^talk 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per TheKMan. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy If someone wants it for suerpages, etc let them, but calling things stupid borders on civility so remove it from the main spaces. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you guys are no fun. It's outlived its amusingness anyway, so I've put the code my sandbox. I'll remove it from the Saugeen Stripper page. Adam Bishop 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to user space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frown. This is stupid. Lord Bob 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless --Ryan Delaney ^talk 07:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not problems with it, any user should be allowed to use it DaGizza^Chat ^(c) 12:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{T | C} 17:47, 13 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 result of the debate was keep. _→AzaToth 20:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dmoz[edit]

Do we really need that? Adrian Buehlmann 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's a very handy template to have around. Is there something wrong with it? - EurekaLott 15:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ummm...yeah, what's the problem? It's just as useful as Template:GameFAQs or any of the IMDb templates.Wrathchild 15:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought it does not that much save on typing: example [1]. At least it should be subst'ed when used, but this usually gets forgotten. Adrian Buehlmann 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as I can tell, it's just one of a number of handy external link templates. Handy is good. Lord Bob 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~. I disagree that this is particularly handy; it saves perhaps a few seconds worth of key-strokes. Like Adrian, I don't think we need this. This kind of thing just needs a quick style guideline somewhere, not a template. ~~Having said this, I am qualifying my vote with weak since it doesn't seem harmful or much of a drain of resources; it wouldn't bother me much if it's kept.~~ I just noticed that there is a near identical template at Template:ODP, so this is just a template fork which was made instead of just modifying the existing template --Qirex 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:ODP redirects to Template:Dmoz and isn't used in any articles. Wrathchild 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As of about 15 minutes ago. Prior to that, it was in use. - EurekaLott 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In light of this and after having thought about it some more, I'm changing my vote to keep. --Qirex 04:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think that in general such templates are a good way of standardizing external links to large and often-linked sites like the IMDB or the ISFDB (both of which have such link templates). There is an argument not to subst such tempaltes, since if the site in question changes its location or internal format, all links can be repaired by simply editing the template. But if frequently used, perhaps such tempaltes should be protected or semi-protected to avoid possible DOS vandalism. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't shure myself about nominating this here and I see now it has enough fans. I have executed the outcome of this nomination and I must say I was astonished that this over there had an outcome of "subst and delete". See for example what I had to do here to implement that consensus (the revision before my change there was clearly the better one for my taste). I feel there is something wrong with the treatment of these kind of templates. It would be much better to eventually implement something like an auto-subst in the MediaWiki software instead of this constant lookout for "subst and delete"-able templates. Adrian Buehlmann 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially as I have seen users edit warring over it for no reason. Quaque (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DES and others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: don't see a convincing reason to delete. Jonathunder 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 12:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. _→AzaToth 20:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:afd3[edit]

This template is instruction creep. I don't know, maybe it was useful at one point, but now it just makes it harder to nominate an article for AFD. I removed reference to it from the instructions on AFD, and replaced it with the much simpler ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/whatever)). --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally find it easier to type ((subst:afd3|pg= then Ctrl-V (paste) the article name that I copied beforehand (I also pasted the article name into afd2). I've tried both, and using afd2 and afd3 is just a lot quicker. Both these templates were originally brought about to reduce instruction creep. It's a lot easier to remember ((subst:afd2|pg=Ctrl-V and the same with afd3. That's just me, but I just found it easier in terms of cutting and pasting. --D e ath phoenix 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template has been around for a long long time and most people who are familiar with the AfD process are used to using it. Removing it is just to make things more difficult. Your reason for deletion is essentially, "I don't like it." You don't have to use it, but a lot of us I think find it far more convenient. howch e ng {chat} 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deathphoenix and Howcheng. FreplySpang (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Persoanlly i never use this. I would support editing the instrucvtions to make it celar this is a tool, not a required step in the procedure. But It can be a suefual tool, and it does no harm that I can see. DES ^(talk) 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree with your suggestion to "make it clear this is a tool". Instructions are clearer and simpler (especially for newer users) if they simply prescribe a fixed set of steps that can be performed without understanding the mechanics underneath them. The first time I AfD'ed a page, I had no idea about subpages or how to transclude them. I don't think I even knew how to use templates. The instructions were straightforward, though: cut and paste this text here, that text there, the third text another place, and you're done. A simple page of instructions with templates that can be cut and pasted into place is the best way to make AfD accessible to everyone. Users who are interested in how the templates work can of course explore them on their own, but keep the details out of sight of everyone else.--Srleffler 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This template simplifies the AfD process by giving each step a similar form. The text needed is shorter and simpler with the template. I can't imagine how the nominator sees his version as simpler. --Srleffler 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I run the bot that, every day, finds all the articles that people tried to AFD, but screwed up the process. There are very, very many of them, usually between fifteen and thirty, though I've seen as many as eighty in a single day. While a lot of these don't actually make it to AFD - I speedy keep the obvious bad faith nominations and those without any rationale for deletion, move others to WP:RFD or WP:CP, and speedy others - we're still looking at between 10% and 20% of all afd nominations, every day not getting completely through the process on their own. (That's not counting the people who fail to subst afd3 on the daily afd subpages, but my bot takes care of them automatically and I don't even see them.)
I don't know whether ((afd2)) and ((afd3)) help or hurt more here. As someone who intuitively understood what was going on when I first saw ((msg:stub)) start showing up back in - early 2004, was it? - I'm inclined to guess that they hurt more. However, I think the right way to proceed is to keep afd3 for those who are used to it, but to try deprecating it, using Phroziac's wording on the instructions, and give that a week or two to see what the real-world effect is. —Cryptic (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen quite a few bad AfD's, which begin with putting ((afd)) or ((vfd)) rather than ((subst:afd1)) at the top of the article. Clearly, these are people who never saw the instructions, but who got the tag from somewhere else.--Srleffler 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Helpful to those that like it, harmless to others. Also, I like the standard of using a template, as it makes it easier in the future to change how we list stuff, without re-changing instructions, if we ever wish to. --Rob 08:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the person who originally came up with this concept, it was created to help people from screwing up nominations. We could easily go back to the 7 or 9 step process that we had prior to 12th of February of last year, if we wanted... but I don't see how that helps at all. Frankly, the idea for afd3 was to keep consistancy with the instructions. It's a lot easier to do so when all you need to remember is ((afd)), ((afd2)), ((afd3)). --AllyUnion (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template, I've had no problems following the directions for it's use. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As I had already said on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, there is a simpler way to do it, which I described in length. It is harmless, so I wouldn't mind if it stayed, but it should definitely be deprecated. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for usefulness. -- nae'blis _(talk) 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]