Gpirate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

It is noteworthy and the Google of bit-torrents User: Wikisudia (talk) had this in the wrong place so I fixed it for him -- kelapstick (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin Overwhelming consensus to delete due to lack of reliable sources. Only two trivial sources were brought forward. MBisanz ^talk 20:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Consensus to delete, DRV is not AFD round 2. GlassCobra 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User HD-DVD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

I feel that this template is neither divisive nor inflammatory. It merely states one of the AACS encryption keys. I asked the deleting admin to consider reversing the decision, but he declined to do so [1]. On top of that, CSD:T1 is being repealed. Stifle (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own deletion Please explain why the template should be restored, almost two years after its deletion. As I mentioned on my talk page, its whole point is to give a big "up yours" about the HD-DVD encryption code. At the time, the code was appearing everywhere, and a CSD being repealed now doesn't have much bearing on the fact that it's a worthless userbox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see how it is giving an "up yours" in any way. My reason why the template should be restored is because it is neither divisive nor inflammatory; it's for TFD to decide whether it should be retained or not beyond that. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Context. Now, more than a year and a half after it was deleted, no, it doesn't seem like anything. At the time I deleted it? It was being placed everywhere, hence my attitude of the template's creation as a pointy way of getting around efforts to not promote the code.
      Also please note that the template was created by Yagikaru (talk · contribs) in May 2007, during a period where the account may or may not have been compromised.[2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Didn't meet T1. Whether the userbox is worthless is a matter for TfD (and, lest this should seem an insistence on process for process's sake, I would observe that it is not at all clear that a TfD will result in deletion [at the very least, it will, it should be noted, counsel migration to userspace; we might do well to restore thither upon the close of this discussion]); we are, rightly or wrongly, about to keep a userbox that proclaims a belief that "a marriage should consist of only of a man and a woman", which is surely more divisive, inflammatory, off-topic, and acollaborative than this one, and the discussion at that MfD seems to suggest that the community aren't fully read to revisit GUS and to take a harder line on advocacy userboxes that are not wholly related to our enterprise [although a community-wide discussion toward that end seems probable to follow]). Joe 20:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Who cares - userboxes go in user space, not template space. Create it in user space and move on with life. --B (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant to say. Freakin' congenital inability to be concise. Joe 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, move to userspace, and list at MFD. T1 was probably a little hasty; let's have a full discussion to have the final say. GlassCobra 17:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or just do it. Stifle is an admin. Deleting a userbox from template space is not a prohibition against creating it in user space. If Stifle wants to host it in his user space, he can just do it apart from this process. If a non-admin wants it in their userspace, they can ask an admin to do it here for them. There's nothing meaningful to overturn here. --B (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 14#Indian state assembly election results in 2008

This TFD was closed as delete today and I believe this closure was incorrect as I cannot see that a consensus for deletion was present in the discussion and that the closing admin misread the consensus. A longer view of why I believe this was incorrect can be seen in my discussion with the closing admin - here. I would ask that the closure be overturned as at least a no consensus and if necessary hold a discussion on the wider issue elsewhere. Davewild (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Before we go into that, can you please clarify why this data should be in a template and not just hardcoded into the single article that each template was used in? Stifle (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly as was discussed in the TFD and in my discussion with the closer, the templates are appropriate for use in more than one article each, the first one for instance is used in both Politics of Jammu and Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir state assembly elections, 2008 so they are not single use templates. This is quite normal practice as can be seen in the subcategories of Category:Election and referendum result templates and this is the first time any of them have been put up for deletion. Secondly as I argued elsewhere, having them in a template makes both the article and the results easier to edit without in any way altering the situation for the reader. For someone who is less experienced or new to editing having all this in the middle of the article makes editing the text of the article more daunting, while having this situation, makes it virtually identical to a template except more confusing about where and how to edit it. Davewild (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems reasonable. Overturn as the closure didn't reflect consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 12:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - not only by consensus in the discussion but making editors lives easier is a good thing - Peripitus (Talk) 06:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]