< September 3	September 5 >

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 as inactive. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely red-linked. Dafoeberezin3494 20:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pieces/Pieces-identity - seems to be part of project. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I still would delete. Project is inactive (no serious edits since June 2004). Dafoeberezin3494 00:03, 5 September 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be an attempt to restrict editing rights, and possibly a violation of WP:OWN GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also a possible violation of WP:BOLD --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BOLD Daniel's page ☎ 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I created it to encourage people to discuss changes on the template talk page rather than making broad sweeping changes like this that make little sense and ignore consensus. It doesn't restrict editing rights because it only says that major changes.. based purely on your personal opinion... will likely be reverted. It's only a notice stating what the convention among other editors is about edits that break the layout of the template, it doesn't restrict editing rights in and of itself. The point is that templates with it can still be edited, and furthermore, the wording of ((contains link)) can be customized, so if you feel that it violates WP:OWN I suggest you fix it instead of deleting it. --DavidH Oz Au 23:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC) *Comment The objectionable text has been removed by Sean Black, and I have added text to indicate that the notice should not be left in place permanently hence complying with WP:BOLD and WP:OWN, respectively. I would like suggest Speedy Keep now that the issue with this template has been addressed. If there are any other possible ways to make the template's purpose more obvious, please let me know. Thank you. --DavidH Oz Au 01:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (despite changes). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is one of our core policies, but whatever happened to Wikipedia is a wiki? It should be obvious that changes are liable to be reverted if they're made without consensus, and I don't see why templates (other than the high-risk protected templates) would need an extra disclaimer talking about this. --ais523 12:56, 5 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete per ais523. --DavidH Oz Au 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two people other than me have been editing the template, and their edits were removing content. In addition to my vote above, I would also like to suggest Speedy delete per CSD G7 if it is still possible. I wish I hadn't made this template. --DavidH Oz Au 05:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested speedy deletion on those grounds. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:37, 10 September 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 merge // Pilotguy (Have your say) 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed template merge - Infobox magazine is apparently duplicated by Template:Infobox Magazine (naming difference is one capital letter). Template:Infobox Magazine (capital M) has more detail and usage. Dl2000 13:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the 'M', changing this destination infobox to use the more standard infobox stylings used in the 'm' version. LinaMishima 02:07, 5 September 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 no consensous,keep // Pilotguy (Have your say) 03:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should not need a separate template, this is just a defining principle of Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 17:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose in designing this was to create a template to subtly prod those editors insistent on adding rumor after rumor to pages, usually those for mainstream media, but it's been applied elsewhere. After numerous reverts of rumor adding edits to various pages about recent or upcoming films, and vitriolic reverts by the rumor adders, who wanted to make edit wars and fights, I decided that a subtle prod would work better than seeing fights all the time. This instead lets editors say 'hey, it's right there, cite your edits'. There are a large number of newbies to wiki who never cite their edits. It may be a 'defining principle' but there are numerous editors who don't follow it. A reminder doesn't hurt. we've got 'cool off' and 'civil' banners too. Should those be nominated? ThuranX 18:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people aren't citing their sources, despite their being warnings and messages telling them to do so all over the edit screen and help pages, what makes you think a notice on the article is going to change anything? Leaving a message on their talk page would be more productive... and if that doesn't work, then they can be dealt with in the appropriate ways. In any case, I agree with Adam. Delete. --SB | T 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be unused as well. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to point out all the embedded messages in articles which are invisible to the reader. Now, sure, that seems ideal, but what about articles which have one per section? What of upcoming or current event articles where they have several and users still make citeless claims? Look, when I first came here, I had no idea how important citation is, but now I do. And with that knowledge, I also know that there needs to be something universal. A universal message, not only to point to, but to lessen the need for others. What's worse? Embedded messages that aren't "eyesores" to readers but whose purpose should be defeated by the warns a users sees whilst editting or a simple template that, yes, seems redundant, but also is the first clear assertive request for citation in editting that a user will see? Which is worse? Okay. Let me give you an analogy. Signing your comments. Friggen GIPUs never seem to sign their comments, right? Yet it's so freaking easy and we tell them everywhere. You see it when you're editting, you see it at the top of talk pages. What? Are they slow or something? I won't speculate. Still, the need for citation is just like that, if not worse. TV. There's a low blow to citation right there. "TV cannot be cited. Take our word for it." And we do. Imagine if there were some situations where someone actually couldn't sign their comments, or at least a reason not to. That's what people like me, X and other Wikipedians have to deal with. The need for citation is not clear to all and often underminded. So, yes, we chose to make a template to illustrate that need. Now, I know I made a long comment for a simple vote and I'm not pleading my case to judge, but I just want to make clear why this template was made and how much it's needed. Admittedly, feelings like those of Adam have led to minimal usage throughout the encyclopedia, but I think that will change. Also, in light of those comments about "dealing with someone appropriately", that sounds vaguely like something the mob would say. We're just here to make an encyclopedia. I do thik this warning will lessen the citeless claims by users, and that's certainly better than page protection or blocking people left and right. As for the usage, a single user, Phil Boswell is responsible for removing the template whilst other uses chose to transclued of their own accord. I've contacted Boswell and am hoping for a speedy reply. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 19:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, what are you blathering about? If we tell people all the time to sign comments and they never do, why will this message make them cite sources? Adam Bishop 21:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, that seems a bit hostile, but basically, I think this message helps, because for one, it's not confrontational. Reminders and reversions can be confrontational, and I suspecte we've all been on the recieving end of that, and possibly the giving end too. If the sign is on the wall, it's passive, but noticed. To outright say, you lack citation and revert an edit can be conflict starting material. To say, hey, other editors agree that citation's been lacking and that rumors are bad, there's a template up, makes things easier. People aren't citing, this is one solution to encourage a bit more citation. Shouting at person after person after person 'citation citation' quickly makes you a candidate for WP:Dick, or a WP:BLOCK, neither of which is useful for retaining an interested group of people. Putting something up where others can just say 'hey, no rumors, see the template', or better, if the template heads off some of that, is better. ThuranX 20:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely unsuitable for the context in which it was being used—all of twice, by the way—which was on the top of articles where we would normally place notices of important problems like ((NPOV)) and ((cleanup)). Whilst the enthusiasm shown above is commendable, it is unfortunately being misdirected in this instance. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 22:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no particularly useful place to put this template. No good for article pages, we don't need any more tempaltes on talk pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if I understand the purpose of this template correctly. I don't think it's a good idea to put a warning in articlespace. Articles should be tagged if and when they have a specific problem which must be fixed, and there is an objective criterion which would allow us to remove the tag. Once this tag shows up on a page, how does one determine when it is no longer applicable? When the potential for unsourced edits goes away? How would anyone determine that? In any case, something like a ((needsource)) on a given user's talk page would probably be more effective. --- Deville (Talk) 03:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's designed for the talk page, NOT the article page. I'm no fan of excessive templates on the article page either. I figured it could go right under things like 'Wikiproject X' templates and such. ThuranX 22:15, 8 September 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright tag including a speedy (db-noncom). Also includes a specific author's name on the copyright, is not used currently (unsurprisingly, given its nature), is unlikely to be susbt'd, and isn't on the drop-down list of copyrights when uploading an image; in short, it's unused and unlikely ever to be used in the future (although judging by the backlinks and its existence, it may have been used in the past). The corresponding project page (Wikipedia:Scratchspin images) was MfDd. --ais523 10:59, 4 September 2006 (U T C)

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 no consensous, so keep. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see how this template might be useful in some cases, I think it has far too much potential for abuse. A malicious user could add it to a userpage, especially that of an inactive user. That said, a user who wants to warn others about mental health issues can easily say so on his or her userpage, without need for this template. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 16:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Tareel ^T _C 07:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like something that's a little too personal to generalize in a template. --Satori Son 20:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template speaks much better and is more noticable than a block text would. Besides, you can always revert if a troll add it to a user page. As someone who has mental health issues, I find this template to be a great help and warning to other users. It's just the same of telling a school that some of its students have specialized learning needs that should be adapted to as long as they're realistic. --D -Day ^{I'm all ears How can I improve?} 22:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those who want a visible notice of that nature on their userpage can hard-code it or use a div box. szyslak (t, c, e) 09:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. ^Blank ^Verse 21:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does this fit criteria for speedy deletion? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep it happens, users will from time to time (apparently 1 in 4 in any given year), experience mental health problems which can make it difficult but not imposible for them to contribute, or to respond to questions in a timely manner. This template serves as a means of warning other users not to expect quick responses to questions. There is a proposal for an Association_of_Wikipedians_with_Mental_Health_Conditions, specifically designed to cover the issues raised with wikipedians with mental health/psycological conditions. SUch a project could function similarly to Esperanse offering suport for users experiencing difficulties. This template could be included in the scope of such a project as a means of identifying users in dificulties and offering pro-active support, similar to the way the wiki-stress templates work. --Salix alba (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful. If you see that it has been placed on a user page by a different user, then simply revert them. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, it's apparently used, and ANY labeling template can be abused/placed on the wrong page. Revert the usage, don't delete the template. -- nae'blis 17:00, 15 September 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted for exactly the same reasons as Template:Arsenal F.C. Reserves Squad below. Qwghlm 09:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Elisson • Talk 14:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kingjamie 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 14:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 04:01, 7 September 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.

September 4

Template:Pieces-identity

Template:Contains link

Template:Infobox magazine

Template:Cite your edits

Template:Scratchspin

Template:User-warning-mentalhealth

Template:Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves Squad