< February 2	February 4 >

February 3

Template:Mikedk9109/Online and Template:Mikedk9109/Offline

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 speedy delete per G7/U1. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 17:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used to use these templates on my user page, but not anymore. So, they should be speedy deleted. —mikedk9109^SIGN 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete user request (CSD U1) -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Selmo. Xiner (talk, email) 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per author. - grubber 06:13, 4 February 2007 (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.

Template:GNAA-AfD

The result of the debate was Substitute and Delete -- Avi 04:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to bid farewell to this monument to lameness, I think. Now GNAA is gone we can subst where we must and otherwise remove this template, since it served mainly to deter future nominations. Guy (Help!) 10:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mathmo ^Talk 11:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there probably will still be deletion reviews popping up from time to time that will be added to it. Such as the one a couple of days ago. Would be a pain to add them to each page and much easier to add to a single template. Thus another reason for keeping it. Mathmo ^Talk 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --SonicChao ^talk 15:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. A record somewhere for posterity would be nice to prevent people from saying "OMG this nominated 6 times u kant delete", but we don't need a template. -Amark moo! 16:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not properly made, sort of hard to understand as there is no description or anything.Telly addict 17:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is gone. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the template wasn't meant so much for the article as the AfDs which obviously do exist. Mathmo ^Talk 10:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete. The article is gone, therefore this navigational template no longer has a purpose. Also needs deleting due to the rationale of deletion itself (verifiability, WP:DENY, etc.). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per above. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 16:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per Consumed Crustacean. riana_dzasta 17:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this template seems pointless – Qxz 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, no longer needed. Wasn't particularly useful in the first place since, as noted, the early AfDs were full of sockpuppets and the later ones consisted mostly of shouting about the earlier ones. --Aquillion 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noads-banner

The result of the debate was subst and delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned template from WikiProject no ads. 1ne 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This could even qualify for a speedy Kc4 07:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep! Definitely a one to keep and lets user know that other users are against adverts on wikipedia, that non existing interwiki would have to be fixed though.Telly addict 17:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful. Xiner (talk, email) 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and neutral. It appears to be used by quite a few users. - grubber 06:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The project Wikipedia:WikiProject No ads has been deleted. Delete, allow creation of a userbox with text such as "This user is opposed to ads on Wikipedia" in user space. - Mike Rosoft 16:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst on the pages where it is used. Don't delete it until that is done; to do otherwise would be very rude. — coelacan talk — 03:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as per User:Coelacan. --DeLarge 14:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User no GFDL

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox in Template namespace promoting disregard for Wikipedia policy. Policy forbids the use fo "fair use images" (non-free images) when it's possible to produce a free alternative (like a GFDL'ed image) ~~I believe this is not even fit for Userfying~~ please, read my comment bellow. The acompaning category Category:Wikipedians against GFDL should also go away --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. It doesn't promote disregard for rules, its just for users who are frustrated with some of them. Its not meant to be offensive or inflammatory in any way. Many users would prefer to use a clearer fair use picture in place of a fuzzy out-dated GFDL, and although we can't, we should be able to at least discuss our opinion in a small userbox. The template itself states "This user would prefer not to use GFDL images if there are better fair use ones available." If it said "This user recommends removing GFDL images and replacing them with Fair Use ones", I might agree.--CyberGhostface 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Debete for the reasons outlined by the nominator. Political userboxes aren't the way to rewrite policy, and it does read as though this encourages ignoring WP:FUC. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. It's only stating your personal preference, we all go along with the rules but we don't always like them - this is just our little way of saying that while we abide by the rules, we may not personally agree - it's hardly an instigation to mass hysteria. Since when did expression of personal opinion become outlawed on your user pages? Christopher 04:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, accomplishes nothing, doesn't belong in template space. It should be obvious that deleting a template in no way affects the ability of users to express their personal opinions on their user pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accomplishes nothing like the other userboxes that go "This user is strong with the force" or "This user is a Gryffindor"?--CyberGhostface 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's highly debatable whether or not "producing a free alternative" means producing anything which depicts the topic, or only pictures of comparable quality. Of course, userfy if people think it should be, but no reason to delete it. -Amark moo! 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as userbox. The Wiki Police State is obviously working in overdrive, when even stating a preference is enough to have your free speech quashed. Jeffpw 06:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe userfy: I believe I misread "This user would prefer..." as "This user prefers...". The later one would really be a willingness to ignore the policy, while the former is just an statement of disliking the policy. It should undoubtelly be removed from the Template: namespace, but as we can't prevent users from expressing theirs dislikes for Wikipedia's policies (or even for it's principles), maybe it should be simply moved to User: space, (as one more damaging userbox). --Abu badali ^(talk) 06:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above Kc4 06:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy userfy as polemic userbox and list cat at UCfD. Eluchil404 08:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The purpose of template space and user space is not to lobby against the core principles of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 10:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and that isn't the intention of the template.--CyberGhostface 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the purposes of user space is to allow others to know a bit about who they're working with. Saying that a user would prefer foo isn't lobbying, it's just putting that belief out there. Now, if it said This user believes foo, and you should, too!, there might be a problem. Wodup 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I don't think this is an opinion we should prohibit people from having on their userpages, but it's not really something we should have in the template namespace either (also, delink it from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia). --Delirium 14:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userify and delete category. It shouldn't be in the Template: space, because you're correct, it shows disregard to Wikipedia's policies. --SonicChao ^talk 15:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy... no need to get all aggressive over it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite legal --T-rex 19:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How?--CyberGhostface 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly legal in userspace. No policy says you have to agree with everything the Wiki-Police lay down as law. Jeffpw 20:29, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not legal, because if there is a GFDL image available to depict a subject in a given way, there are de facto no fair use images that do the same thing. Chris cheese whine 07:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took T-rex's comment of "not quite legal" to mean the userbox itself was against Wikipolicies. That is what I meant about it being legal in user space. Last time I checked, there were no penalties for stating you have a different preference than Wiki policy on your user page...though from this discussion, I sense there are those who would like to quash even that little bit of freedom of thought. Jeffpw 17:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. One, wikipedia's Fair-use standards are more strict than U.S. copyright law so that an image can be removed or deleted as replaceable even if it is, in fact, legal. Second, even if the box were to advocate illegal behavior that does not make it illegal itself under U.S. law. Note that I am not a lawyer. Eluchil404 17:11, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contradicts WP:FUC criterion 1. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:GUS. Xiner (talk, email) 00:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not userfy. This template is nonsense, as if a free alternative is available, an image is de facto not fair use. Chris cheese whine 03:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy the template, rename ~~or delete~~ the category. I don't feel that this userbox needs to be deleted. See my comments above. The category, though, seems to have a harsh name and needs to be changed ~~or deleted~~. Wodup 07:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You miss the point somewhat. If a free image exists, then there are no fair use images at all. Chris cheese whine 07:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand WP:FUC to mean that should acceptable quality free content not be available, non-free content may be used. For example, if there's a free picture of the subject of an article where the subject appears too blurry or too small or both, and there's a non-free picture that better displays the subject, the latter can be used. Still, I don't see why users can't state this preference on their userpages. As long as their actions do not violate current policy, they're fine. Wodup 08:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The quality issue rather goes without saying, in that any image of poor quality, free or non-free, is not acceptable. Given two images of good quality, one free and one non-free, even if the non-free one is better, given the presence of the free image it would no longer qualify as fair use. This is why the template was nonsense - if there is a good GFDL image, then there is no such thing as a fair-use image. Chris cheese whine 09:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right. The quality of the free image would have to be unacceptable in order to use a non-free image. I don't think the userbox said anything about acceptable or unacceptable quality, so I see how it could mean that the user prefers something that is outside policy. Now that we're over that hurdle, what's wrong with saying that you would prefer something that you can't have according to the policy as long as, in practice, you abide by the policy? Wodup 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and userfy. It's a user box stating a personal preference. People are allowed to have and express opinions, sure, but given that this particular opinion contradicts Wikipedia's core goals, it doesn't belong in template space. -/- Warren 21:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T1 and per the willful disregard of policy this template encourages. — CharlotteWebb 02:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Charlotte, how on earth is stating a preference encouraging willful disrespect? You dont seem to be WP:AGF here. Jeffpw 09:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per per CyberGhostface. Mathmo ^Talk 10:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both the userbox and the category. It's convenient to have a place listing the users whose image uploads need to be monitored especially closely. —An gr 13:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If "Fair use inquisitors" are using the category as a way to stalk users and try to get their images removed, maybe the category should be removed.--CyberGhostface 18:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 'It seems a lot of the users here are seriously taking this template way too seriously. It doesn't encourage people to break the rules. Its not advocating using fair use images over GFDL ones. Its just for people who don't care for GFDL that much over fair use. Obviously we're not going to change the rules, but we should be able to express our opinions. Also, in this whole legal debate: give me a break and get off your high horse. Its not illegal to express your opinions anymore than someone holding a sign protesting a law is breaking said law. Its not promoting the breaking of the rule, its just for people who don't care for it. If the template said "This user advocates the replacement of GFDL images with fair use one" you'd have a point! But it doesn't.--CyberGhostface 19:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per user:Chriscf. Blank Verse 03:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy then delete, rename category. Preferring good quality FU to poor quality GFDL images doesn't make you "against GFDL" per se. And I see no harm in userfying this, as it does not advocate any policy violation or lawbreaking. --DeLarge 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I wouldn't have that template in my user space, but free speech principles allow for a user to express his or her disagreement with policy. The display of the template is not in itself a violation of policy, it merely states that the user does not like the policy. There are loads of userboxes in use where editors express their dislike for wikipedia policies, and yes even laws. Examples Users who prefer serial commas, french periods, split infinitives, etc. and Users who oppose death penalty, support legalizing cannabis, etc. Its all free speech, and not causing any disruption to wikipedia, community-building, editing or readers. No harm, don't fix it, if it ain't broke. Just because concensus has been well-established for the policy this template states the user does not like, does not give us cause to develop into an Oligarchy, and root out that which opposes our concensus. Jerry lavoie 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Woohookitty (talk • contribs) 08:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Template:South San Francisco Unified School District

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many red links for this type of navigation template. The redlinks are for schools that are not likely to meet the proposed WP:SCHOOLS criteria and will wind up being deleted or merged after an AfD. This can result in biting new users. Probably better to delete and avoid the problems. --Vegaswikian 00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the template's subject, South San Francisco Unified School District is a redlink. --SonicChao ^talk 15:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many non working interwikis.Telly addict 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles probably won't meet WP:SCHOOLS. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Xiner (talk, email) 00:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the reasons above, and for the same reasons that the Los Angeles Unified School District template was deleted. Blank Verse 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the categorization of articles based on this small geographical region is not of value to the reader. BUT I do completely disagree with using essays and proposed policies that do not have concensus as de facto policies. I believe all schools are notable and should have at least a small article with the very basic information in the appropriate schools-project infobox. The cited proposed policy WP:Schools is NOT a policy of the English wikipedia and should not be cited here as if policy. You can say "per the arguments drafted in...", but not "this category violates..." Violates implies it is a policy, which it is NOT. Jerry lavoie 00:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]