June 4
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was No consensus Happy‑melon 10:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Anonymous and the Internet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Navigation template made up of very loosely related topics. Most of it is already linked in Anonymous (group), and the topics it links to don't necessarily have to be linked back. — Wafulz (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Useful navigational template across relevant and correlated topics. Cirt (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Justallofthem (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but clean up. For example, "raiding targets" is unencyclopedic. Shii (tock) 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but improve, as Shii noted, raiding targets and the categories in general don't seem very encyclopdic, but with improvement, I believe this could prove quite useful to people who wish to navigate topics related to anonymous. Broooooooce (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless it becomes encyclopedic. DigitalC (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC). [Significant changes have been made to the template] DigitalC (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Cute. An inferior Wikipedia compilation of a few ED templates. At least the meme section has already been taken out, prior to which this template held the honor of being the only template on any wiki to link to both Scientology and a man's gaping anus. Seriously though, this template has little navigational value because the Anonymous movement is of transitory interest to the *chans/ED and the notable real-life raids were coordinated on sites like enturbulation.org, which aren't even included. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as creator. The template was intended to link Encyclopedia Dramatica to the rest of websites where users identify themselves as members of "Anonymous".
- The unappropiate links were already removed by other users.
- Looking at Wikipedia:Navigational_templates, "Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I think that the answer is "yes".
- Anyone saying that Anonymous is a passing fad among *chans/ED should provide a source for that :D
- The inconsistencies can be mended by normal editing, examples:
- some of the linked articles lack references to Anonymous: griefer needs to have a reference to this Wired article, to link it to the website articles
- Vigilante refers to Anonymous, but Internet vigilantism doesn't, see cnet news blog for link between the topics
- the information on how the topics are related exists, but it's spread over the articles linked on the template, instead of being all explained at Anonymous (group)
- lack of a link to enturbulation.org is an editorial problem, not a deletion reason WP:SOFIXIT
- the linked articles should link to Anonymous article, see reasons above
- after the memes' removal, it's not challenged that all links are now relevant to the topic linking them
- --Enric Naval (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" I think that the answer is "yes"." I'm unconvinced that someone reading Scientology would want to go read Second Life, for example. DigitalC (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, only that those two articles don't use this template. Indeed, none of "raiding targets" links are supposed to use it on their articles (basically, they would be removed for "undue weight" reasons or something). --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly which articles is this template designed for? I don't see how a few links in the relevant "see also" sections can't render this template obsolete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's for articles where Anonymous has played a relevant role. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the purpose of all nav templates is improving navigation by replacing long lists on the "see also" section and other places, as stated on their guideline page. (removed a few arguments I had made, since they were all already clearly stated on the guideline page) --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the guideline to layout: Links in a "see also" section should be integrated into the article. This seems like arbitrarily highlighting topics.-Wafulz (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "should be worked into the text where possible, and usually removed from the See also list unless that would make them hard to find." Also, the nav template helps to remove links from that area, and makes the links relevant to the template's topic easier to find, and this specific template is collapsed by default to avoid highlighting the links. If you think that a specific link inside the template is arbitrarily chosen, or that the template is displayed on an arbitrarily chosen page, then fix it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindent). Okay, let's take a look at the links here and see how many of them would be hard to find:
- Reunion places: These could all go in "composition." Some are already there.
- Organized operations: Project Chanology is in the lead, and they have only had one organized operation, so this seems completely pointless.
- Raiding targets: eBaum's isn't mentioned as a raiding target in the article. Epilepsy forums has its own section. Habbo is mentioned once. Scientology is in the lead. Second Life isn't mentioned in the article.
- Some of the links are in an existing "see also" section. If it were up to me I'd nuke the template and just have a "see also" composed of the minor links at the bottom of the template.-Wafulz (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- with some modification. The Myotis (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cirt. Z00r (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. I wouldn't have much of a problem with this template if it was for use solely on Anonymous (group), but I don't feel it's particularly appropriate to add it to many of the articles it links - for example, on Facebook. (The fact that Anonymous makes use of Facebook is a notable feature of Anonymous, but not of Facebook.) I don't think most of these articles need to be linked to one another; and most of them are linked from the Anonymous article already. Essentially, this seems like a template which links together various loosely-related articles by one not-particularly-significant association, and so is probably not needed. Terraxos (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThe user who created this template is really spamming pages with it.Killhammer (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - rename it - there is nothing like "Anonymous and the internet", because there is no Anonymous outside of internet, so name of this template doesn't make much sense --89.24.32.73 (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No. Shut up. The template is essential regarding information on 4chan and Anonymous, and is perfect the way it is (perhaps with some further additions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.69.112 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As pointed out above, the template is a random collection of loosely assorted topics. Q T C 22:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What the above poster said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.252.223 (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a social networking site and this template is therefore completely inappropriate. The selected categories are advertisements for websites to attack (or that have been attacked) and where to find information on which websites to attack. Beyond that there is no real cohesion within the template itself about what this topic is. On that token, it makes many presuppositions about the subject of Anonymous which may qualify as original research or synthesis. The "We Are Legion" logo is equally inappropriate as it takes the appearance of an advertisement. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that the "We are Legion" thing was inappropriate and so I removed it. Cirt (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Places to make publicity and calls for action" appears, on its face, to violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. In consideration of the controversy surrounding these issues and to maintain our objectivity, that too should probably be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, all four of the subtopics are egregious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#HOWTO, so the whole thing should just be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] I reformatted a bit more and fixed up/removed some more inappropriate wording. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are YouTube, Something Awful, Facebook, etc related to Anonymous given that these are not image boards or wikis dedicated to image boards? Trying to tangentially relate all of these articles together by saying that "these were once employed in some medium by a group of people to deliver a message" isn't a good enough reason to group them together. This just isn't a very well developed set of topics or interests concerning Anonymous and this template isn't functionally useful as a navigation tool. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not create the template, those items were all already there. I just rearranged it so that it would not have "egregious violations of WP:NPOV and WP:NOT#HOWTO". Now it has subject headings which are a lot simpler and more workable. Cirt (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just found it useful. 74.7.31.106 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is really better termed as a "4chan related" template, that's what the links in it indicate anyway Weygander (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's getting there, but more cleanup is needed if you want this to pass CfD. Definitely needs /b/lackup --Dragon695 (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As pointed out above, the template is a random collection of loosely assorted topics. I also take issue with how it vaguely implies that the linked articles are related, perhaps strongly so, while in fact the different linked articles might actually relate to quite different communities of ‘anonymouses’. Essentially this template is just another incarnation of the ‘Anonymous is one person’ meme and I doubt its usefulness on Wikipedia. Shinobu (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I do not see a strong enough connection between the linked articles to warrant such a template slapped on the pages; and, what Shinobu said. -mrbartjens (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2008 (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 section.
Template:PD-Mexico-NIP
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 10:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:PD-Mexico-NIP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is only transcluded on two images, and is deprecated. It should be subst'ed and deleted or replaced with ((pd-because)). Also, as a note, if an administrator would like to place a deletion notice on the page, it would be appreciated (it is, inexplicably, protected). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Also properly tagged. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, looks depreciated. VegaDark (talk) 02:55, 19 June 2008 (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 section.
Template:Japan Automotive Industry
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Japan Automotive Industry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is identical to Template:Japanese Automobile Industry and not in use, while the other one is. — Luccas 05:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unused Tassedethe (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the left side of all Wikipedia pages there's a "what links here" link. Click on that while viewing the template. Also on the above line listing the template under discussion, there is a "links" item which does the same thing. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2008 (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 section.
Template:Spam1MrB
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was delete. Note similar warnigs at ((uw-spam1)), etc. - Nabla (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Spam1MrB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused personal spam template not part of current warning scheme. MBisanz talk 05:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it really is no longer used then delete, but this template should be substituted. Agathoclea (talk) 11:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a one-off personalized version of other templates, and the person who created it for their own use is no longer active. MBisanz talk 22:43, 14 June 2008 (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 section.
Ordomag subtemplates
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was delete both - Nabla (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ordomag/+ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Ordomag/0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These were once protected as high risk templates. They are no longer high risk. They are redundant.
The risk had come through the transclusions of ((ordomag/+)) on
and thence on ((convert)), ((ft to m)), ((ft2 to m2)), ((bbl to t)), etc., and then on to hundreds maybe thousands of pages. ((Ordomag)) has recently been updated and the subtemplates of ((ft to m)) and ((ft2 to m2)) which had been transcluding ((ordomag/+)) directly have been switched over to the new version of ((ordomag)). This eliminated the need for the entire array of ((ordomag))'s subtemplates as noted on template talk:ordomag#Improved version.
I've moved the subtemplates to preserve history. I moved the old codes back just in case but clicking on What links here varifies that there are no remaining transclusions of these subtmplates. Though they could probably go under CSD G7, I'm putting them up for deletion here just to be sure since they were once considered high risk and so the deleting admin can varify that they are now zero risk. JIMp talk·cont 05:45, 4 June 2008 (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 section.
Template:Newvoterip
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was delete, for being too harsh - Nabla (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Newvoterip (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bitey template that disenfranchises new users from actively contributing and creates a hierarchy between new and established users. MBisanz talk 05:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --DA PIE EATER (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Seems to go against forming a consensus, and listening to arguments rather than counting (or not counting) votes as well. DigitalC (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and prior consensus at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_September_8#Template:Newvoter. Sadly, this template is accurate, but would work better as a modified welcome message. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While it is true that it might be a little harsh, it does speak the truth. I can see it being particularly useful for actual votes that have suffrage requirements. --Dragon695 (talk) 06:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is the thruth. A modified welcome message like Anetode suggests would be best.FelisLeoTalk! 08:55, 17 June 2008 (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 section.
Template:Possibly-unfree-mural
- 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 section.
The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Possibly-unfree-mural (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Highly specific PUI that is already covered by existing PUI templates. Not currently in use in image tagging system. Redundant to generic tags. MBisanz talk 05:03, 4 June 2008 (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 section.