Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 5

April 5

Template:Non-free (copyrighted) image

Template:Non-free (copyrighted) image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First off, IANAL. Now, this template is too close to legal advice which, as layfolk, we are not qualified to give; it is redundant to any copyright license and image copyright tag, since unauthorized reproduction of any image (even GFDL) is in violation of a said license; and it is such a tiny amount of text that is unlikely to change drastically that a template is definitely unnecessary. Iamunknown 16:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Obnoxious

Template:Obnoxious (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be a maint. template with no policy or guideline listed to back it. Template is barely readable. Matthew 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, it's a cleanup template that cites no policies or guidelines. Additionally, the formatting is ungainly and the wording is highly POV. --Muchness 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia has a page WP:NOT. It is obviously things wikipedia is not. The section that supports this template would be found at WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. As you might be able to tell from the title, Wikipedia should not have too much trivia, this template says the same. And as to the style - A) I have no trouble reading it - however that may be the browser I'm using, so I'll try to look at it with different browsers and should a problem arise I'd be happy to fix it B) Since when has the style of a template been reason to DELETE? But all in all I'm actually somewhat shocked that this template was nominated for deletion. I have merely used it twice (in both cases I felt it was very much so needed) and the nominator did not raise any objections on the talk page. While obviously this is not requierd, I believe that per common courtesy and per WP:Assume_Good_Faith, it would have been nice to have some lines of communication as opposed to dealing with the situation like robots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Naturally given the raised concerns I will be glad to cite the WP:NOT in the template— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• Delete, Daniel we already have {{trivia}} which is standardized, less abrasive and more objective ("This article contains a trivia section" versus "creating an obnoxious look"). Template:Obnoxious is off-putting, whether you intended it to or not. Some person spent time to research those "insignificant facts" and arrange them in a way that puts off an "obnoxious look"; we could at least do the common courtesy of not marginalizing their work. --Iamunknown 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Matthew - I have yet to check the color problem you described, but how does the current version look text-wise (as I have added the guideline aforementioned)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Well I have actually fixed the wording a bit - however while that template is refering to Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles (you'll note the word 'avoid' in that - since it is merely avoid - my template is still needed (since trivia sections are allowed)) mine is refering to the aformentioned (sorry, it's a long link - the wp:Not link above). That also means that standardization would not apply since they serve two different goals - however even then I would like to point to the abundance of citation missing templates that have slightly different details. for example, {{Citations missing}} and {{unreferenced}} both say citations are missing, but {{unreliable}} says that the sources aren't reliable and {{Citations_broken}} says that the links are dead. (What I'm saying is, while both of the templates mentioned refer to the same subject - they are still slightly different, metaphorically the one you mentioned might be {{unreferenced}}, and mine might be {{unreliable}}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• As Iamunknown states: "we already have {{trivia}}". This is an obtrusive template which goes against a standard uniform look across Wikipedia. We also already have dispute templates/etc for editors expressing concerns. Frankly I'm not seeing any benefit to this template. Matthew 17:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh matthew - i just looked at the template with IE and I now see the problem - I'll fix that right away (well I'll start right away, gotta find colors that look good together)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

Uhmm... as I said ... just above you ... they're different.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

AHA! Ahh I personally believe I got very lucky with the new color - even better than the ones before - but more importantly - they show up the same on both browsers— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

I truly believe that the templates serve different purposes - as you can tell from the wording even (one is to delete, one is to reduce AND the one that is for reducing (mine) can be used in a "Pop culture references" section - the other can't), and it seems like a lot of the problems are with the colors or the text - and I just wish that SOMEONE would either do it themselves or tell me how I can improve the template and make it fit the standards. And by the way - is it standard to remove the template from the pages they were on before the template is deleted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• Daniel, a minor favour: could you please refactor your signature to something more simple like Danielfolsom (code: [[User:Danielfolsom|Danielfolsom]])? I'm finding it really difficult to follow the conversation. FYI, almost all templates used in the main namespace are similar. See Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup for examples; this one really should not be significantly different. --Iamunknown 17:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will change my sig right after this, sorry about that - however if nearly all the templates are simmilar - why delete this one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielfolsom (talk • contribs)

• Delete Hard to read, totally wrong colours for a maintenance template, you could just use {{unref}} at the top. Tellyaddict 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:English pseudo-dialects

Template:English pseudo-dialects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The term "pseudo-dialect" is POV and a neologism not used by any respectable source. The term "mixed language" is used in linguistics, but to mean something quite different to what it apparently is being used to mean here. Whoever put this template together failed to distinguish between sociolects (Valspeak), ciphers (Leet) and transliterations (Greeklish), language contact phenomena (Spanglish) and mistakes made by non-native speakers (Engrish). Additionally, I suspect some of these "pseudo-dialects" are original research. Ptcamn 13:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

delete the template title is a neologism. The categories included are used in a sense different from the standard terminology. And none of the included languages belong in the categories in which they are put. Complete OR and nonsensical neology.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)