Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 12 -- Please Click to Return to Front 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 delete // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Celtic F.C. greatest (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Reading F.C. best-ever XI (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:1970 Chelsea F.C. squad (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

As before, the one CA Milan, Crystal Palace was deleted. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive5#Club_squad_templates. Matt86hk talk 01:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

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 deleted by User:Kaihsu. TimBentley (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Standardization caveat (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Disclaimer template; disclaimers tend to be deleted (arguments against them include the fact that not all articles have them, possibly leaving Wikipedia legally vunerable if they are used sporadically). --ais523 13:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. To quote myself (Template talk:Standardization caveat):

  Specific Wikipedia disclaimers are generally considered harmful. We cannot guarantee that a standards article - or any article for that matter - is correct and up to date. (I think this one falls under Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer.) Perhaps this template is meant as a warning rather than disclaimer, but in that case I think that the wording should be changed, i.e. it should spell out that there is a problem with this specific article, not with all articles that describe standards. GregorB 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Another one, delete. --cesarb 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, it contributes nothing that the standard disclaime does not. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete par policy. Duja 14:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've only seen it used as a warning/reminder to editors (maybe that's why it uses a warning icon rather than a world icon), such as to reduce mistakes such as changing ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 country codes to Olympic abbreviations. However, the phrasing is oriented toward editors rather than readers so there is an implied Wikipedia self-reference (or is it a self-awareness of editility?). (SEWilco 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC))
  • In that case, it should be on the talk page of the article in question, and say something like 'Please consult the relevant standards documents before changing this article'. --ais523 11:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I see nothing redeeming about this template. It doesn’t strike me as being oriented towards editors: it directly refers to use of this article in implementations based on this standard: A webpage describing a standard isn’t an implementation based on it, it’s a description of it. I don’t see how it’s going to remind authors not to change the codes on a list of ISO 15924 codes into some other sort of code ... I mean, the fact that the page is headed ‘List of ISO 15924 codes by letter’ should kinda indicate that, and if they are changed, it looks like vandalism even without the template. —Felix the Cassowary 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Unnecessarily long-winded and complicated wording for something that apparently just means "Consult the standards organisation's official documentation for definitive information". (I especially like the note that the agency "may have a website". Really? Wow.) Matt 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

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 delete all, EXCEPT {{usernameblocked}}, the last 4 will be incorporated somehow. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC) This nomination concerns the following templates:

Template:Impostor (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Indefblocked-nonlatin (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Indefblocked-username (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Similar (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Too similar (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:UsernameBlocked (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:UsernameBlockedCompany (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:UsernameBlockedEmail (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:UsernameBlockedLong (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These templates previously categorised users to Wikipedia inappropriate username blocks and Wikipedia blocked imposters, which was deleted following Categories for deletion (August 30). These no longer serve a practical purpose; the blocked user is provided with all relevant information by the Blocked error text, and curious users can access the block log. The relevant information can easily be provided in the block reason; both "Violation of the Username policy (company name)" and even "user..." (now that the Blocked error text explains what it means) fully replace "{{UsernameBlockedCompany}}", particularly using tools like TemplateScript.

With the category deleted, tagging these userpages amounts to creating and orphaning thousands upon thousands of pages of personal attacks and vandalism. These are then indexed by Google and other search engines, making Wikipedia a high-profile source of libel at the top of many search results. The username block templates are now pointless, harmful, and can be abused maliciously. Ergo, they should be deleted. If tagging userpages is absolutely necessary, a generic {{indefblock}} or {{miniblocked}} provides a convenient link to the block log. // admin Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The many opinions noted below (and the undiscriminatory words thence bolded) make determining general opinion rather hard. I created a table to help do so, by showing the opinions of those who've discussed so far, at User:Pathoschild/Sandbox; note the disclaimer about vote-counting. // admin Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 07:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete all these can esily be replaced by a single template pointing towards WP:USERNAME - Glen 03:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete no longer serve any purpose.--§hanel 03:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed. —Encephalon 09:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Per arguments advanced by nom, delete... Also consider {{username}} perhaps? ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's listed above: {{UsernameBlocked}} Silly Lar :) — Moe Epsilon 01:05 September 13 '06
• Delete. No purpose. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Long overdue. — Moe Epsilon 23:02 September 12 '06
  • I now think that we should Keep {{UsernameBlocked}} and it's redirects as it's rather appropriate for messages regarding usernames that my have some controversy surrounding it. The rest pf them I couldn't give a hoot about, Strong Delete all but UsernameBlocked. — Moe Epsilon 20:07 September 13 '06
• Comment: I recall {{UsernameBlocked}} (and/or one of its redirects) being used as a block reason, like {{blocked proxy}} is (the fact I recently removed something from it which didn't work when used as a block reason is a strong indication that I saw it being used as such). If so, it shouldn't be deleted, because it would break the block reason for some currently blocked users. Could someone check? --cesarb 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's true, I can't find a location on Wikipedia to give you a link, but a common reason for blocking is a {{usernameblock}}. But it wouldn't be broken per se. All it is, is a template that states policy. Deleting these templates will not change policy. — Moe Epsilon 01:01 September 13 '06
    • Then, keep {{UsernameBlocked}} and all its redirects, neutral on the rest. Deleting it would make some of the block reasons look strange for people who are not used to the inner workings of the wiki. --cesarb 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Subst: and redirect all to a generic block template. We don't need the multitudes of them, but it would be nice to still have the shortcuts around; and yes, we DO need some sort of generic "you have been blocked because..." template outside of the interface text. [ælfəks] 01:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No longer useful. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the first 4, keep {{Too similar}}, merge the last 4 The userspace warnings should go. The talkspace explanations should be kept, to let the users know what to do when they've gone. --ais523 09:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep {{UsernameBlock}} -- more convenient than typing out a lengthy block reason. — Dan | talk 14:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep {{username}} to not break hundreds, if not thousands of block messages, and because it provides more information than MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Deprecrate the rest, but keep for historical purposes. --Rory096 22:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep {{usernameblocked}} and all redirects, as they are used as block reasons, which are then expanded on MediaWiki:Blockedtext. Not everyone should have to install javascript to be able to actually block vandals (I certainly won't), so that won't fly as an excuse. As for the rest, Rory has a good idea—just deprecate them. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the same ones as Titoxd said. That is the most logical solution. Nothing harmful of glorifying of vandals is happening with the usernameblocked template. I don't slap usernameblock on every blatant vandal and troll, but it is very useful for editors who just didn't think when choosing a username (which happens a lot) though otherwise contribute well. Why should we make it harder to communicate with people? pschemp | talk 02:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keeping either {{Impostor}} or {{Similar}} is useful to direct users to the real user by the name, so they don't mistakenly think the real user was blocked or made inflammatory comments, though perhaps it might be best for the real user to redirect the blocked user's pages to their pages. {{Indefblocked-username}} could be useful in indicating to other users that a particular username is inappropriate. {{UsernameBlocked}} is very helpful to users, many of whom don't read the whole block text. If deleting it is going to mean there are more unblock requests I have to deal with, which are posted when the user doesn't realize, then it shouldn't be deleted. That said, as always these templates should be used reasonable; there is no reason to post {{UsernameBlocked}} on every sockpuppet invasion, or to use {{Impostor}} on every cohort on wheels or on inflammatory, obviously-not-him names. If I were to make a decision at this moment, early on in the decision-making process, I would weakly keep {{Similar}}, weakly keep {{Indefblocked-username}}, and strongly keep {{UsernameBlocked}}, with redirects where appropriate, but I am interested in other discussion and proposals. —Centrx→talk • 02:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep {{UsernameBlocked}} and its redirects, as per cesarb. Delete the first 4; these templates are redundant and promote the creation of useless user pages. The rest can stay; they are not harmful, and may be used to give a specific block message. RexNL 23:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the first four and the last three. -- FrostytheSnowman ^'sup? 02:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. First, because these templates have been used in block summaries, and cannot easily be removed from them. Second, giving newbie users a warning on the talkpage that their account has been blocked due to the username is a friendlier way of informing them than giving them the message on the "you have been blocked" page. Third, these templates are helpful to other users on RC-patrol/username patrol/etc by informing them that the account has been blocked so they don't need to check the block log. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep at least one of them, so that the blocked user knows what the hell is going on. Most block summaries for inappropriate usernames just say (user....), so it would be a good idea to keep this template and continue to implement it. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - it seems that Curps (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) was the administrator who started the "user..." fad. :P Many other administrators are now using it, lol. --Ixfd64 02:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{UsernameBlockedEmail}} as it erroneously indicates that the blocking is per policy. In addition, change directions on the WP:Username#Inappropriate usernames section that instructs to use the template. — ERcheck (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all except {{Username}} which is useful for putting in block summaries, it is currently a redirect, so either keep a target or re-write it as a block message for the block log. - strong keep for it in some form. --Doc 22:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - very useful. --Ixfd64 02:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

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) 14:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:YRUU Districts (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

If the YRUU seems to just barely skirt notability (their acronym and their full name get a grand total of 2 hits in a Nexis search of major newspapers and wire services over the past 10 years), then their local chapters are surely all beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Andrew Levine 03:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The only reason that this template is full of red links is that User:Andrew Levine has unilaterally speedy deleted the articles which used to be blue links (notably PCD YRUU, and JPD YRUU, plus one more which I do not recall). Things decided on mere numbers from some internet search are utter trype, to put things plainly. However, to compare, Google puts out about 108,000 for "YRUU" [1], and 787,000 for "Young Religious Unitarian Universalists" [2]. Unitarian Universalists in general have a stronger presence on the web than they do in print, largely because the majority of UUs are well-educated middle-class white folks, and many of them have an addiction to their Apple notebook. There are thousands upon thousands of YRUUers out there, and each district has a wealth of culture all their own. This can be seen on their district websites( [3] & [4] to name two ), and basic information on the district is worth documenting. I don't see what User:Andrew Levine is talking about with YRUU "barely skirting notability," but he seems to have a set deletionist viewpoint (see his talk page). I'll refrain from further comment on his use of his newfound administrative powers, in the interest of civility. HellaNorCal 06:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not trying to get
• Delete and merge into some sort of list or catch-all page. I don't think we need individual pages for the sub-groups of Clowns of America International, do we? Paliku 12:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia:Search engine test is not meant to be the sole determining factor for deletion of an article or template. --Roninbk 15:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nexis is not an internet search enginge, is it? It searches newspapers and wire services, not internet pages. Thuresson 12:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Search engine test refers to any kind of search engine, not just those that index web pages. --Roninbk 15:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, WP:SET is 90 % about Google and 10 % about Alexa. Thuresson 14:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
        • That's just because 90% of the time Google is used. The term Wikipedia:Google Test redirects to WP:SET because the editors felt, (rightly so,) that favoring one search engine over another was inappropriate. Nexis is a specialized search engine for Engligh language periodicals. Andrew Levine is using a Nexis result in the same fashion that a Google or Alexa test would be used, and the use should be deprecated equally as with other search engines. (It should also be noted that Nexis is a subscription service.) --Roninbk 04:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
          • It might be worthy to note that Lexis-Nexis is a far more accurate and valuable source when attempting to determine notablility of certain subjects. In order for a subject to be found on Lexis-Nexis, said subject must be noted in a major publication. If there are only two LN hits from the past ten years, then this group is of zero importance on any mainstream national (or even regional) level hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Why do we need articles on all the regional divisions of the organization? I thought it was very suspicious that the article didn't mention the number of people who belong to this division. Is there really significant information that needs to go into an individual district article and not to the Young Religious Unitarian Universalists main article? I am not trying to countermand your desire to expand the project, I just want to know more information before I withdraw the nomination. Andrew Levine 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Even if the group were notable, the two dozen sub-districts are certainly not. This template is pointless. —Centrx→talk • 06:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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 speedy delete. We've been through this before. the wub "?!" 13:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Vote support (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote oppose (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote neutral (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote keep (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote delete (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote delist (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote remove (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote merge (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote move (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote redirect (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote opinion (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Strongly support (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Strongly oppose (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote comment (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote info (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote wait (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote rename (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Vote love (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

And everything else listing at Category:Polling templates

Sooner or later a user will list these voting templates for deletion, or speedy deletion under CSD G4 for recreation of deleted material, so it might as well be me. Over a year ago, voting templates such as these were deleted: See [1], [2] [3] and other discussions linked from there. The main reasons ranged from the unnecessary draw on the web server's resources to the overall layout of a page filled with these icons. Therefore, instead of listing them for speedy deletion, I am listing this issue back on TFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all. Nothing seems to change about these templates: their general superfluity (aside from a very small number of applications, such as their use as communication aids on the Commons), their resource-grubbing potential, and their astonishing tendency to survival via multiple recreations. Salt the earth and all that, please. —Encephalon 06:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all Wikikitsch ~ trialsanderrors 07:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. TJ Spyke 07:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: These are from Wikimedia Commons and do not harm the encyclopedia. In fact, if anything, they help. I find them to be very useful, and if everyone learns to use them, then it will make counting votes that much easier. Plus, many people use them.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: By the way, have you seen how nice Wikimedia commons Featured Picture Candidates looks?
• Delete all or Userfy Although I like the way they look, these put too much drain on the servers for comparativly little benefit. Do not bite the developers. I see no problem with keeping them apart from then people will be tempted to use them; in the past such debates (e.g. the one for {{title}}, now at {{User:1ne/Title}}) have often ended in userfication. Besides, I can't find any for 'delete all' or 'userfy'... Even if most of them are kept, delete or userfy {{vote love}}, because WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid voting reason. --ais523 14:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Addressing Porphyric's comments: 1) In fact they do harm the encyclopedia, it increases load time and bandwidth. 2) We're not supposed to count votes in a XfD discussion! Because it's supposed to be the merit of the argument, not the number of people/socks that come into a discussion, that determines whether something should be kept. 3) I'm not so sure "many people use them", because in a single day of AfD, I probably find less than 10-20 vote graphics out of 150 or so articles/300-400 arguments. Possibly it's different in your experience. (Though perhaps as a compromise, different coloured text can be used?) ColourBurst 14:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, that's a good idea. I'll get to work on a color code system for after this TfD.~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: We keep voting this stuff down, and people keep putting it back up. Stop it already. --Roninbk 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Just because they're on Commons doesn't mean they're good. --Rory096 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy; unfortunately I don't think they're widely used enough to justify the inevitable argument of server strain they may cause. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD #G4. We've seen this before, we've deleted this before. >Radiant< 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I like them, I think keeps things looking professional and adds a little colour. If server strain is a concern, make a 15px version of them specifically for this purpose. I think it's a simple way to add consistancy. Mr Minchin 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. I remember the last time these got deleted and thought it was obvious that they needed to go then. Full AfD pages take long enough to load without hundreds of images having to be retrieved from the servers. Then there are the arguments that the images give the appearance of some votes being more important than others, makes it harder to argue that AfD/RfD/CfD are not a vote, etc. ergot 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - If there was a decent alternative to these voting templates that make it easier to distinguish votes with on a quick glance (black bold vs black bold isn't great, tbh), I would be amenable to changing my vote. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 00:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Have you considered reading the comments? I hear some people actually put some thought into what they say.--SB | T 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Wha? I made some of these images. heh... Images don't hurt people votes hurt people. Bastique▼^parler _voir 01:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and delete Bastique▼^parler _voir 01:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I copied these over from the commons because I noticed that they have been in use for a while, with seemingly little or no objections. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• They're difference is that they are actually useful at Commons, because Commons is multilingual. Here, they serve no purpose but to encourage head-counting mentality. Delete.--SB | T 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Crush by Deli Llama, we've been through this before. Garrett^Talk 02:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• No no, that's "at the next zebra crossing".--SB | T 02:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep. What evidence do we have that these are actually a substantial drain on the servers? I suspect that it is urban legend. — brighterorange (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Fuck the servers. They should be deleted because they encourage people to treat discussions as votes. Any other reason is incidental.--SB | T 02:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • BIG Comment: I tested your theory about slow servers caused by these templates. I connected to Wiki Commons on a computer at another house with a REALLY SLOW connection, and I noticed something very interesting: Say you reach a page with 100 "delete" votes, each with a "Delete" picture from one of the above templates. That means that the computer has to download 100 copies of the Delete pic, right? WRONG. It downloads it once, and all of a sudden the rest appear, because it only needs to be downloaded once. Plus, at 15px in svg format, download time is very negligible. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I knew that all along, but I still think they should be deleted. Besides, that many transclusions would badly slow down AfD log purge/edit times and possibly put them over the template limits, and I just know that people will forget to subst. --ais523 08:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Then let's do what is done with AfD tags--if you don't subst, BIG RED TEXT will appear in the template's place. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's not about server speed, it is about undue weight to some comments. Banning their use in consensus discussions is not practical, so Delete ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: per. Mr Minchin, Torinir, Porphyric Hemophiliac. People might cry about "AfD" and such not being votes, but when push comes to shove, they are infact votes. These templates help to quickly establish what the user feels about the subject. It does not hurt WP in any way, and does infact - atleast in my eyes - help. Havok (T/C/c) 06:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per what above, exactly? No one has given a valid reason for keeping these things.--SB | T 07:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Yes Afd functions as a vote, but despite the tally the closing admin is expected to use their best judgement. If I see an Afd with 20 "this article is good, really helps fans out" keeps and 5 "this article violates WP:NOT point 5" deletes, I will delete it, regardless of how strong the opposition is. It's all about making your votes count, rather than just counting your votes. IMO these templates don't encourage meaningful arguments, which is what we want to see from Afd voters. Garrett^Talk 10:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've been trying to work around this the User Script way; User:ais523/votesymbols.js will add symbols to debates on a per-user basis and with less server load than the templates (due to browser caching of the images and the client-side addition of the images). And yes, it does make AfD look pretty pretty. (This is an additional argument for deletion, as a workaround is now available and the choice is made by the viewing user, not the !voting user.) --ais523 11:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep - A matter of convenience. Votes are tallied at AfD, whether or not it's a vote. Consensus (wow, that's a hard word to type) is considered reached at more than 80% and not reached at less than 50% in all cases. Number of votes does count for something, if not everything. If this is scrapped based on "these processes aren't votes", scrap voting as support/oppose entirely. THese are only representations, after all. Karwynn (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I would be very pleased indeed if we were to eliminate any and all traces of "voting" from what are supposed to be discussions.--SB | T 18:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Here's a theoretical situation: an article on edible food items in Ultima VII is up for deletion. It has 120 keeps and only 20 deletes. You are the closing admin. Do you a) obey policy and delete it despite the odds or b) obey the vast majority consensus and keep it despite policy stating otherwise? Garrett^Talk 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Even if AfD, etc. were a vote, using these images would just be a waste of time. Thankfully, it is not a vote anyway, and Wikipedia is not run according to the woeful misconceptions expressed by some of the keep'ers above. —Centrx→talk • 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete As has been stated sufficiently frequently already - this ain't no democracy. What counts here are the reasoned arguments. The tags serve only to highlight which way the argument is pulling, but beyond that they count for naught. This isn't a referendum, it's a discussion, and anything that encourages people to think otherwise, or which suggests that the written argument is secondary to the position held, is a Bad Thing. Cain Mosni 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• These things again? We've heard the same arguments every single time, they've been through TFD at least twice before, were kept deleted on DRV already... we're just beating a dead horse here. We don't need to place strain on the servers: every template that has to be transcluded into a page eats space out of the 1 MB of memory that each page is allocated on page view. If that memory is exhausted, then other templates will not render. Imagine how that would look on AFD. Anyways, speedy delete this as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

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 speedy deleted under CSD T1. While there's no censure to the creator of the template, as we'll assume good faith, I can see how it can qualify as a divisive and inflammatory template. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)