Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoid using meta-templates
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk | contribs) at 22:32, 25 September 2005 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Avoid using meta-templates moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoid using meta-templates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 22:32, 25 September 2005 by Uncle G's major work 'bot (talk | contribs) (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Avoid using meta-templates moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avoid using meta-templates)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 04:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected policy proposal that User:Netoholic nonetheless continues to refer to as though it was authoritative. Should be deleted in order to prevent any such further abuse. LevelCheck 20:36, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The page makes several valid points whether it is "authorative" in some undefined sense or not. Sounds like the problem, if it exists, is with Netoholic, not this page. Pcb21| Pete 22:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - this nomination is intentionally disruptive (just like Template:Utterlyrejected was), created by what looks like an agenda-pushing sockpuppet account. The vast majority of the text is not mine, but from the database developer User:Jamesday. VfD is not how you handle your issues with policy proposals. -- Netoholic @ 22:18, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
- Keep. Already has {{notpolicy}}. Contains some useful information and generally sensible advice. Not surprising if Netoholic often refers to it. But even if it didn't, I'd still oppose deletion because we don't generally delete rejected policy proposals. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- KEEP!. VFD is not the place to deal with Wikipedia policy. BlankVerse ∅ 01:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tony Sidaway and BlankVerse. There should be a form of vote to speedily lift candidates like this out of the VfD pile. Samaritan 01:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and admonish LevelCheck to nominating non VfD stuff to VfD, as it waste's everyones time. Klonimus 04:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Historical policy proposals are valuable. --iMb~Meow 15:21, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stuff like this should not be deleted. N-Mantalk 20:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- While I find this page's content objectionable in nearly every particular, I will defend to the death Netoholic's right to voice his opinion. It's true that he has attempted to raise this to the status of policy and, failing to succeed, has cited it as if it were policy; but I trust his able mentors to control this in future. Also, it's history and it's Talk history is a valuable record. It is more use to us as common property than if it were to be userfied. — Xiong熊talk* 03:11, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
- Keep. The only policy pages that should be deleted are those created in bad faith. --Carnildo 05:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy, either by moving to Netaholic's userspace (similar to the way he moved Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits to userspace) or mandating that his name be in the title, such as Wikipedia:Netoholic's interpretation of Jamesday's concerns about meta-templates. Then he can't refer to it as if it were policy, but the content will still be available. The technical issues are fact, but the methods of dealing with these issues are highly contentious opinion. Let's keep this out of the Wikipedia space until it becomes policy, to prevent abuse. - Omegatron 14:59, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense, since the directive and technical description of the problem is from the database developer User:Jamesday. Anyone who thinks other wise hasn't read his posts on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
- Jamesday contributed about 34% of the current version. A plurality of the content was contributed by Netaholic. - Omegatron 15:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Hum. That title was originally my suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Transclusion costs and benefits and in case it's not obvious, I wasn't seriously advocating such a move. JRM · Talk 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just copied it here. :-) Yes, I thought you were serious, but I still think one or the other is a good idea. - Omegatron 15:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Hum. That title was originally my suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Transclusion costs and benefits and in case it's not obvious, I wasn't seriously advocating such a move. JRM · Talk 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
- Jamesday contributed about 34% of the current version. A plurality of the content was contributed by Netaholic. - Omegatron 15:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense, since the directive and technical description of the problem is from the database developer User:Jamesday. Anyone who thinks other wise hasn't read his posts on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 15:07, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
- Userfy due to User:Netoholic's repeated insistence on referring to it as policy, as exemplified by his comment above and by instances such as the WP:TFD nomination of Template:Prettytable. I agree rejected policy proposals should generally remain in the Wikipedia namespace, but the level of abuse surrounding this particular proposal makes that no longer a viable option in my opinion. Firebug 05:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't care what Netoholic does or has done; as it stands it should be treated like any other policy proposal. If you don't like Netoholic's actions, go take them up with Netoholic. JRM · Talk 14:54, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
Comment Of tangential relevance to this VfD is this recent arbcom decision on the subject: "The questions raised by Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful are referred to the Wikipedia developer committee for their consideration. Pending a decision by the developer committee or their designee the lack of community consensus regarding the matter shall control unless a consensus is reached.". In effect, arbcom has delegated the determination of validity of this proposed policy to the developers rather than just accept consensus. This may be a little ultra vires for arbcom, but they're not known for their modesty. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you please not use freaky legal jargon while discussing the ArbCom? It scares the hell out of some of us. :-) JRM · Talk 00:30, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
- It is my interpretation of this text (which I studied in the original) as excluding the possibility of deletion at this level of process. On the other hand, the text also renders the page impotent until either (a) the developer committee renders an opinion or (b) community consensus congeals -- I believe, whichever comes first. Not that I should be so bold as to advance this interpretation past this comment. — Xiong熊talk* 03:09, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.