Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 28

< October 27	October 29 >

October 28

Template:PD-binary

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 discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-binary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems to be a bit of a WP:POINTy template referring to illegal numbers. Not needed. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that it refers to "illegal numbers" (urgh: I thought our coverage of OWS was bad, but that article takes the cake), but you're right in that the only possible use case is in uploading them and pretending that they aren't copyrighted (and pretence it is, as bitstreams are plainly covered by the copyright laws of every juristiction we care about). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:06, 31 October 2011 (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:PBL-Agri Nurture Inc.- FCA

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 discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PBL-Agri Nurture Inc.- FCA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, outdated, broken roster template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a current template for this topic? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, at Big Chill Super Chargers. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2011 (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:Only Love

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 discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Only Love (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently a misplaced AFD request from 2008. The page in question has changed substantially since then, and this nomination is no longer relevant. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ah yes, back in my early days. Messed up there, but I'll help to clean up my mess (three years later!). Actually, I do remember the article as well!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as only contributor requests deletionCurb Chain (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2011 (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:On KDE for Windows

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 discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:On KDE for Windows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try it now. Put it in a wikitable with a single leading pipe so that it can insert style info. See [1] It's designed to be used in a wikitable like {{yes}}. It didn't work before because of the TfD, but I fixed that. --N Y Kevin @259, i.e. 05:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not likely to ever be used much, and its obscurity means that it'll probably be missed by editors who would want to use it should that happen. And there are still no present transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea what this is for, and can't see anything useful for it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:00, 3 November 2011 (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:Non-free currency

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 discussion was keep, but modify. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free currency (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In my opinion this template makes things more complicated. It seems to be used as a license but it basicly says "we do not know if this currency is free or not". It should either be changed to a license or as an information template - not both. MGA73 (talk) 10:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the high transclusion count, I'd push for it to be changed into a proper permissions template and applied only to those currencies which actually are non-free. It should genuinely not be difficult to tell whether a given currency lies in one camp or the other. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --MGA73 (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this discussion still ongoing? Keep and change into a fair use template. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reform. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:35, 5 December 2011 (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:WikiProject Torchwood

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 discussion was Delete. Redundant to {{WikiProject Doctor Who|Torchwood-task-force=yes}} Redrose64 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Torchwood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unneeded template. WikiProject Torchwood is now a task force of WikiProject Doctor Who. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per defunct wikiprojectCurb Chain (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2011 (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:Sigma DJs

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 discussion was Delete. Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sigma DJs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates 3 articles. WP:NENAN. →Σ τ c. 03:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete name makes no sense. It's not about σ or Σ 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete or rename as "Sigma Pharmaceutical Group" or "Sigma Pharmaceuticals". Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 28 October 2011 (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:Taxonomy/Demospongea

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 discussion was Done. AFAICS the nom is right. Taxonomy/Demospongea will be deleted soon. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Demospongea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Taxonomy/Demospongiae (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Taxonomy/Demospongea with Template:Taxonomy/Demospongiae.
Demospongea and Demospongiae are both listed as classes in the phylum Porifera, as you can see on the Sponge page on the upper right side. They are actually both the same thing, however, namely the demosponge. Since the accepted spelling of the class of demosponges is Demospongiae, Demospongea's template should be merged into Demospongiae's template so that the Demospongea template is gone and demosponges are only listed once in the taxonomy on pages such as Sponge. Yetisyny (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2011 (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:Astrology

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 discussion was do not merge, but potentially rename "ast box". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Astrology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ast box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Astrology with Template:Ast box.

Both are similar and links can be removed or added to bring the main article inline with the other sub articles which use {{astrology}}. Only Astrology (the main article) uses {{ast box}} and was recently created. Another template exists which may render this both useless.Curb Chain (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename {{Ast box}} to {{Western astrology}}. {{Astrology}} is not oriented towards any particular tradition, while "Ast box" is most definitely tilted towards the Babylonian tradition. A neutral box should exist, to avoid systematic bias in favoring the system predominant in the West. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The older template works well on smaller astrology pages such as this, where its slim design balances well with limited page content. On more substantial pages, the fuller box allows the integration of a relevant image, solves the problem of too much white space around long menus, and also provides a dynamic menu system which gives instant access to any of the pages in the astrology project. This is particularly important for the top-level astrology article and works best on other major articles where it is allows incorporation of a more relevant image, whilst retaining the menu and elements that relate specifically to the article theme (see for example the use of its code on Psychological astrology and Astrology in medieval Islam)

The third template mentioned, with the suggestion it may render them both useless, is the astrology project footer template. This serves a specific function - there are pages in the astrology project where this is used in addition to the top template, and others where this is best used on its own – for example the Tetrabiblos article which is directly relevant to the astrology project but should be free of too much astrology-project branding within the main text because of its interest to other projects.

It would not be wise to rename {{Ast box}} because it is not specific to western astrology (I wonder if 65.94.77.11 got the two names mixed up there). The templates are all serving useful functions and cause no problems left as they are. To try to merge two of them, or all three, into one, will cause significant problems and take away a lot of benefits. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I prefer the {{Ast box}} box as it is more attractive and user friendly, though the size and orientation may not be appropriate in some historical articles. The chart wheel on {{Astrology}} is IMO confusing, impossible to read and the overwhelming detail means that it is not representative of a typical horoscope. Robert Currey talk 10:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand these arguments against renaming. At present, one cannot tell at all what specific areas of astrology either of these templates refer to by name. As a simple matter of clarity at least one should be moved to a more descriptive title. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think any of the boxes are aiming to be specific in theme - they are all giving links to different traditions and featuring important pages that are part of the Wiki:astrology project. It is simply a case of one being better in larger pages and the other being better for smaller articles and stub-pages. I suppose 'Ast box' could be renamed 'Ast box larger' to make the distinction clearer - I would have thought it's clear enough for developers of these pages to see the differences by just looking at them. BTW, I would like to use the template 'Ast box' on another page, but wondering whether I need to hold back until this discussion is closed. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 11:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. T:Ast box is only used in one article... (new, I presume)? That said, a better template to be used might be template:Sidebar with collapsible lists for both sets. --Izno (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If Template:Ast box is used in only one article (Astrology), why not just transclude it there? I can understand why it might be desirable to have the lead article use a different and larger style. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be a solution. The transcluded code from Template:Ast box is actually used on a number of other pages, but it was templated for the astrology page at a time when there was a lot of editorial activity, and it made life much easier to have one little piece of template code than a long piece of transcluded code to wade through every time an edit was made. My question is - does it actually cause a problem to have that code in a template rather than transcluded on the page? If not, can't we just leave it as it is? What harm is it doing to have it in a template? Having it in a template means the code is easily isolated for those who want to amend it for use on other pages -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:34, 29 November 2011 (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:Dislike and Template:Like

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 discussion was The result of the discussion was Keep.

By headcount, 12 editors wanted to delete the template and 14 to keep it.

I also looked at the July 2011 discussion (applies only to the Like template) both for numbers and arguments. Discounting editors who commented in this current discussion, the headcount then was 13-4 in favor of keeping the template. FWIW this gives a headcount over both discussions of 27-16 in favor of keeping the template. This is 63%, which is not a supermajority even if we did combine headcounts from different discussions, which we don't. So headcount is not a factor.

Turning to strength of argument, really neither camp has strong arguments, which is OK and expected on a matter like this, and some of the arguments come down to "I like it, harmless fun" vs. "I don't like it, silly nonsense". These arguments about cancel out, and neither are good, and I paid them little heed.

The thrust of the deeper arguments against the templates seem to be two:

Violation of WP:NOTFACEBOOK, which is a policy.
Proximate harm to the Wikipedia, through cultural degradation. If this argument is accepted, we don't need a policy beyond WP:IAR to delete the templates.

Regarding the first, the argument that the templates violate WP:NOTFACEBOOK is extremely weak. The main body of WP:NOTFACEBOOK says "You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia. Wikipedia pages are not personal web pages, file storage areas, dating services, or memorials." None of this has anything whatsoever to do with these templates. The sole possibly applicable material in WP:NOTFACEBOOK is the first sentence: "Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook."

This is quite vague, so vague as to be not very helpful as a guide. It's open to interpretation. Some people interpret it as disallowing these templates, some don't, and since this guidance is so vague this basically comes down to opinion.

An argument, using this sentence, could be made against editors posting portraits on their userpages (as Facebook users do on their home pages). Such an argument would be at least as strong as an argument against these templates (which are similar to ones used on Facebook pages). Editors do post portraits on their userpages and this is considered unexceptional, and apparently WP:NOTFACEBOOK has not been successfully employed against this practice. So precedent would seem to be against interpreting this sentence too expansively.

My own take on this sentence is that could certainly be taken to mean "Wikipedia is not a place to chat about what your school friends did today or what you had for lunch" which is the basic thrust of sites like Facebook and Twitter, but that anything beyond that gets into a grey area of speculative interpretation. Expansion of this policy with more concrete examples may be called for, but we don't have that now.

Regarding the second, I am going to adjudicate this as "not proven". Editors were not able to point to specific instances of cultural degradation. This would be hard to do of course, but that leaves us with only the opinion that the templates are harmful. To delete an entity, more concrete evidence of proximate harm needs to be shown, I think.

A third argument, not as vital, is that the existence of these templates will cause users to forgo considered argument and instead to turn to simply posting the templates, adorned by little or no further exposition, in discussions. I also consider this "not proven". If this does manifest in future, further consideration would need to be taken over whether availability of the template itself is causing otherwise erudite editors to become overly laconic, or if there are are other factors in play (such as editors using the templates who would, in their absence, still fail to contribute sufficiently lengthy and reasoned arguments).

And these pro-deletion arguments were answered. The answering arguments were themselves mainly opinion and speculation. (I am not criticizing any editors for this, the nature of the matter at hand allows little else, as there are not clear policies or hard data on which to base better arguments.) But they were as telling and cogent as the deletion arguments, more or less.

Given the raw headcount (a tie), I would normally close this as "No consensus to delete". However, the arguments for deletion are not strong, there is no clear policy-based argument against the templates, and there were no truly compelling non-policy-based arguments against the templates. (The arguments for keeping are also not strong, but the onus is on the proposers). So I'm closing it as a clear "keep". Herostratus (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dislike (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Like (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template serves no useful purpose or any functionality of any kind. We aren't Facebook, nor are we Google Plus, and thank god we are not Myspace. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colorful signatures serve no real purpose either, but we haven't banned those. NW (Talk) 01:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear warfare never really solved anything either, nor did the Soviet Union or America comparing dick size. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 01:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, have you read WP:EM? NW (Talk) 02:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering what that comment was intended to show, Rainbow Dash, other than that you have failed to comprehend the intended meaning of this. →Σ τ c. 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for no other reason than I like it, and it does no harm. -- Adjwilley (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This was previously proposed for {{like}}Curb Chain (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ~~per my comments at the previous discussion~~This was discussed previously, and had an overwhelming consensus to keep. Nothing has changed here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Facepalm , , Dislike . Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of 'em ... they look they were created by and for children, Wikipedia is not Facebook, we shouldn't be encouraging FB games on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sandy, I normally respect your opinions, but you're off-base here. This is harmless talk page fun, never intended to be used in namespace, and no more ridiculous than most barnstars and "spreading the wiki love." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per my response to SandyGeorgia above. It's ridiculous that this template was nominated for discussion/deletion two months ago, was kept by consensus, and has now been renominated by an editor who clearly is unfamiliar with that history. In the absence of any evidence that such consensus has changed, this TfD should be immediately closed by an uninovolved administrator per the normal TfD conventions, procedures and due respect for the very recently established consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both WP:NOTFACEBOOK -- Wikipedia is not a social club. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment doesn't this violate Facebook's look and feel trademarks/servicemarks/IP anyways? 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete all, as per WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several people have now cited WP:NOTFACEBOOK as a basis for deleting these harmless templates. I am led to believe that these persons have not read the policy that they have cited. If I'm wrong, I would be grateful if those editors would quote the relevant section of WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK which they believe form the basis of their Wikipedia policy objection to these templates. If they are unable to quote the relevant policy provisions on which they rely, or otherwise explain the relevance of these policies to this TfD, I would ask the closing administrator for this TfD to disregard all comments based on WP:NOTFACEBOOK, because, based on the actual terms of the policy, it does not apply. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really, disregard all comments based on that? The first line of that policy says "Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook". By adding the "like" icon from Facebook, it stands to reason that we are making Wikipedia more like Facebook. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Yes, really, Plastikspork. The policy embodied in WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK (a.k.a. WP:NOTFACEBOOK]]) has absolutely nothing to do with the "like" or "dislike" templates, except that the graphics employed are a parody of the graphics of a certain popular social network. The like and dislike templates are intended to be friendly, playful, humorous talk page interactions between WP editors. If anything, they are used ironically, in a manner that subtly mocks Facebook. Using them does not make WP a "social network," or more like Facebook as you assert, any more than the raft of goofy barn stars, wiki love cookies, user boxes and other random talk page indulgences make WP a social network. Moreover, you selectively quote WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK; the full lede is "Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia." The second sentence is the clearest, most explict statement of the policy. Please note that it says absolutely nothing about humorous talk page graphics, of which there are many. It would be a damn shame if Wikipedia lost its quirky sense of humor (e.g. trout-slapping, wiki fairies, etc.), which was one of the more endearing qualities of its formative years. Frankly, this re-nomination and the "delete" comments smack of "I don't like it" more than anything else. As an administrator, you should be embarrassed by the casual disregard of an established consensus and pull the plug on this TfD after these templates were kept by an overwhelming consensus fewer than 90 days ago. Anything else amounts to selective enforcement of the usual and customary TfD conventions and procedures. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12 July 2011 to 28 October 2011 is 108 days, or if you take the closing date of 20 July 2011, that would be 100 days. So, I am not sure where you get fewer than 90 days ago. I must have missed another TFD? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I should have checked and counted the days. I did not. Mea maxima culpa. As an administrator, does it make a difference to you when you disregard an overwhelming consensus whether it was closed 90 days ago or 100 days ago? How about if the established consensus was 18 to 6 (that's 3-to-1 or 75%) in favor of keeping the template when the TfD closed on July 20, 2011 (100 days ago)? And for the record, no, I have never used this template, but I believe that it's a harmless bit of talk page fun. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both, we want to try to keep WP as an island away from the ever-expanding influence of Facebook. Also encourages voting. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't need more voting icons, especially ones that are copied from Facebook. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. previous discussion was very much in favour i see no harm in these. Too soon to have been re nominated. Edinburgh Wanderer 12:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Completely harmless. This was voted on already. Can we move on? Theo10011 (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC) Like[reply]
Keep. I've never participated in any social networking, and I truly cringe at the use of these symbols on Wikipedia. But that's a matter of my personal taste. I certainly hope they are never, ever being used in article space, but if someone chooses to use these symbols to express himself/herself on a talk page or user page, I don't see it as being our collective role to decide what symbols they can or can't use to do that. I can continue to cringe (insert "don't like" symbol here), but that's about it. Cbl62 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we have WikiLove, barnstars, trout slaps, fairies, face palms and cookies, what's the big deal about a sarcastic "like" and "dislike"? Jrcla2 (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We just discussed this two months ago. Allow some more time to pass. hare j 14:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dirtlawyer said it best above. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and these templates start to go down that dark road (that we don't want to go down). SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Apparently WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK does not state what you think it states. Can you quote any portion of the text that explicitly prohibit certain graphics such as these templates? All I can find is the relevant policy proscription: "Wikipedia is not a social network like Twitter or Facebook. You may not host your own website, blog, wiki, or cloud at Wikipedia." That seems pretty clear to me, but I can't find anything about prohibiting certain graphics and templates. Is there a secret text of this policy to which I have not yet been granted access? You also make a slippery slope argument regarding a "dark road (that we don't want to go down)." Do you care to explain how you believe these templates lead us down that dark road, and to what dark place that dark road may unwittingly take us? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It goes against the spirit of the policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see now. The "spirit of the policy." Can you elaborate on what that "spirit" is telling you in private, because the spirit does not seem to be speaking for itself publicly. May I assume that this is the Ouija Board corollary to the actual, written Wikipedia policy? Can you speak for the "spirit of the policy," SchuminWeb? And when the spirit speaks to you, does it speak to you in specific terms or only vague generalities? Y'know, specific terms----like logical arguments and how they might be applied to these specific templates, and what the specific negative consequences of these templates might be? You have the floor. Take as much as space as you need to speak on behalf of the spirit. We're all ears, and we have plenty of time. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be uncivil. It's not very becoming on you. In any event, we are out to build an encyclopedia, and templates that put a "like" icon in there are not in keeping with the serious nature of building that encyclopedia. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unconvincing deletion rationale. Also, per WP:I LikeIT. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 19:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What Jrcla2 said. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irony is a template designed to attract mindless spamming of me-too comments having its TfD spammed with mindless me-too comments. WP:NOTVOTE. The keep comments which do have some substance are all either ILIKEIT (hello again irony, my old friend) or procedural wikilawyering. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because that isn't what TfD is for, correct? (The delete !votes are just IDONTLIKEIT, too, btw) Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TfD is not a vote. Some people have a hard time understanding why adding "!votes" to these things is useless and disrupting, but that's not my problem. My problem is trying to steer them away from that sort of thing, and one way to do that is not to explicitly encourage them with templates stolen from social networking websites. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which policies are relevant to this discussion besides WP:NOTFACEBOOK (a policy regarding talk pages and not templates)? I don't think there is a policy relevant here, and therefore this entire discussion is just a back-and-forth of "ILIKEIT!" vs. "IDONTLIKEIT!" Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVOTE, as I've already said. This "it violates no policies" stuff is extraordinary weak. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to echo what Dirtlawyer has said, the allusions to WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK are really off-base. Using these like and dislike templates do not make Wikipedia function as a social networking site. Their use merely represents the importation of an neologistic icon to facilitate emphasis or humorous brevity in discussion about encyclopedic issues. Templates like Template:User Indian, User:UBX/jew, or User:UBX/redheads make Wikipedia far more like a social networking or even a dating website than these templates. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where "social networking" involves "letting your friends know how much you like them by uprating all their comments", it exactly overlaps with the expected use case of this template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the purpose of this template, and you need to see how it has been used around Wikipedia since it's creation to get a better sense of its purpose. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Comments, Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Proposal: Prohibit telling editors that COI is prohibited, User_talk:Jweiss11#Harry Ely for good examples of its use. Yes, some users may misuse it, but that's on the editors and not the template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jweiss11 likes this. Great examples, Eagles247. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of a pointless "me-too" comment which adds nothing to the discussion. If you agree with a comment, you should be expected to take the three seconds it takes to type "I agree with these examples" rather than spamming a template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide me with the name of the policy, guideline, or essay you are referencing. Otherwise, I can only assume you just don't like it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are labouring under the misapprehension that discussions on here are conducted by people adding "bullet point, bold words" policy name" one after the other and some admin coming along afterwards and counting the results on his fingers. That is not, actually, how we want discussions to run, and anything that can be done to steer people away from that line of thought is a good thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. I quote myself: "Remember that these sorts of things are not polls or votes, but discussions. It does not matter whether a person !votes more than once. If all I had to do in order to close these bloody things was count !votes, then I wouldn't have had to read all of this crap, and instead just make tick marks on a sticky note to figure out which side wins." It's your arguments that are key. It's not a vote count. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris Cunningham on this matter, and am providing a response that requires actual thought to prove it. This isn't Facebook, folks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. and perhaps merge the dislike template into the like template. This template can be useful in discussions sometimes. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Useful in what way? Conserving the effort of editors who cannot be bothered articulating their response in a non-templated manner? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can be used together with quoting a statement by another user in order to articulate agreement with that statement. I agree however that it should not be applied "blindly". Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no community consensus to use templates in that manner. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a harmless template that does not violate policy. When we say that Wikipedia is not a social network, we're saying that it should not be used for socializing on a superfluous level. We do maintain social connections with each other, which is not frowned upon as long as our overall effort is focused on the encyclopedia. Templates like this, barnstars, smileys, userboxes, etc. are ways to have these connections. They can help keep discussion light as well. If we see an editor who just "likes" certain comments all the time and does not contribute actual thoughts or actual content, that's something to be taken up with that editor. I have used this template on occasion and would like to do so at appropriate moments, but this does not in any way deter me from contributing to the encyclopedia. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This being the English Wikipedia, all discussions should be in English, not symbols. The examples given at various places above claimed to be appropriate use would have done just as well without the graphics. Any attempt at giving what one says special emphasis is antithetical to All editors are equal. Though I suppose one might argue that all editors have the right to indicate that what they say transcends language, they should still say so in English. WP is indeed a game in many senses, albeit a game with a serious purpose, like a war game in the RW, but a game with this many players needs special efforts to formalize the manner of communication. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. What these templates accomplish besides trivialising discussion and feebly imitating the customs of Facebook remains unclear. Super Mario Man 20:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with it, just a bit of fun. InverseHypercube 19:28, 20 November 2011 (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.