Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 May 12)
< May 11 May 13 >

May 12, 2006

edit
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. Angr (t • c) 21:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USCongDistState Templates

edit

I've put up 53 templates and 9 redirects for deletion which have the titles Template:USCongDistState01, Template:USCongDistState02, ..., Template:USCongDistState53. These templates have all been replaced with a single template, namely, Template:USCongDistStateList. The 9 redirect templates are for Template:USCongDistState1 ... Template:USCongDistState9. --CapitalR 23:11, 12 May 2006 (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 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 moo? - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox clarifications

edit

I will have Userboxbot (talk · contribs) substitute the userboxes I have nominated if they get a majority opinion to substitute. Sound good? --Cyde Weys 22:44, 12 May 2006 (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 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 - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assault Series

edit

Template:Assault Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The "series" consists of two old video games; there seems to be no prospect of any more, and the template serves no useful purpose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 12 May 2006 (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 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 moo? - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All userboxes below

edit

I didn't feel like copying my vote multiple times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below:

  • Userfy/subst: and delete per WP:ENC. Misza13 T C 17:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad nomination - none of these have had a tfd tag added to them, so they need to have the tag added and be relisted under today's date. Obviously all the remarks below can be moved across as well. SeventyThree(Talk) 19:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC) I'd still go for relisting them, including the current discussions, to today's section - but that's a small thing in comparison. Thanks for tagging them, Clyde. SeventyThree(Talk) 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thanks, Cyde! Since he did this, he's ironically helped illustrate the dangers of social networking perfectly. I think the evidence of vote stacking below is quite clear. The "keeps" are coming out of the woodwork now, to the tune of 90% "keep" (and I'm not sure people understand what "delete" means - it means only deleting in template space, of course, not from Wikipedia entirely. They could still be text-based boxes.) - Nhprman 02:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (not withstanding any specific argument I place at any below), these aren't hurting anything, Wikipedia is not paper. If you don't like them, don't use them. — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Most, if not all aren't decisive or harmful in any way. They're just jokes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. It's a pity that administrators, who are supposed to be some of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors, choose to waste their and other contributors time with such pointless activities instead of spending it in the betterment of WIkipedia's content. Loom91 07:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I have voted strong keep in some). It is a shame that a select few wish to try and warp what the community wants and give administrators a bad name. This is just stupid - please help find a solution, rather than just try and push a POV - this has become so disruptive that many have lost all hope - so it doesn't give a very good image. Does it? Ian13/talk 16:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's also a shame that instead of voting on the MERITS of each and every box, that people don't consider the BENEFITS of deleting them from TEMPLATE SPACE and Userfying them for use in User space. There, these deletions will NEVER occur (unless, perhaps, the box is heinous or viciously attacks other users.) By reflexively "keeping" these boxes as templates, users risk going through this deletion process again and again, and many rather nice (and harmless) boxes will risk being deleted along with the bad ones. - Nhprman 18:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and potentially desysop Clyde for flipflopping on his promise not to touch userboxes if accepted for admin. JohnnyBGood   t c 17:33, 17 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_pneumono

edit
{{User_pneumono}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These boxes do not belong in tempate space. Period. Nhprman 18:32, 15 May 2006 (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 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 subst and delete - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user married bs

edit
{{user married bs}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Abyab 16:18, 14 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user addict pixe stick

edit
{{user addict pixe stick}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Boris

edit
{{User:UBX/User Boris}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Taking it out of template space, where only articles should be, does not delete it from Wikipedia. I can still be used on a user page as text, if you think it's funny. I'd pay more attention to the nominator's words "unencylopedic template" and "template space" than the words "not funny." - Nhprman 03:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good idea, i'll try that

Subst if deleted. CMIIW 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would only vote Tory if Boris led them - just because you think some people's opinions are 'unfunny' or 'useless', it doesn't mean we should ignore them. HawkerTyphoon 21:58, 14 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Bright Future

edit
{{User Bright Future}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What you're not saying is that deletion doesn't destroy this box - or "impose" anything on anyone. It simply takes it out of the space reserved for articles. Everyone should be in favor of that. - Nhprman 03:11, 14 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cave

edit
{{User Cave}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone must be living in a cave if they don't realize that deleting this box simply takes it out of the space reserved for articles. They can still use this on thier user page as a "user-fied" text Userbox. If they have a computer in their cave, that is. Nhprman 03:13, 14 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Jimbo v. Willy

edit
{{User Jimbo v. Willy}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you support the "Delete" "Userfy" or "Subst" position, you can still keep this box, but it will simply be moved from the Template space to the User space. It's a technical change. It's only "junk" in the Template space, a fine distinction not made by the nominator. - Nhprman 20:43, 14 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User dolphin

edit
dlph-1 Eeek ack sque'ek ook kkkk'k squeek.

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The debate over Templated userboxes - the "Userbox War" - dates back over a year, probably earlier. In a nutshell, here's how I see this situation: As templates, Userboxes can be (and have been) used to "rally" people of a certain group (Christians, Anti-Christians, Leftists/Rightists, etc.) to support or revert article edits and even to delete or support Userboxes during debates like this one. As templates that are linked together in one place, that lend itself to the creation of categories such as "Wikipedians who are Pro-Life" etc. This is divisive (divides the community into "tribes") and inflammatory (encourages others to create opposing boxes and groups of users.) Those two words are important because, according to "speedy deletion" criteria for deleting templates ("T1" and now "T2",) it means they can be deleted. Bear in mind most Templates are used in the creation of articles - as info boxes, warnings and other notations. So another argument is that Userboxes shouldn't really be there at all because they are out of place. Both are good arguments against having them as templates, IMHO. By "Substituting" them, they remain on Users' pages, and new ones can exist as text, and can be copy/pasted into User pages rather easily. There is a FURTHER argument being made that Userboxes shouldn't exist at all here in ANY form, because they are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (to edit an encyclopedia.) But that's really a separate argument, one that I feel it will completely go away if people vote to Delete and Subst. these boxes now. Hope this helps! Nhprman 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So… why this specific userbox? If this one goes, as I said above, the rest of them deserve to go. While I don't want to see userboxes deleted or subst'd or whatever, I think singling out this one, along with the rest of the userboxes on this page, is, in a way, discriminatory. If the grounds for deleting this is because it's unfunny, then that's wrong, because it is funny. If the grounds are that it's an unnecessary bulk in the Template space, then so is "This user is male" or "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia" or "This user lives in New York," and all the rest, more serious ones. I don't understand why this one should go if you want to keep the more general Userboxes. This guy deserves to stay with all the rest of the userboxes, whether they remain as they are now, are subst'd, or deleted. But putting this one up for deletion just because it's a userbox in template space is completely wrong, IMO. Thanks for your response. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're either willfully or deliberately misstating the facts, or perhaps ignoring them. Which is it? Deleting ALL Userboxes from the template space (including this one) but ALLOWING them in User space SAVES THE USER BOXES --- ALL OF THEM. User is male, User is an Admin, User is an idiot - content doesn't matter. They will ALL be saved IF they are Deleted as templates and moved to user space. Clear enough? What is the problem here???? You can continue to crusade to keep them as Templated Userboxes, or work with others to find a solution that saves them as Userboxes. Your choice - and everyone else's here. Nhprman 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's common knowledge (though perhaps not for you) that Template space is reserved for articles AND tools for creating them. Vanity boxes do not meet that threshhold, but they fit fine in the User space. Nhprman 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, don't be so sharp. If it is "common knowledge", then that should be demonstrated as a policy backed by consensus rather than some arbitrary unspoken rule. PoptartKing 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Oh, haha, uncyclopaedic! In that case, I condone deleting everything. Though now I kind of have a cyclic dillema, if *fD to represent the editor's views on whether it should be deleted period or whether it constitutes a violation the policy set forth (which is supposed to be consensus I guess)? Eh.PoptartKing 07:35, 17 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User edible userboxes

edit
{{User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBX edible}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stronger than the pull of a black hole. I'm abyab, and you can't delete it without MY permission. --Abyab 16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - They are in template space and that's not where they belong. If they are Deleted moved to the User space these boxes will be available for EVERYONE to use on their User pages, but will NOT be subject to future deletions by those who think they aren't funny, or whatever reason they have. By "keeping" them in template space, you keep them in danger. - Nhprman 18:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may STILL use this on your bloody User page if it is deleted from Template space and Subst'd ("substituted") or "userfied. No one is telling you you can't have this box. What's being said is that it doesn't belong in "template space." I realize this is a technical point, but it's very important to get the facts straight here. The comment above by Malo is right on target: "This sort of thing is okay in the userspace, but not in the template space." Please consider changing your comments to "Delete and Subst." - Nhprman 22:12, 15 May 2006 (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 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 --Cyde Weys 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ownage

edit
{{User ownage}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User hostage

edit
{{User:UBX/User hostage}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 consensus/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Senioritis

edit
{{User:UBX/User Senioritis}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamafish-en

edit
{{User iamafish-en}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamalemming-en

edit
{{User iamalemming-en}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamamonarch-en

edit
Template:User iamamonarch-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can keep it. Just not as a template. If you vote "Delete" it will be saved as text, and you can cut/paste it onto your site. Please consider changing to "Delete and Subst" (substitute as text.) - Nhprman 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realize, of course, that this is a discussion and a debate, not a "vote" and flippant comments here won't count for much in the final analysis, right? Nhprman 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is not a vote, how can "as per nom. and Doc" be a discusson point? Your vote/opinion means basically "me too". Mine is an opinion that the userbox is funny and therefore should be kept. Friendly Neighbour 07:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as per" means I'm agreeing with the substantive opinion expressed by another. Since there are dozens of boxes, I'm not going to repeat it, though perhaps I should, since the argument bears repeating. "It's funny" isn't a valid criteria, as stated in the Template deletion policy. The nominator may have also erred in basing his argument on "funny," since humor is not mentioned as a critera for deleting or saving a Templated Userbox. Note that my agreement stated above was with the nominator's point that this doesn't belong in template space. Also, Doc noted that it is unencyclopedic and I agreed with that point. I also agree with Doc's point that Users should be able to continue using it as a text box (which BTW is identical to the templated box, but simply isn't a template.) Hope this clears things up. Nhprman 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I agreed with the logic of the first person who stated it. That's not a "vote," per se, but I see where you're getting that. When the person who closes these nominations goes over these entries, he/she will not be (or SHOULD not be, anyway) counting them up and tallying them. Anyone who "votes" but doesn't specify which part of the T1 (or T2) policies they are agreeing with will probably have their entries ignored. And since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't have mob rule here, this will be a perfectly acceptable mode of deciding if these stay as templates or simply become Userfied boxes that people CAN STILL USE. Nhprman 17:20, 14 May 2006 (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 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

edit
Template:User iamanaeroplane-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 (Classic T1) Will (E@) T 19:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User monolingual

edit
{{User monolingual}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (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 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 keep all. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion

edit

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under the revised CSD T1, and of the recent deletion of {{User Christian}}, some of these are applicable for speedy deletion. However, I'll let the community decide. Will (E@) T 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you vote to delete, please remember that they should be subst'd first. I abstain from voting. Will (E@) T 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Will. Long overdue. Please note that the broad criterion is now T2. Septentrionalis 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the amazingly broad CSD T1 really does call for the deletion of most of these userboxes, I would think that at least those in the first section (i.e. {{user religion}} through {{user lennonist}}) would be exempt. - Nellis 16:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - The case for keeping these on Wikipedia is an extremely weak one. It's said that it's a good thing that people know a user's "biases." Regarding religion, what historical lesson would bear that out? In 1970s Ireland? present-day Iraq? Russia, past or present? Even in much of the West, today, religion can be a source of great controversy. Not to say that society shouldn't openly deal with religion and issues of religious pluralism, but the crux of the issue here is Wikipedia is not a society. It is not a place for debating religion, opposing or supporting religious beliefs or advertising religious connections with colorful "bumper stickers" that sometimes go beyond advertising straight into advocacy (and sometimes negativity.) WP is also not the place for social networking, according to its founder, and Wikipedia policy. Yet, we have "Christian Wikipedians" and "Muslim Wikipedians," etc. as categories. This is contrary to the mission of Wikipedia, and the Templated boxes serve to divide and tribalize Wikipedia. It's time for all religion-themed Userboxes to go. Nhprman 17:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - re: "Wikpedia is not a society". Wikipedia IS a community and a community is a collection of various people with different beliefs. There are many places on wikipedia, that are official pages, that refer to wikipedia as being a community, society, etc. And if you delete template boxes, people will include the code on their userspaces. So your argument against userboxes will not stop the problem that you see anyway. DanielZimmerman 07:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not about template spaces to many people. Arguments have come up about these boxes not belonging in an encyclopedia (even though these boxes only show up on user pages and not in articles). So what is the problem with these being in the "template space"? The main question I would have to ask is what difference does it make to wikipedia if I use a template for a userbox or I insert the entire code of the userbox on my user page? If having templates with user boxes effects the performance of wikipedia to the point where wikipedia will perform better with the code on user pages than in the "template space" then I would vote to delete them. Until then, I cannot see the problem with having the template space be utilized for userboxes that multiple people use. DanielZimmerman 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I totally agree this is about template space. It's also about category space. At an even more basic level, it’s about automated groupings of Wikipedians. “Userbox deletionists” are against it, “userbox preservationists” are for it. A central argument by many deletionists is that removing automated groupings (e.g., “What links here” & categories) inhibits “factionalists,” which is good for the project. A central argument by many preservationists is that these automated groupings support “community building” and “collaboration,” which is good for the project. At this core level of Wikilosophy, most members of both groups are in agreement. The rub comes at the operational level in deciding what to do about these automated groupings, and so, the fur flies. (Okay, there’s my crack at NPOV characterizing the core issue. Now, here comes my POV appraisal.) In an open society like Wikipedia, its members will possess a wide and diverse variety of points of view. In fact, this is necessary to write a balanced and unbiased encyclopedia. Consequently, the success of the project fundamentally and necessarily depends on collaboration and community building. Factionalism, on the other hand, impedes the progress of this effort. However, repressive attempts to eliminate factionalism, invariably fail to remove the intended target. Quite the contrary. The original factions typically are motivated to close ranks and push their agenda even harder. In addition, wide-scale repressive tactics intended for a minority faction that are indiscriminately imposed upon the general population only serve to factionalize tremendously more members at a systemic level. This scenario currently is playing out at Wikipedia. The extent to which it continues will play a major roll in determining the basic health of this online community and, ultimately, the overall quality of the project. For this reason, I wholeheartedly urge editors to err on the side of collaboration and community building. Rfrisbietalk 22:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How can you build a community made of diverse people if you reject their diversity. If I want to say Im a Jewish Democrat who eats Steak on my userpage then I will do so whether or not I have a userbox to do it. So even if you delete every single userbox, you will have to then remove any comments about a persons individuallity on their userpage in order to obtain the goal that you seem to seek. Then we start censoring. That would be bad and truely against what wikipedia was created to do. DanielZimmerman 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I meant was, will there still be a page with the HTML codes for these templates, so that the less creatively-inclined users can still copy them onto their user page, without using a template? IronChris | (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... I thought that was what substing did. If you see some html you like, copy and paste it in. I guess I'll have to defer to someone more knowledgable. Tom Harrison Talk 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All -- AND re-revise CSD T1. Under current language, the speedy deletion would be called for, of all the templates related to: moral and spiritual beliefs; political/apolitical leanings; political party memberships; and any and all adherence to or stances upon even so much as slightly 'weighted' issues in the subjects of sociology, anthropology, and archaeology. Even speaking specifically about these topics using specialized language (as most people do) is no more or less tokenizing than just reaching for the bumpersticker (or template) and applying it if you feel it applies to yourself. "Expressing yourself", whether by drawn-out discussion and dissertation, or by self-applying a readymade label, is reduceable to the same symbolizing process. These templates existed because these subjects -- and they are subjects, not "issues" -- hold personal meaning for many people, and as with any other templates, met a demand for an easy way to connect and identify people who hold similar interests and share similar knowledge. To say that some subject is too "controversial" to be handled in this manner is really just a projection of one's insecurities towards and ignorance of that subject, and really does nothing to reflect on that subject whatsoever. A subject is a subject (is a subject), and controversy be both damned and fought with audacity! This is an attempted censorship, that's what I say! Gabriel Arthur Petrie 20:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all And I think that the mass nomination of the entire page is a little ridiculous. How are we supposed to decide the fates of all of them like this? —MiraLuka 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be POV otherwise. Do these stay as a group or do they go? Mackensen (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, even though T1 is applicable here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a battleground for social, moral, or religious issues. Userbox templates and user templates group Wikipedians into competing factions. This infrastructure has been used in the past to abuse our decision-making policies by vote-stacking. If you really feel it is necessary to proclaim your religion on your userpage, you can do it, but you don't need a template to do so. --Cyde Weys 20:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is funny — some of us actually see them as a good way of finding people with different backgrounds to ensure a broad foundation for solid articles. As for the “vote stacking” argument, vote stacking is not a specifically and uniquely userbox-related property, as far as I know. If you want to stack votes, you can simply go to an article about a specific topic and see who edits in such-and-such a way. -- Olve 20:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and subst first). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is a wider ranging debate about userboxes going on, but, no one is saying what you can and cannot say on your pages. Userboxes are just a waste of resources to say it though. --Knucmo2 21:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as they are substed. Anyone planning on bringing the political userboxes into the debate also? IronChris | (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete people are free to express their POV on their pages if they like (and if they must use boxes - they can hard code them). It should be along the lines of 'I try to write neutrally, but if you see my Christian/Atheist/Budhist presuppositions slipping in let me know', but having ready made uniformed bumperstickers to group people into POV clubs is destructive - certainly not something we should use the wikipedia template space to encourage. --Doc ask? 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All the recent deletion of User:Christian seems to primarily of been caused by some sort of edit war between an admin and some other person as I understand it, which supposedly was compleatly ridiculous anyway. Yes, i've heard about that whole Jason Gastrich thing and the vote stacking whateverness, but im pretty sure there was like only one Jason Gastrich anyway, its not like that thing was a typical occurance. Gabriel's argument also seems fairly sound to me. Homestarmy 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All: this mass deletion nomination appears to be an attempt to do away with userboxes as a class of elements in Wikipedia. I would support forcing them all into the User namespace, but not mass deletion. Further, the way that the Criteria for Speedy deletion have been written, someone could speedy delete {{user Dog Owner}} and {{user Cat Owner}} on the basis that the templates indirectly express a viewpoint on which is 'man's best friend'. Perhaps, though, I've just spilled some BEANS as these templates might now find themselves on here soon as a result of my pointing them out. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not anti-userbox myself. Currently, all the templates in there are CSD T1. But, it's a controversial decision for a unilateral delete. Community consensus is the way to go. Will (E@) T 19:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD T1 section clearly stated not long ago that the section 'does not have full community support (see this edit version, after which the caveat was removed with reference to a non-existent page). The policy wording is changing very frequently right now (45 edits in 12 May and 13 May - and 13 May not yet over) and it is not clear what the policy really is, as it might change in an hour. Such flux in an obviously contentious section of policy suggests that the criterion should be removed from policy and 'downgraded' to guideline status. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Let me say something different. I take it now that the interpretation being given to Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Userbox debates is that all statements of personal belief are to be expunged from Wikipedia in order to make it better as they distract from creation of a better encyclopedia, among those distractions being statements of religious affiliation. Is this in fact an accurate statement, that Jimbo believes that for the betterment of Wikipedia all personal statements of belief or preference as a matter of self-description are antithetical to the creation of Wikipedia as a quality product? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for something like User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll to be finalized (so that's a keep all for now). No need to hurry things; better to wait for a clear policy to be developed than to take a vote right here. TheJabberwʘck 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now per Jabberwock. Thanks for the advertisement. ;-) Misza13 T C 12:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Deleting while trying to work out a policy is only going to set things farther back. This will not help over the long run. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 12:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (my comment above was a question) as with the policy in flux, this result would be unreliable. Misza's suggested policy looks quite similar to the method I just suggested on the CSD talk page Regards, MartinRe 13:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the 'neutral' ones. Some, both straight-faced ones like {{user religion interest}} or {{user Shinto...}}, and humourous ones like {{user messiah}}, are quite harmless (I do not intend to imply that all humourous ones are uncontroversial, as some, like {{user religion flying spaghetti monster not really}}, could possibly be construed as offensive) and their use on user pages is in no way detrimental to Wikipedia's encyclopaedic function. Note that at present I have no opinion on whether the others should be deleted (including the one I mention above in parenthesis). Ou tis 16:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all Good grief ... do you know how many places these are used? AFD, or in this case, TFD, isn't the place to make a WP:POINT or to win a policy debate. I just found out from looking at my own user page that Template:User Christian was deleted. It is disappointing that people who have been entrusted with administrative access on this site have engaged in such a bad faith and underhanded effort. Take a look at the history for User Christian. This is unbelievable. And above, there is one user who wants to keep only those that say something along the lines of "this user is an atheist" or "this user thinks religion is something that we want to study but that people of faith are our silly little test subjects we poke fun at." Good grief, people. This is a bad faith move and you know it. Shame on you. Not proud that it had to be said, but proud to sign my name - BigDT 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, delete others. All of those under 'Religious interests and professions' s of this version are not value-judgments, and just mention an interest. That includes {{user religion interest}}, {{user religion psychological}}, {{user religion anthropological}}, {{user religion aesthetic}}, {{user religion metaphysical}}, {{user religion...}}, {{user slm...}}, {{user Shinto...}}, {{user sikhism}}, {{user Taoism!}}, {{user tarot}}, {{user Yeshiva}}. I'd also add {{user fsm2}} to that list. All of the "interested in" boxes are fine in template space. Everything else needs to be subst:'d onto the pages which use them. I'd also advocate producing some more neutral templates along the lines of the keeps, and having a central place to store the code. SeventyThree(Talk) 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily Strongly Keep All, completely ridiculous nomination. Crumbsucker 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep some, Very Weak Keep some, Neutral rest; Strong Keep for all templates that use language like "is interested in", "wishes to study", "wants to learn about", etc. (similar to what SeventyThree said); Very Weak Keep for belief-related stuff since the guidelines seem to be in flux; Neutral for humor and anything else -- Zawersh 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the only options are "Keep all" and "delete all" (as indicated by the mass-nomination), then keep all. Many of the userboxes listed there are very, very clearly legitimite, as they are not "divisive and inflammatory" (T1) and do not express "personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues" (T2). Specifically, the ones that clearly do neither, in their current state, are all 12 templates in "Religious interests and professions", and various of the other templates (such as in "Religious humor"). Furthermore, mass-deleting many of these, rather than simply correcting them to be viable and valuable interest-boxes that will assist in Wikipedia-editing, is very counterproductive and will end up wasting lots more time than anyone on either side wants, by forcing the recreation of all these boxes in "interest" form. Instead of taking such excessively drastic measures, why not a compromise between the two sides: preserve most of the userboxes, but convert them to acceptable templates that reveal user interests (i.e. what articles and topics they're likely to be involved in, or willing or able to become involved in). For example, move {{user muslim}} to {{user islam}} and have it say "This user is interested in Islam." rather than "This user is a Muslim." That way we're not dividing people based on their personal beliefs in a systematic way. Another option, of course, and perhaps something we should even do in conjunction with the "belief-to-interest" transfer, is keeping the userbox code on the page by simply subst'ifying the unacceptable templates so people can still express themselves with the userboxes if they want, but without using templatespace to do it: if the anti-userbox crowd would find this acceptable, it seems like another great way to avoid conflict on the matter. However, I'm more interested in the conversion idea, because it deals directly with the issue of whether or not to delete these templates: I say no, and make the appropriate name-moves, accompanied by rewriting the text. I'll even do it myself, if no one objects; I proposed a move very like this a while ago for all the Religion Userboxes, but there was no interest at the time. -Silence 00:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm offended that Template:User Christian and Template:User Atheist had to be made examples of in one of the worst examples of WP:POINT violation I've ever encountered, but if we're going to delete some of these, we need to treat them all equally. — BrianSmithson 00:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not going to delete some of them, we're going to undelete all of them: see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates, where both User Christian and User Atheist are under debate for undeletion, and where you are 100% free to nominate any other deleted userbox you want for undeletion. Your argument is based on false premises in that you assume that the deletion of certain arbitrary userboxes is endorsed just because it hasn't yet been reversed. In fact, this is exactly the strategy that is being employed by the users who deliberately stirred up trouble to try to get {{user christian}} deleted: their hope is that by slipping one template through the cracks, they'll be able to get more and more of them deleted ("give an inch, take a mile") by building up momentum. They find this much easier than any direct or open attempts to foster consensus, as all attempts to gather consensus to delete userboxes in the past have failed, leaving anti-userbox admins with no recourse other than to try various backhanded methods at gradual deletion. Your deletion vote is thus misinformed: in reality, if consistency is an issue, it is easier to remedy an inconsistency by fixing 2 or 3 examples (the deleted templates) than by fixing hundreds (the nondeleted ones). -Silence 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have queried the developers, and there is no such thing as userspace categories or userspace templates. All categories and templates are "omnispace", they are used in all namespaces defined in a *pedia. Please do not confuse syntax (Category followed by colon and Template followed by colon) with policy. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 06:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - Thank you! I have been wondering what the big deal was about the template space being used. Bits are bits and I am glad that you queried the developers to make sure that people know what they are talking about. DanielZimmerman 07:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice in theory, but in practice, POV expressions have lead to divisiveness, and Templatized Userboxes have facilitated social networking and other aspects of WP that were never intended or forseen by the founder. - Nhprman 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. It's risky business, no doubt, but I believe it's a risk worth taking because the potential benefits far outweigh the potential risks. I said more about this in my comment to Mackensen above. Rfrisbietalk 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, the policies of Wikipedia, developed by the Founder and current users, do not allow for "facilitiating cultural sensitivity" as a primary goal of the project (though I'm sure it's a byproduct.) "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." (see: WP:NOT.) This type of open flaunting and contempt for Wikipedia policies is discouraging and maddening. - Nhprman 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have my own website and feel no need to make a new one here. What I do feel a need for, even though that is apparently “discouraging and maddening” for some, is to have ways to seek out relevant factbuilder networking (with the emphasis on fact) FOR ARTICLE-WRITING PURPOSES. That means that I and people like me will actively seek out users with specific backgrounds to help with specific tasks. Tasks. Not barbeque parties or blogs. I and other people like me think that many of these userboxes are a big help in, to quote you, “providing a foundation for effective collaboration”. -- Olve 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously the bolded policy statement above is an attempt to keep people from commercialising outside of WikiPedia through or by using their WikiPedia userpage. And, the uses of these templates do constitute a foundation for effective collaboration. The intent of the language against "social networking" is clearly illustrated by this juxtaposition: you cannot possibly have "effective collaboration" without some form of "social networking"; what was meant was that use of WikiPedia resources for the purpose of building online networks outside of WikiPedia should be discouraged. So, that anybody really thought that the intent of the language was to divide and distance "effective collaboration" from "social networking" is just an example of shortsightedness (as "maddening" as that may be), but some people are willing to take shortsighted stances if they think they can contagiously pull a fast one on a lot of people (for their own, "mad", inner power struggle, largely out of ignorance or obsession, of course). I still feel strongly we should Keep All and that this policy language needs to be clarified before it is misunderstood and therefore misused further. Gabriel Arthur Petrie 19:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now per Jabberwock.--Dangerous-Boy 18:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most, delete some, Ou tis is correct that some are offensive. --Rory096 21:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most, or actually delete all I object because this action was taken only against the religion boxes, when there are huge numbers of political party affiliation boxes out there that have not been nominated for deletion under the new policy. Rather than trying this as a test case and then going after the other userboxes (whose users, as far as I know, have not been served notice of this action, so that they do not know to make amicus comments), in the name of fair implementation of policy, someone should go back and propose deletion of all belief boxes at once. It would be one hot week on the discussion, but if that would be less divisive than me having a Jesus fish on my userpage, so be it.--Skeenbr0 15:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: the religion are very important in the life of every day. Octavian II 17:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: There would be no past, no present, no future without religion. Religion spun the wheel of destiny that brought explorers across the oceans. Religion gives hope and inspiration to those who would have none otherwise. And don't forget that The United States of America was founded "with a reliance on Divine Providence". To delete these boxes denies that religion is important. To delete these boxes is more offensive that keeping them here. This is my vote. God bless you. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 17:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment God Bless you? I don't believe in God.
  • Keep all: Why should people not be allowed to state what religion they are? For most people it's a fundamental part of who they are and what defines them. It is dictatorial to decide what people can and cannot identify as - if you're allowed to identify as, say, homosexual, you should therefore be allowed to identify as muslim, or Buddhist. --Stevefarrell 21:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all; while I haven't used any (thus far), that's because I'm so lazy I barely got around to writing this. I have used these categories, with the other tidbits typically splashed across user pages, to find someone who knows what the heck he/she is talking about, and to vet my work so it doesn't offend anybody. Judging by what I know of the typical registered Wikipedian, most editors are far too committed to NPOV to actively seek out people to skew it, even on pages about subjects that are very dear to their hearts. Instead, these tags are more likely to be used to get expert attention or an opposing viewpoint to balance out an article. I understand why some may view things the way they do, but I think, quite honestly, that we can trust most Wikipedians to be more loyal to NPOV and the greater goals of Wikipedia than in their own personal agendas. Quite honestly, I feel that regardless of your opinions about the general population, Wikipedians, as a rule, are a very civil and cool-headed group.Lockesdonkey 02:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all userboxes. No reason to delete them as they enhance userpages and are not currently a burden on the server. JohnnyBGood   t c 17:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Per Angr. It helps connect Ebb 23:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Ebb[reply]
  • Keep all as per William Allen Simpson and JohnnyBGood. DanielZimmerman 07:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Having common userboxes keeps potentially offensive statements within certain boundaries. Deleting them will make lots of people write their own statements on their pages, which in many cases will be worse. --Emilio floris 16:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Not T1 or T2, not "harmful to the encyclopedia". (As noted before, if deleted from template space, subst as a {{userbox}} or copy to a subpage of each effected user, or it would be, in effect, vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2006 (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 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 relisted on May 20. Angr (t • c) 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OntarioSH

edit

Template:OntarioSH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As per similar templates, redundant with list articles, and categories. — May. 12, '06 [09:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>

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 per T1. Angr (t • c) 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Axis of Evil

edit

Template:Axis of Evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template serves no purpose except to spread a specific POV Jeff3000 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this template is based on a specific POV. A state of the union speech is a POV, MLK's letter from a brimingham jail is POV (template of civil rights movement), the Gettysburg address is a POV (template of historical american documents), and every single template of each major religion is based on a POV. Whats your point? --mitrebox 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly unlikely to provide value to users; hence, cannot justify cluttering major articles with it. -- Visviva 04:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is tough call because it is a legitimate category of nations, well-known by this name (whether a person agrees with the categorization of each in this group or not) so I don't think it's POV, per se. Yet, this could easily be stated in a sentence, so why is it here - and where would it be used? I'm leaning weak delete but want to hear more of this discussion. - Nhprman 04:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think the biggest problem with this template is that it's placement in any of those three countries will never stick. Editors will cite it as POV, and remove it from those pages. For example, why should a certain POV have a template, and not another POV; another template will start with Western Axis of Evil and place that on the US page, etc, etc. Other templates do not spread POV but provide easier access to information; religion templates do not spread a POV, they provide different articles that explain the religion hopefully in an NPOV way, (plus you wouldn't see a muslim template on a christian page, and you wouldn't see an "Islam is good" or "Islam is bad" on the template). This template just by it's title spreads a POV. --
  • Delete - what's the point?Timothy Usher 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of no usefulness. It is a specific POV.--Jusjih 08:42, 12 May 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_12&oldid=1145637954"