May 24, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very offensive for many readers. I fear those users. -- 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic template. --Cyde↔Weys 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, UE. --kingboyk 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems unneccesary and divisive. RN 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because I see no reason to delete it. Sophy's Duckling 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's highly amusing, and it's not like the gun is actually pointing at anything. Lady BlahDeBlah 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Claims of their being unencyclopedic are countered by the idea that WP:ENC doesn't mention items only used on Userpages. Templates exist in omnispace, and are not articles. Further, divsiveness seems a remote possibility. I doubt very many actual gangsters spend their time editing Wikipedia, so usage of this template is almost certain to be in an ironic or humrous vein. Further, the arguments presented above relate to whether this particular version of the userbox should exist; they are content-based. If the content of the userbox is the real concern, then change it: "This user is interested in gangsters." Also, oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Read it again: "Wikipedia is not a Blog Service" and "Wikipedia is not a Message Board" would seem to be the most appropriate here. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible speedy delete, is promoting crime and violence. Alphax τεχ 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - How does this promote crime and violence? It's not as if it says "Join a gang" or "Go kill". This userbox promotes violence no more than a "This user is married" userbox would promote marriage. Timrem 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So long as this is still an encyclopedia. --InShaneee 02:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong speedy delete dreadful stuff, intimidation.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--HereToHelp 02:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless it can be satisfactorily explained to me how it is offensive. It is meant for use in the user space, therefore it does not need to be encyclopedic. Also, don't "subst and delete" unless that is the expressed consensus; keep means keep, and no consensus defaults to keep. Timrem 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: What's the flipping harm? ACS (Wikipedian) 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Recreate when wikipedia has a jail. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't imagine this being anything more than a tool of intimidation and it contributes nothing but an aura of fear to one's user page. Treima 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intimidating? The gun isnt pointing at anything! Do you find going on Firearm intimidating? Should we delete that too? - • The Giant Puffin • 07:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it would appear that some of the contributors above have forgotten that user-space exists to support the creation of the encyclopedia which should be our reason for being here in the first place. If the user is an expert on firearms or on gangster culture, then they should say so: proclaiming membership of an illegal organisation of some sort is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, intimidating template, offensive. --Terence Ong 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'll agree on this one for delete since it is just a joke. To be precise, because it doesn't say anything true about the user. People saying this is for intimidation really need to get a sense of humor. I do however disagree against the whole crusade against everything that isn't dry and personalityless around here. CelestialRender 14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I don't find it particularly funny, I really think this is harmless. Arguably, lots of other userboxes aren't terribly relevant to building an encyclopedia, either. Just because you don't share a user's sense of humor doesn't mean you should rain on their parade. - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also don't really see how it could be used as an intimidation tool. "Ooh, watch out, I'm a gangster. If you do something I don't like, I'll... uh... vandalize your userpage." I think even a real gangster on Wikipedia isn't too much to worry about, let alone somebody who just puts up this userbox. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:45, 25 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 Circeus 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate templates

edit

Template:89th Senate, Template:90th Senate, ..., Template:109th Senate are obsolete and no longer used in any articles. They can be deleted without any problems. CapitalR 07:37, 24 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 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atolls of the Suvadives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was previously used only in Atolls of the Suvadives. The page is now redirected to United Suvadive Republic. No other artilce uses this template and therefore is not required. Additionally see the talk page of redirected page. Oblivious 03:31, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KyleRayner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
identical reasoning to below. Night Gyr 02:27, 24 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HalJordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-use template, not usable anywhere else. needs subst and delete. Night Gyr 02:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. ACS (Wikipedian) 03:54, 25 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 template was deleted by HereToHelp -- Cowman109Talk 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Applecomputer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only used once. Subst: and delete. HereToHelp 02:06, 24 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. It seems extremely unlikely the result of the debate will be anything other than "Keep", and many editors are calling for a premature close. Why waste everybody's time when we know the outcome? kingboyk 10:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wdefcon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What's this, a template that transcludes userpages? Do we really need a subjective (since anyone can change it to what they feel) "alarm system"? I'd say userify, but I'm not sure if that's already done, I'm nominating the Template: namespace one. -- Drini 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that moving it to {User Wdefcon} makes it stay on template namespace? -- Drini 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant it should be placed at {{User wdefcon}} like userboxes so they are more appropriate. DGX 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm pointing that such action doesn't change the fact it'd still be on template namespace -- Drini 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, we shouldn't get rid of everything in the template namespace. DGX 02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On that note drini, the reason its subjective is that, basically, the community of users who tirelessly do RC patrol use that to keep tabs on how much vandalism is roughly going on. If the thing is at 5, i usually wont RC patrol, but if its at 3, then i will def. jump in. I mean sure, CVU members could sit there and put the status in text in the discussion page, but the template looks cool, is un-obtrusive, and is easy to script into your prefs.js file. --NightDragon 02:33, 24 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.