Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 9

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 January 9)
< January 8 January 10 >

January 9 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 Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Event y edit

Templates that just create categories makes that space hard to maintain... ask anyone that works WP:CFD. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 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. -Splashtalk 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Locale length edit

Meta-template. Uses the "P" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after manually updating any pages using it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CBD. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Converts meters to locale (feet)
eg. {{Locale length|10}} gives {{Locale length|10}} and {{Locale length|1000}} gives {{Locale length|1000}}, useful when metric measurments (without imperial feet) are encountered in some pages. Also can be used to in sed no-line-break-space after the between number and unit. eg 1000 m, this is commonly missed and leads to messy pages. - NevilleDNZ 09:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This conversion to feet should be done by hand to ensure that the correct number of significant digits is used. Or you will get something like "approximately 1000 m (3281 feet)" instead of "approximately 1000m (3300 feet)" which is more appropriate. Kusma (討論) 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meta meta gren グレン ? 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Mediawiki says it best: "This page is 55 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." And it's all but a few bytes on a single line! Obliterate this template. --cesarb 22:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kusma - • Dussst • T | C 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 15:57, 20 January 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. -Splashtalk 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country GB, etc. edit

(Template:Country GB, Template:Country PT, Template:Country NP, Template:Country NZ)

Meta-templates. Used with the "event" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 9 January 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. However, I'm not going to go trawling for the list myself. I'll drop Netoholic a note. -Splashtalk 02:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several meta-templates related to months edit

(all templates in the form of "P#", Template:CentaryN, Template:MonthN, Template:Convert month, Template:Month name, Template:Born, Template:Died, Template:Battle, Template:Disaster, Template:Event)

I stumbled onto a pretty arcane series of nested meta-templates. They seem basically devised to compose a complicated structure around converting numbers to months and back again. Template:CentaryN and Template:MonthN seems to be used only for sorting articles into strict time order within categories. This can be achieved manually without all this template-within-template structure. Born, Died, Event, Battle, Disaster, and others create four-layer-deep meta-templates that seem to be used to present dates in a non-standard format (see Edmund Hillary). -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after manually updating any pages using it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CBD. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I checked the Edmund Hillary page and it has entries like: {{Born|1919|7|20|region=NZ}} that correctly puts Edmund into the Category:New Zealand people and Category:1919 births. And correctly formats the dates as per wiki standard. The templates Born, Died, Battle, Disastor and Event seem to categorise corectly also. NevilleDNZ 08:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only used on a handful of pages. NevilleDNZ 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Confidence Read the WP:AUM carefully, it isnt wikipedia policy, only a (very recent) suggestion. - NevilleDNZ 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You "checked" it and it "seems to"? (Edmund Hillary) Aren't you the one that created all this and put it there in the first place? Have you read WP:AUM? I don't blame you too much for creating this system, but it's disallowed by policy. Categorization and dates are already handled by existing mechanisms that are easier to maintain and avoid being hogs on the server. -- Netoholic @ 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ThanX for your "friendly" feedback. NevilleDNZ 12:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW: The Netoholic the vote hasn't eveb finished yet... have some grace. I note you have butchered the page Tim_Shadbolt history 4 times with your (mega-edit) bot.
      • WP:AUM is not policy, please see the talk page on WP:AUM for details (and feel free to remove any policy tags from WP:AUM). —Locke Cole • t • c 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these (not 'Locale length') could be converted to non-meta templates. I like the concept behind standardized data formatting, but I think these templates should then always be subst'd in once they are formatted to use widely agreed upon standards. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My wiki forensic revealed that there are 10'000 (in words: ten thousand) templates P1..P10000. Patrick created P1..P3 and NevilleDNZ continued up to astronomic 10000. I must say Neto is very friendly... --Adrian Buehlmann 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like they go up to p31 and then only hit major milestones and specific instances up to p10000. So not quite as bad, but wouldn't work properly until all of the entries were filled out. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor admin who has to delete them. I'm asking myself whether it makes sense to do that delete work at all. Deleted articles/templates are still around just marked as deleted, right? So we just increase the garbage by deleting them without gaining much. --Adrian Buehlmann 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment there are only about 20 of them (as CBDunkerson mentions), I will nominate them for deletion tomorrow. NevilleDNZ 00:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 16:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:AUM is not policy. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:39, 21 January 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-AmE-0 edit

Template:User-AmE-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete remove this one but add British English equivilent of AmE-5, unless there already is one, i cant find it.
  • Delete — Quite rudely claims that American English isn't English and is actually spelling and grammatical errors, in contradiction to official policies here. Serves no purpose other than nationalistic arrogance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)
  • Keep this and all American English templates. Someone should make a policy about userboxes so these don't keep coming up. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This TFD discussion is tainted by talk page spamming by Jamal al din: e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Demi T/C 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Tainted'? Are those people's opinions unworthy of consideration because they had to be told there was a vote? Do you think they are only voting because somebody else wants them to? ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Templates like these are the reason why everyone wants to delete useful Babel templates now, without taking to drawing up a policy proposal. And cookiecaper, there is a policy discussion on userboxes: WP:UBP. This template is just for user-fun and bears no relevance to writing an encyclopedia or translating. If it has to be kept the wording needs to be changed because as accessed now it is offensive. --Fenice 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it's offensive. There aren't enough offensive templates on Wikipedia right now. Templates by and large tend to be far too pleasant and civil; it's repulsive and runs contrary to our interests here, which is to create a hostile and factionalist environment for inefficient and contentious editing. However, I vote to keep this template only on the grounds that I can also make a template calling all of the Romance languages "poorly-spoken Latin" in a similar way to how American English is poorly-spoken English. Fair's fair. -Silence 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is another userbox with the same text {{Template:User AmE-0}}. In itself it is not any more offensive than {{Template:User AIM-0}}, {{Template:user gb-0}} or {{Template:user 1337-0}}. -- Sneltrekker 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm ambivalent about this style of userbox (I've removed the joke userboes I created for myself), but I think we should hold on ad-hoc deletions until there is some consensus on a coherent policy about userboxes. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and its counterpart that insults users of Commonwealth English, if it exists. Not useful for user categorization. Wikipedia itself is dialect-neutral; if its users aren't, there's no reason to allow themselves to factionalize like this. android79 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I live in America so I speak American English; saying things like color and fall. I don't find this offensive at all. I have no problems with people stating their choosen dialect.--God of War 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this applies to me as well; it's all very silly, isn't it? Like linguistic nationalism. Fact is, some Americanisms are more linguistically efficient than the Britishisms ("color" is simply faster and simpler to type than "colour"), some Britishisms are more linguistically efficient than the Americanisms ("arse" rather than "ass" makes sense as a handy way to avoid confusion with the donkey "ass"), and most variations are just too trivial for any sane person to make a fuss about. If I was the God of Language, I'd just hold a giant international superpoll and have all the neutral parties go through every spelling and meaning variance and pick the most coherent, efficient, simple, and clear form for each and forget about the rest. But since I'm not that, best to just live with it, and to let people hate on (or poke fun at hating on) whichever dialect they want. -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Silence. — BrianSmithson 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There's a whole list of American English templates, these language templates shouldnt be deleted. Plus, if something like this causes offence, then you're obviously too touchy -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saying any language is an improper form of another is a completely false statement. In fact, by saying this, this user should also have taken into account that English is a form of Germanic and, by there way of thinking, is also just "grammatical errors". Not acknowledging this means, or atleast how I have interpreted, just a biased, rude thing to say.
  • Keep Keith Greer   17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Kiand 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Offensive, useless. — Seven Days » talk 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per God of War. —Andux 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know Am English's beginnings, I know modern English's beginning and I know where old Germanic languages came from. Knowing all this, I can offer my educated opinion. This is humerous. Leave it be. Silence is right, though. - Hayter 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. —Nightstallion (?) 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally find this userbox a bit offensive, but everyone has their opinions, and they are free to express them in the user namespace. — TheKMantalk 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fairly light hearted to me. Boddah 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silence, and make some more for other ignorant deviations from proper Proto-Indo-European. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I'm talkin' about! Bring back PIE! Lazy linguistic louses, losing lingering locatives later! -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is humorous and not offensive at all. Larix 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a joke, it's not a very funny one. So it sounds more like an attack than a joke. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, though that hasn't influenced my vote. -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The idea behind these userboxes is to entertain. While I'm no longer a member of the userboxes project (and not particularly such a large fan of userboxes anymore), let 'em have their fun. Cernen 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    • With that said, Keep. Cernen 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately - while I am a big fan of British English and sometimes make fun of American English, I do believe that this opinion espressed in such a way is far too vulgar to be accepted by anyoneMsoos
    • Comment For the record, British English is just English (its not a version of the language, it is the language) and it's not exactly immoral. People get offended by anything nowadays. Seeing as it's not hugely bad, can't you just resort to not using it? An American above said they werent offended, maybe if people were as sensible as him we wouldnt have a backlog in the deletion section -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that it isn't accepted by anyone (in which case the template won't find any use and can be deleted as an orphan (just as we do with human orphans)), or are you saying that we shouldn't let it be accepted by anyone? Both seem like strange statements to make; I can understand saying that we should make people express this opinion in customized or fully userfied templates, or simply have them express it in prose, but saying that it's too vulgar to be expressed at all seems a tad odd... What's so terrible about being vulgar every once in a while? -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - How would you non-American speakers of English feel if I created a userbox mocking Commonwealth English? --TML1988 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldnt be bothered. It wouldnt take a userbox mocking proper English for me to know that Americans dont like Brits. Plus, if u mocked English, then you would be mocking American English because it is the original version of your "language" -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, for the record American English is closer to the original version of English than British English. Studies show that people living in the Appalachia Mountains are closest to Elizabethan English... not that it is somehow better for that. You might want to go educate yourself instead of assuming that your version is somehow more correct. The point, however, is that nobody should be mocking anyone, especially ikn a way that goes against clear Wikipedia policies that American English is just as real as British English. DreamGuy 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The moon is made of cheese. See, i can do it too -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's telling the truth. Spoken American English, at least the Appalachian form, is more like spoken Elizabethan English than any other form still around today. Given the inconsistency of spelling in Elizabethan times, no form can be said to be the most similar in spelling. - Cuivienen 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as a user of american english). This is an expression of opnion. Any edits in which such a user attempted to "correct" such "errors" would be in violation of policy, and would I trust, be promptly revted. But I see no reason why the suer should not be entitled to express such a view, at elast until there is a more comprehensive policy on user boxes. If a user had such a statement on his or her user page not in a box, how far would soemone get who wanted to remove it as a policy violation? DES (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a supporter of userboxes in general, but this one is just so silly I have to vote delete. I mean gees, all languages evolve. That doesn't make one more "right" than the other. --Fang Aili 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Written chinese doesn't evolve, not that is in any way relevant.--God of War 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a harmless userbox with a sense of fun, adds colour to this encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur completely with Lord Bob. All you people who are offended, every language template as a -0 version, and stop being to touchy! -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete factionalizing userbox --Wikiacc 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is undoubtedly the stupidest TfD nomination ever. Mindboggling. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Lord Bob. It's clearly very tongue-in-cheek; I don't think it warrants your evident indignation.--CapitalLetterBeginning 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I don't understand how this could be considered offensive, I know that I find other various things offensive which others don't understand and tell me I'm "being too touchy" (eg, butchers' windows, horse racing). No need for a template which offends others. --Qirex 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Violates Wikipedia's ideals about etiquette and "good faith". We are supposed to be working together here, not sniping at one another over language differences.--Srleffler 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly harmless userspace template. Gerrit CUTEDH 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, elitist and factually incorrect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Has to be one of the most ridiculous TFD's so far.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2: My watchlist has seen at least a few of these userboxes be sent here to die. Can't Wikiproject Userboxes make their own TfD page? This is supposed to be for useful templates that might have outlived their usefulness, not usercruft. Cernen 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, offensive and insulting. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serves no purpose but to violate WP:CIVIL.--Sean|Black 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Will this be deleted too? Just the same, but the opposing POV: Template:User AmE-5:
  • Keep. No problems with the template; it's a reasonable template, and its "rude" factor is totally irrelevant due to the fact that it's a POV template. Niffweed17 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
en-us
-5		This user can contribute at a professional level of American English.
Definite American bias here - but that's not surprising when such a large portion of editors are American..--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume god faith, will ya? And yes, I hope that one is deleted too.--Sean|Black 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice tough of silliness, nothing rude to be seen here. Pilatus 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Lord Bob and untill userbox poilcy is sorted out Brian | (Talk) 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, this is not the place for it. —Cryptic (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. How is this offensive? 1) He is entitled to his opinion. 2) It won't harm anyone by him always using British English instead of American English, and 3) It's not like it's going to be used outside of his user page. Saying this is biased and offensive is like saying somebody not liking a certain type of music is offensive. bob rulz 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally harmless. Adrian Buehlmann 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Totally useless. --Doc ask? 11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone heard of the word "humour"? That's "humour", not "humor" --Falcon9x5 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I speak enough languages to know that this is a bit of harmeless fun over some minor differences in dialect. Also second what Bob rulz said. Tom 12:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess - this looks an awful lot like irony to me, but some of the above comments show that we should at least give consideration to the idea that some find it genuinely offensive rather than funny. We have enough trouble with disputes around use of language caused by simple misunderstandings without fanning the flames. Plus, as any student of language should know, the British English spellings are often modern affectations, and the US versions are in many ways more correct (and are found in sources such as Chaucer). I'd almost make an honourable exception for aluminium (per IUPAC) but that means I'd have to accept sulfur, and I'm not going to have that. So, away with it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   RfA! 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People should be entitled to express their opinions on their user pages, whatever those opinions may be. Especially so considering the lightheartedness of this particular template. --TheCardinal 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - *sigh*, some of you obviously have no sense of humour. You may think I'm being biased, not being a user of American English, but I do not find Template:User AmE-5 offensive one bit. I put the template on my user page simply for a bit of a laugh - I was only more amused to see this TfD with people calling it "factionalising" and "elitist"! I am frightened at how seriously some of you are taking a stupid little userbox. I think people should be allowed to say what they like on their user pages - it's not their fault if it's taken the completely wrong way. --Zilog Jones 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete Only because there is already a {{user AmE-0}}, and the dash after "user" in the template name is against my bias toward userbox syntax. All the AmE templates are pointless jokes, but are not quite patent nonsense, so I have no reason to ban them. An attitude about a language is not a personal attack or group hate. — Eoghanacht talk 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think that it is an important template, it's lighthearted and harmless. I also feel that the nomination could be construed as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Stifle 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - stop being distracting. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A major vote was completed recently, reaching a concensus that POV userboxes should not be deleted. This is a POV userbox. All opinions are going to offend, you can't help or prevent that (unless you eliminate opinions, which is against freedom of speech). If you disagree with this, dont use it. I disagree with a lot of POV userboxes but i dont complain, and I certainly dont try to delete them. You call this bias, what I call bias is this being nominated and the AmE-5 template not. I call that deleting in favour of a particular language or nationality. Guess which one - American! So if this template gets deleted, and my numerous appeals dont work, I call for the AmE-5 template and any other language template with a shred of opinion in it be deleted immediately. Wikipedia userpages will be more boring places, but if you people want to make it that way, don't do it in a biased way just because there are more of you from America than Britain. -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but only if it's actually made witty, like the anti-British one above. As it is, it's just mean. ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless userspace content. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - userboxes are free to be NPOV and act as a mechanism whereby people can express things they would be free to express anyway in a standardised format. Plus- it is true.   Deano (Talk) 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I do think that American English is crap and I am rude, so having this on my user page is totally encyclopedic and NPOV. Besides, I don't feel like having the same discussion for all userboxes one by one. --Valmi ✒ 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I don't know how many people are aware of this, but this encyclopedia was founded by american english speakers, and this mess is a disgrace--Nn-user 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you are aware that American (English) is based on English, should that make a difference? - Keith Greer   18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And America was originally under British rule. Does it matter? No. If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt, so i think you're exagerrating a bit. Take a look at the discussion I linked to a few points up. For every person who voted delete on POV userboxes, over 6 people voted keep. O and Valmi, you sum up my opinion completely. If there is any disgrace, it's American English (which is not an official language, it's a version - look up America on this encyclopedia if you want). NPOV does not apply to user pages, which is why POV userboxes should stay. We dont need this discussion. Such a lareg amount of POV userboxes were voted on based upon the fact that they were POV, not their individual content - and the overwhelming result was Keep. I'll fight to keep as many as these POV userboxes as possible, but I'd appreciate it if you didnt nominate so many of them. -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt Actually, he -- tangentially -- has, leaving a comment at [Category:Wikipedians by politics:
'Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more garbage templates. Djegan 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not very professional. Thumbelina 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Provincialist attack. Inferiority-complex issues ought to be acted out elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst I would never advocate actually banning American English, the thought of it is quite entertaining, and people expressing that view on their talk pages is fine. --New Progressive 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a huge USA patriot and I don't find this opinion offensive at all. Lawyer2b 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a) because it is a light hearted piece of humour and b) because we need definite Wikipedia policy on userboxes before we start culling them. --Loopy e 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can mark me as another American who thinks you're all being far too touchy. Kairos 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly offensive. -- JJay 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly the wikipedia userspace has gone beyond the boundaries of being "encylopedic" in nature. Besides, who cares. I rest easy at night knowing that I'm heeding the advice of my mother who said, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." But if some other jag-off (there's an Americanism for you, specifically western-Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh area dialect) wants to show how much of a jerk he or she can be, who am I to stop them? Here's another thing my mom used to say, "actions speak louder then words." Lucky for us here on the WP we have both at the same time. --Easter Monkey 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be insulted at something you have to have cared of their opinion. It shows to people that there is different types of the english language and its only a laugh. The userspace of WP is separate to rest of WP therefore IMO NPOV should not need to apply, if it does then there is no point to the userspace. --Neocal 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Harmless, amusing, etc etc. --Gary Kirk (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The general reason people are giving for deletion is the fact that is may be offensive. But you can't delete something based solely on the fact that it offends (except if it is completely immoral, which this isnt). In an ideal world, everyone would live in harmony, peace on earth, etc etc. But you have to wake up because that is never going to happen. We will never have world peace, and there will always be offense in one form or another. Its called reality. This template, as well as others, is going to offend someone somewhere. Im sorry that's true, but its not hugely contraversial. All other Babel templates have one that says This user does not like x language, but i dont see those here for deletion. Do you? What i think is happening is everyone falling into this pro-America thing going on, creating different rules for anti-AmE templates. You can deny it as much as much as you like, like all the "official" opinions that exist, there is always some fabrication in there. Once again, i call for the deletion for any babel templates with opinion in them to be deleted if this template does get deleted. If we are going to have a NPOV thing going, it must apply to deletiong similar userboxes. Pro-USA bias just wont cut it. -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it quite useful in letting people know in a light-hearted way that I don't really want my articles "Americanising" where people change all the words/terms to American variations. Anyway it's just a bit of fun and it's an over the top reaction. I wouldn't care if it was the other way round. Rule Britainnia! Englishrose 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep seriously get over it, it's just a bloody userbox. Our userpage is a place for our own personal opinions and information, and if i prefer to use UK english over US english then so be it. If i want other people to look at my page and see that i use UK english and not US english then they can. If you really have something against it then create your own userbox saying "US english is the ultimate english and all other forms are inferior and wrong".
And if your Seriously taking offence to this, then think about this...
Every other country in the world is getting your American crap beemed onto their TV's and movie screens. So think about all those people that have to hear your bloody annoying accents and pronouciations! e.g. "Skeduel" instead of "Schedule" and "Aluminum" instead of "Aluminium".
So in conclusion i tell you... GET A LIFE! stop complaining about something that doesn't need complaining about. We put up with your crap everywhere everyday! and we don't file complaints or law suits or start bitching about it, we just sit back and say "bloody Americans". And being offended by the personal opinion of a userbox is just childish...
Frexe 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Amen to that. People can show their POV on their userpages if they want to. If you dont like it, tough. Trying to get this deleted is totally over-reacting. -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 19:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I retract my earlier vote. Jim suggests we toss it, I say we toss it. He's right. We're all Wikipedians here, not Americans, nor Britons, nor Germans... Cernen Xanthine Katrena 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What happened to free thought? Just because Jim said delete, doesnt mean that the discussion automatically becomes a general delete. That's just a stupid way of voting -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree less with Cernen. Jimbo is not the autocrat of Wikipedia, and I do not agree with his assessment. Anybody should be allowed to put whatever they want in terms of POV userboxes on their userpages, and this is no exception. Niffweed17 20:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's just a joke. - Cuivienen 20:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Same as it's anti-american equivalent. It's a reasonable template expressing a POV, which should not be censored. Niffweed17 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither funny nor useful. --Angelo 04:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is WP coming to? Has Zombie Stalin taken over Wikipedia? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Sure it's probably a joke to most people but it's mean in tone, rather than funny. How about some more Wikilove? --Singkong2005 05:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If someone feels this way, I'd rather know about it; and if this is taken away from him, he'll find other, and more obnoxious, ways to say it. Wikipedia is not censored; and the proper use of Wikilove is in voluntarily taking this down, not having it forcibly removed.Septentrionalis 06:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, how silly. - ulayiti (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its fine. --Terence Ong Talk 12:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you can be offended by something as minor as that then I laugh for England. Beside if you're going to delete that I suggest in the "interest of fairness" every single box regarding language be deleted otherwise there'll be the usual "american-favourism" and all the boring anti-americanism that will come with it. There's better things to debate a deletion over, this isn't one of them and if the majority of deletions are coming from Americans who believe they are being dissed there's a nice quote somewhere in that consistion of theirs which would reccommend allowing it to stay and not be deleted. =D Gotta love this stuff. --RBlowes 17:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes are not required to be either useful or non-offensive, nor are they even required to be accurate. It's all in fun. "Humour". Peter T.S. 21:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Connotes partiality that isn't necessarily based on best practise or consensus. Why not rephrase/rejig it to indicate preferred usage of American English, Commonwealth English, Australian English, et al.? All this may fly in the face of Wp guidelines regarding varied English usage; if it can't or won't be changed (or opened up to include other dialects), delete. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Editors can say anything they want about themselves on their own user pages. The only thing deleting this template will do is reduce the transparency of Wikipedia. --Peace Inside 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I agree, deleting this template will remove our "freedom of speech" and i know how much you Americans love your "freedom". So if your so patriotic towards you flag and country, then stop whinging about something that's so small and incignificant compared to whats going on all over world (that place beyond your waters).
Frexe 10:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is just an opinion to go where opinions go. the only people who should be offended by it are the people who want to be offended by it, so that's okay. —Felix the Cassowary 13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • En-5 was kept waitng for policy. [20]. Since this tfd is about the exact same issue I believe that it should follow suit and this discussion be listed as a no-consensus.--God of War 20:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reword carefully. I see AmE-0 and AmE-5 as humorous and a good foil for each other, though the swear word on AmE-0 is neither necessary, nor matched (by AmE-5). --Alf melmac 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this template: I don't think that this template is meant to be offensive. It may be taken as such, however, you have to admit, "American English" is different from "English (ie. of an origin from England) English". Furthermore, Americans do tend to have not so good American (no offense). American myself (see MYT), i hear people incorrectly use grammar, and, when corrected, neglect the correction and even take offense sometimes. (Please don't be offended by my comments. They are not meant to be offensive, but rather just what I know from experience).MYT 22:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and I'm perfectly aware that what I write is an awfull mix of US and proper English. // Liftarn
  • Very Strong Keep Keep it and don't change it. Duke toaster 13:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeper it's great just the way it is. And there is the one mocking commonwealth english, so it's even. I use commonwealth english (in canada it's about half and half), and I laughed at the "how quaint" one as much as I did at the american one. The deletionists just have no sense of humour...if you can't laugh at yourself (and everybody should be able to do this - keep an eye on my user page for a good example) then you really have to learn to lighten up. It's a joke, it's a break from the seriousness of encyclopedic work. bcatt 14:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sense of humour should be allowed. KittenKlub 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "OMG we msut deleet it becoz it mite OFFEND sum ppl!!!!!!! If ppl get OFFENDED their gonna be emosionaly scared 4 lyfe!!!! 0h n0es!" Darobsta 22:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Exactly, what happened to the time when people didn't care if something offended people? Its called stading by your views and putting freedom of speech over the fear that it might offend someone. Be Bold and voice your opinions! Plus AmE is an annoying "language". It gets beamed out all over the world and you expect us to put up with it! Im absolutely behind this userbox, and it was the second userbox i added after User en. Rule Britannia! -   «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 12:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am 100% behind this userbox. Ok, it might need a juice up in the humour department, but a lot of us Brits hate the way American English is sliding into laziness. Especially since more and more it is sliding into the "hai ppl rnt i kool cos i kant spel or rite propa" - which drives me insane
    • Besides, It's better then the 'Commonwealth English' which is boring as hell

C.B 03:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • hey!! its not jus amreicans hu r in2 txtspk, its unfare 2 claim dat its only americns hu r lay-zee abt speling an stuff. I wouldn't even call it an American-influenced trend - it seems to have happened everywhere in the English-speaking world.
  • Keep - userboxes are about user points of view. There are a huge number of opinionating userboxes and it would be silly to go after a single one. haz (user talk) 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mystache 22:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep As per accepted policy that POV userboxes are allowed and should not be restricted/censored. —gorgan_almighty 15:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep POV userboxes are personal, and don't need to correspond to NPOV and can represent a personal stance. Smeggysmeg 03:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100% strong keep NPOV does not apply to userpages. Its just a joke and should not be taken seriously. - • Dussst • T | C 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mostly Harmless --BadSeed 06:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no useful purpose. If someone wants to make a comment like that, there is no reason why they can't do it in user namespace. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 18:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dont think 1 userbox is going to take up heap loads of space. People should be able to express their views however they want - • Dussst • T | C 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seeks to divide us as wikipedians rather than unite us Trödel•talk 02:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is wrong, the deletion of people's userboxes is far more divisive than any possible offense one could get from looking at this little box. Read my userpage for the full rant.--God of War 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If your thesis is true, the slight will be for a moment - while the userbox on a page will be around much longer. Trödel•talk 04:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. utcursch | talk
  • Keep Harmless bit of fun. Eurosong 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep What are the reasons for deletion? 1) Causes offence: sorry, not intended, but sometimes we all need to pause before pressing the PC button - don't be so humourless; 2) Pointless: if it expresses either POV or humour, well it's on a user page, don't tell others how to think; 3) No place in Wiki: certainly not in the encyclopaedia, but don't try to censor other people's user pages (it won't work). I reckon if I wish to use any box on my user page, then that's my privilege. Others can judge me on that and take appropriate action or discuss it there. IMO, American English has its own validity and cannot be harmed by a harmless, silly, humourous, personal comment. Neither is Wiki damaged. Vive la difference!! Now let's all do something useful. Folks at 137 20:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep common, live a little.Mike McGregor (Can) 06:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (1) It relates directly to language use and editing behaviour. (2) It's nowhere near as offensive or divisive as some of the discussion about getting rid of it is (3) The equivalent templates "insulting" users of British English and Commonwealth English aren't being marked for deletion alongside this, which smacks of bias. - Synapse 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's for user pages, and it's only a joke! D. Wo. 00:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly KeepI stongly object to its deletion, since there is an equivalent template that claims american english is the only correct english possible. as a user of commonwealth english, i want this bias towards american english halted.WoodElf 04:54, 21 January 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_January_9&oldid=1136431877"