Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 May 11)
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11, 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. Angr (t • c) 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nudity warning edit

{{Nudity warning}}

Wikipedia is not censored. --Doc ask? 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It not a censor, it does not remove images in fact it warns viewers not to censor and it directs them to a disclaimer explaining why. --BerserkerBen 22:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, goes directly against Wikipedia policy. The applicable Wikipedia policy is that Wikipedia is not censored and that pages do not have disclaimers. The only disclaimers on the whole site are all in one place: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. --Cyde Weys 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What policy says no disclaimers? (That goes for all the people who saw no need to say anything other than "delete per Cyde/nom", too.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it against wikipedia policy?, how does this message censor images? and how are people suppose to know about a disclaimer: are we suppose to put giant disclaimers at the top of every article?--BerserkerBen 23:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Cyde. —MiraLuka 23:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bogdan 23:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I am sympathetic with the creator's cause. One way to monitor such articles would be to properly categorize the images themselves and monitor the what-links-here listings for said images. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia should not have disclaimers. (Unfortunately I think we won't manage to delete the most-widely used disclaimer template: {{spoiler}}). Kusma (討論) 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While not really necessary, and thus a Weak delete from me, this differs a bit from the spoiler template in sort of an ironic way in that the spoiler is a warning that WP isn't censored, and that the reader should expect ALL details of a film, not just the usual review they may expect to read in the paper or elsewhere online. It's a common courtesy, because "censorship" isn't usually used in connection with movie reviews (exept perhaps self-censorship.) The double warning isn't needed here, since the "WP not censored" policy, had sexuality and nudity already in mind when it was created. Nhprman 18:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely contrary to purpose of encyclopedia. DreamGuy 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose of an encyclopedia is, presumably, to inform. How does trying not to gratuitously alienate readers in any way hinder this purpose? It's not like anyone is suggesting the images be removed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete This might be of some users to people unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but I suspect such content would only be on intended pages and thus expected. --Pilot|guy 01:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not everyone expects photographs of genitalia on pages about genitalia. My copy of the World Book, for instance, includes diagrams only. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- keeping this would be a significant change in policy, but is a simple warning like this really that bad of an idea? --T-rex 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a polite warning is not censoring.
  • Keep Letting people know that they shouldn't just delete stuff because THEY don't agree with it is a good thing. Russia Moore 07:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong deleteas WP:NOT censored/disclaimered, unless this is only being used as a talk-page template, in which case I don't like it but I think it's harmless. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are censorship and disclaimers so closely connected that they can be lumped together as "censored/disclaimered"? And where on WP:NOT are disclaimers mentioned in any way, shape, or form? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have yet to see anyone describe how this is censorship or show were it violates wikipedia's non-censorship policy (All the links provided above say nothing of warning tags), I am open to any changes to what the tag says, at present this is what I have come to on the Talk:Circumcision page:
    This article contains pictures of human genitals; discuss before editing the images. --BerserkerBen 22:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde. HenryFlower 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kukini 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is real pressure on Wikipedia to censor itself. This template helps keep Wikipedia uncensored by giving people fair warning before they get offended or embarrassed. --M@rēino 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Harmless Keep Frankly I fail to see how this could possibly constitute censorship. Wikipedia is not censored and that's great, but school kids do use this resource and I cannot see how this template can possibly do any harm. - Glen TC (Stollery) 05:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NOT censored, template is self-referential - and by the time you see the template it's too late anyway. Template is pointless, it diesn't even add articles to a category which could be used to filter nudity out of mirrors. I don't see any encyclopaedic purpose for it. Just zis Guy you know? 13:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Please explain how the WP:NOT censored policy is relevant here at all.
    2. Self-reference is generally accepted as being okay in limited cases for templates. Or should we edit all disambig templates, {{wrongname}}, etc.?
    3. Is the informative value of an article lessened by moving down the images a bit?
    4. If you think a category would be useful, add one.
    5. Would you consider avoiding gratuitously alienating a nontrivial segment of our readers not to be an encyclopedic purpose? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. I think the no disclaimer rule is a good one. Because we can add disclamers on pretty much every article, based on a multiple of arguments. Are we going to label all controversial articles as well, and all articles that contain homosexuality aspects, and all articles that are of the wrong religion? Spoiler warnings are the sole exception, as you cannot undo knwowing something. Kim van der Linde at venus 05:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't undo seeing something either. You might prefer to see some genitals than to have plot details spoiled, but not everyone would agree with that (although most Wikipedia editors might, it's harder to poll readers). As for the slippery-slope argument, there's nothing wrong with deciding on a case-by-case basis when something will be offensive to a sufficient percentage of our readers to merit having a notice about it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrict to talk page as a warning against image deletion. On the main article page it just acts as more text pollution. --StuffOfInterest 11:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delte per Kim. Qiute some time ago, there was (maybe still is) categories in Russian section of wiki such as "Sins in christianity" for abortion, homosexuality, etc. so NO to disclaimers, no to censorship. -- tasc talkdeeds 11:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per WP:NOT --Nnp 13:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it warns those who might feel offended, without cmmitting the worst crime in virtual reality, censorship, objectively helping either side Fastifex 16:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to those users who have suggested that Wikipedia is not disclaimered, see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer; it's been on the site for about 3 years.--M@rēino 13:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Wikipedia is indeed general disclamered, one more reason not to add specific disclaimer at pages. Kim van der Linde at venus 14:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me people but where in WP:NOT does it say that this is censorship or that disclaimers are wrong? Many of you seem to be citing evidence for deletion that does not exist! Please someone quote a actually violation! Also many of you seem of have forgotten that there are plenty of disclaimers and warning tags all over wikipedia for just about everything, see Wikipedia:Template_messages --BerserkerBen 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see such any disclaimer templates on that page for on the main article. I agree with you that the pointing at what wikipedia is not is not providing evidence for deletion. Maybe have a search though the archives of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where this exact discussion also arose and that would be the perfect example of the next disclaimer. Or have a look at the discussion at the Societal attitudes towards homosexuality talk page, for which I know that at least one person want to add the nudity warning template as well as a homosexuality warning template. The question to answer is, were does this stop if we go this way?Kim van der Linde at venus 14:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The intent is well-meant (although the defense is a bit overwrought), but keeping this template sets a dangerous precedent. Why warn about nudity, but not warn about other controversial things? There are lots of things that many people find much more offensive than simple nudity. If we keep this, we open the door to disclaimers at the top of nearly every article that contains anything someone might find offensive. (Plus, it clutters up the page. If I go to an article titled Nudity, I really don't need a hatnote to tell me that I might see some nudity!) Powers 14:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go on a slippery slope!, By many arguments here every article would have a NPOV tag, because someone will object to something on the article eventually, lets delete the NPOV tag! This tag is only intended for articles were editing has been done to censor images (censorship vandalism) specifically of nudity, if you wanted to extend the capability of this tag or make a class of such tags they would be limited to articles were censorship vandalism has ALREADY occurred, not will occur thus not every article with possibly objectionable information needs such a tag. Also because of the present policy on censorship here at wiki there is no enforcement, thus the need for such a tag on a article is up to the will of the editors editing that individual article, the tag would not become required on to all applicable articles. --BerserkerBen 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is offended by anyone giving, say, pedophilia a fair treatment, or by mentioning it, they'll be equally upset by a hatnote saying "this article discusses pedophilia", and nobody will be warned off by something like "this article discusses controversial topics". Summaries of offensive text will not, therefore, be effective at reducing the number of people gratuitously offended by our textual content. A note saying "this article contains nudity" will not upset the people who would be upset by the actual nudity; moreover, it wouldn't lead to embarrassing situations at work or school or where other people are around, which is another major function of such a warning. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise. i think that something like this would be useful, however the style it's in now doesn't look very good. possibly an infobox would be better. i understand that we don't censor nudity, but i don't think we should make it a point to show it off. -- preschooler@heart 16:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for exactly the same reason as {{spoiler}}. Wikipedia is not censored, but that does not preclude us from warning our readers of this fact when relevant. Our mission is not furthered if we gratuitously offend users; how many people view Wikipedia as filthy or immoral or what have you due to the absence of such a template? How does this further our goals, rather than hinder them? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super strong delete verging on speedy, inappropriate Template in violation of Wikipedia's no censorhsip and NPOV policies. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of a bad idea. --Carnildo 01:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:NOT definitely a slippery slope template. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:17, 19 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 doesn't matter. If you are really concerned, then you'd have bothered to vote on every single one of them. - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 18 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 17:07, 13 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 03:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There should be no kanguru court of userboxes. Each should be evaluated separately on merit after a comprehesive discussion. Friendly Neighbour 11:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:22, 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 07:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TfD does not exist for this sort of petty officiousness. Nominator would do well to take Jimbo's advice and WP:JOU|relax a notch or two]]. He would do even better to stop closing his own nominations, prematurely and against consensus. Septentrionalis 00:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete the following: Template:User Onion, Template:User LEO contributor, Template:User goon, Template:User Gaia, Template:User ding. The others I won't comment on because they are already gone. Also, a comment: Many of the "keep" votes below are by users who probably think that the content will disappear if they are deleted (as opposed to being userfied). Ardric47 05:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until or unless specific policy is established. Current effort is just a series of vendettas. --StuffOfInterest 11:26, 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User I2P edit

{{User I2P}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on this and subsequent templates: the solution I tend to prefer for these is to suggest userfying them, moving them to be child pages of the creator's user page, with the warning that they should not be used outside of the user pages in general. However, I don't have feelings for any of these nominees in particular - thus I merely put this comment out for consideration. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or Keep thanks for having the decency to nominate for deletion, rather than speedy deleting them. Please consider this a comment on all the User templates below (or let me know if you prefer that I post this comment on each and every one of them). --Dschor 01:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No usefulness.--Jusjih 08:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. —Andux␅ 06:47, 13 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 21:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User crazy edit

{{User crazy}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 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'ed and delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ding edit

{{User ding}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This does not help us create an encyclopedia. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Ugh, utter tosh. --Doug (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crazy Frog is an important aspect of pop culture. There is debate about it, and the idea of supporting or hating Crazy Frog is important. Scalene 08:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst, userfy and delete if people really want to advertise that they are fashion victims let them do it at their own expense, as it were. In what way do crazy frog ringtones help build an encyclopaedia? Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 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 subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Gaia edit

{{User Gaia}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This does not help us create an encyclopedia. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising —Mets501talk 02:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and Delete per nom -- Masterjamie 13:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Gaia has a lot of users, it's just as useless as the other userboxes for websites like Slashdot or even Google - if anything, it does help people get in touch with each other, and while this isn't a social networking service, people do need to get along to edit and having something in common helps --Lampbane 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, this is not a social networking service. It's actually expressly forbidden by policy (see: WP:NOT.) However, by stubbornly supporting "Keeping" this in the template space, you risk having it deleted again and again. But if it is Deleted from template space now, it 1) remains on your User page 2) is protected from further deletions 3) can be shared with other users as code. What's the problem with that? - Nhprman 22:07, 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 no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User goon edit

goon This user enjoys the Something Awful Forums.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, goons are something of an internet community and there are over 65 of them in the category already. Night Gyr 00:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Policy reminder: Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless. bogdan 15:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This helps fellow goons identify each other for collaborative purposes. As per Cyde Weys's comment, Something Awful doesn't advertise anywhere. --ThatNateGuy 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. —Andux␅ 06:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see the harm in any of the self identification userboxes. It's not like most readers will ever see them. --waffle iron talk 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based upon the reasons supporting this particular nomination (social networking, free advertising, etc.), why aren't the rest of the userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing nominated, such as those for AIM, MySpace, and Slashdot? Is popularity the standard here? --Joshfist 01:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AIM one probably because it's actually useful for getting in touch with other users. The others, probably because the most egregious cases or least-used or lamest or randomly-selected or whatever were chosen...I doubt it's bias so much as "not done yet." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deconstruction of the implied aims of the template creator shows a high degree of compatibility with the encyclopedic purpose of this project. Friendly Neighbour 11:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All userboxes are advertisement - thats why they were made. x1987x(talk) 15:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Atltais 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Advertising" is shaky ground, really. Are "This user is a fan of band x" userboxes advertising? What about books the user likes? Either way, this is quite useful for collaborative purposes, and it's potentially a large category. --Doug (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Joshfist. ~Linuxerist  E/L/T 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and userfy absent any evidence that it has anythign to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 13:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. you do not want to get on the wrong side of goon justice.... trust me... Rubber cat 06:44, 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-1 edit

{{User Hattrick-1}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 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 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-2 edit

{{User Hattrick-2}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 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 21:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Hattrick-3 edit

{{User Hattrick-3}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 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 21:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LUElinks edit

{{User LUElinks}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no reason for it to be deleted. Other internet communities have them and it does not provide advertising. Bttfpromo 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
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, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LEO contributor edit

LEOThis user contributes at Link Everything Online.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, did anyone even read what leo.org is? It's a free archive of open-source software and online dictionaries. It's an extraodrinarily useful tool for those of us who, say, want to translate articles between English Wikipedia and German Wikipedia. Except for the fact that LEO isn't a Wikimedia project, having this userbox on one's user page is no different from having {{User Wiktionary}} there. Angr (t • c) 19:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. LEO is a fellow reference site, legitimate need to organize collaboration could arise (confer planetmath and mathworld). This is probably a misinformed nomination. -lethe talk + 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; useful to users specialising in German - English translation and the wider German-speaking en.wikipedia community, and equivalent to templates pointing to other open-source projects. Aquilina 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whether a box advertises or not, or is "cool" or not, or is "neat" or "useful" or "funny" or not is irrelevant. Deleting simply takes them out of template space and allows users to continue to use them on their User page ("User Space"). It's a technical change that has become a rather shallow popularity contest over the content, which is not really the issue. This particular one is "Unencyclopedic" because it's in template space, and ads pointing to other sites, however, great, aren't really the point of Wikipedia's template space. Saying "Subst and Delete" simply moves it to User space, and ends these endless deletion exercises. Please reconsider your positions. Thanks. Nhprman 19:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one called this box "cool", "neat" or "funny". Whether a template is useful or not is most certainly not irrelevant. There is no reason whatsoever to remove this from template space. Templates are convenient tools for text that is to be repeated in multiple locations, such as this one. Deleting it from template space would not improve Wikipedia. Angr (t • c) 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many reasons to move them. Templates are being abused to stack votes in deletion reviews, "gang-edit" articles to reflect a certain point of view, and create "clubs" of users. All of which are a perversion of Wikipedia's mission: to write a NPOV encyclopedia. A Userbox is not a "tool" for helping write an encyclopedia in any sense of theword. However, they can be fun, and they'll remain on Wikipedian's user pages AS IS - if they are deleted here and go into the User space. - Nhprman 22:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fascinated to know under what scenario you think this userbox could possibly be used for vote-stacking, to "gang-edit" articles to a reflect a certain POV, or create "clubs" of users. Being a contributor to LEO is like being a contributor to Wikipedia or Wiktionary. It's a project to allow people to inform each other of the best way to translate phrases between English and German. And if deleted, this userbox will remain on Wikipedians' user pages only if it gets substed first. User:Cyde didn't say anything about substing this first, he just said he wants it deleted. (Note: if WP:MACK comes to fruition this will become moot.) Angr (t • c) 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I allowed to vote as I suggested it in the first place? I looked at the dozens of similar user boxes at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing such as "This user tracks what they listen to on Last.fm", "This user buys and sells on eBay", "This user loves using Google Earth", "This user contributes to the Internet Movie Database" and came to the conclusion that it is normal to have user boxes saying which online communities you contribute to. Why pick on this one for deletion? Originally I suggested a box which linked to Wikipedia's leo.org article, but the person who kindly made the box for me made it into a link straight to the Leo site. If that is a problem, I'm afraid I don't know how to change it myself. Saint|swithin 06:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as the creator of the template. Saintswithin has mentioned similar (or IMHO even less encyclopedic) templates and I fully agree with him. Btw, there're both a link to the Wikipedia article and an external link to the Web site itself. If this template provides free advertisement (as Cyde has written), the articles about Google or Microsoft, templates for users enjoying working with IE or Mozilla and lots of other templates and articles do the same in a much more extensive way for exclusively commercial projects (which LEO is not exactly one of). Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Saintswithin. ~Linuxerist  E/L/T 00:59, 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Neopets edit

{{User Neopets}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of us do, some of us don't play the game. Why can't we be allowed to show we do? OreosTalkContribs 13:46, 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, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Onion edit

 This user's news source is The Onion.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, is there a generialize "this user get his news from..." that would be worth having around. Jon513 15:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- it is being used on a lot of user pages already --T-rex 05:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It still can be, even if deleted from Template space. It will exist as text in User space, and you can still use it. It just shouldn't be in Template space, because that's where the articles are. This distinction doesn't get explained very often. Hope this helps! - Nhprman 06:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are in main space. Userboxes, and every other template, are in template space. They are not in the same space. They are two distinctly different namespaces. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template space (like article space, but unlike user space) is still a part of the official project, which is working on an encyclopedia. This does nothing to advance that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. —Andux␅ 06:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep what's a matter with this? This definitely can't be accused of being a "stupid joke" userbox. It is certainly not useless clutter. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 05:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful in finding editors with the sense of humour. Friendly Neighbour 11:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ditto Friendly, and besides, technically, the "user Wikipedia reference" infobox is ALSO advertising in that case.--DJ Wings 14:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't see pollution of the Template space as a real problem. It's there to support the rest of wikipedia and it's accessed directly by casual readers. If it's that much of a sematic problem, there should be some sort of 'User template' space. --waffle iron talk 18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just semantics at issue here. Templates should be set aside for assisting in the editing of articles. Funny templates simply don't advance that cause. Still, I agree there should be a separate place for them. Good solution. By voting "Delete" and deleting them from the Template space, they go into the User space, where they can be used there as users see fit. Nhprman 18:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per most keeps above. ~Linuxerist  E/L/T 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and userfy. Has nothing to do with building an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 21:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User RMP edit

{{User RMP}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all the userboxes are advertisements - for what is personally important for the user. Their music taste, their edit count, processor brand, ISP, favorite browser, email service, keyboard layout, country-location, and the fact that they use ratemyprofessors - a semi-wiki raiting system. User Boxes are advertisements, promotions, whatever you want, they are all uncncyclopedic - according to your definition.x1987x(talk) 14:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All userboxes are not advertisements for other sites. Clearly the ones you mention aren't. If you vote "Delete,' this box will not disappear, it will simply be transformed into a text-based box that looks exactly the same. It will just be taken out of the template space. Hense the rather undiplomatic comment that it's "clutter." It doesn't belong in the template space, really. - Nhprman 19:03, 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 18:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Snopester edit

{{User Snopester}}

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nominator. Love the site, hate the box. It doesn't belong here. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless clutter. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:48, 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 Deleted --Cyde Weys 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SG edit

  This user is a Segway Geek.

Unencyclopedic template, provides free advertising. No need to keep around. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space--Doc ask? 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per the nominator. Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why should this template be deleted?

Geeklera Segway Geek 23:36, 18 December 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

Template:Unproved edit

Template:Unproved (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template isn't particulary helpful, since all it does is to inform the reader that the factual accuracy of the article in question might be disputed or in any other way be considered unreliable. I consider that a bit too vague to be really useful or helpful. There are also plenty of already existing templates available that would substitute this one, in a more specific and helpful way (such as Accuracy, Neutrality, Controversial and Unencyclopedic), making this one redundant. And finally, in my opinion, this one is not NPOV, since even proven theories are frequently disputed, while some theories are never proven, but accepted anyway. Allowing a template like this might trigger edit wars between believers and skeptics in various articles around Wikipedia. Magore 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncertain wording and other templates are applicable. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete template is redundant and silly, it talks down to the reader; if topic is theoretical, it will be stated in the article Judgesurreal777 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to the nom and the above, there is also Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates.--Andrew c 21:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as absolutely pointless. DreamGuy 07:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems to warn against readers from testing out string theory in their basements, thats not really much of a concern... (or is it?) --T-rex 05:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I guess that depends on how likely you think it is that mad scientists use Wikipedia as a resource. Personally, it hasn't done a thing for my doomsday weapon research. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - an idea not without merit but flawed in execution. Just zis Guy you know? 13:40, 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 delete. Angr (t • c) 21:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Empire edit

Template:Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A navigation template which is way too large to be useful. bogdan 12:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

----------------------

Given the fact that there are more links at the template of "countries in asia" or very close in "countries in Europe" the quantitative arguments about the size is not really valid. Also the template comes as hidden division, which only covers two lines in its hidden state. People who want to use it can open the (through the link on the right side) division and work with it. Both of these arguments defends the opposide side "Not To Delete"--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qualitative remarks about the usefullness, which is linked with the organization of the empires, seems to be valid. There should be a better organization than categorizing through centuries. However these questions should be covered in its talk page. However, these talks are develop the arguments toward the need to keep the template. This paragraf is about "Not To Delete" side.--OttomanReference 14:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it's better, but still, I think a "See also: List of empires" would be better. bogdan 23:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very useful, just needs to be alphibitized. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It needs work, to be sure, but it is a useful template. —MiraLuka 22:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no substantial connection between most of the topics included in this template. Why would someone looking at the Egyptian Empire article want to go to Axis Powers? -- Visviva 04:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the elementary education in your country, but there is a unifying topic called "World civilizations" which organizes (classify) the topics around empires. There is an idea that an empire is a reflection of its civilization, which can be arguable but in any sense it is here as a teaching tool. The empires page is a good point for you if you have hard time following this idea... Please reconsider your wote. --OttomanReference 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Helpful template for seeking out historical empires. Issues have been raised about the "Irish Empire" and more than a few could be raised about "American Empire," which seems like a POV inclusion. - Nhprman 05:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Weak delete - I find the comments by Jon513, below - that the subjects are generally unrelated - rather convincing. I'd like to see the template's creator make an "Ancient Empires" template, however. That would be useful and consistent. Nhprman 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Once agian, completely and totalyl pointless. Anything that could be served with a simple CATEGORY should be a category. If category doesn't quite do it, then a See also to an article with a list on the topic. Making all text infoboxes on such large range of descriptors of no particular purpose is just completely unencyclopedic.DreamGuy 07:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nebulous concept of empires as corrupted by inconsistent use of Christian and Colonial tags serves to confuse rather than enlighten. Pedant17 10:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Empire is a classification, like colonial empire. I do not like it, as I do not like the idea of caliphate as an empire but these concepts do exist. I do not see how you can get rid of a concept by deleting a navigational bar. I have a difficulty in understanding if you object the empires as a navigational bar or classification of the empires based on christian. The second can be removed, which is arguable, and would that cover your dissatisfaction?--OttomanReference 12:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the whole facile classificatory concept. The Great Moravian Empire has imperial status on a plane quite different from (say) the Inca Empire. We have an Empire article which can discuss these distinctions, but a template undermines the differences. -- The concept of a "Christian empire" (has anyone defined this in Wikipedia?) raises particular POV issues. Why classify the Venetian Empire as Christian, but not the militantly Orthodox Russian Empire or the earnestly Lutheran Swedish Empire? Venice favoured trade over religion for much of its imperial career. The Roman Empire spent many decades with Christianity as an official religion ... Pedant17 01:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not opposed to navigation templates when they are part of a whole subjects that some reader would want to learn about in full. No one wants to read about all the empires in the world; some want to read everything there is to know about a particluar religion. I can't image that anyone who is reading about for example the Holy Roman Empire will then want to read about the Akkadian Empire. While the two are related they don't have the same readership. This is what catagories are for. Jon513 15:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too large, confusingly organized, and POV to be useful. Angr (t • c) 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jon513. HenryFlower 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, excessively detailed and would be better served by a category and a separate template for each subtopic. Just zis Guy you know? 13:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alphabetize. I find it useful.--KrossTalk 22:50, 19 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 05:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nintendo series developers edit

Template:Nintendo series developers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Useless, mangled, redundant with the much more useful {{Nintendo developers}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:30, 11 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. Angr (t • c) 18:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headgear edit

Template:Headgear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Request is to deprecate this template, replacing its use with Template:Headgear box, which is designed as a box for placement at the bottom of affected articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: having a navigation box like that is just a little bit ugly. Looking at a page like Apostolnik, I'm convinced that a bottom of the page box would be more suitable, and as one already exists (nicely created, too), there's no need for this to remain. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 05:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no real unifying factor with headgear. An infobox is completely inappropriate! A category is more then enough for this. Jon513 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most effective boxes to come from a project on WP, which links themes and topics in a uniform style and link. Far superior to the frankly amateurish and frankly hideous headgear box. But at least this time Schuminweb is consulting, as opposed to mass deletions of a box he wanted axed across dozens of articles, an action that led to his blocking. This whole issue was voted on in February. It is a waste of time constantly revoting on issues over and over again. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In February there was no consensus, now we hope there will be. Jon513 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Jtdirl's edit above - Jtdirl is the administrator who blocked Schuminweb for removing/changing this template, timestamp 2006-05-09 19:31:25. A questionable block, since it might have been made in order to gain advantage in a conflict with another user on Wikipedia. /Magore 19:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A complete lie. I uphold WP policy, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not. Schuminweb unilaterally doctored the content of a project page to create the opposite impression to that created by its authors. He then proceeded to use his falsified version of the page to mass delete a template and replace it with the one he had pretended, through doctoring of the page, was the project template. No user can do that. He was repeatedly warned to stop. Other users asked him to stop. He ignored all calls to stop. As a result, in accordance with WP rules, after being warned he was blocked. That is standard procedure and is done by whichever admin finds it happening. No user is allowed to falsify contents of protect, naming convention or manual of style pages and then begin mass deletions on that basis. He was only blocked for 24 hours. Other users have in the past been blocked for such antics for far far longer. One some months ago was blocked indefinitely by another admin. Schuminweb was very lucky to have only got a short block for such a serious act. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without taking this much further off topic, what other users asked me to stop? From what I can tell, the only user who asked me to stop was User:Jtdirl. Jooler questioned my removal of a comment when I moved the box (which I explained), but no one else explicitly asked me to stop. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category should be sufficient here. MiraLuka 21:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This seems more like a content issue. Should the box be a header or footer? Should the topics be organized according to relation? What should the design of the final box look like? I think those issues should be worked out before we decide to delete one of them. My two cents, I personally prefer the way the newer box looks. But simply centering the lines and changing the semi-colons to em dashes would make the nom look better. In the long run, one of these boxes need to go because they are redundent. I do not feel that this TfD followed process. It seems like an eager editor created a new box as opposed to editing the existing box, and as the above comment points out, there is not community consensus on removing the old one.--Andrew c 22:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I did initially edit the existing box and make the various adjustments to the articles to make the new box design fit, and was rolled back and subsequently blocked by Jtdirl for "vandalism". SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no harm, it may not be an example of WP's best work, but it is informative for those who are interested in headgear and the different varieties. --rogerd 00:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) it is not a matter of doing no harm. if there is no point it does not belong. and taking up space is harm. 2) who is going to be interested in learning everything there is to know about headgear of every different time and culture. people don't work that way! Jon513 15:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I do see a use for the box as a "see also" kind of thing, but I personally don't care for the design of Template:Headgear, feeling that this is a bottom-box design. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- completely useless as encyclopedic content, at best it's a category or See alsos, absolutely pointless as a big boinking box on the page, should not be replaced with any template either, just needs to go... Infoboxes absolutely as a matter of policy should not be forced onto articles without the clear and direct consensus of editors on ALL affected articles BEFOREHAND. This is common sense here. Instead we have someone coming up with these useless things all on their own without any sort of input and forcing them everywhere and then complaining when they are removed (and if Jtdirl above is accurate that someone was blocked for removing the template, the admin who blocked him should lose admin status and be laughed off the entire project). DreamGuy 06:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The usual personal abuse. Some things never change with DG. lol When the last attempt to vote this template off was defeated, DG responded by blanking it. His standard of behaviour never changes. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A category would do just fine. /Magore 10:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and delete {{Headgear box}} too), redundant with Category:Headgear. Angr (t • c) 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Angr. HenryFlower 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace per nom. Kukini 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go away and come back when you've all agreed on an answer. Just zis Guy you know? 13:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm the original author of the template. I've not been around on wikipedia much for a year or two, so I was surprised to find something I did so long ago part of such a heated debate! The info-box pre-dated categories, and was designed to do what categories now do. It does seem somewhat clumsy now (especially since it's so much bigger with the deletion notice inserted). fabiform | [[User talk:Fabiform|talk]] 20:25, 19 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 05:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rfa cliche1 edit

Template:Rfa cliche1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unuseful template, may as well just be typed out. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, someone needs to have their funny bone checked for problems. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: I guess we can add everyone voting delete below to the funny bone check as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need a template for this why? MiraLuka 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unencyclopedic - misuse of template space, encourages unthinking responses--Doc ask? 22:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Screw it, Delete per Doc. This is unencyclopedic. --Cyde Weys 22:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a waste of space. Rob Church (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Masterjamie 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not needed, and unencyclopedic. - Nhprman 04:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it already WAS deleted (but if not, by all means do so). DreamGuy 07:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as waste of time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could be typed out just a easily. —Mets501talk 01:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, but Delete Template Space is not the area for jokes... --T-rex 05:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan   22:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We need a template for this because...? WerdnaTc@bCmLt 22:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Kukini 15:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MiraLuka.--M@rēino 15:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm in keeping it keep - it does save the odd keystroke now and then, no real harm in having it around -- Tawker 18:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - That's pretty funny. Useless, but funny. --Doug (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete. Just zis Guy you know? 13:21, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11&oldid=1159402237"