Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

January 20 edit

Template:Infobox Family Guy Seasons 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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Guy (All Seasons) is closed and this template is now useless. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles using this template are up for deletion (AfD) and this template should be deleted if the articles are deleted. ZJH 23:07, 20 January 2007 (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.

Template:Great Kids Museum Passport 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non notable program (see Great Kids Museum Passport, does not need elaborate template to advertise it on participating museum articles. These sorts of programs are not unusual or notable. --Brianyoumans 20:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the template serves as a navigational aid among the leading Chicagoland Cultural institutions that are linked by this program. Althought the article may be better merged into the Chicago Public Library and Kraft Foods articles, I think the template should remain. Providing free admission to all leading Cultural institutions is notable in my mind. TonyTheTiger 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think the key is that this template is a good navigational aid - and if it is truly just that - it should not be linked to a commercial program and instead called something more neutral like "Cultural Institutions in Chicago" while serving the exact same purpose. Just change the title and remove the sponsors and there we go. - AKeen 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The template has the effect of advertising the program, not providing encyclopedia-type information. The fact that the program is free does not change the impression that the template is advertising for it.--orlady 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Orlady. -- Mikedk9109 (hit me up) ^SIGN 05:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheQuandry (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Reformat - I don't think the program is notable, however, a similar purpose might be better served by changing the template to a "Museums in Chicago" or "Major Cultural Institutions in Chicago" template. So I would say change this template to a "Non-Kraft" one... - AKeen 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Yet Another Wiki Navbox. Not nearly significant enough to justify a navbox (might justify a See Also link, if the article is not deleted). I like the idea of a Museums in Chicago template, but that can be built separately. -- Visviva 04:57, 25 January 2007 (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.

Template:Work 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template warns editors not to edit the article for a maximum period of one week, which is way too long. Much better to use template {{inuse}} which warns people not to edit an article for usually a few hours and Template {{underconstruction}} for a longer period but does allow people to edit. Garion96 (talk) 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:OWN. Argyriou (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it takes a week to make the changes, you shouldn't be making them on your own. Superm401 - Talk 05:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to one of above templates. Patstuart^talk|edits 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be a simpler subsitute for {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} for use on smaller pages that are slower in their developement Chris5897 (T@£k) 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I considered Chris5897's thoughts very carefully here. If an article is small or slow to develop then it is more appropriate to use no template whatsoever, since edit conflicts (either physical or intellectual) are unlikely, and the template is not required. Equally, even on busy articles, a few hours is really all that is required. Fiddle Faddle 10:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} are sufficient. TonyTheTiger 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I 'outed' this template the other day and added autocategories to it, I wrestled with the premise of inuse and underconstruction trying to figure out whether it should be nominated, or what. The problem with Inuse, is it's really too short for a major revamp, and all varieties are somewhat ugly (even in my favorite color! <G>) and would benefit from adopting the simple elegance of this one. OTOH, their brassy in-your-face banner is hard to miss. I came to the conclusion that this would make a good substitute for {{inuse-section}} which on mature articles, is the better pick, or as a secondary inuse-to type of section notice, for estimated longer more unreasonable time periods. Some things just need a longer period.
As used, the editor was slowly and systematically expanding a related set of articles related to Roman warfare which need the attention--apparently conducting research and adding content and cites as he proceeded with the group expansion--If that's WP:OWN, I'll cheer him on. Someone can always ask if he's done or can edit for now. That's precisely how I learned about {{Inuse}} a couple of years back; someone else asked someone mentoring if he was done with an expansion. Works. A little more fuss, and some egg-on-face, but no big deal either--and certainly not WP:OWN. Merely courtesy and understanding that quality does not come from trivial edits. So I was going to raise this limit in the right forum, and now I find it here. Any idea where the right forum would be?
Though I agree a week is too long, 72 hrs is a reasonable need for those of us that aren't in loose time atmosphere of academia and for occasions when a topic is quiescent or neglected hitherto our taking it up and expanding it from a stub or nothingness. In sum, there ought to be a middle ground... a warning that this will take a few days, and an expression of confidence that it will be worth it. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Maintenance The way this guy was using it was not beyond reasonable, no one else was editing those, and there is always WP:BOLD. // FrankB

I don't see the need for this template. If you want to do a major overhaul of an article which takes longer then a few hours it would be better to simply use your sandbox for that. If you don't mind other people to keep on editing while you are working, than you can use {{underconstruction}}. Garion96 (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect -- Still, it is essentially underconstruction, so alias to that with a redirect. // FrankB 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not sure that a redirect would be helpful. It's absurd to say "I'm constructing the article, so you're not allowed to edit it for 7 days. -Amark moo! 01:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some editors have only small blocks of time to devote to building an article, asking for a week is not unreasonable. If deleted, redirect to {{Underconstruction}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Asking for a week with nobody else editing the article is unreasonable. Argyriou (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is to some. Use of the {{work}} tag when constructing an article is done as a courteous gesture, not an ultimatum or decree. If the tag is used as a stall gesture, to circumvent review, or to otherwise abuse editing privileges, then there's cause for intervention. If the tag is used by an editor who has to carefully manage his time, or who is undertaking a major rewrite that requires a lot of back-and-forth fact checking, then I think that a week is not too much to ask for. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Argyriou, you need to re-read the fine print on both Inuse and Underconstruction. The latter in particular specifically suggests adding an INUSE on a section, if you want to aid the construction. Inuse is not a prohibition against editing either--it's a notification that a big edit is under weigh. That an edit conflict MAY occur. I've been on both sides of those, having a conflict while editing under a tag, and experiencing one whilst making a minor tweak on something that looked quiescent and neglected. The cost is the same... one editor or the other may get an edit conflict. An whether a name is aliased to another template is a big yawn. Slap a {{R from other template}} on it, and go onto something that matters. // FrankB 05:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that noise. I count 12 redirects to {{inuse}}, and 3 for {{underconstruction}}. We don't need more. — Randall Bart 22:29, 26 January 2007 (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.

Template:911ct 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate template that only serves to promote and endorse marginal fringe theories, and used to "align" topics and invididuals of dubius connections. Offers nothing to Wikipedia and only offers to allow POV pushers to promote cruft of their walled garden of WP:FRINGE theories. Also glaring WP:OR violations in it's existence. Cannot offer assistance to people only out to make a buck at the expence of decent people--this allows transclusion across Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX, see WP:SOAP. Violates WP:NPOV. Delete. TheOnlyChoice 23:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the originator of the TfD has been banned per ArbCom. --Tbeatty 03:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This template was created in order to solve a particular issue: That no existing template gathered all the articles detailing the controversy around the 9/11 incident. It was designed as a result of discussions here and then released and deployed ion a small set of articles, then expanded by other editors. It is a pure navigational template, though still imperfect. There is a set of serious discussions happening currently at Template talk:911ct with a view to removing those imperfections. The nomination is eloquent, but contains much unsubstantiable rhetoric, especially the words: "Cannot offer assistance to people only out to make a buck at the expense of decent people". Far better to spend that energy reaching a consensus for improvement than nominating for deletion. Fiddle Faddle 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'd think this should make it easier to find OR articles to delete. Xiner (talk, email) 23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful to the reader as a navigational aid; similar to templates used in many other articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Although a notable pop culture phenomenon, the conspiracy theories do not form a unified topic. Peter Grey 03:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Moved from WP:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peter Grey. Doesn't really help navigation, as it's too big and ugly and covers too many topics. Patstuart^talk|edits 06:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Ugly" is irrelevant. Ugly is a matter of style and editing to render aesthetically pleasing. Some find Picasso to be a painter of hideous canvasses, others adore his work. "Size' is a similar issue. As for "Covers too many topics", if the topics are there to be covered, it covers them. Fiddle Faddle 09:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugly template, poor name, discordant connections between subjects. -/- Warren 08:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contents are an exact duplicate of Template:911tm, just with a Pop Culture section with one badly choosen entry. The 9/11tm article existed before and obviously already covers the content of this one. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The entries that people make inside templates are a different topic from the template itself. You have, yourself, added, multiple article to this template, thus you must find it has a purpose and is useful - a paradox when you also suggest the template should be deleted. If it is the content that offends you then it is a matter of agreeing a consensus to fix the content. None of your argument for deletion is about the template itself. Unless, of course, I have missed that element, when I apologise. Fiddle Faddle 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I added to the information to prove the two were redundant. It had some, but not all of the other template. So I added the rest and was planning to put it up for deletion, seems someone got the jump on that idea. On the other hand Tom actually reverted people and added people to a group he feels does not exist, that is the paradox, not adding content then voting for delete. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 19:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, put simply, you added items to the template to make a point. Fiddle Faddle 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:POINT requires you disrupt Wikipedia, yet you thanked me for the additions, so its not WP:POINT, try again. The real truth is that this template over time would have grown to be an exact duplicate of the other, I dont really see you denying this. -- Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You know I assumed that your additions were in good faith. Of course I thanked you. I'm a polite and pleasant guy :). I am now not sure whetehr they werein good faith or not, but, this being wikipedia, I will carry on assuming so and that your intention was, in good faith, to demonstrate what you have stated. I do think you can see, with hindsight, that your edits could be construed by some to be designed to create dispruption (more scope for multiple reversions etc, or simply highly cinfusing and muddying waters), but I am reading that into your explanation, and I will concede that this may not have been your intention. Now, as to complete congruency between the two templates, I do disagree with you. For example the Controlled Deletion Hypothesis is not, of itself, part of any "Truth Movement" series of articles. It is a description of a hypothesis that has been proposed by some of those who are alleged to be members of this apparent organisation, but the article cannot with legitimacy be included in a truth movement template, because ity is not about the supposed truth movement. Equally, assuming that the "Popular Culture" subhead survives, that is a point where congruence is not likely. It could be argued, I suppose thet the ct template may well be a superste of the tm template. That depends on the way it is populated with articles. Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It wasnt made to disrupt wikipedia, just to prove the templates are redundant. Glad you are assuming good faith. Also templates link to related items, not necessarily items that are specific only to that group being highlited. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete 61.2.66.152 13:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has only edited wikipedia in order to suggest that two templates should be deleted. See here -- Fiddle Faddle 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful navigation tool. Of the related template {{911tm}} which this duplicates (or which is duplicated by this :-) this is more useful and comprehensive, as this allows things like books and other entities that show no evidence of belonging in a movement or containing any truth. Weregerbil 14:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Weregerbil. Morton Devonshire^Yo 16:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful in binding like minded articles together. For the record, the nominator is the banned User:Rootology.--MONGO 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing (1) edit

Strong Delete -- The primary problem with any 9/11 conspiracy theory "template" is that pages on conspiracy theories are constantly being created and deleted, and many significant issues, media and individuals are left off because they do not have pages on wikipedia, meaning that the templates give inordinate traffic to particular areas which are on wikipedia as if others didn't exist, meaning the templates are inherently incorrect. This is not true for other areas, which do not have pages being deleted or created constantly, like the September 11th Attacks. Additionally, as someone who works daily in the movement, my input on the relevance of the issues is generally ignored, while those on here who openly profess to being ignorant, repulsed by, or uninterested in the theories are given priority to place what they wish on the templates. I suspect that those defending white supremacy on here are not given priority to edit a template being placed on holocaust pages. Yet such is the case for these templates. A "consensus" is called for to be allowed to change ANYTHING, and yet when a consensus is shown, it is ignored and changes are constantly deleted, war-like. I urge deletion of these templates which only further the wars on here and do not provide meaningful information. bov 20:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What you have to show is "The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement)" according to point 4 at the rules for what may and may not be proposed for deletion in a template. This is not about your views, nor about your working in an environment that some see as conspiracy theory and others see as valid research. So, demonstrate that the template cannot be modified, if you are alleging POV. As for cpnsensus, when invited to build one repeatedly you appear not to have made the attempt. Fiddle Faddle 23:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "This is not about your views, nor about your working in an environment that some see as conspiracy theory and others see as valid research." No one said it was about my views. It's about applying one standard to a CT template and another to all other templates. The template not being a neutral point of view is not the only issue. There are many others, which I described, such as the inherent misrepresentation of any such template given the constantly changing and incomplete nature of the coverage of the alternative theories of 9/11 on wikipedia, among other issues. bov 01:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You said Additionally, as someone who works daily in the movement, my input on the relevance of the issues is generally ignored.... Nuff said? Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you honestly ignorinbg the other arguements for a reason? Its better you address them then try to side step them. This isnt a real world verbal arguement. The admin will read that you had no counter for the rest of the points he brought up. A comment like "nuff said" isnt going to make them ignore what was written two sentences earlier. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The other arguments have been countered so often. I was simply taking Bov's point about his/her views. I interpret their statements to mean "I work inside this movement, my views therefore are the ones that count." I have invited Bov "to the table" to build a consensus so often and have pretty much always been ignored. The admin who closes this has a challenging task. I hope the closure will be based upon the criteria laid down in the TfD instructions and that arguments outside that will be pretty much ignored. Fiddle Faddle 15:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How easy to just say "the other arguments have been countered so often" - about the same as 'nuff said.' I don't say that only my views count, I point out that my views are literally ignored on here and that when consensus is brought, they are still ignored. Arguments are made for keeping UFO promoters like Jeff Rense listed as "9/11 researchers" by those who readily admit to having no interest or understanding of the purpose of the 9/11 truth movement. My argument against Rense's inclusion was simply ignored or refuted by the same people trying to humiliate anyone on here who questions the official version of the attacks with labels or quotes cherry-picked for derision. No one was saying those views don't count or only my views count. The reality is that my views literally are 100% refuted at every turn as pov. Interestingly, the pages I work on get so much traffic by official story defenders reverting my single word removals or phrase alterations that other pages one would think should get notice, like Silverstein or 2008 candidate Rudy Guiliani's page, get peppered with all kinds of interesting stuff which remains there for weeks, completely unnoticed. Meanwhile the official story defenders like Tom H, MONGO, Audev, etc. are rushing to Jim Hoffman's page 5x a day to reinsert the "conspiracy theorist" label, or a specific article reference that derides the "conspiracy theorists" on there - can't let anyone think he isn't a conspiracy theorist, god forbid! Funny how things work around here, and what's really important to the editors . . . . bov 00:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing (2) edit

Keep; per Weregerbil --rogerd 00:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No more original research than many templates on touchy subjects. Cool Hand Luke 03:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR doesnt allow some Original Research based on other articles and templates, it specifically states no Original Research. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both of these templates are POV, just polar opposites. We can do better than this. Create a template called "Alternative 9/11 theories" or "Non-conventional 9/11 theories" or something to that extent. Such a solution won't use the loaded term "conspiracy" nor will it use the similarly loaded term "truth." --64.230.126.109 06:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is not now and never has been any problem whatsoever with reaching a simple consensus over naming and over content. Fiddle Faddle 08:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above delete remarks. Шизомби 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Only reason people wouldn't want it is because they have not read into it. It's perfectly relevant and has no real need to "go away"--75.68.60.17 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE per nominating reasons. Cricket02 16:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful navigational tool. TransUtopian 14:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template. --Tbeatty 14:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Weregerbil. --Aude (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – judging by the recent comments the only purpose of this template is to discredit and mix valid hypothesis with all sort of gibberish. Among other things, it utterly fails to assume good faith. Lovelight 17:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you are missing the point. Currently it has a single hypothesis, that of controlled demolition. If other conspiracy elements that are noable appear then they should become part of it. If general trash arrives it should absolutely not. Basing a delete rationale on template content rather than template purpose is not appropriate. Fiddle Faddle 17:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've elaborated my motion on related talk page and everyone can easily see that it's based on "fuzzy" purpose (as well as content) of the template. Your current statement is in direct contradiction (fiddle-faddle) to the one you wrote yesterday, and I'm not certain that we have same perception of "general trash". So again, no, there is no need for more POV around this issue, no, there is no need to relate this hypothesis to conspiracy, no, David Icke and South Park have nothing to do with this extremely precise article/template…, your course and (death ray) argument was quite clear. If this template is swirling around it should be removed, of course, you are free to expand it and we may continue this farce after that. Lovelight 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, people can see something. What they need to see is that, if the rather stupid death ray "makes it" into Wikipedia as a notable, verifiable topic that conforms with all guidelines and fits in this template, then it should be added. Frankly I doubt that it can meet those criteria, but if it does, then it is another bananas thing that needs to be within it to be navigated to along with all the various notable individuals pushing bananas ideas and all the other strangenesses that the whole WTC incident spawned. If they are not notable then they do not make it into wikipedia, let alone a template. Your rhetoric and insistence that the template is precise does not make that a fact. It makes it your rhetoric. But, and this is the point, TfD has very strict criteria that you must show in order for the closing admin to close as deletion. Show that the template should be deleted by those criteria and that is proper consensus and perfectly acceptable as a result. Fiddle Faddle 19:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that it is precise; it's extremely precise. Singular topic and plural in the caption? The one which is in no way related to the title of the article? And all those proponents/supporters? Are they conspiracy theorists? Every one of 'em? And in what manner you think we could expand this? In same, extremely detailed manner? Tell you what, it's a poor loop, I've done enough collateral damage already. If you'd like to discuss the template further, there is a place for that. My vote is explained and if it doesn't suffice then I'll elaborate as eloquently as others and say per Nuke, or bov, or nomination… —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lovelight (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  - For example, you could reflect on that proposition to "Re-Name That Tune". Properly named template is more than valid. Lovelight 21:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, projects like this are inevitably tools to give undue weight to conspiracy cruft. Not needed.--Rosicrucian 18:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--'holding my nose'--The display options difference between this and 911tm are sufficient to cancel charges of redundancy. Editorial judgement and licence is still allowed by our guidelines. Calling these two equivilent, even if they had identical links is contrary to the visual presentation. Five does not equal three. Given that the articles cited pass AfD, it is not the duty of this body to deliberate such dubious content. Hold yer nose, but fairness says it stays. I would like to see it toned down and made more professionally sedate. The font sizes are much too large. This looks more like a brazen ad in a red light district than something which belongs with other nav templates in our project. // FrankB 05:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- General Comment - Look at some of the comments on both of this TfD, how many of you are using "cruft" and all sorts of silliness to describe the reasoning behind their votes? It's no good, not with the picture we've related to the term conspiracy and not with the regards to (so far) singular topic of the temp. To illustrate, when Copernicus said that we should quit with egocentrism lots of people called him nuts, and it didn’t really help anyone. I'd hope we (wikipedians) can overcome this sort of labeling. If someone's theory is flawed, there are ways to show that without libelous terms or open insults. Not to say that it isn't logical to call a single topic template, template which involves only one, imo perfectly valid (and with regards to WTC7, only available) hypothesis with offensive plural. I understand the point about expending it, but this is already swirling around, while it is nothing but a draft. Hope that there is no need to point out that my actions don't involve any "secret tactica", just logica. I'm not here to support truth movement, nor official take of the events, but I'll admit that unanswered (or poorly answered) questions are worth questioning. Point is, I was more than serious (and seriously disturbed) while stating that this template utterly fails to assume good faith, hope this explains such notion a bit more. Lovelight 13:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break for ease of editing (3) edit

Delete per Lovelight's and bov's attempt to repurpose it. Unlike {{911tm}}, which has no meaning, is ugly, but which doesn't seem to be subject to edit wars, this template is being repurposed by two different groups (Nuclear seems to have joined both groups) for two different purposes. Although a rational editing process would probably lead to a stable template, what is being done would not, and an unstable template is worse than a bad template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he must be a double agent!! I am sorry you feel Wikipedia is made up of "sides", some people are here just to make good edits. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not normally, but you supported changing Conspiracy theories to both Alternative theories and Controlled demolition. Unless you are trying to make a WP:POINT, it's difficult to see how one person could accept both views. And User:Lovelight, we may disagree as to which pages are plausible theories (none are valid hypotheses) and which are gibberish. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should have followed discussion, I've pointed to that already, and of course that we may disagree. It's OK to disagree; it's not OK to do so when you have no valid arguments. imo every disagreement leads to dialectica, which helps us to improve wikipedia… as we just did. Lovelight 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support a change away from conspiracy theories because not all believers of this theory believ eit was a plot to enter war etc, this was noted on the talk page, I am sorry you decided to revert war and not participate in that discussion. I also support controlled demolition theory because that is all the contents cover, so its the most fitting change for the template. I wish you would actually read the talk page and not declare your refussal to discuss anything on it anymore, then maybe you wouldnt be so confused. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read your posts on the talk pages. You must be a genius, an idiot, or a troll; I can't see any relevance of what you posted on the talk pages to discussion of editing the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to now? My illustrations on the Administrators' noticeboard/3RR? I agree, all that has nothing to with the article; those are there to show that you (and others) reverted without engaging into discussion. Lovelight 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to Nuclear, not you. I've finally figured out what you wanted to do, and it's at least plausible. However, the template would still be unacceptable unless it was trimmed of all items which do not refer favorably to the Controlled demolition hypthesis. For example Scholars for 9/11 Truth would have to be removed, because they've rejected Controlled demolition in favor of death rays. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What a disgusting violation, please WP:NPA. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:58, 27 January 2007 (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.

Template:911tm edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:MFD 20 January 2007: (Duplicate for context of some comments) — See matching note below. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely appropriate, and should remain on this site. The Truth Movement is very real, and is gaining in momentum and rightly so. The 911 Commission didn't do its job, and it should be reopened. There are thousands of questions we still don't have answers to, and it is time we had the answers. Many of these questions were posed to the 911 Commission by the Jersey Girls and the Family Steering Committee. This is very relevant and on topic. STRONG KEEP!

(UTC)

Strong Keep - The Truth Movement individuals are the true patriots of this country. The people here who believe the "official version" of 911 are being totally deceived. There are many horrific things happening in this country that involve a lot of corrupt individuals. If you care about your country, you will start looking into what happened on 911, because this is going to lead you to some awful things happening to this country and our democracy. Your lack of respect for the families of 911 is a disgrace. The "Jersey Girls" are true patiots of this nation, and their only goal is to find the truth, along with many of us. You seriously need to learn the truth, and you won't do that by keeping your head in the sand, and continually deleting the Truth Movement postings here and other places. It won't stop them, it will just energize them to post more. We have been lied to for many decades, and 911 woke many of us up, and we started investigating. You won't believe what we've found, and it's fact. You are losing your democracy, and 911 shocked us into inquiring. I suggest you all start reading. You will be SHOCKED! If you delete this page, you will be deleting the TRUTH. Do you prefer a LIE?

Comment. Move both of the nominations to templates for deletion, it has nothing to do with here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 23:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep whether moved or not. This template, while not appropriate to all 9/11 controversy articles has a valuable purpose. The nomination appears to consist entirely of rhetotic and no real substance, whereas the template comsists of substance and no rhetoric. Fiddle Faddle 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note Moved from WP:MFD. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm not the slightest bit interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories but I'm not buying the "walled garden" argument put forth here. This is a reasonably okay naviagational template, though poorly named (easily fixed), and I have some doubts as to whether having a list of people makes sense. -/- Warren 08:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'Truth Movement' is a real title given to a group, we even have an article on it. Not sure what the nomination is going on about however. I really wish the people who are against Conspiracies appearing on wikipedia would stop violating WP:AGF with comments like "POV pushers to promote cruft" --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What group is that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have added people to that list, did you do it in violation of WP:POINT? I am sure you wouldnt, so you alreayd know what group, they are listed in the template, I am sure you wouldnt revert or add without reason. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The 9/11 Truth Movement is a collection of individuals, researchers and groups who question the governmental, mainstream scientific and media accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks. This movement is informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious; its members convene through the Internet and national and international conferences." So again, if "The Truth Movement" is a real title given to a group as you said above, what group is that? Or maybe I misunderstood you. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The group you just defined. The same one listed in the template that you added to. I am trying to assume good faith but are you now stating you just added random people to a template? That you honestly do not know what is suppose to be in a template that you have reverted and added items to? I will continue to AGF, but your questions are showing that you do not know about a topic you edited. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you think it is not a group, and that you at first wanted to give the impression that you did think it was a group, and now you claim to admit you violated your understanding of what you present to us as AGF. Your agruments have been completely refuted. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this another conspiracy theory of yours. You edited the template by adding people, if you do not know why people would be on it, then you shouldnt have added anything. Please try not to violate WP:POINT again. Thank you. I was going to look up and post the word group for you, but I know some people may find that as an attack, so I ask you to look it up on dictionary.com and let me know if we are working within the same confines. PS I think you were refuted! see how little effect that has, again try not to violate WP:POINT in the future. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe a group exists her, can you explain your constant additions and reversions to the article? Why would you be reverting people who know about the topic and add random people to the template. [1][2][3][4] [5][6]--Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims here (and I suppose they are sincere) refute your own argument. If you deny that reversions actually occured, you deny whatever claim to legitimacy your previous argument could have otherwise sustained, limited as some might have seen that to be. Since I continue to AGF and avoid NPA and POV, I don't see why you you would choose to do that. Surely you cannot intend me to think you violated POINT just to prove something that is after all neither falsifiable nor in dispute, at least not here. Maybe that is all there is to it, or maybe I missed your point (with a small-p). Though I look forward to your clarification, no apology is necessary. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe a group exists here, can you explain your constant additions and reversions to the article? Why would you be reverting people who know about the topic and add random people to the template. [7][8][9][10] [11][12] Dont worry everytime you try to double talk I will just post it again until you answer it. It will come up again soon enough which is why I noted your comments here. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having the courage to admit your error. There's no need to apologize further. Certainly there is "a collection of individuals, researchers and groups who question the governmental, mainstream scientific and media accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks." As I asked above, if "The Truth Movement" is a real title given to a group as you said above, what group is that?" Who is the leader? Where is the membership list? What criteria are you using as you constantly revert against consensus after your arguments have been refuted, as you yourself acknowledge, if only tacitly? Since you have clearly shown your intellectual integrity by your earlier admission, why do you now refuse to address the question? Is it because you already have, but are now changing your answer? Thanks again, Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not believe a group exists here, can you explain your constant additions and reversions to the article? Why would you be reverting people who know about the topic and add random people to the template. [13][14][15][16] [17][18] Dont worry everytime you try to double talk I will just post it again until you answer it. It will come up again soon enough which is why I noted your comments here. Right no membership or leader, you just vandalized an article, it is noted, you added numerous people for apparently no reason and edit warred over some's inclusion. Sounds like a person who vandalized an article now wants it deleted. Interesting. Still wont answer the question I see.--Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS I never edit warred on this template, I removed 1 person and that is the bulk of my edits. I removed them because the 9/11 scholars for truth leader said she was crazy, well not in so many words. So it seems your words above are lies, so lies and vandalism, lots to note. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 11:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And finally its pretty odd to ask for a charter of who belongs to the "Civil Rights Movement", movements arent formed by people who sign a charter. I would like to see you argue that Martin Luther King Jr. does not have a place in the "Civil Rights Movement" template, because he never signed a charter declaring him as such. And since we have the New York Magazine article [19], it seems you cannot argue that people are not associated with the movement anymore. Care to now explain why you added people to a list if you believe that the list should be deleted since people cannot belong to it? OR care to apologize for stating I "constantly revert against consensus" when I have done no such thing on the 911tm template? I am sure you wont answer any of those questions, nor apologize, so I ask you to please stop lying and vandalizing the page, unless you do believe a group exists, then I welcome your contributions. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought the template should be deleted, I would have !voted 'delete'. I'm surprised to see you accuse me of lying and vandalism. That seems a bit over the top, but I supose you mean it constructively. Since you now agree with me that the movement is informal and decentralized, as I said in the first place, I'll take your remarks in the spirit I'm sure you intend them. It's heartening to know that we can arrive at agreement by civil, reasoned discussion, and I appreciate your willingness to work with me to show that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can yuo show me my revert warring on this template? If not then you were lying when you stated above that I had. You did vandalize the page, because you added and removed items for no reason, and revert war'd on it, causing disruption. I guess I no longer AGF in your actions there after all your snide remarks and refusal to answer the question. So you can twist and turn words like you are ignorant or take them as they say. I will assume you arent actually ignorant for now. But from this I have enough difs for later, so thank you, your actions only help me prove my point. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your generous words and your continued civility in what has in the past been a difficult area for us to work together in. I don't think what you said above is a violation of WP:POINT. Your good faith is well-established, and I'm sure we can now move forward in a spirit of amity and constructive cooperation. I'm glad I could help you prove your point (small p :)). Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome =) --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have got lost over who believes the Truth Movement exists and who does not, but I have found a mainstream press reference as follows Now the 9/11 Truth movement tells me I saw much more. According to Jim Hoffman, a software engineer and physicist from Alameda, California, where he authors the site 911research.wtc7.net, what I saw was a “classic controlled demolition.” This was why, Hoffman contends, 7 WTC dropped so rapidly (in about 6.6 seconds, or almost at the speed of a free-falling object) and so neatly, into its “own footprint.” in New York magazine. So at least one mainstream media organ says it exists. Fiddle Faddle 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment - that justifies an article, not a template linking a bunch of articles. This template is redundant to {{911ct}} Argyriou (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since the Truth Movement template covers more then 1 person and theory its valid to keep everything nice and sorted and put on pages related to people who are connected to that movement. Now the 911ct template is actually a template that actually has all its items already covered in the 911tm template, making the 911ct template pointless. The only seperate section is "Popular Culture", which honestly only shows a South Park episode, which I would barely call relevant. I actually tried to find other pop culture articles on wikipedia to add to this section and couldnt find any, so it seems the section really has no point in being included and that without it the template is a complete redundancy to a now proven to exist Truth Movement. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 13:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete 61.2.66.152 13:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This user has only edited wikipedia in order to suggest that two templates should be deleted. See here -- Fiddle Faddle 14:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duplicates {{911ct}}. Many, if not most, of the links in the template offer no evidence of belonging in any movement; the movement the template describes exists on Wikipedia only. Weregerbil 14:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You should have checked the dates. This template existed before 911ct and this template had the items before 911ct, hence 911ct duplicates this template. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of "duplicate" as "is the same as another", with no temporal ordering of creation implied. Mainly because I don't think the order matters. Weregerbil 14:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you are not voting delete on both for the same reason of duplicate it appears that temporal order does play a role. Its also proper when specifying something is a dupe of another, to use temporal, else you just say they are duplicates of eachother. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your guess as to the significance of temporal ordering playing a role is incorrect. Please refer to the second sentence in my !vote. And thank you for your lesson in proper dupe etiquette. Weregerbil 14:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as its the very first thing you say and you still did not vote to delete the exact template above, It seems your vote makes little sense. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can only hope my use of the word "duplicates" makes my !vote incomprehensible to a small minority only. Weregerbil 17:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Weregerbil. Morton Devonshire^Yo 16:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are covered by this template or can be. For the record, the nominator is the banned editor User:Rootology.--MONGO 17:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What's the deal here?? This template already survived a deletion attempt (Sept 2006). It simply provides a simple navigation tool to a variety of related topics. Oh, you don't like the TOPICS being navigated? So you want to STOP PEOPLE FROM FINDING THEM EASILY? Puhhhhleeease...--Nemonoman 19:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep: Essential template shouldn't be cast aside. Ombudsman 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As I mentioned above, the primary problem with any 9/11 conspiracy theory "template" is that pages on conspiracy theories are constantly being created and deleted, and many significant issues, media and individuals are left off because they do not have pages on wikipedia, meaning that the templates give inordinate traffic to particular areas which are on wikipedia as if others didn't exist, meaning the templates are inherently incorrect.

"It simply provides a simple navigation tool to a variety of related topics."

Actually, the templates mainly provide yet another way to mix hoax information with the strongest evidence as though all if it is somehow "accepted fact" of the conspiracy theoriests, when in reality they are highly contested and some completely refuted.

Delete per Weregerbil --rogerd 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template situation is not true for other areas, which do not have pages being deleted or created constantly, like the September 11th Attacks. Additionally, as someone who works daily in the movement, my input on the relevance of the issues is generally ignored, while those on here who openly profess to being ignorant, repulsed by, or uninterested in the theories are given priority to place what they wish on the templates. I suspect that those defending white supremacy on here are not given priority to edit a template being placed on holocaust pages. Yet such is the case for these templates. A "consensus" is called for to be allowed to change ANYTHING, and yet when a consensus is shown, it is ignored and changes are constantly deleted, war-like. I urge deletion of these templates which only further the wars on here and do not provide meaningful information. bov 20:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Information is arbritrary and unverifiable because there are no criteria for membership in the 'Truth Movement'. Peter Grey 01:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both of these templates are POV, just polar opposites. We can do better than this. Create a template called "Alternative 9/11 theories" or "Non-conventional 9/11 theories" or something to that extent. Such a solution won't use the loaded term "conspiracy" nor will it use the similarly loaded term "truth." --64.230.126.109 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Only reason people wouldn't want it is because they have not read into it. It's perfectly relevant and has no real need to "go away"--75.68.60.17 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)-[reply]
Strong Keep The 9/11 conspiracy theories pages deserves to be kept. Like the person above me states, people only want to get rid of it because they're close minded. The arguments are backed up with real facts. I can't see any reason to get rid of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.161.63 (talk • contribs)
Delete or redirect to {{911ct}}. The misnamed "9/11 truth movement" is a subset of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Argyriou (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' misleading name/misnomered and duplicate template. per nom. --Tbeatty 14:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Weregerbil. --Aude (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, projects like this are inevitably tools to give undue weight to conspiracy cruft. Not needed.--Rosicrucian 18:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keen Keep – because we are constantly striving to make things better, not worse… Lovelight 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep sorry Weregerbil, deleting redundant templates is rapidly looking like the favored admin-wannabe activity to rack up edits in Wikipedia space. Templates are like programming language macros, they are small, inoffensive and cost next to nothing—the many unnecessary deletion discussions over such tools are much more costly than deleting many can ever begin to justify. Wikipedia spends our free time like it's infinite. We all have to take note of such costs. We need to revisit that redundant criteria and give better boundary conditions... too many handy simple templates have been killed because some hard to use complicated template the average editor needs help to apply is available, where the simple one would and should have been used. At the least this template gives a means to patrol these more wacked out fringe articles. If the articles survive AfD, there is no fair rationale that should exclude cross-linking them. If the persons on them are on record in support or authoring pieces on such fantasys, they deserve each others company. // FrankB 05:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warren. It's a good navigational template. Balsa10 12:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but reformat as a horizontal template to be stored at the bottom of articles, as the current (probably soon to be deleted) {{911ct}}. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 January 2007 (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.

Template:User Publicdomain 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to exactly duplicate the purpose of {{Public domain}}. Superm401 - Talk 05:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Patstuart^talk|edits 05:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete it. There are differences from {{public domain}}.– Lordmontu _{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It does seem similar enough to {{Public domain}}. 黒雲 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The words may be different, but the use and powers seem to be the same unless I am missing something. TonyTheTiger 21:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly different text and appearance compared to the other template. --- RockMFR 22:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the text and appearance are different, but aren't templates primarily about functionality? Per TonyTheTiger, they should have exactly the same legal effect. If I make a new template with the same purpose, but a green background, should that be kept too? Superm401 - Talk 09:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was some debate regarding one's ability to release works into the public domain. I think that it helps to have an unambiguous elaboration in case the public domain declaration is not legally valid. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you support the other template being deleted? Superm401 - Talk 09:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would support consolidation. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{userpd}} works better on (no surprise) user pages. Merge it with {{Public domain}} if you must, but the assertion that they're purposes are the same is unsupported by fact. Sdsds 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or subst and redirect (come to think of it, these templates should probably be substed as a matter of course). Looks nicer than the other one. ;-) -- Visviva 04:32, 25 January 2007 (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.

Template:User WPShipwrecks 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is made redundant by the existance of Template:User WikiProject Shipwrecks. --Blood Red Sandman Open Up Your Heart - Receive My EviLove 18:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merger users and delete redundant userbox. TonyTheTiger 21:22, 20 January 2007 (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.