Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< May 20 May 22 >

Contents

[edit] May 21, 2006

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

The template was deleted by Tawker -- Cowman109Talk 20:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NoticeGoogle10

Template:NoticeGoogle10 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
I am the creator of the template. I have asked for feedback on the utility of the template and received several responses indicating that it is not useful. Therefore, I am nominating it for deletion. Should deletion be the consensus outcome, I would intend on removing existing transcluded instances of the template from talk pages on which it currently appears. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Just orphan or subst it and then add {{db-author}}. Since you're the only one who edited it, you don't need to request deletion here. Stifle (talk) 23:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I still believe it is utile, otherwise I would do as you suggest; as it is, I will abide by the consensus outcome of the TfD process. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It's like WP:BEANS. Not the best template to have around... FreddieAgainst Userbox Deletion? 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As stated on the template's talk page, this template would end up on a very large number of Wikipedia articles, too many for it to be useful. —MiraLuka 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Frankly, this just makes us look like google spammers, which we're not.--Pharos 01:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, not to mention that it's not a particularly notable piece of information to add to an article. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete almost all non-stubs on Wikipedia turn up in the first, or at least second page of Google. So this template would pretty much be rendered useless. Master of Puppets That's hot. 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above - like 85%+ of articles now are in the first 10 results. RN 22:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I actually use google as a shortcut to Wiki. Sophy's Duckling 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
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 overwhelming delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Frown

WP:POINT --Nick Boalch 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, seems to have only been created in response to the TfD below for Template:Smile, and is in rather bad taste, IMHO. -- Natalya 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, funny joke, but no reason to keep it around. Kusma (討論) 22:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unencyclopedic and seems to promote talk page spamming. Get rid of this and the corresponding smile templates. And slap SPUI (or whoever) with a trout for creating this provocation in the first place... Delete ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but only if the smiles are deleted too. Stifle (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only if Template:smile is deleted too. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. — Nathan (Got something to say? Say it.) 23:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Goodness gracious, this one is basically a no brainer, no? "Wikihate???" Kukini 23:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Senseless template The Halo (talk) 00:00, 22 May, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Funny, but useless. DakPowers (Talk) 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Every inclusionist has their limits--E-Bod 00:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this template is quite stupid. FreddieAgainst Userbox Deletion? 01:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This is very retarded and flies in the face of WP:POINT. (And yeah, I called it retarded.) Danny Lilithborne 02:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only if Template:smile is deleted too. --mboverload@ 02:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete only if {{smile}} is deleted too. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 03:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, regardless of the outcome of Template:smile. Its creation almost looks like a textbook case ripped from the examples section of WP:POINT, but who knows. --DavidGC 06:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 12:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Eva db 13:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 14:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per DavidGC. — Garykirk | talk! 15:15, 22 May 2006 15:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if Smile is kept. Otherwise delete. JohnnyBGood t c 17:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's going to cause big problems if kept Mahogany
  • Delete, although I have to confess that it made me smile more than Template:Smile did. Clever, but inappropriate, nevertheless. AnnH ♫ 17:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, of course. It's a cute joke with a limited shelf-life. FreplySpang 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete even though I think it's extremely funny. Sophy's Duckling 19:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Masterjamie 19:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikihate = bad --pevarnj (t/c/@) 20:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bad joke and borders with WP:POINT. Misza13 T C 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per Misza Will (E@) T 21:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't think it's WP:POINT, but I don't see how this helps build a positive Wikipedian community. --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 02:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Funny joke (just falls short of being BJAODN), but it's not really productive. So hence, delete. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 08:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for being silly and provocative (see the nomination of {{smile}} below if you didn't realise the connection). —Phil | Talk 09:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete promotes wikihate, need wikilove --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is just stupid. Was the creator of this that bored? - • The Giant Puffin • 20:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. It's not even funny. G.He 03:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this horror please!!! -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:POINT -Aknorals 23:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Detrimental to the Wikipedia community. -- Tangotango 10:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:POINT - Agathoclea 16:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, no big deal Jaranda wat's sup 18:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Buy it a ticket to Uncyclopedia and call it Unfrown and Unhate.-DictatorWikipedia should be a totalitarian state with me in command!GangstaEB---00:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If Wikismile can be used then so Wikifrown should be able to be used as well.--GorillazFan Adam 17:22, 29 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, default to keep. ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 22:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Smile

(and Template:Smile2 and Template:Smile3)

It's a bloody chain letter in template form. --SPUI (T - C) 03:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy Keep - bad faith nom. --GeorgeMoney T·C 03:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

    • Uh... what? --SPUI (T - C) 04:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Eh? There's no evidence that it's anything but a dumb template being nominated for deletion. Please don't make unwarranted accusations.--Sean Black 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, lame. How is typing "{{subst:smile|~~~~}}" supposed to make someone feel better?--Sean Black 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say delete. I was "smiled at". Seems a simple note (personalized to me) would have done more. --Mark Neelstin (Dark Mark) 04:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Very useless and lame. DarthVader 04:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Templateuser/Smile --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep No harm. No third party benifiting. May not help anything but it Suports Builidn a Comunilty and is a reminder to stay cool. If you don't like it you don't have to use it--E-Bod 04:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Ummm, this will make no one feel better (or if it does, then a really short note could have done it). Only personalized notes can really make some feel better. If you want to improve morale, invest the time and write a short letter. You don't need a template. If you're not willing to invest the time, this template just becomes an annoying chain letter. Also, It's too big. Plain text (no boxes) would do quite fine. Despite the fact that I know it won't be deleted, I say Delete it. BrokenSegue 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though I'm sure it will be deleted. The only reason I say keep is because through all the endless edits I made yesterday, I received a smile on my talk page. Though I know that may not be much for experienced Wikipedia users, it made my hour. DakpowersTalk 07:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete promotes user talk spamming. Gateman1997 08:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all previous "delete" votes. --Icarus 09:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per BrokenSegue. I know what it's like to be under wikistress, but I see no reason why such a general template would do anything to lift my (or anyone else's) morale. I'd appreciate one sentence of appreciation about something I've done to a big bright template exhorting me to be happy. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a chain letter, in no way useful to the project as a whole. Btw, any help with Wikipedia:Inclusion is welcome. Zocky | picture popups 11:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep It is a current Esperanza proposal. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 11:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Is that the same thing as a wikipedia proposal? Flowerparty☀ 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'd rather someone wrote something meaningful, that subst:smile, which then ecourages me to pass it on, chain-letter style. ed g2s • talk 12:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Will (E@) T 12:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Spread the WikiLove! - Mailer Diablo 14:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Does no harm, promotes the community. If you don't like it, remove it from your talk page. The Halo (talk) 14:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all. It is a chain letter, and while I've no specific objection to being smiled at, surely there are more eloquent (and more personal) ways of doing it. Passing around a pre-packaged message like this is ultimately a rather hollow practice, no? And why are there three templates doing the same thing? Kill the forks, if kept. Flowerparty☀ 15:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless. The Gerg 15:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - I agree with above keep votes. It's harmless, and I enjoy recieving them. You have to actually be thought of to get one :P. --Celestianpower háblame 16:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Definitly keep, with so much stress on Wikipedia, having a smile to brighten one's day is much needed, and always much appreciated. -- Natalya 16:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Use your email accounts to spam other people, don't use this encyclopedia for that. Afonso Silva 17:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. I thought it was a good idea at first, but now I see how people are using them, I'm not so sure anymore. I appreciate the thought behind the gesture, but I think a short, personal message is much more effective and has a lower chance of irritating other users. --JoanneB 17:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Is this helping us to build an encyclopedia, or is it just a feel-good thing? There are plenty of ways to really piss people off on Wikipedia (I know, I've done it far too many times), and I doubt a little smiley face on a user page would help repair the damage. This is an encyclopedia, not a love-fest. --Elkman - (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with its variants. Leave a note, take a moment to find a pretty picture, do something personal. Making this canned form of communication look "official" is part of a bad trend. FreplySpang 18:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongest Keep I have ever posted, with a side of smiles, including its variants This is a great way to promote wikilove. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 20:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate Keep I see no reason why these should go, as they can help in some situations. Xyrael T 20:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It's doing harm to you, how? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 20:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. No harm done. It just might cheer someone up.—G.He 20:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I already Voted keep but i would like to note that the only reason this message is pased on is becose some people like it and it cheers some people up. The people who don't like it will not resend it. Mabe we should be more carful of who we send the message to. I usually am agaist all forms of chain mail but thier are some simple things that cheere me up. [1]. If this was sent via mail i would get sick of it but it is a great reminder--E-Bod 21:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • This Template:Frown however does need to go ASAP--E-Bod 21:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Causing the orange box to appear too often makes it lose its impact...Scott5114 22:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Unencyclopedic and seems to promote talk page spamming. Get rid of these three and the corresponding frown template. Delete ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Nice, but silly. Stifle (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per GeorgeMoney. I suppose next thing I'll see is "Wikilove is cruft", too? Ridiculous. Yes, we're here to build an encyclopedia but there's something to be said for positive morale. If even one Wikipedian doesn't feel up to editing, that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Delete the part that says 'send it to others', though. However, Template:Frown needs to go. — Nathan (Got something to say? Say it.) 23:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Save the "cruft"! Master of Puppets That's hot. 23:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless. Intended to spread goodwill. Delete Template:Frown, which was created to make a point. --Fang Aili 說嗎? 00:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Chain letters bad. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless —MiraLuka 02:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Editing Wikipedia is stressful, and things like this make it easier. Unless you like feeling like a big man who doesn't need anyone, of course. Danny Lilithborne 02:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as encouragement of thoughtless social networking. I see the fun "chain letter" aspect of it, but I recommend more thoughful notes instead. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 03:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Weak keep per DavidGC, for those who want it. But discourage its use in most cases - any WikiLove displayed by subst'ing a template is pretty shallow WikiLove. Λυδαcιτγ(TheJabberwock) 02:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does no harm, and the "I prefer a note" argument isn't really sufficient grounds for deletion. --DavidGC 06:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Kill it with fire. Ral315 (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless template. --Terence Ong 12:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep...this is a great way to help promote love and unity. It serves a vital purpose.--Eva db 13:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. A couple of personalised words will brighten up someone's day much more than an all-purpose template. — Inky 15:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or maybe Userfy but it's harmless Mahogany
  • Strong Keep you miserable people - I use it to cheer people up and contact other editors I haven't been in touch with for a while. Sophia 17:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; does no harm, can only serve to build up. dewet|✉ 18:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as SPUI said, it's a bloody chain letter. If anything it would annoy me rather then brighten my day. Hell the Frown one made me smile more then this thing did. JohnnyBGood t c 18:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per JohnnyBGood. Sophy's Duckling 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, a personal note would achieve the goal much better. No one likes form letters. Angr (t • c) 19:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fang Ali, dewet et al. -- Masterjamie 19:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless and actually quite useful if used in the correct circumstances. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 20:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What's wrong with this? --pevarnj (t/c/@) 20:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Pure nonsense. And it means a lot more if someone actually takes the time to write something to you; frankly, getting a carbon copy transcluded template is almost insulting. Ohh, and this is entirely unencyclopedic and shouldn't be in Template: namespace. --Cyde↔Weys 20:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - harmless (actually quite the contrary). Misza13 T C 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; I'd like to keep it, but it can't be in the Template: namespace. // The True Sora 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, doesn't hurt anything, so long as people don't start spamming with it, but then take it out on them, not on the template. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia != Myspace Opabinia regalis 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Projectfy to Esperanza for those who wish to use it. Personal comments go much further anyway. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No harm done with it; people can use it at their own will. If not, then "projectfy" per Tijuana Brass. Thistheman 01:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic and too sappy. Treima 01:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's a chain letter and a solictation. I'd smile if more people pitched in WP:CLEANUP. Mackensen (talk) 01:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because I hold positively building a Community around Wikipedia as a necessity to the Wikipedia project as a whole. I would also support Projectify or Userify as had already been mentioned above. If we're worried about the "chain-letter" aspects of it, perhaps instead we could consider a rewording removing the how to pass the template along, but instead refer the recipient of the smile to an WP:EA page or an essay on Community building at wikipedia (including discussion on Smiles, WP:EA, Barnstars, and other non-encyclopedic but necessary aspects of being a Wikipedian). --Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 02:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Per above, and perhaps a good cure for Wikistress as well. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 08:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all as unnecessary spam: exactly what part of building an encyclopedia is this? If you want to cheer up someone who has taken a knock on-wiki, write them a nice personal note; don't just spam people with silly stuff like this for no good reason. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep promotes wikilove --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is nothing more than an attempt to create Chain mails on Wikipedia. —gorgan_almighty 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's harmless. There are other templates more dangerous than this one I think. --HappyCamper 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per HappyCamper. It promotes well-being among wikipedians. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure. I'd say Keep if the chain-letter-ness can be edited out of it. Otherwise delete. It's not to my taste, but if a lot of people like it (which I'm sure of) and people aren't abusing it (which I'm not completely sure of) then it's harmless. AnnH ♫ 11:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but put the chain-letter-idea out. --Tone 18:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: New smile proposal page - in acknowledgement of the requests to userfy the smile template to keep it out of template space, I have created a page to list proposals that remove the chain-letter idea and instead can be more personal. See User:Cowman109/smileproposal to discuss or add a proposal of your own. Cowman109Talk 19:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm not in favor of templates similar to these, but this particular one is too "general" and does seem more like a chain letter than anything else. I'd be in support of a different one. --Pilot|guy 19:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep WP:TfD is not for pushing policy -Aknorals 23:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. By all means promote WikiLove, but templated chain letters are not the way to do it. Kusma (討論) 00:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kusma. Naconkantari 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - sure, its somewhat pointless but if it makes someone's day and makes them smile and feel part of the community its worth the 6 or whatever kb of diskspace it takes -- Tawker 04:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fang Aili and others. Does no harm. -- Tangotango 10:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, we need more things that promote positive messages on Wikipedia, not less. -- Francs2000 11:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - personal notes are far more effective - Agathoclea 16:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm all in favor of Teh Silly (as you can see by my use of the word 'Teh'), but this is something that would make Barney the Dinosaur puke for being too cutsey. Stev0 02:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- You don't agree with this template sign, but I strongly want to keep this template sign because it is nice to smile other wikipedians. So, I agree with this template sign. Daniel5127, 03:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep'. I think this is to make users days abit more happier. Ian13/talk 20:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:Symbol keep vote-DictatorWikipedia should be a totalitarian state with me in command!GangstaEB---00:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does no harm, is not offensive and might brighten someones day as it did mine when I recieved one.--Dakota ~ 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Chain letter aspect can be easily tweaked out. - RoyBoy 800 15:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zoe. Good heavens, friendliness is good! The template need not promote spamming if used well. Xoloz 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's good to use. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I wouldnt equate a smile with spam. It cheered me up for getting one. --Zer0faults 16:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Promotes Wikilove. --GorillazFan Adam 17:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but only if the chain letter aspect is removed. It's harmless and a nice, positive idea (except for the chain letter aspect), though I do agree with others that a personal note is much better. -- Zawersh 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep While many controversial templates and userboxes are being kept, we are going to delete a harmless smile template?? Keep, does no harm. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, and from recent experience, to boot. The main purpose of this template is to supposedly combat wikistress. I recently listed myself as someone experiencing some wikistress, and someone dropped off a smile template at my talk page. I appreciate their intent, but the gesture is meaningless; it's a generic smiley face and a rote gesture that takes the sendee all of a few seconds to plop on a talk page. Perhaps if we remove the ultra-easy way to go about it, wikistress can be truly combatted by meaningful gestures, such as an actual personal note. All of this, by the way, is not meant to be an attack on the intent of those using the template, which is unabashedly well-meant — just a statement that from someone upon whom it was recently used, it really has no meaningful result. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comments from the template creator I am the creator of the smile template, and I'd just like to respond to the comments that say that this template doesn't do anything. I have nothing against those who say it was meaningless to them, but in many cases it has actually made someone's day brighter and has seen many variations, showing it has quite a bit of support. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] My original intentions were for messages to be left with smiles instead of the template being left on its own, but if something improves one person's day, then is it a bad thing? My opinion is that if you don't like it, then don't send it and just wipe it from your talk page. If your argument is solely that we are here to build an Encyclopedia, then would your argument not say that Esperanza is not here to build an encyclopedia, only to make other editors feel better, and thus it should be deleted as well? I agree that the main point to Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, don't get me wrong, but how can an encyclopedia be built if people are too stressed by dealings with other users? So, basically what I'm saying is that while some may find it "useless and lame", there are many people who support it and it the other similar templates has indeed made many people feel better, whether your personal opinion is that it has no effect. My main beef (no pun intended with my username) with the frown template was that it was created to get across a point that the creator did not like this template. I have nothing wrong with the arguments that this template promotes talk page spamming, because it does. However, while some people may be interpreted as abusing the smile template by sending it to countless people with no written message at all, there are many times in which it has done good. That is precisely the reason why it says "requesting feedback" at the top of the template. If you'd like to make it more personal, by all means suggest it. It is my belief that deleting it won't improve anything (considering there are countless other similar templates already as well). Cowman109Talk 20:16, 31 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 cannot be touched Circeus 03:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [[Template:: AFL Arenas]]

Template:Template:: AFL Arenas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This is a bizarre case that is a result of a bad title. I found this on Special:Unusedtemplates. I don't know how to actually look at it, but hopefully it is possible for an admin to do that. Delete if possible (!). Ardric47 03:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Template:Lt does not work for this, because of the extra colon. The actual title is "Template:: AFL Arenas", not "Template:Template:: AFL Arenas". Ardric47 03:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Still unsure what this is supposed to be marking. All I can find is Template:AFL Arenas; was that the intended nomination? Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, [[Template:: AFL Arenas]] (impossible to link to AFAIK) with two colons. I suppose I might have to file this as a bug if admins can't access it either. Ardric47 02:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can't even link to this, so I've brought it to the attention of the devs…watch this space. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:30, 23 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MBTA bus timeline

Template:MBTA bus timeline (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Single destination template, tops on most redlinks list, already substituted. Rfrisbietalk 03:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Propose for Deletion because this template is so confusing and complicated to read. Weirdy 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. This thing is positively useless. Treima 19:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't see any use for it, other than as a Wikipedia defence mechanism for blinding would-be vandals. That thing hurts my eyes. — Inky 21:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impossible to read, and all the other arguments above. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, an external link to the MBTA website will provide these details for the few who need them. WP:NOT a bus schedule. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete my eyes my eyes --larsinio (poke)(prod) 16:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete What kind of a template is this? It's more than 30 kilobytes large!!! Useful as a chart for a project, but definitely not a template. Thistheman 05:48, 24 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 already deleted. EddieSegoura (talk • contribs) is clearly uncomfortable with this template, which I'm having a hard time considering as anything other than a personal attack. Not funny. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:user Eddie

Delete. Alhough I don't edit as much as I used to, I think WP can do without a userbox like this. Eddie, Sunday May 21, 2006 at 01:22

  • Delete. Completely useless and silly. DarthVader 02:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Good-faith nom --GeorgeMoney T·C 04:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it and its brethren. BrokenSegue 06:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above user. Weirdy 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC). (This is my user page)
  • Delete. I agree with Vader. DakpowersTalk 07:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love Billy Cranston. I truly do. But this userbox is totally unencyclopedic. --Icarus 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Oh, Eddie, I really love the stories on your website! HECTOR.TXT is my favourite. The userbox is a way for others to show their appreciation of you too! :D — Garykirk | talk! 11:14, 21 May 2006 11:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Doesn't help the encyclopaedia at all. Johnleemk | Talk 11:40, 21 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia%7ETemplates_for_deletion_Log_2006_May_21_c1d9.html"