Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
< February 5 February 7 >

Contents

[edit] February 6, 2006

All the userbox debates have resulted in either keep or no consensus save for where they have already been deleted. I really cannot be bothered to go tagging the debates and de-tagging the templates. If someone wants that done, they can go hassle the nominators who should have learnt by now not to waste their time and that of other editors and admins on this. -Splashtalk 00:04, 14 February 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 a resounding KEEP —Andux␅ 22:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User ego

Template:User ego (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Out-of-process re-creation of a template that was formerly used as an attack page (admins can check out its history and restore it if this seems appropriate). Seems like a case of WP:POINT to me. The newly recreated version no longer includes the attack link, but is entirely pointless and unproductive. How is this supposed to help us write an encyclopedia? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: This template is the reincarnation of an attack template. If you can't see the actual attack anymore (admins can) it because the original version was deleted, and I won't repeat the attack here. Recreating it is pushing a WP:POINT, and this template does nothing towards the goal of writing an encyclopedia. And the humor value of a self-fulfilling prophecy is at best minor. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep as self-referential. How does bring up a pointless nomination like this supposed to help us write an encyclopedia. --D-Day 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace of its creator. Unless if he gets permabanned (per AN discussion), in which case delete it. Ashibaka tock 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as joke. Several users, no evidence of use of suitablility for use as attack template. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Day, Charles...Mike McGregor (Can) 06:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Attack? Nonsense. People can't personally attack themselves. If vandals add this to user pages then that can be dealt with by reverting it like anything else. (besides, it would make a change from 'I AM GAY AND THIS IS GAY AND MY PAGE IS GAY AND FURTHERMORE GAY.') --Malthusian (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see no reason for this to be deleted, at least in its current form. --Fang Aili 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pointless, but keep (in its current deluded egomaniac form). Pick your battles. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep You can't attack yourself unintentionally... - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 20:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - As Dusst said, you can't attack yourself. Userboxes are only intended to be placed by a user on their own userpage.--God of War 20:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, harmless humour... Mikkerpikker ... 11:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Can't see a problem here. Boddah 14:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's just there for a laugh, let people do as they want with thier user pages. Freedom of expression is a great thing and by deleting this you would be preventing people from expressing how valuable they see them selves as. --82.38.56.218 23:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - "but is entirely pointless and unproductive" - as opposed to 90% of userboxes? -- koweja 20:26 8 February 2006
  • Keep - too many wikipedians lack humour --T-rex 04:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete serves no constructive purpose.--cj | talk 13:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless. --Revolución (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per D-Day. --Aaron 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Mostly harmless. --Dragon695 03:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Loopy e 01:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, naturally Larix 16:46, 12 February 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.

[edit] Template:User-AmE-0

Template:User-AmE-0 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This is essentially a duplicate of Template:User AmE-0, plus it doesn't conform to the naming conventions for userbox templates. I've tried changing it into a redirect, but got reverted. User:Djr xi seems to think that we need both Template:User AmE-0 and Template:User-AmE-0. I think this is silly, and will argue for delete (fork, superfluous, non-conforming), but would settle for merge and redirect. If you vote "merge and redirect", please clarify what kind of merging should be done, if any. If you want to argue that both versions should be kept and maintained separately, please say so explicitly. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep - rename it what you want if it breaks conventions, but it is not the same as {{User AmE-0}} as they are making completely different points, and should not be redirected there accordingly. Deano (Talk) 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - rename if you must but both templates should be kept as they make differnt points (and I personally think that this one is very funny). I don't usually vote on userboxes but as I use this one myself... --Celestianpower háblame 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this template is not deletable. --Dschor 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "Not deletable" is not a valid justification. I hereby ask the closing admin to discount your opinion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
no justification is nessicarry. I hereby ask the closing admin to count this opinion. --T-rex 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep what Deano said Mike McGregor (Can) 06:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is really ridiculous! -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep ditto Deano
  • Rename to something that indicates the difference. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete CSD T1 - obviously intended to deride and abuse Americans. --Doc ask? 09:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Deano bcatt 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. A bit silly, but hardly offensive. I wouldn't get into a state if I found a similar one about Hiberno-English. AnnH (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Its not a duplicate, they say different things. Plus this has already had a concensus of keep on a previous TfD - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 12:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename it to conform to the naming standards. --Fang Aili 15:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename AWAY from the Babel-box standards, as this is not a babelbox, but a POV userbox. Both this and {{User AmE-0}} should be changed/removed from that naming system, but let's see what happens with this one first. Suggestions for name-change should go on the talk page, I'd think. I'll start. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep I relalize that americanns cannt speell --T-rex 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep There was already an afd for just this kind of template here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9#Template:User-AmE-0.--God of War 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've just been informed that there's a whole series of these that may need to be considered en masse in order to prevent disruption of the ordering: {{User AmE-0}}, {{User AmE-0-american}}, {{User AmE-5}} are similarly POV-boxes, while their brethren at Template:User+Am and forward are "babel-box"-type neutral statements. And that's without getting into the uncharacteristically-named {{User-AmE-0}} and {{User-AmE-x}}/{{User-AmE-1}} (the latter of which is just a redirect to AME-x). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'd rename this and related userboxes, per Nae'blis. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP per Deano. Larix 23:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all templates which disparage or criticize their subject. This is an encyclopedia. Inflammatory and divisive userboxes have no place here. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Designed as an insult. enochlau (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deano. - Hayter 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, inappropriate. Catamorphism 02:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm sure most people mean it more as a light-hearted joke than a vicious attack on Americans. Even if somebody does mean it as an attack, who cares? It's not like it's promoting violence or hatred. It should be renamed to something else since it is too similar to the other userbox. - Koweja 03:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, potenially useful, but rewrite to make less potentially offensive. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 18:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keepfor the Freedom of expression on user pages. Englishrose 20:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I don't agree with it but I support free speech. --Revolución (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep free speech (even though 2/3 of English is American vs. 1/6 British... [regarding population, not published work]); fun play, not divisive
  • Strong Keep per Celestianpower. There is absolutely zero basis for deleting this userbox. --Aaron 02:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Deano. Can people chill out already with the userbox deletion? --Dragon695 03:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Brian | (Talk) 09:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep helohe (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • COMMENT - Why has this template been deleted despite consensus to keep? Deano (Talk) 14:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The word 'keep' actually means 'speedy delete' in American English. --Malthusian (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah- my mistake. Deano (Talk) 14:52, 12 February 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 DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Muhammad cartoons controversy

Template:Muhammad cartoons controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template was created in the past couple of days. It had survived one vote for deletion 4 hours after its creation, but as the page is semi-protected now and the controversy has died down, I don't think we need such a specific user warning for one article. We don't have any such warnings for the George W. Bush article and this template may serve to antagonize certain editors as being unfairly singled out. BlueGoose 21:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The controversy hasn't died down yet. WikiFanatic 00:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a ridiculous use of templates. The same message could be posted in the article without using a template. I also wonder whether the template threatens out-of-process action. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's just not needed. This can just as easy be put on the page itself. --Bky1701 05:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The editing issue is perfectly manageable, and so this template serves no purpose. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I have no problem with the template's purpose, but it appears to no longer be in use, so expunge it. --Aaron 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I never thought that this template was a Wonderful Idea, as a more human message might have been more appreciated. In any case, the issue is moot now and the template can be deleted. Physchim62 (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, inappropriate use for a template when text can just be put directly in article. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 22:20, 10 February 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 KEEP. -Splashtalk 00:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cold War

This template either needs a complete overhaul, or it needs to be deleted. Firstly it is vastly too large, it takes up more than a full screen and is larger than some of the articles it appears in. Secondly it includes a lot of articles that are only tangentially related to the Cold War such as Iran and Gerald Ford. We already have a perfectly valid {{ColdWar}} template linking the series, and a large Category:Cold War that is a better place if we are going to list dozens of articles. - SimonP 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge with {{ColdWar}}. As far as I'm concerned, {{ColdWar}} is too small, and {{Cold War}} is too large; what about trying to put them together in a way that covers the major events and players in the Cold War? Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Perhaps a merger would work best for this particular template and the other {{ColdWar}} template. The reason why it looks the way it does is because it's in uniform with World War I and World War II templates. -- Clevelander 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I agree the {{ColdWar}} needs to be expanded a bit. -Chairman S. 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is transparent and useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Szalas (talk • contribs). WikiFanatic 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. WikiFanatic 00:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful and interesting - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's way, way too big. I can see it being used in a few long articles, but otherwise {{ColdWar}} should be (expanded a bit and) used. --Fang Aili 15:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and keep the better of the two. Forking is still bad. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Paul James Cowie 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful. Delete the {{ColdWar}} one. --TheFEARgod 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Idem dito. Useful. Delete the {{ColdWar}} one. Otto ter Haar 23:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've added navbox CSS to the template to make it possible to hide. It's also a handy guide to cold war articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Changed my earlier vote. Useful template. {{ColdWar}} is useful as well and serves as a good navigating tool. Both should not be removed and should remain seperate from one another. -- Clevelander 19:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep! Very interesting and useful. Also, they added a [hide] link recently it seems, and you can hide it in user CSS. — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until contributors decide whether/how to merge with {{ColdWar}}. Nothing to gain from premature deletion. -- Mikkerpikker ... 11:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I liked it and found it useful. My $.02 --Scaife 11:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is far better than {{ColdWar}}. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 00:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Loopy e 01:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the template is big, but nice --Cryout 08:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the template is a nice reference bringing together many parts of the cold war. It helped me. Cgascoig 08:14, 13 February 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 speedy keep, nomination is WP:POINT — Phil Welch 00:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db-attacktemplate

Template:Db-attacktemplate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
New criteria for speedy deletion has been added without consensus or community approval. Creates a dangerous precedent when one person can decide what is divisive and what is inflammatory. Currently being used to bypass an active TFD discussion for a userbox.--God of War 18:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. If you want to discuss WP:CSD, take it to WT:CSD, but let's not open a second front here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per MarkSweep. As long as it's a part of WP:CSD, the Template cannot, and should not, be deleted. Ral315 (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Jimbo is allowed to make policy. Don't like it? You have the RightToLeave. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Per the first three entries. Discuss on CSD. also, Jimbo put it there himself (well, he reverted back to it) so I think that should be respected until he expresses a diffeerent opinion. Rx StrangeLove 19:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Jimbo At least for a little bit, I advise everyone to chill about this. Let's take some time to reflect on this issue as a community. That means: don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist. A thoughtful process of change is important. And whatever you do, do NOT wheel war about this.--Jimbo Wales 07:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) [1].

  • When and if the deletion criteria is accepted by the community, You can start using it. Until then this box shouldn't be used.--God of War 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You seem to misunderstand how policy is created. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Also note that this template is factually incorrect. --Dschor 23:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Factually incorrect? I assume you're referring to the CSD T1 section? it's currently under debate whether to place this in G10 or T1, so the template may not match the guideline precisely at all times. If it's something else that's incorrect, I'd like to hear it/see it fixed. -- nae'blis (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jimbo has apparently lost his mind. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:19, 7 February 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.

[edit] Template:User Derek Gardner

Template:User Derek Gardner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Vanity, no credible assertion of notability. If this was an article, it would have been speedy-deleted already. We don't even have an article about Derek Gardner. It's one thing to try to re-create the entire contents of the article namespace in the template namespace (after all, for each person in history, some users may think that person was a genius), but when it comes to non-existant articles we have to draw the line. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - A Google search for '"Derek Gardner" artist' gets a surprising 43,600 hits; if we don't have an article, we should. I didn't expect it to be valid, but apparently it is. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace of whoever created it. Ashibaka tock 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. We don't need a template for every person who marginally passes the Google test. Offers no expertise or aid to other wikipedians. Marskell 11:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. Has anyone asked the creator why they made it, since there's no article to go with the name? -- nae'blis (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete because there is no article on the person in question - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 16:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Once the author of this userbox writes the article for Derek then he can re-create this box.--God of War 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree The only basis for my vote of delete is the fact that an article of the person does not exist. If sed article was created with sufficiant information, then I would support the re-creating of this userbox - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (1st choice) or userfy (2nd choice). Death to all opinion-expressing userboxes. --Deathphoenix 17:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - pointless and stupid - subst: it on the user's page. Deano (Talk) 18:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - or, if that proves impossible, userfy. There is nothing wrong with this template at all. --Dschor 23:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy. I almost wonder if this is WP:POINT, although it was created before the worst of the userboxen war. It remains, however, utterly pointless in Template space. Physchim62 (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unused userbox. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move (if you must), but Keep. Let Derek have his userbox, but if you need to crusade against userboxes, just move it so derek can enjoy it. Mike McGregor (Can) 06:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete useless --Doc ask? 09:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy for now, at least until more people decide he's everything and a bag of chips. --Fang Aili 15:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why don't we create a template (ex: named {{user genius}}) that says "This user thinks {{{1}}} was/is a genius"; {{{1}}} defaulting to his/herself? -Xol 03:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Trödel•talk 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I like Xol's idea above. --Revolución (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or userfy. - This is way to specific about a really non-notable person (google hits != notable) [Yes, even I have standards]. --Dragon695 03:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User alphabetical categories

Template:User alphabetical categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Confusing template which creates the misleading appearance that mandatory alphabetical sorting is an official style guideline. At the very least, it should be reworded to say that the person including this template generally sorts things in a certain way. Individual editors have no standing to "insist" that things be done a certain way, unless there is a guideline that says so. But even for a suitably amended template, I have to ask, what's the point? I'd much rather see an essay on a user page that discusses the pros and cons of doing things a certain way. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Move to userspace of whoever created it. Ashibaka tock 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep or Reword. --D-Day 11:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as reworded (prefers alphabetical categories, rather than insisting). If this duplicates another userbox already in existence that expressed preference, Delete. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's been reworded - • | �?ܧ§§Ť | • T | C 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - not deletable. --Dschor 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - will mislead newbie editors. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In what way, Charles? -- nae'blis (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Many newbie editors will be likely to believe that this userbox is communicating policy, the way it is phrased. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 16:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • O ye of little faith. People arent that stupid. And if they were, they wouldnt get to turning on the computer to start with, let alone finding this userbox - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, that's why I changed "insists" to "prefers", but if you can think of a better wording, go for it. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Userboxes get alphabetized all the time and I have yet to see a single revert war caused by it. It's pretty well accepted--God of War 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep reworded template - Can't say I agree with the sentiment (articles shouldn't have so many categories that a-betical order helps), but it's no worse than many of the grammar-nerdery boxes we have. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep users shoud be allowed to disclose there ediing prefrences Mike McGregor (Can) 06:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- following the rewording --T-rex 19:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Keep as reworded. Dr Debug (Talk) 19:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the reworded version ("prefers"). Thryduulf 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep //MrD9 02:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - harmless. --Dragon695 03:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the reworded version. Harlot 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is directly pertinent to writing an encyclopedia, which I suggest the nominator should be doing, instead of distracting evryone and stiring up dissent by going on a userbox deletion spree (against the direct advice of Jimbo, I might add) --James S. 16:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the point in removing it and forcing people who wish to see things neatly organized, as is common in encyclopedia, instead of thrown on a general heap to put an essay of sorts on their userpage. Maki 02:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Rich Farmbrough. 00:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User recreate

Template:User recreate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Taunting, trolling. This template essentially announces that the user would consider engaging in out-of-process re-creation of templates, in violation of WP:DICK. While it may be Ok to phantasize about this, this template is sending the wrong message to newcomers, namely that this sort of behavior is Ok and endorsed by other users. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Physchim62 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The template notes that any re-creation that occurs is in response to out-of-process deletion, not as re-creation of content at random. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace of whoever created it. Ashibaka tock 04:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Doc ask? 09:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, like that one bemoaning admins ignoring policy, either a pointless truism or a WP:DICK. --Malthusian (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep - The recreations would be for userboxes that were deleted without a good reason, or were deleted without a consensus, or deleted in the middle of a debate. --D-Day 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So basically every rational Wikipedian should have this userbox on their page. If anything, that's more pointless than a userbox that only trolls would use. --Malthusian (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom --Vsion (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:POINT. "unfairly" is a matter for consensus to decide; wheel warring isn't the answer. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:POINT. If you don't like Tony, don't be a dick about it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as admins have acted contrary to process - it's a good thing when others of them repair that kind of admin vandalism. Larix 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - What's out of process is the speedy deletion during an active TFD.--God of War 16:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Death to all trolling userboxes. --Deathphoenix 17:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - if admins did their job correctly 100% of the time then this would not be needed. This userbox reminds people that admins are not all powerful. Deano (Talk) 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Immediate Strong Speedy Keep This box expresses a useful opinion. The only proper response to improper speedy deletion is immediate recreation. Speedy Deletion is not a Toy. --Dschor 23:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Wrong. The only proper response is thoughtful reconsideration, to counter the haste of the original deletion. Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, encourages edit warring. — Phil Welch 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - divisive template, fans flames of userbox war. Would be valid CSD T1, but it's probably best to let this TfD run its course. Shame on User:D-Day and User:Dschor for using it. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
There is no shame in defending the wiki from rogue administrators. --Dschor 14:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per Cuiviénen's (and other similar comments. Also, I beleave users should be able to disclose they're editing prefrences and tendancies. Besides, I like this one and i think I'm going to use it. Mmmmm, Thats good userbox...Mike McGregor (Can) 06:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Assumes bad faith on part of the deleting admin. --Fang Aili 15:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per Larix --T-rex 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Recreating a userbox after its speedy deletion during a discussion isnt against the rules, and is actually helpful as people dont know what they are voting on if it is deleted - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Divisive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Divisive. Trödel•talk 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Breaks WP:AGF. Divisive. Trolling. Contributes nothing. If you wish to 'defend Wikipedia from rogue administrators', perhaps you should have bothered to express your opinion at WP:RFA instead of spending hours of effort trying to turn Wikipedia into Myspace. Proto||type 10:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete divisive and potentially advocates disruption.--cj | talk 13:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per D-Day. --Aaron 02:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - The truth hurts, doesn't it? --Dragon695 03:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Yes. Yes it does. Rogue 9 13:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete disruptive flag waving has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 17:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Emphatic delete, and I'm tempted to speedy it. More accurate phrasings of this template might be This user advocates wheel warring or This user can't figure out how to use WP:DRV. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and have nice chat with anyone using it... but with emphasis on "nice". - brenneman{T}{L} 01:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Somebody left these comments on another Userbox deletion thread, and I agree with it: "Wikipedia is based on common sense and consensus, and both are being violated here: common sense because it's obvious that speedy-deleting in direct violation of an overwhelming user consensus will cause nothing but more conflict, controversy, and edit-warring (and since the new Speedy-Delete Criterion was specifically created entirely as a means to try to avoid having those things happen (see Jimbo's justification for it: his biggest concern isn't the userboxes themselves, but the community division that may be caused by debates and edit-wars and conflicts over them, and that, ironically, is exactly what his new Speedy-Delete rule is being used to exacerbate by a handful of slightly overzealous, though well-meaning, admins), this usage of speedy-delete is in direct violation of the spirit, meaning, and purpose of the criterion, and even of the letter by most users' interpretations), and consensus because everyone who's bothered to participate in the discussion apparently disagrees with speedy-deleting, even the ones who voted 'delete'."
    • Comment Wikipedia is also about building an encyclopedia. If a userbox does not contribute positively to that goal, it doesn't belong. We have a very vocal pressure group fighting to keep any and all userboxes, no matter how divisive, ridiculous or irrelevant to Wikipedia. The consensus in many of these discussions does not qualify as common sense. Jimbo's actions, IMHO, have all been designed to keep Wikipedia on track, and not let it be derailed by the POV pushing, personal attacks and trolling that are being carried out through userboxes. -- Dalbury(Talk) 12:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • As well as the POV pushing, personal attacks, and trolling that are being carried out on userbox supporters throught Tfd debates. --D-Day 14:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, troll tool. JamesHoadley 16:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User TWC

Template:User TWC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Advertising, created out of process (serves no discernible purpose, which templates should). If users want to organize by skill and interests, that's fine by me, even encouraged. But what skill is imparted by one's choice of cable provider (ignoring the fact that one usually doesn't have much of a choice in the first place)? And what interest can be attributed to someone using this template aside from the fact that they probably watch TV, for which I'm sure there already is a userbox? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Physchim62 (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Unless someone can demonstrate that this template is useful for something, Delete —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unused. Ashibaka tock 04:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Doc ask? 09:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete as useless, stronger delete as unused (if this was removed from people's pages prior to nomination, I might change my vote). -- nae'blis (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep To everyone saying this box is unused: This box was nominated for TFD not more than 4 hours after it's creation. I seriously doubt that anyone that wants to use this thing has found it yet.--God of War 17:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • So who proposed it (presumably to the Userbox Project)? Why aren't they using it? Or are you just creating userboxes now ad hoc without any community input? -- nae'blis (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That's another aspect of the recent out-of-process creation of userboxes: templates are created just for the fun of it, without regard for the fact that a template is a tool, a means to an end, not an end unto itself. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as all unused userboxes should be deleted. Why do people make these templates? Is it badly thought out market research? --- Charles Stewart(talk) 06:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • keep what makes this user box any less usefull then the other 4 tv provider user boxes? why not give a template time to be used before claiming its useless and nominating it for deleation?Mike McGregor (Can) 06:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, give me the names of the other four and I'll nominate them as well, if this one is deleted. -- nae'blis (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep because it's only a few days old. It does seem rather silly, but maybe people will want to use it. --Fang Aili 15:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, template is not harmful to Wikipedia in any way. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, assume good faith --T-rex 18:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, please assume good faith Dr Debug (Talk) 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep assume good faith, indeed. you've got to give users some time to find new templates, instead of jumping to the conclusion there is no-one interested in it. Larix 23:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep if people want to put silly uninteresting info on their userpages, let them. Mikkerpikker ... 11:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If your argument applied, the whole Media section of the userbox page should be nominated. If people want to put what tv, internet or any other service providers they have, let them - its their userpage. No policy has been met on deleting POV userboxes, and so this one should be kept. Give it time, you cant expect a number of people to find a userbox in a few days! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--cj | talk 13:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Mcgregor, Dust, and mikkerpikker. Honestly, it seems like you guys are trying to take individuality out of Wikipedia, even on our own pages. WriterFromAfar755 00:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per Mike McGregor, Mikkerpikker and Dussst. How can you nominate this template with a straight face while ignoring the other four "TV Provider" boxes and the other thirty boxes devoted to individual British TV channels? --Aaron 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - This hardly seems like advertising. --Dragon695 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertising and silly. Catamorphism 22:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. Come'on guys, snap out of it. In what way is this encyclopaedic? I thought we were creating an encyclopaedia here. Right? Isn't that what we're doing? Why are we even arguing about this? Why isn't this a unanimous delete vote? linas 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/e/m/Wikipedia%7ETemplates_for_deletion_Log_2006_February_6_dadf.html"