Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 12 January 14 >

Contents

[edit] January 13

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 templates's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected two of the three templates onto the third. That one should be reasonably unoffensive, but feel free to improve the wording. Radiant_>|< 02:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vfdsock

A clear violation of WP:BITE. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Arguable. It is quite needed for when AfD discussions about a website are linked from that website and we start getting dozens of people coming in and voting "DO NOT DELETE" or the like. Keep for the moment. I can be persuaded to change if someone comes up with a better version. Stifle 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed (with Stifle), however it may need to be renamed to afdsock. Here is a reason to keep. Would not hurt my feelings if it was reworded though. Jwestbrook 23:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but reword in friendlier fashion; such TLs are occasionally useful on AFD. Come to think of it, this is probably redundant with a similar template, but I don't recall the name. Radiant_>|< 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You mean {{afd-newbies}}? Pilatus 00:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • And also {{AfdAnons}}. BTW, I've seen both Vfdsock and Afd-newbies on the same AFD page - twice today. This contributes to an atmosphere in which newbies are likely to be bitten. In particular, I think that some of the treatment of new users on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Bayou crosses this line. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, that's admittedly overkill. Merge the three templates (or pick the most suitable and redirect the other two there) and reword to a non-biting version. Radiant_>|< 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC) On second thought I'll just go and do that. Radiant_>|< 02:41, 14 January 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. -Splashtalk

[edit] Template:Background

Disambig-style statement that doens't actually disambiguate. The template does what the introductory text should do. What horrible writing style Raul654 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. not used --Adrian Buehlmann 21:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC) neutral Oh no! What links here is still broken (don't trust it). It is used. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this should not be used. For more background on any article, see the article itself, that's what it's there for. Radiant_>|< 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is some confusion above about what this template is supposed to be used for. It seems to be an alternative to Template:Main when writing in Wikipedia:Summary style. There is no need for two templates to achieve the pointer to the main article from the child article, however, so whichever one is better should be kept and the other redirected. Jkelly 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The above comment has it backward, it's the opposite counterpart to Main when in Summary style, used when a series of related articles has a common background. Main is more like {{Details}} in Summary style. Main is supposed to be a "sideways" link where the main article of the same level is located elsewhere. Anyway, not enough folks use (or even know about) Summary style, and not enough folks even use Main (too many roll their own). Heavy sigh. --William Allen Simpson 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In other word, people don't/can't write proper encyclopedia entries, so we should let this continue to exist to condone their bad writing? Sorry, but I don't think that logic holds water. Raul654 04:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • On the contrary, we should keep it for those who do/can write proper entries, despite the vast majority with "bad writing" that fail to follow explicit style guidelines. --William Allen Simpson 08:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you miss the point that the people who follow the guidelines shouldn't be using this template, because any such relavant links should be mentioned in the text itself. Raul654 15:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Subst then delete. There's no need to have a template for a line of text this short. —gorgan_almighty 13:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - • Dussst • T | C 16:08, 18 January 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. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Creator:Benjamin West

Unused. Created last June and not edited since. Nothing links to it. - TexasAndroid 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete orphan template.--MONGO 11:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete orphaned, not needed - • Dussst • T | C 16:10, 18 January 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. Not even clear whether it should be merged/redirect to what or where. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UK ties & Template:UK ties3

Not used. Replaced by Template:UK ties2. CG 19:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment : Template:UK ties was last nominated on 16 December 2005 (UTC). --Adrian Buehlmann 21:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep & replace UK ties & UK ties2 with UK ties3: I prefer UK ties3 to UK ties2. UK ties3 looks much neater, and no horrible bold black text. Yuck! —gorgan_almighty 15:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Uk ties 2 is nicer - • Dussst • T | C 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep {{UK ties}}, delete {{UK ties2}} and {{UK ties3}}. Thanks/wangi 11:34, 19 January 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. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Kamic A'kota

Template:Kamic A'kota (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — Kamic said this was a test [1]. It consists only of [[Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin|Kamic A'kota]]. It links only to Kamic's userpage, and that is easily fixed. Fang Aili 18:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy, unless there is some reason not to. Jkelly 23:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as it links to userpage only and cannot be expanded into article space unless he/she has an article about them.--MONGO 11:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. As above. —gorgan_almighty 14:00, 17 January 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. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Note JapanRailwaysFormat

Template:Note JapanRailwaysFormat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Delete — This is a weird one from Wikipedia:Templates with red links - unused, unconventional, and unedited since mid '04. BD2412 T 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete -- I'm sure it covered a need back when I first created it, probably replacing repeated content, but if it's obsolete by now then it's time to delete. Aris Katsaris 06:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unused, could be merged. - Cuivienen 14:05, 13 January 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, I guess, although I note it's been moved and rephrased. I'm not especially happy declaring any kind of consensus on userboxes at present. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User antiracist

Err, this was nominated by Dtasripin - Irishpunktom\talk 14:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per below Athf1234 04:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:User true antiracist as below. - Cuivienen 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all userboxes until the userbox hunt ends. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored.karmafist 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just delete it already. I don't know what I was thinking using the phrase "By any means necessary!" in there. After seeing how much trouble it brings to try to defend a point, I think Malcolm should have used "By some means considered acceptable!" --Daniel 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Malcolm was antiracist. This attack on Malcolm is racist. (see also discussion Template_talk:User_antiracist). Therefore, all the more reason to keep this template! -- ActiveSelective 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Your logic is impeccable. A regular Descartes, you are. We are all humbled. -Silence 09:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ActiveSelective adds: and after this template is finally awarded a 'keep', i suggest a temporary Lock On Nominating This Template for at least a few months. Otherwise we have to do this discussion all over again, and again, and again, since it is a fettish object for conservative crusaders.
  • ActiveSelective adds: No Merge with the MLK template. Both MX and MLK were against racism, but their backgrounds and antiracist tactics and strategy were different, as well as some other world views. It is perfectly fine for people to use both userboxes!
  • Merge with the below. Radiant_>|< 12:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Both WP:POINT I agree with the point being made, but that's not the point. You see my point? - Hayter 12:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Template:User true antiracist --Angelo 12:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep along with a plea for the Thought Police to stop wasting editors' time with this userbox hunt. Basta! Chega! Enough, already!Benami 23:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment — there is no nominator →AzaToth 12:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • True, but at least one user above wants it deleted, so he can be considered the nom. Not a bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 12:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inoffensive userbox. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy keep as per all supporters - also suggest that this be a degree of the template listed below. --CJ Marsicano 16:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep What is with censoring all progressive thought, even on user pages? Kukini 16:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see any problem with this. I don't understand why it's nominated. --Fang Aili 19:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Merge now I seen the next one down. I don't have a problem with this. --Alf melmac 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just another bumper sticker.--MONGO 11:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Speedy Keep — Only racists want this deleted.
Lie: "The image used of Malcom X is fair use."
Truth: → It's a public domain image, not fair use. Like the description of the image plainly says and has always said.
Lie: "Malcom X was a racist"
Truth: → Quote from him: "I am not a racist. I am against every form of racism and segregation, every form of discrimination. I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color." It is true that he did say a lot of racist things towards white people early in his life (example, "Thoughtful white people know they are inferior to black people") however he changed a lot in his later life after leaving the racist organization Nation of Islam, who later assassinated him for rejecting their mixture of religion and extreme bigotry.
I hope people read this and understand before writing Malcom X off as a "racist" and replacing the template with the Martin Luther King one. He did a lot of good things in combating racism and Martin Luther King actually said one of his inspirations was Malcom X. No merge, no delete, keep. Read the Malcom X article if you want confirmation of what I say here. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the inflammatory wording and moved to Template:User antiracist mx admirer. I did something similar to the "true antiracist" template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. What could be possibly wrong with antiracism? WriterFromAfar755 17:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep - Stop with the silly TfD's --Irishpunktom\talk 19:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. People are allowed to show their affliation and express their views with regards to racism and should not be censored by a clique. KittenKlub 19:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ian13ID:540053 19:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I can't believe I have to vote for something like this -.- TCorp 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Do not Merge. it is not hurting anything. Forcing everyone to share one userbox will just cause edit wars.--God of War 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. What exactly is wrong with this? People can express their views on their userpage, that right should not be revoked. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 19:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. No reason given to delete. Superm401 | Talk 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Karmafist. Enough with the War on Userboxes. --Aaron 17:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is ludicrous. Enough with the constant TfDs on userboxes already! There's absolutely no call for this. Rogue 9 19:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete on the ground that it advocates violence. Aiden 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep on the grounds that it advocates the 'by any means necessary' against racism.--Dan (Talk)|@ 21:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the wise people above Larix 18:42, 19 January 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, I guess, although I note it's been moved and rephrased. I'm not especially happy declaring any kind of consensus on userboxes at present. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User true antiracist

The drift I get is that we are going to sterilize User Talkpages of anything other than "I support", "I consume", or "I like" messages in userboxes. So I say no one should be able to state their non-support, or opposition to(!) anything. Somebody's feelings might get hurt, and we would never want anything to cramp the rights of people who use English Wikipedia not to have to think or question themselves. And good Lord in Heaven forbid, that anyone use of the image of either one of these unrepentant lawbreakers - it might make them inclined to violate policy! --Daniel 03:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep both, WP:POINT. However, switch the MLK image (and possibly the Malcolm X one) for a non-Fair Use one. Additionally, recommend moving Template:User true antiracist to Template:User antiracist2, as its current title makes it sound like (and it probably is) an unnecessary jab at people who prefer to use the more militant first template. -Silence 03:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. This nomination is a WP:POINT. I also recommend merging with template:user antiracist with the use of a (non-fair use) MLK image rather than Malcolm X, though such recommendations aren't really the point of the TfD page. - Cuivienen 04:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for both anti-racist templates. I see no reason for them to be deleted. Athf1234 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete: WP:POINT doesn't apply. I've changed my mind - it's part of the beauty of having one and the freedom to express what's on it. So since we are getting rid of inflammatory userboxes, we may as well get the ones that offend a good number of English-speaking Wikipedia users out of the way. --Daniel 04:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all userboxes until the userbox hunt ends. Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored.[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 04:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Sarcastic delete'. "Anti-racist" could be interpreted as a personal attack against racist people. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ACtually, that's not a bad point. It's also disingenuous to have the templates named "antiracist" when the content of the template makes it clear that the user is opposed to racism, not just to all people who happen to be racist. So, in addition to my above recommendation that the caustic and pointed name "true antiracist" be moved to "antiracist2", I now feel that the two templates should be named: (1) antiracism, and (2) antiracism2. By the way, I also happen to feel that these are some remarkably silly templates (what's next, anti-rape templates? anti-genocide? anti-suffering? anti-ignorance? oy.), but then again, lots of our userboxes are, and they still get used, so I see no problem with bringing these ones up to snuff for those people who do want to use them, for one reason or another. -Silence 07:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It's silly to think that there are racists on Wikipedia. It's so uncivil to say such a thing like they need to be opposed! --Daniel 15:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, such masterful Ciceronian persuasion as in the edit you quote necessitates fierce resistance indeed. EldKatt (Talk) 15:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, and then Name Change -- leave out the 'true' in 'true antiracist'. I suggest to leave the other antiracist template with the same name, and rename the 'true antiracist' into 'antiracist MLKing' because: (1) it has to be renamed anyway, (2) it has less users using it. -- ActiveSelective 10:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • ActiveSelective adds: No Merge with the MX template. Both MX and MLK were against racism, but their backgrounds and antiracist tactics and strategy were different, as well as some other world views. It is perfectly fine for people to use both userboxes!
  • Merge to the above. Radiant_>|< 12:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Inoffensive template. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong speedy keep. Righteous sentiment. --[[User:Cjmarsicano}CJ Marsicano]] 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and change the template names per Silence. --Fang Aili 19:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep this is simple WP:POINT. Silly Daniel, no cookie. Stifle 22:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Radiant. --Alf melmac 23:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep for both anti-racist templates. Kukini 05:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep displays someone that was NOT a racist, unlike Malcolm X.--MONGO 11:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've moved to Template:User antiracist mlk admirer. I did something similar to the "antiracist" template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep see other user box KittenKlub 19:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ian13ID:540053 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the more "true" anti-racist, though, would be Ghandi.--Irishpunktom\talk 20:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - TCorp 22:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is even P.C why is this up for deletion?--God of War 22:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, per all the above. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 19:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless, just like above ubx. But, just to make sure that MLK fans don't feel inferior because of this, Move to User:x antiracist. WriterFromAfar755 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, because userboxes aren't evil. If nominator had provided a non-sarcastic reason to delete, I could possibly have changed my mind. Superm401 | Talk 08:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Same as all the above reasons. Duran 10:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per Karmafist. Enough with the War on Userboxes. --Aaron 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep → Pádraic MacUidhir (t) (c) 07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, although the nominator does make a good point. Rogue 9 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per all above. Aiden 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the wise people above Larix 18:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - Solar 02:06, 22 January 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, apparently, although the case for any kind of consensus on userboxes is very weak. -Splashtalk 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User vandal

Apparantly created only to make a point in the discussion below. Not used. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete anything that actually encourages violations of Wikipedia policy.--Sean|Black 02:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and no cookies to the creator's for his weird WP:POINT. This is created and unused, knowing it will be nominated for an acrimonious deletion; what a waste of time! --Doc ask? 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep - If and only if more than one person is actually using this template for being a graduate of UI. It is the UI nickname. - 69.86.17.202 03:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Heh, that was me. - Cuivienen 03:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If anyone decides to take up this template - I will defend it, however delete for now.--God of War 03:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. with the new name change.--God of War 01:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's funny, and the University of Idaho is a major school. If it's not used, that might just be because it's new. In no way encourages breaking policy, unless the word "vandal" is a form of light treason now. Lord Bob 04:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Maybe WP:POINT and maybe not, but UI's teams are called the "Vandals" so what's the beef? (I'm pretty sure they mean these Vandals, not those Vandals. Probably not even them or them.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nothing wrong with it, no need to delete it. DaGizzaChat (c) 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Peace Inside 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I didn't create this to WP:POINT, more as a WP:JOKE. It's for identifying one's self as someone who went to U of I. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 07:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per encyclopedia. --Pjacobi 09:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, attack page. Radiant_>|< 12:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no way! --Angelo 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This was deleted by Doc glasgow at 12:32 13 January, with summary "attack template - joke vandalism", with no comment here, when there was clearly no consensus to do such a thing. I have speedy-undeleted this. If I'm still allowed to have a vote, keep and rename to Template:User University of Idaho or some other less confusing name. It's funny! ~~ N (t/c) 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It clearly looks like an attack template, if you arn't up on university sport's team's names in the US. Excuse me if we in the rest of the world are not. Avoid systematic bias, and keep in jokes to userspace please. --Doc ask? 17:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rename — per N →AzaToth 15:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep does not in any way that I can see encourage policy violations. DES (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Templates which indicate the cultural or educational background of a user are harmless and potentially slightly useful. - Haukur 16:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Seeing that it's an orphan I don't mind if it's deleted. But my keep stands if someone puts in on their user page. - Haukur 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename if it's actually being used by someone. --Fang Aili 19:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong and Speedy Copy to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense and Then Move To Wikipedia:Userboxes/US Sports and Rename. Fine balance between making a point and making a joke, and this userbox has clearly crossed all three lines. James S. 20:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename/recolor, are those even U of I's colors?? (yes I know the original POINT was about the debate below). -- nae'blis (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Template has already been renamed to Template:User uni idaho --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 20:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but is there a way to better the colours/layout, my eyes hurt now. --Alf melmac 23:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and rename. You are insulting all those Vandals by associating them with a unworthy university that isn't about blood, gore, and sacking cities. (j/k). Not a fan of userboxes however. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 03:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Getting tired of the deletecruft. --CJ Marsicano 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete just another bumper sticker.--MONGO 11:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also tired of the delete clique who forces censorship and has no sense of humour. KittenKlub 19:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless userbox. Nohat 22:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless and funny - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 11:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per MONGO. Superm401 | Talk 08:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Literally stupid.. Duran 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Nohat. --Aaron 17:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per MONGO. However, can we delete MONGO?  :p In seriousness, though, I find it highly ironic that a member of Esperanza is out to dismantle the community aspects of Wikipedia. It's really quite strange. Rogue 9 20:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Poor attempt at humor and we don't need a userbox for every university on the planet.
  • Keep Its funny! - • Dussst • T | C 16:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't waste donors' money. utcursch | talk 04:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the wise people above Larix 18:46, 19 January 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.