Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log

< May 12	May 14 >

1 May 13, 2006

[edit] May 13, 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 result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pokemonusermadeimages

Template:Pokemonusermadeimages (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
A template that is entirely redundant with placing the image page in Category:Pokémon User Made Images (which is on CFD anyway). Additionally, it is unused and more or less unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —MiraLuka 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it was new so it wasn't used yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveminun (talk • contribs)

Delete 100% usless and unused. --Dom thedude 0 0 1 21:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Ignore all these messages. It IS going to be used. It was requested for deletion about 5 minutes after it was created. --I Love Minun 17:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete All Pokémon characters (like characters from any other fictional work rely) are copyrighted so all images made by users of anyting "official" Pokémon related would be a copyvio anyway, and I don't see much call for images of unofficial Pokémon-ish fan made characters on Wikipedia. Keep this sort of things to the various fan sites dedicated to Pokémon instead. --Sherool (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Pokemon are copyrighted. Making images yourself doesn't circumvent this. So we don't need a template or category for such images, they should be deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Man in Black and Sherool. John Reid 14:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not good. Eisenhower (at war or at peace) (Project) (U T C) 19:26, 19 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 result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ControversialArticle

Template:ControversialArticle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Used as a disclaimer on Abortion (I have removed it until this discussion concludes). It isn't necessary to crowd articles with a disclaimer, just in case, people do not know what Wikipedia is about. If it is kept, at the very least it should be clarified it is not to be used in articles. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 23:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete! expert? pfft Be bold! --Dom thedude 0 0 1 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete --mboverload @ 00:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22122&dict=CALD Disclaimer: 1 FORMAL a formal statement saying that you are not legally responsible for something, such as the information given in a book or on the Internet, or that you have no direct involvement in it, 2 SPECIALIZED a formal statement giving up your legal claim to something or ending your connection with it

The box contains no claims about legal responsibility of wikipedia or editors, it is only a warning that the contents of the article can be changed at anytime by anyone. It is not redundant, as the disclaimer at the bottom of the page is purposely small, and there are errors, intentional disinformations (John Seigenthaler), and nationalist POVs (see Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nonsense) not only used by people unexpecting the possibility that something that calls itself "encyclopedia" could be inaccurate, but also mirrored on other servers, therefore sending the nonsense info further to other audiences. I have explained the problem with nonsense / biased edits that go undetected for a long time on the talk page of this template. Please read the reasons there before you vote here. According to the definition provided (Cambridge dictionary), this box is not a disclaimer, therefore the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates doesn't apply here. And the "just in case people don't know what Wikipedia is about" argument is the most silly thing I've ever heard, though a very popular argument among wikipedians - like the Seigenthaler scandal never happened. Do you really expect an average internet user who googles something once twice a week and google sends him to wikipedia (which calls itself "encyclopedia") to research and find out what Wikipedia actually is, at least for this type of articles - a big chatroom for people pushing their beliefs and geeks who want to prove to the world that they are "wise" somehow?

Disagree with the deletion. ackoz

00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're smoking, but that's a damn disclaimer. --mboverload @ 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question... yes I expect them to know what Wikipedia is when an edit tab is at the top of almost every page. Furthermore we aren't going to tailor the site for clueless users, we tailor it (as best we can) as an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's do not have disclaimers at the top of controversial articles. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. We can use {{controversial}} instead. —SHINING EYES 01:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete No disclaimers. —MiraLuka 03:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This "warning" is unnecessary as Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is linked to at the bottom of each page, already states "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". It's not our responsibility to type that at the top of each article. If extra warning is deemed necessary, then there is {{controversial}}. -AED 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference to the fact that I might be a drug addict, very kind of you Mboverload. No, it's not a disclamier, if you could read, you could read the definition above and as the text makes no claims about legal responsibility, it's not a disclaimer. Furthermore, if wikipedia was encyclopedia, the contents wouldn't be changing constantly with the current "consensus" of editors. I would provide consistent information. Which it doesn't. Those articles need a warning, because they are a public chatroom. ackoz

07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Followed abortion for a while now and feel this is innapropriate, regardless of whether it is a disclaimer or not.

Ackoz - you say it is a warning, I think a warning about a page not being authoritative is a disclaimer, even if not explicitly legal. I also think your attempts to belittle the editors are pretty low and hypocritical. |→ Spaully°τ 17:17, 14 May 2006 (GMT)

Delete; there are other templates found at Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes which deal more directly with the content of a diputed or controversial article and which address specifically what the problem(s) is. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This template is on the verge of WP:BEANS, users should not be encouraged to edit articles unless they can improve the article.--M @r ē ino 14:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Reword in it's current state it is pushing WP:BEANS, but it could be reworded along the lines of "the subject of this article is controversal" with that type of approach the template could be useful --T-rex 19:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. {{controversial}} does the job just fine. We can't go around sticking disclaimers on articles because people are too lazy too look them up on their own. It's the reader's responsibility to check on a site's credibility, not ours. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was moo?. What a mess. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more userboxes

Template:User against haters thye are too useful. STOP THE HATE!!! DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 12:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Cyde has dropped another batch of boxes below. So here goes another batch voting. This section applies to all userboxes below, so move your votes upwards (from under #All userboxes below) to upgrade them to a wider range of templates and let's hope it's all for today. Misza 13 ^{T C} 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Userfy/subst: and delete per WP:ENC. With the exception of {{user firearm}}, for which it is keep-useful. Misza 13 ^{T C} 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If you delete, userfy them all --mboverload 22:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that all these userboxes should not be grouped into one mass deletion, but be rather considered individually for best results. Some of these can, in fact, be used to describe oneself realistically. For example, a person could be a procrastinator and could be using the said user box not to be funny, but to describe himself in a quick and easy fashion. I know it'd take longer, but, in the end, its often better. -TwilightPhoenix 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

First, how does having this in Userspace rather than Template space destroy the intent of what you're saying? It doesn't. Deleting these boxes and putting them in the Userspace as text hurts no one. Secondly (and more philosophically) consider how these even remotely help us edit an encyclopedia, either as text or tempate. They don't, and I (and Jimbo) discourage their use in any format. Nhprman 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See below comment in responce to Shining. It explains all. -TwilightPhoenix 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete all. Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server? —SHINING EYES 02:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment And how do they do that? If its storage, there are plenty of pictures that take up more space than a number of userboxes combined. -TwilightPhoenix 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you comparing an userbox with a picture? For God's sake, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and of course needs pictures for the articles, can you explain how an userbox can be as useful as them? —

I have fully explained thier usefulness on my user page. Too long to post it here, so you'll have to go to my page. -TwilightPhoenix 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

SHINING EYES 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment how about you stop trying to kill the little fun there is on Wikipedia? Jesus christ, these things take about 1/4 of a kilobyte. --mboverload @ 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Trying to kill the little fun"?! Mboverload, if you didn't noticed before we have WP:FUN for that, since when an userbox is supposed to be funny? As of now Wikipedia has more than 2000 userboxes, sufficiently enough to permanently damage the servers; and that takes more than 1/4 of kilobyte. —SHINING EYES 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Permanently damage the servers???? Good grief ... even if userboxes were an incredible drain on resources, the damage wouldn't be permanent. And as far as resource hogs go, I've got to think that long TFD pages getting reloaded over and over would be more of a drain than userboxes. As of right now, the May 13 TFD page is 334 K. Every time this page gets viewed, that's 334K of bandwidth and that's not even counting generation time. BigDT 05:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem of userboxes is their massive inclusion; TFD reviews DON'T APPEAR in every userpage, man! —SHINING EYES 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is absurd. Sorry, but I really can't imagine a little box with words and a picture causing harm to a server. That would be pathetic. We're still here aren't we? Did this page really take that long for you to load? --Pilot|guy 12:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to be incivil, but ROFLMFAO. Even 2000 templates at .25KB each would add up to a whoping 500KB total, as of this posting, just THIS DAY's TFD discussion adds up to "This page is 208 kilobytes long." enough space to hold 832 boxes itself!. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure loading a single article is a bigger drain on resources than 30 user boxes on one page. These cannot possibly have any real effect on the servers, as I'm sure, given the likely number of visitors any given moment, Wikipedia servers are capable of handling at least several hundred megabytes of bandwidth at any moment.

Keep (not withstanding any specific argument I place at any below), these aren't hurting anything, Wikipedia is not paper. If you don't like them, don't use them. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say: "If you like them, then {{subst}} them on your userpage and stop consuming server resources" —SHINING EYES 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep all of them.Wandering Star 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is just too much. honestly, I can understand deletions in some cases, but most of this is based upon the "unenecyclopedic" and "subjective humor" arguments. Userboxes are meant for userspace and just because a person doesn't find them funny doesn't mean they should be deleted. I extend this to every relevant mass-userbox vote below this point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why can't people understand that THESE ARE NOT IN USER SPACE. They are in TEMPLATE SPACE with the articles, and are therefore not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. In User space, an argument can be made that they are completely acceptable, but NOT in Template space. Nhprman 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Why don't you userfy all 2000 userboxes? See how people would respond to that. Signed, Fredd ie 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. If whether they're in template or user space is the problem, move them to User:Template/Template:Name, and hope no one wants the username "Template". Armedblowfish 14:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Not all of template space has to be encyclopedic. Most of it is just sorting. By your reasoning, warning templates, various signing templates, and many other related functionality templates should be deleted to because they aren't encyclopedic either. Template space isn't article space. It's meant to easily insert standardized code into an article without the mess of that code appearing in said article. Same logic goes with userboxes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, Templates that sort, warn, etc. should not be deleted. They are actually useful for editing the encyclopedia. However, Templated Userboxes (most, anyway) hardly fit into the same category. Nhprman 06:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I could argue that some of these other userboxes are also helpful. Say for example you're looking for someone who's knows about Republicans. Someone with a petinant userbox would seem to be the logical choice, no? These arguments can go back and forth forever. It's clear we're never going to convince one-another. For what it's worth, I do subst my userboxes, mostly because of all this. however, I don't feel that everyone should have to deal with that, especially those who love these things so much that they keep two-page long sections of them. Userboxes can be called a double-edged sword, but you don't always toss things out because there's a chance it might hurt you. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I assure you that most users aren't seeking out Templated Republican Userboxes and saying, "Gee, this user is an expert in Republicans." What's been happening is that either fellow Republicans are using the template system to recruit other Republicans to gang-edit (and I mean no bias by using the GOP as the example, it happens on both sides) or to form "Republican Wikipedian" groups here, which are wildly inappropriate. Obviously, this isn't universal and many people, like you, already subst their boxes. But it's happened enough times that it's become a problem. By Substing boxes and moving them out of template space, the problem pretty much disappears. While biases on user pages are still a bad idea, that's not the issue here. It's a question of templated Userboxes and why they are demonstrably bad for the project. Nhprman 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

These are all good points. I think what Someguy0830 is trying to say is that the reasons for destroying the userboxes are completely irrelevent and slapping "unencyclopedic" and "not funny" on all 10,000 of them is pointless. Sorry, maybe it's just me on this additional note, but I really don't see why everyone is freaking out over the fact that these are in template space. If we start cutting throats other everything that is possibly unencyclopedic in that section, this stupid little war shall go on. --Pilot|guy 12:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Taking them out of Template space does not "destroy" Userboxes. Deleting them simply moves them to User space, and this stupid little war ENDS immediately. Nhprman 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It will not end immediately, and likely never will. Templated userboxes do little harm in most cases. Also, userboxes are destroyed once deleted, because the code, though simple enough for some to duplicate, is gone. It's not "moving" anywhere unless someone goes through and substs every instance of it. As it stands, there is almost no harm in having most of these userboxes in Template space. There will always be ways to abuse features of various things. This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, you've made several misstatements here, hopefully not deliberately. Let me sort them out. First, the problem may not end the day the Templated boxes are deleted, because people will retain the links to their friends, etc. But the linkage will end and new users will (horror of horrors) get the idea that this is some kind of encyclopedia, rather than a much neater version of MySpace. Next, bots have been set up, I understand, to "userfy" these boxes and "Subst" them on Userpages. They will remain active and NONE of them will simply disappear. I also expect there will be a responsitory of Userboxes created after they are all moved to the User pages. If you don't know the harm and abuse they've done to the Project, you have not been paying attention, or you're willfully ignoring them, so I won't rehash it. I just hope you're advocacy will not mislead too many people. - Nhprman 03:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's shrink this back down for room. First you assume that these userboxes somehow mislead people into thinking this isn't an encyclopedia. Honestly, this is really far-fetched. A user would have to be fairly unintelligent not to catch the "pedia" part of Wikipedia or not notice the 100,000+ articles here. That kind of argument is straw-man at best. Second, if every instance were to be substed (like I specifically mentioned), then those users who have the boxes would retain them. However, any new users will have to resort to code-copying to gain those templates, and one can only imagine what kind of a mess that would make on those user template lists the userbox project maintains. As it is, a simple line of code (substed if they prefer) will instantly put that same format on their userpage. I, for one, can see the obvious benefit for inexperienced users in that rather than the annoying process of copying down and self-aligning all of that code by themselves. Please do not mis-interpret my statements to fit your own view, as I am very well aware of just how the template process works and what will result when you delete them. What you seem to forget is that you can't transclude a template once its gone. This is the main point here. Templates are made for the express purpose of adding standardized code to any number of places. This is what they are for. It applies to userboxes just the same as is does to anything else. I'm getting tired of arguing this back and forth. We're never going to convince each other. You may be content with your user interest list. Others are not. Others like the ease of use that comes with these templates. Simple as that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)

99.9% of Userboxes would be fine if they weren't Templates. Please re-read my comments, and keep them in context. The vast amount of Users aren't idiots, and users become very adept at cutting and pasting and even editing Wikicode very quickly, as I did just days after coming here. Below is an example of a SIMPLE line of Wikicode that ANYONE can figure out how to use and easily adapt on their User page. Ending the practice of housing Userboxes in the Template space does NOT destroy Userboxes, so please stop misleading people by saying it will.

{{subst:Userbox|#3f3|#0c3|NO<br>UB|This user opposes Templated [[Wikipedia:Userboxes|Userboxes]]}} - Nhprman 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The irony of using a standard userbox template to express one's dislike of userbox templates is priceless, I must say. They're still using userboxes that way. It just puts all the strain on a single template being included thousands of times over instead of many being included on a much smaller scale. In the end, they achieve the same goal. It only makes locating a certain group of users somewhat more difficult, not impossible. For clarity's sake, I'll simply refer to Timrem's reply to you near the bottom. He sums it up rather nicely. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The irony was completely intentional, I assure you. As for not being able to seek out others, that's the goal. Wikipedia's mission is not to become a place where we can locate other users who are just like us. It's a place for writing a NPOV encyclopedia. Period. That may seem harsh, but that's reality, and reflects the site owner's views, as well. I realize in this society we live in, one that HATES following rules and believes everyone can do anything at any time and in any place, that creating an ordered, structured Website with a single goal is damn near impossible, especially in this medium. Perhaps it's not worth trying anymore, since mobs will be mobs and will enforce their own chaos on things. Whatever. Nhprman 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep some and Delete the very stupid ones like Im a ninja, pirate, that longcat one etc, too many userboxes listed though Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete all except keep serious skill/interest (Babel-like) boxes. These are actually useful for editing, since using they can give you a list of knowledgeable users. User firearm seems to be the only one listed, and is the only one I have voted on individually. --Philosophus ^T 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Userboxes, if used in moderation, can add spice and a little humour to otherwise bland user pages like mine. I know there are some objectionable ones—why not nominate them on a case-by-case basis? — Tangotango 05:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. If some users want all userboxes deleted, they should propose a new policy, not nominate them bunch after bunch. Friendly Neighbour 05:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

They did. The newly proposed policy for speedy deletion of Templated Userboxes is T2. Nhprman 06:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain your reasons clearly or your vote will be discounted. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHINING EYES 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

My reasons are they should not be voted (uh oh, evil word) on as a group, they should each have an indvidual vote (there it is again) for each. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete, and Subst them all - Templated Userboxes have been abused over and over again to turn Wikipedia into a mini Myspace, with the creation of clubs like "Wikipedians who ... " and vote stacking to delete or save other Userboxes. It's gotten out of hand. By taking them out of Template space, they will still exist, but will be text-based, and COMPLETELY in User space. Those users spreading misinformation about what it means to delete them should be ashamed of themselves. I urge everyone voting "keep" who didn't know they would still exist to change them to "Delete and Subst" (delete as templates, but substitute them as text) Nhprman 06:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep All Userboxes because this proposal to get rid of userboxes en-mass (or otherwise) violates WP:POINT and WP:CON. Deleting or substituting userboxes does not respect the community consensus against getting rid of userboxes, and it ignores everyone who protested under the basis that it stifles free expression. Yes, I know it won't stop people from saying the same thing on their user pages, but deleting userboxes en-mass like this has the same effect as the rejected policy. We've already decided against deletion/subst, and if point pushing like this keeps getting allowed, can the last user to edit Wikipedia please turn out the lights; I am already sick of people who want to get rid of (a) userbox(es), and I don't even use one. --DavidHOzAu 06:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlike WP:POINT and WP:CON, userboxes are against WP:NOT, an official policy. It's different. —SHINING EYES 09:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

While you're quoting policy, note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, or a place of unregulated free expression. And the lights on WP started dimming when people started Templating Userboxes and using them to gang up on other boxes and articles they didn't like. (WP is also not a social networking site.) - Nhprman 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If networking among users is the problem, remove the category tag from the offending box so that users can't network around that specific box, but don't delete the userbox. (protect it if need be.) Problem solved. Also, consider requiring users who use userboxes to add a template to their user page such as
This page contains user boxes User boxes are provided by wikipedia for humor and user classification purposes only. Using them to network with other users and target an article for the purpose of malicious or disruptive editing is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you suspect that this user is targeting your edits by a userbox classification in this manner, please leave a note at an administrator's talk page.
Note: This template must precede all userboxes on this user page; removal violates wikipedia policy and may result in a temporary block and removal of offending content.

I know it is lacking links, but this should be adequate discouragement if networking is the real problem. I believe a bot could be made to add them automatically. (BTW, I still believe the open slather delete of userboxes is heavy handed and WP:POINT.) --DavidHOzAu 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Just one clarification about my opinion: If the admins want to delete a userbox to eliminate blatant, repeated abuse and reverts of a controversial userbox, and not for I-don't-think-it-is-funny interests, I'm fine with it. The jokes should stay though, I always enjoy a laugh out of those. --DavidHOzAu 07:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Super strong delete all of them (except the "User knows a lot about firearms" one, don't know why that was lumped in with the rest). Just dumb and plain worthless. This kind of stuff doesn't belong here. WarpstarRider 09:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Super-duper-strong Keep. This is just plain silly, don't deprivate anybody of a little fun in their had Wikipedia work... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatic Keep — Let’s assume we deleted all or most of the(se) user boxes, because we agreed they didn’t belong into Template space. Someone might then start to put them in subpages of his userpage, e.g. User:Foo/Bar, and tell others to include them with the usual template mechanism, {{User:Foo/Bar}}, because the edit views of their userpages would stay maintainable this way. Next someone adapted Template:Babel-X (or something like it) to do the “User:Foo/” part, further minimising the code required. The user boxes would then have gone out of Template space, which is definitely not the same thing as article space, but any alleged server impact would remain. Therefore I think that deleting user boxes solves nothing and substing them is ugly (and in the case of inclusion by Babel-like templates probably hard to do). Efforts should rather be invested in keeping them well designed. It can save time, when one can quickly skim over a userpage, because it uses standardised information representation. Userpages themselves are useful for enhancing collaborative work—in the good sense and in the bad. I’m undecided on the issue of automated categorization of users, though: It can be used as an alternative approach to votes and it can be abused for vote stacking in traditional Wikipedia votes. Anyhow, “What links here” basically offers the same feature. Christoph Päper 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC) PS: What I loathe much more are customised signatures on Talk pages.

Get them out of template space, but find a way for us to use them without having to copy code down. The only argument I see deletionists have is that it wastes template space. I am well aware of WP:FREE, however, it was created as a countervandalism measure and shouldn't be applied to userpages. Plus, it's not official policy, nor is it a guideline. It's just Wikipolitics. Userboxes do not "disrupt Wikipedia." I find many userboxes offensive, but that doesn't mean I start flame wars with Wikipedians. I get along with them just the same. Just find a new way to use Userboxes that don't take up template space and Jimbo's money. WP:NOT a bureaucracy or an autocracy any more than it isn't a democracy. Also, someone's opinion on whether or not something is funny is relative. I mean, there are some that users just don't get, but that's no reason to delete them. They have jokes that they don't understand, so they TfD them. Humor is relative. And if something is an "Inside joke," remember that WP:NFT applies only to articles. Crazyswordsman 13:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Most emphatically keep all. They do no harm and their removal would serve only to gratify a handful of killjoys. Ou tis 14:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete all of the "funny"/inside joke ones, after subst:ing, per Misza. There is a line past which certain userboxes are just a waste of space. I understand that Wikipedia is not paper, but these just clutter up the template namespace. This is in contrast to the religion ones, which help to build the encyclopedia. TheJabberwʘck 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment However, I would suggest that a clear policy such as Wikipedia:Userbox policy or User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll be finalized and approved by consensus before further userbox nominations. TheJabberwʘck 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Subst and delete There fine in userspace but not in template space.Greatigers 15:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep but, but move to userspaces --Jawr256 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
A Keep So Strong That It's Unnessesary To Add Meaningless Adjectives. things like this shouldn't be mass-deleted via a cut-and paste method. viva la userboxen! keep in mind that Nearly all the individual voting sessions for the tfd's below are losing soundly.--preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 15:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep They don't do any harm at all. CTOAGN (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- I disagree about voting on them as a group but perhaps it is easier. Cyde needs to stop disrupting wikipedia --T-rex 17:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and move to userspace, or another namespace if the developers would oblige.--Toffile 17:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and create a Userbox: space for them. This would get them out of the Template space and make it much easier to manage them. Timrem 17:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the last two comments: You really mean "Delete," don't you? Because the word "Keep" in this discussion means "Keep them in Template space." Nhprman 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly do not mean delete. Deletion would mean I want them totally gone. If you do not agree with my terminology, then you can interpret my vote as Move to a Userbox space. Timrem 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This meaning of the word "Delete" is at the crux of this entire discussion. If they are Deleted from Template space and "Subst'ed" (or "Userfied") then they remain on every single User page where they currently exist. So when you say "move" that's effectively the same thing. Saying "Delete" doesn't mean "delete from wikipedia" in this case - although I won't lie, some people don't want them here. But if they do go to User space only, most of the problems people have now with Templated Userboxes will simply disappear. I do understand the fear that they will be lost, and I don't want them to be lost. Nhprman 03:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: by "totally gone" I did not mean they would dissapear totally from Wikipedia, but that they would be unavailable to easily add to a userpage. Instead of simply adding or substing a template to the page, you would have to write the code yourself, or find a user with the userbox and copy the code from their page. It is much easier and more efficient to be able to add {{userbox}} or {{Userbox:the_box_you_want}} instead of copying the code from someone else. I'm not scared that my userboxes will go away, but I and all other users should be able to add new boxes quickly and easily. Timrem 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I stated it again because I think most people fail to grasp what it means in this context. Above, I posted one single line of code that I've used on my User page and it was VERY easy to create and cut/paste here. Most users are very smart and catch onto Wikicode very quickly. For those who don't, I'm sure someone will (if they haven't already) create a repository of Userbox codes to cut/paste onto User pages. - Nhprman 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete!!! :Let all user boxes, in line with Jimbo's wish, BURN IN HELL!!! Except for the Babel boxes, location boxes and WikiProject boxes alle of them should be speadily deleted. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
STOP NOMINATING USERBOXES FOR DELETION. Hezzy 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's a pity that administrators, who are supposed to be some of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors, choose to waste their and other contributors time with such pointless activities instead of spending it in the betterment of WIkipedia's content. Loom91 07:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep, and if you delete them, userfy them. --NorkNork ^Questions? _fnord? 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Keep These userboxes are HARMLESS. Userboxes that are personal attacks will not be here because an admin will have already deleted them! the_ed17^(talk)^(contribs) 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep the userboxes, delete the admins who waste their time on trying to mass-delete userboxes instead of working on the hundreds of different backlogged categories that need urgent attention - • The Giant Puffin • 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Some userbox messages should be moved to individual space; however, they should go through appropriate deletion channels so that people can be warned that they need to copy code to userspace; also, if the consensus for a given userbox is that it is harmless humor and the consensus is to keep it at time of deletion proposal, why *should* they be deleted? If there's a movement to move all userboxes to userspace, isn't there a better way to do it than by nominating individual humor templates for deletion? UnDeadGoat 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If they are ALL moved to User space, ALL userboxes will be saved. That's clearly better than deleting cetain boxes because someone doesn't think they're funny, etc. I urge everyone to check out the Mackensen proposal to save all Userboxes, end deletions and move them all to Userspace where they can be used freely and adapted by anyone to say what they want them to say. It's a VERY good solution. - Nhprman 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Per various above. Additionally, subjectivity of humor prevents deletion on basis of lack thereof. Peas 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly Strong Keep -- STOP THE VIOLENCE!!! I do not understand what sort of need for vengeance you guys have against userboxes. Let them be. They're fun, harmless, and seriously, "harm the server"? Does Wikipedia run on dial-up or something? And don't the admins have better and more relevant things to do than to debate on the fate of coloured boxes? --many Revolutions 06:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep or move to Wikipedia:Humourboxes.
Keep. Okkay, so I'm new around here, but I completely fail to see what these hurt. There have to be much bigger problems with Wikipedia than letting users decorate their pages with snippets of code. Further, keeping them all in one place and allowing them to be easily reused is probably a bigger savings than having them in N users' pages as the actual code they represent. Nhprman, if you're not willing to rehash just how userboxes harm the servers, how about a pointer to the discussion where it's laid out? Technical detail, please, as I'm an experienced computer geek. Jay Maynard 12:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I've never argued that they are such a strain on the server, because I'm not sure they are - or ever can be much of a strain, but maybe I'm wrong. Someone else can deal with that one. That said, let me also say I don't think they "hurt" anyone, either. That's not the point. You want cold, hard reality here? If they remain in the Template space, some people are going to continue deleting them - fairly or unfairly - and some users will continue to stubbornly defend them from deletion - even the ones that should be deleted under current or future Template space deletion criteria (T1/T2, etc.) Wikipedia is supposed to be something MORE than this idiotic battling. The best solution is to find a home for these "snippets of code" in the User space (or some other non-template space, whatever) and have users cut/paste that code onto their pages, edit them as they wish, and enjoy them to their hearts' content. Please tell me, as a new user, how that offends you? How does it offend the VETERAN users here? I think some of those veterans (users since way back in 2004) just like to argue about things and LOVE this "process" debate, while some others are willfully twisting the facts or ignoring the simple solution in front of us because they enjoy conflict. Whatever the case, it's VERY tiresome, and not worth our time here. - Nhprman 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Personally, i very much dislike not having that option to include them using 10 to 20 letters of wikicode. I'm not saying that i can't deal with the lots of lines of code that some people want to force on us, but missing that nice little feature that works now feels like having to add <a href>s instead of double-square-bracket-ing... -- Jokes Free4Me 05:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep What did they do to you?(if this is my 2nd time sorry! bad memory!--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. There is nothing wrong with userboxes! ---You're My Juli e t 16:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Another voice pro-userbox. We might not have free speech here on Wikipedia according to some users, but if we can't keep at least some form of expression, then there are going to be editors leaving in droves. Coyote42 07:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep If you keep trying to remove userboxes, what's next? Everyone's username is just a number? Only specific people can edit? You don't actually know who's edited something? Userpages cease to exist? Userpages exist, but you can't edit them? --Falcon9x5 13:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- how about "you'll be free to try and be funny on your own user page without needing to transclude other people's humour"? dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
delete, away with humour that comes in templates and clutters non-user namespace. dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Conditional vote — for all userboxes where the result is "Subst and delete", subst as {{userbox}}. Putting raw HTML on a user's page is as offensive as the 1K+ signatures which Cyde has blocked users for. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but they're funny. I think somebody should evaluate Cyde's admin methods. For some reason, they don't give me a good feeling. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Keep userbox templates. See policy UBX. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. Templates do not have to be encyclopedic and not everyone has to get the joke (if there is one). Bastun 17:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User sumofpi

Template:User sumofpi
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand what WP:POINT means - Cyde genuinely wants these gone, so it isn't a WP:POINT. Also, supporters of userboxes have been moaning at admins to use TfD and not speedies - now one does, you call it invalid. He isn't using admin rights to do this, so that's irrelevant. --Doc ^ask? 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, an administrator saying "Opinions like 'Oh but it's funny' are irrelevant" at the top of the discussion is using the position of administrator to enforce a particular POV, even if he does not actually use any special administrative rights to do it. BigDT 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not WP'Point. Not an abuse unless he deletes it against consensus. Septentrionalis 22:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Septentrionalis and Doc. —SHINING EYES 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I can see uses for this, I mean, the value of PI is certainly nice information. Homestarmy 21:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Userpages are one place to keep possibly useful peices of information. Septentrionalis 22:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep There's no point in deleting this. It can just teach some people a little bit about pi if someone finds this, and this would show that people like pi. Kris18 23:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep How is the sum of pi not encyclopedic? Pi is an important number in mathematics. As far as the template for it goes, it's not harmful to anyone. Wandering Star 15:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Per Septentrionalis and Kris18. Thistheman 23:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep non-abusive template. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 00:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can modify the template so it displays the amount of digits of pi a user wants. Then we could delete one of the "sum of pi"s with a unanimous consensus. Macwiki 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I don't see how pi is bad for wikipedia. Paragon12321 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Of course Pi is not bad for Wikipedia. A Userbox in Template Space is. This could still exist in User space even if it's deleted as a template. Do you realize that? Look at the comments of the deleters. No one is saying restrict its use in Userspace. - Nhprman 02:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep per above (mmm, pie) -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. —SHINING EYES 01:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and Delete as a template. Let users paste it onto their User pages. Nhprman 02:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 04:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT is merely a guideline, and it's only for articles, not for templates. —SHINING EYES 09:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep per above "keep" votes. Friendly Neighbour 06:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep since it's an absolutely neutral userbox. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- and change to Pi to being equal to exactlly 3 --T-rex 17:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Stop deleting userboxes.Hezzy 20:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. When are you going to realise that Wikipedia is NOT intented for personal expression but for ENCYCLOPAEDIC CONTENT ONLY???!!!! Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Would you please tell me, since when is Pi ≈ 3.1415926535897932384626

personal expression? Signed, Freddie 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep per above. -EdGl 01:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above Will (^E_@) T 05:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can modify the template so it displays the amount of digits of pi a user wants? Then we could delete one of the "sum of pi"s with a unanimous consensus Macwiki 07:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP First off, if the sum of pi isn't encyclopaedic, I don't know what is... and second, for Macwiki, that woould require too much coding, and in the absence of a variable code for that, there would be far far far too many of the sum of pi templates. NetStormer 08:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep Good user box for math/sci oriented users. -MrFizyx 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep TfD is not the venue to have a rant at templates, or make a point about how you dont like them - • The Giant Puffin • 18:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Sumofpi2

Template:User Sumofpi2
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

KeepWandering Star 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep actual fact that's useful in real-life. --mboverload 20:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and Delete The shorter one is nice. This one seems a tad....overboard. In typical usage, I can't see Pi back this far as useful information, and going so far into signifigant figures you'll probably want to verify the number with something else besides a rather large userbox. Homestarmy 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - useful --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep I see no point to deleting this. Septentrionalis 22:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Just fine. This is Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia; NOT Cydepedia, where Cyde decides that all userboxes should be deleted all of a sudden. They're userboxes for a reason. Let them stay. Sorry for my potential violation of WP:POINT or NPOV here. Thistheman 23:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Your vote is a violation of WP:CIV, not WP:POINT. Please don't make another personal attack. —SHINING EYES 02:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong delete. This template serves no purpose whatsoever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete per Doc and Homestarmy. —SHINING EYES 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep (mmm, pie) -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep It is a handy reference. --Ben Best 02:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above "keep" votes. Friendly Neighbour 06:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep per all said above. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Hey. I use this userbox to memorize pi. Go find something else to delete. Signed, Fredd ie 15:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep for humor. The Gerg 16:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- not devicive, as this is not debatable --T-rex 17:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Why delete it? Too many good userboxes are getting deleted because they are 'unencyclopedic content.' Unencyclopedic content--GAH! that makes me mad. The procrastinator userbox is also on proposal, and that one rocked. Anyway. Back to this discussion. This userbox is funny, and brightens up someone's day. Even if you don't have a sense of humor, Cyde Weys, someone else might. And anyway! if YOU don't like the userbox, then don't put it on your page! The rest of us might like it! You play your game, we'll play ours.Freddie 18:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

They are unencyclopedic only in Template space, which is reserved for editing tools. If they are deleted from Template space, they would still exist in User space, and could still be used. Nhprman 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: Stop trying to delete userboxes.Hezzy 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete same as above Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per my vote for {{sumofpi}} Will (^E_@) T 05:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. Doesn't even try to say anything about the user. Harmless though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep Good user box for math/sci oriented users. -MrFizyx 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was moo?. What a mess. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All userboxes below

I didn't feel like copying my vote some 50 times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below. Misza 13 ^{T C} 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Userfy/subst: and delete per WP:ENC. Misza 13 ^{T C} 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote moved up to cover a wider range. Misza 13 ^{T C} 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep (not withstanding any specific argument I place at any below), these aren't hurting anything, Wikipedia is not paper. If you don't like them, don't use them. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
If you delete any of them, SUBST! --mboverload 19:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete all of them. Unencyclopedic userboxes don't belong in the template namespace. These don't even make a pretence at being encyclopedia-related. Encyclopedia-related humor: no worries. Non-encyclopedia related humor wasting hundreds of pages: delete and take it to MySpace. We wouldn't have a Wikipedia page about this stuff. Keep 'em coming, Cyde. Snoutwood (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. BigDT 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:POINT --mboverload 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The nominators are in no way trying to make a WP:POINT. If they were, they would delete ALL userboxes without discussion, or perhaps create anti-Userbox Userboxes or some other rash, silly act that policy was meant to discourage. The intention here seems pretty straightforward - to take these boxes OUT of template space, as per T1, and as per common sense. We aren't here to form social networks and make jokes, but if people choose to do that, they can put the code on their User pages without cluttering up the template space. Nhprman 21:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The above two votes/comments should probably be discounted. They give no valid reason for keeping. Since the nominators genuinely wish these things deleted, this is simply not a WP:POINT. Indeed it is ironic that when folk are always screaming at admins to use TfD rather than speedy boxes, now they do they are told 'this is not the place for it'. --Doc ^ask? 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They are misphrased, but they should be counted. It is not WP:POINT to nominate something because you don't find it funny; but it is frivolous. Septentrionalis 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, if you don't think frivolous things belong in template space, then surely TfD is the way to go? Or would you rather he just speedied them? The above contributions must be discounted - as this is a discusison not a vote. So as saying 'WP:POINT' when it isn't does not contribute to the discusion on the fate of these templates, so it cannot be 'counted'. --Doc ^ask? 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No, putting a billion userboxes up for deletion before waiting to see how a sample userbox goes over is trying to make a point. I was totally for this but trying to delete 20 userboxen in one day is just crazy.

ALSO: I deleted the tfd template on some of the user boxes because the one there before was heavily biased in favor of deleting them. Thankfully they all use the standard inline template. --mboverload 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment replaced from an edit conflict, might not be threaded correctly, sorry. Kotepho 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep all -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete all. Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server? —SHINING EYES 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I find this comment very constructive. I did not think about this more before, but I did notice that pages load considerably longer if they have userboxes. Also, wikipedia servers do quite often become cloged. Is there any statistics that says what is the percent of the server load caused by the userboxes? I will really appreciate if someone finds some, and will base my vote on that statistics. Lakinekaki p.s.: I don't think that user pages are visited as much as user talk pages. Also, much less than article pages and article talk pages.

Keep all. The reasons for the deletion of most of the userboxes makes it sound like all userboxes should be deleted based on the same reason. All this is doing is starting up another userbox war which is getting people who don't even know that userboxes exist involved. Douglasr007 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep all. Ditto. If it's such a concern, tear the categories from userboxes. That will limit the options for the vote-stacking said to be resulting from these userboxes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep ALL Oh but it's funny. (I too do not like to vote 50 times) Friendly Neighbour 06:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep All Userboxes because this proposal to get rid of userboxes en-mass (or otherwise) violates WP:POINT and WP:CON. Deleting or substituting userboxes does not respect the community consensus against getting rid of userboxes, and it ignores everyone who protested under the basis that it stifles free expression. Yes, I know it won't stop people from saying the same thing on their user pages, but deleting userboxes en-mass like this has the same effect as the rejected policy. We've already decided against deletion/subst, and if point pushing like this keeps getting allowed, can the last user to edit Wikipedia please turn out the lights; I am already sick of people who want to get rid of (a) userbox(es), and I don't even use one. --DavidHOzAu 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

See full opinion at #Yet_more_userboxes.--DavidHOzAu 07:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete all. Joke boxes don't belong in template space. WarpstarRider 10:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
See my vote in yet more userboxes section above, which was keep, but move if you want. Armedblowfish 14:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete all of the "funny" ones. There is a line past which certain userboxes are just a waste of space. I understand that Wikipedia is not paper, but these just clutter up the template namespace. This is in contrast to the belief ones, which help to build the encyclopedia. TheJabberwʘck 14:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep all - this crackdown on userboxes really has to stop, man. (Ibaranoff24 10:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep all - userboxes are not designed to be encyclopedic... they are used to 'spice up' user pages... leave them alone... - Adolphus79 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep all the strongest possible-they're innocent... quit picking on them!--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Total Support for the Easter Bunny. Quit deleting userboxes! Fredd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep all, no solid basis for deletion beyond several users personal dislike of them. JohnnyBGood t c 17:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep all - as above and WP:POINT
Conditional vote: If subst'd convert to {{userbox}} format. Do not leave raw HTML code on user pages. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep That is the obviously correct thing to do. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep All - тəzєті 14:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Keep userbox templates. See policy UBX. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. Templates do not have to be encyclopedic and not everyone has to get the joke (if there is one). Bastun 17:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep every single one of them. Cyde, why don't you spend your time doing something productive? Deleting userboxes doesn't help anyone, does it? Fredd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User sum

$\sum$

This user is greater than the sum of his or her userboxes.

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Wandering Star 15:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Why would this bother anyone ?Lakinekaki 22:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep: This is meant to be a humourous template, but with a serious overtone also (e.g., that userboxes can't define a user in whole). It should be put in the humourous templates section of the templates listings if not already. Unless there is consensus to remove all humourous templates, I say keep this one. --Aquarius Rising 22:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Userboxes can't define a user in whole?" Look at my user page, and tell me how far you think I am from self-wikification. Seahen 16:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Agreed with Lakinekaki; doesn't bother most, pretty harmless userbox. If you want it, place it; if not, don't. Pretty simple! Thistheman 23:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep no reason to delete it. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 00:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Explain your reasons, otherwise your vote is unvalid. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHINING EYES 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —SHINING EYES 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The issue over whether a userbox in templatespace is subject mainspace policies or userspace policies remains fluid. It hardly can be construed as "inflamatory and devisive." In fact, it communicates my skill as an editor to distinguish between core and trivial issues. Rfrisbie^talk 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC) In addition, this UBX is totally in compliance with the proposed Userbox policy. Rfrisbie^talk 04:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
keep consensus clearly demonstrates that userboxes such as this should not be deleted. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 05:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per above "keep" votes. Yesterday I substed mine with the following comment "(Saving the Sum from possible Cyde wrath)". How did I know? Friendly Neighbour 06:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as it cannot possibly be considered offensive or divisive, and actually makes a good point about not assuming that someones userboxes completely define them. And it is true that it does not violate the proposed userbox policy. Tamino 07:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Tamino. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Users' biographies bad. Userboxes good. Page Up 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Like what Tamino said.
Keep. as per Tamino. Viva la userboxen! --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 16:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep there is nothing at all wrong with this. Wikipedia is an online community (as seconday function) and this is part of that. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- "Oh but it's funny" is relevant, as humor is not a bad thing --T-rex 17:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, for the obvious reasons already mentioned above. Is this nomination serious? It looks like this guy's just trying to delete as many userboxes as he can. Don't we have policies against vandalism? Jimpartame 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless userboxHezzy 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. No harm; humour is a good thing. Bucketsofg✐ 20:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete user boxes are a bad thing. I even suggest that we discard the user pages! Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

...So, that would make you a wikiextremist? Quick, someone write an article on this new-fangled ideology! --mboverload @ 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Discard the user pages? Are you kidding? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. And Steinbach, if you don't like userpages, then you don't need to have one :X -EdGl 01:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Oh but it's funny! Seriously, someone seriously needs to delete the pathologically serious deletionists. While an argument of uselessnes could be made for other humour templates, this one actually expresses an important philosophy REGARDING the encyclopedia. Having said that, I'm surprised Cyde bothered to bring these to TfD. Why not Speedy Delete under T1? I'm sure users who feel they are the sum of their userboxes will find this offensive. Loom91 07:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. On several userpages, so broad enough to justify a place in userspace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep. Agree with Oni Ookami Alfador Frigoris 12:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per BigDT.—thegreentrilby 12:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as an easy way to find experts for the math articles.--M @r ē ino 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Good user box for math/sci oriented users. -MrFizyx 16:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep What's so wrong with humor?
Strong Keep The category Userboxes:Humor exists for a reason. They are humorous - this userbox is not inflammatory and divisive in the least. ghansel 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep keep the userbox.....and in fact....lets keep them all what are they harming. Aeon 03:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep It does links to real articles and it does remind users not to have too many userbozes on their userpage. (I use it on a sub page)--E-Bod 04:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep as per WP:POINT. Amalas =^_^= 20:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Another attempt by the Wikipedia Secret Police to keep us down and flex their muscle. I'll be damn if I let them do this without a fight! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - that was not my decision to add this userbox, I just saw and choosed it. Why should I reject it now? --Yuriy Lapitskiy 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
delete. yay for humour on userpages, away with humour that comes in templates and clutters non-user namespace. dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's not remotely offensive.--Brian1979 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This userbox has not been known to cause dissension or arguments amongst users, and is therefore harmless. yueni 19:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
VERY STRONG KEEP. I notice that Cyde Weys has proposed other userboxes for deletion with the exact same reason as this one. The reason is not a reason and posting userbox templates for deletion without a reason is unacceptable. As long as a template is not hurting anything, it should stay. And PS, Loom91, you're welcome for the image fix. Userboxes Rule!--Tuvok 08:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keeeeeep, as per Loomis (also for the thing about deleting deletionists, 'cause I'm a metaphysical kinda guy). This is harmless fun, and more people will use it if it's a template, rather than finding it on other user pages, copying it, and pasting the code into their own...which no one will do, 'cause people are lazy. Also: I think Clyde needs to lighten up on the userbox thing (as do we all). --Yossarian 14:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Oh, but it's funny! Damn those funny userboxes! Damn them to Wikihell! (At least he didn't say 'crap' this time) Nathan 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
VERY STRONG NEUTRAL I HATE USERPAGES/BOXES!!--Old Guard 18:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
"Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)" Somebody please turn this bot off.
- Hear, hear. Cyde needs an emergency shutoff button. Also, please sign your posts. Fredd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, those were both me.--Old Guard 05:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep As for the complaint Unencyclopedic, my response is: neither are User pages. But user pages inform us about Users. It adds slightly to the general spirit of our day. A few folks (thankfully just a few) need to lighten up. -- Sholom 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the dozens of comments above. Kukini 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong keep. It has over 65 users who have them on their userpages. Eisenhower (at war or at peace) (Project) (U T C) 19:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

KEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Darth Rage 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Keep They're mostly pretty dumb, but that's no real reason to stop people from using this userbox. --Alphachimp ^talk 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User carbon

Template:User carbon
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry for pushing to the front, I just want to point something out.) Wow, Cyde, you're not made out of carbon? Just take a look at how important it is! Oh, right, you're a userbox deleting bot.... Sorry for the potential violation of WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, or WP:CIV. Fredd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, Subst if deleted. Keeping this will not harm the encyclopedia; unnecessary creation of bad feeling will. Septentrionalis 22:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Septentrionalis 22:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's fine in template space! Thistheman 23:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep its just a harmless user box. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server? —SHINING EYES 01:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per anonymous...It is a harmless user box, it isn't hurting anything in any way... --KPWM_Spotter 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is like alot of userboxes. You may not find it funny but some do. Stop trying to delete userboxes as this is something that users enjoy. Don't like userboxes? Stop looking at user pages. Leave them ALONE! Jangle 07:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It harms the servers. BTW, do you know how many userboxes Wikipedia has? —SHINING EYES 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Not enough. Seahen 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Signed, Fredd ie 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep per all above Keep votes. Friendly Neighbour 06:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Wow, nice of you to speak on behalf of "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS," which are what, to disallow individuality and humor? How does this userbox hurt anybody? Who put you in charge of deciding "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS"? Give Peace A Chance 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Please don't assume you're WP and don't decide what "our encyclopedic goals" are... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Humans are carbon-based life forms so there is some truth in the box --Jawr256 15:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Jawr256, and create a corresponding Template:User silicon.

Or you could edit an encyclopedia article, rather than creating colorful, funny boxes. Just at thought. Nhprman 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Wikipedia's goals, overall policies and mission are well established. Does everyone realze that if this is "deleted" you can still use this box? Deletion is simply deleting it from template space, not from Wikipedia. Saying "keep, keep, keep" based solely on content is missing the point of what's being attempted here. Saying it would "disallow individuallity and humor" is missing the point of Wikipedia altogether, but also ignores the fact that this will NOT be leaving Wikipedia even if it's deleted. So please reconsider your "keep" votes. Nhprman 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

this is designed to be used as a template so keeping it in template space is logical --T-rex 17:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying "This is a template now, so it should be in template space" is self-referential and circular and misses the point of the discussion, which is to move them to another place, but still keep them. Saying "It does do not belong in Template space because Userboxes are not tools used to edit an encyclopedia" is completely logical, however. Nhprman 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No regardless of what name space it is in, it would be used as a template, moving this to user space would make it a template in user space, but it would still be a template --T-rex 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

False and deliberately confusing. All people should take from this is that putting it in User space SAVES it from further reviews and deletion attempts. Mindlessly saying "Keep, I like it," as many are doing, is not resolving the issue. Nhprman 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep, Subst if deleted - Keeping this will not harm the encyclopedia; unnecessary creation of bad feeling will --T-rex 17:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Please, its a userbox.
Delete Yes, it is a user box, that's exactly why it should be speadily annihilated. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Stuff like this does not get applied to articles so it is not harmfull in anyway to the credibility of Wikipedia (let them have their fun with their nonoffending User templates). Andrew D White 05:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Userfy. Assuming that the people here are humans, the template is mostly untrue (humans are mainly made up of Dihydrogen monoxide). Harmless, but not very useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep. People who think this stuff harms the server probably haven't run a server themselves. Excellent way to identify biochem articles experts.--M @r ē ino 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Good user box for math/sci oriented users. -MrFizyx 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per basically everyone --- good god, man, do you even know what a userbox *is*? UnDeadGoat 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep +Hexagon1 (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. Come on, life is too short to not have fun sometimes. I always try to be as encyclopedic as I can when I edit an article, but outside of my encyclopedic chores that I deeply cherish, there's nothing wrong with it. --JackLumber 13:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Another attempt by the Wikipedia Secret Police to keep us down and flex their muscle. I'll be damn if I let them do this without a fight! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per UnDeadGoat --Yousifnet 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Comment Isn't it unencyclopedic to nominate userboxes for deletion? It doesn't benifit Wikipedia as an encyclopedia in any real way. --Brian1979 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep on WHEELS! Oh but its funny. Honestly, why do you need to let these bother you? Just don't look at them!! It's so easy. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:58, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Showing a sense of humour can help to make a person more approachable, and approachability is relevant to collaboration over encyclopedia articles. Not only that; this userbox is also indicative of a user's interest in science. Zerrakhi 14:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User benzene

⌬	This user feels like a benzene ring. /_{_}\

Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep; Subst if deleted. Septentrionalis 22:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Read my comments for the other userboxes I said Keep. Thistheman 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Why delete this one and keep all other emoticons? --Paulzeromi 00:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server? —SHINING EYES 01:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Friendly Neighbour 06:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Wow, nice of you to speak on behalf of "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS," which are what, to disallow individuality and humor? How does this userbox hurt anybody? Who put you in charge of deciding "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS"? Give Peace A Chance 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Harmless wikibox. breaks no rules. Non-offensive. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 10:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is a non-divisive and harmless userbox. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- if this offends you, please stop using the internet --T-rex 17:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
KEEP: See reason above.Hezzy 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
delete I am going crazy of all those geeks that seem to live for their user boxes. Wikipedia was NOT created for vanity! Your own identity/opinions/beliefs/interests are very uninteresting and completely irrelevant here on Wikipedia!! Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Your comment is a borderline personal attack. Please stop. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- Then why do we have user pages at all? Jay Maynard 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep. People who think this stuff harms the server probably haven't run a server themselves. Excellent way to identify biochem articles experts.--M @r ē ino 14:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Good user box for math/sci oriented users. -MrFizyx 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Who the hell let Cyde become an administrator anyway? How can we UNDO it? F**ing 'Willy on Wheels' is a more constructive editor to Wikipedia than Cyde "no way" Weys --FairNBalanced 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thank you! FairNBalanced, I would vote him out, but I din't know how
Strong Keep Depression hurts, especially when you try to delete our benzene ring userbox. --Dan Asad 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Our so-called encyclopedic goals are relative, Clyde. As long as we know as much about the user as we can, it's useful. Anything about a user can be useful; it doesn't matter how small or insignificant it is. Horncomposer 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Expresses intrest in Science--E-Bod 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Another attempt by the Wikipedia Secret Police to keep us down and flex their muscle. I'll be damn if I let them do this without a fight! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please Keep Oh but it's funny. Hey at least they're not claiming T1. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User clownfear

This user fears the clowns.

Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Fear of clowns is nothing to laugh at -____-. Ok, maybe it is, but maybe not to people who actually are afraid of them. Homestarmy 21:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Does not belong in Template space. If you love this box, put the code on your own user page. Nhprman 21:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep it breaks no rules.
Keep re above Dev920 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Its not bad.--Great Legacy 06:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
keep--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 22:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep; subst if deleted. Keeping this will not harm the encyclopedia; causing needless offense will. Septentrionalis 22:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Someone's depressed... will any of you please give Cyde a hug so he will get out of his depression?-User:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny/sig-(23:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I left him a smile on his talk page. Is a mass bombardment necessary? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep another harmless user box. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 00:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server? —SHINING EYES 01:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Some people may have the fear of clowns. -TwilightPhoenix 03:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Friendly Neighbour 06:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep with subst. I don't use it for humor. I have trouble sleeping like Can't sleep, clown will eat me so for me it has grown as an identity thing for being nocturnal. T e ke 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Some people have nothing to do except ruining other people's fun... :( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- it breaks no rules, although clowns arn't that scarry --T-rex 17:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless userbox.Hezzy 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless; funny. Bucketsofg✐ 20:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Six letters, all equal letters are e's, first is a d: Delete!!!!!! Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your rational for this vote follows no logic at all --T-rex

Strong Keep Coulrophobia is a real phobia. La Pizza11 01:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

KEEP! Starla Dear 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

WHY?. Just asking. Why should it remain as a template. If it's Deleted and moved to User space, it can still be used by users without the threat of this deletion process happening again. Did you know that? I bet no one who reflexively said "Keep" knew this. - Nhprman 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you asking me why or everyone? If you're asking me, yeah, I already knew that. Thanks, but it doesn't change my opinion.

I was asking you. If you know "Keep" keeps this userbox in harm's way, but support "keeping" it anyway, I can't really counter that because it baffles me. - Nhprman 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
STRONG KEEP This is harmless. Another example of the stranglehold of the Wikipedia Secret Police on us editors.
STRONG KEEP Oh but it's funny. Seriously, how does this harm the server? It is five words long and has an excessivly small picture! And I don't think all userboxes, especially those that are meant to be funny, should have to have anything to do with wikipedia! DuctoMan 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP ON WHEELS!!! Oh but it's funny. What's not funny is the constant POV pushing by Cyde. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep on behalf of User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I'm surprised this isn't on his page. Fredd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User ignorant

dumb

This user doesn't know how to use Userboxes.

Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep; subst if deleted. Leaving editors alone is a good thing. Septentrionalis 22:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's not that big a deal. Lighten up. Thistheman 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep: "oh but it's funny" -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep harmless Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Friendly Neighbour 06:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Wow, nice of you to speak on behalf of "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS," which are what, to disallow individuality and humor? How does this userbox hurt anybody? Who put you in charge of deciding "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS"? Give Peace A Chance 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Don't speak on behalf of OUR Goals, please. You're not our director... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep template, delete po-faced wikipedians. An CompSci undergraduate who takes themselves way too seriously -- nice stereotype busting, dude. -- GWO
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny --T-rex 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep So maybe this template is useful for telling people they'd sort of like help using userboxes, whats the big deal? Homestarmy 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless userbox.Hezzy 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete harmless? But it hurts the server! Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I have to say that a "Keep" comment here means "Keep it in template space, where it is subject to deletion - again." But if it's deleted from Template space and moved to User space, that problem virtually disappears and they cannot be deleted unless they are extremely hateful or malicious, which most are not. Please consider your comments in this light. - Nhprman 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Broad enough to be acceptable in template namespace. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep. We need userboxes like this to distract Cyde from editing the articles. --M @r ē ino 14:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Aww man, Clyde, I thought you'd like this one. I thought you'd like a userbox pointing out which users put in useless userboxes, thus not knowing how to "use" them. Seriously though, it's fine on user pages. Horncomposer 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per basically everyone --- good god, man, do you even know what a userbox *is*? UnDeadGoat 23:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Another attempt by the Wikipedia Secret Police to keep us down and flex their muscle. I'll be damn if I let them do this without a fight! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - What's wrong with it directly on userpages? I don't see how this template helps to further the encyclopedic goals of wikipedia. Loudsox 23:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Oh but it's funny. Please stop obsessing over these. The only reason why they're controversial is because YOU have made them controversial. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It appears that Cyde needs this one. Fredd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User mad

Template:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User mad
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Does not belong in Template space. If you love this box, put the code on your own user page. Nhprman 21:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep; subst if deleted. Leaving editors alone is a good thing. Septentrionalis 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's not that big a deal. Lighten up. Thistheman 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. (I like mad scientists) -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Why are we wasting time with this when we have had so many non-neutral userboxes causing trouble? It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Funny enough to have it on my page. However I substed it yesterday with the following comment "(Mad scientist looks as a likely target, too.)". How did I know? Friendly Neighbour 06:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Wow, nice of you to speak on behalf of "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS," which are what, to disallow individuality and humor? How does this userbox hurt anybody? Who put you in charge of deciding "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS"? Give Peace A Chance 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Please don't substitute yourself to Wikipedia and don't define what our goals should be. Thanks. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is already explicitly stated on the userbox page about why it was kept. -- G.S.K.Lee 13:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- mad scientists should not be editing wikipedia --T-rex 17:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Many users like this template. þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 18:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Harmless userbox.Hezzy 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete and block those fools that made a lot of user boxes infinitely. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see the big deal, its just a userbox.User:Blind_Man Walking 18:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Strong Keep - Can I ask that you PLEASE look at what the majority of the community are saying and just leave userboxes alone - it is begining to reach disruptive in my opinion. Ian13/talk 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep A very nice userbox (Deng 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep - Unless they got them all, leave it alone. (not apparently divisive like Anti-facism template was ??? Sigh.) Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep the namespace should allow some humour... elsewise I'd spend more time on Unencyclopedia. - Roy Boy ^"800 03:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep On behalf of the Mad Scientist Association, I must recommend we keep this template. --Dan Asad 04:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It's important to underline that scientists in fact have no sense of humour. Oh wait...--Limegreen 12:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep, because do you really want to piss off a group of self-proclaimed MAD SCIENTISTS?!?! Not a smart idea. --Howrealisreal 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Have a freaking sense of humor. Geg 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Another attempt by the Wikipedia Secret Police to keep us down and flex their muscle. I'll be damn if I let them do this without a fight! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep We should have some humour on wikipedia and with the userboxes. I find it funny because it is so true. --Eddie ^{(talk/contribs)} 08:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep per all. Bucketsofg✐ 15:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Besides, how are we mad scientists supposed to declare who we are without bringing our work itself into Wikipedia? *POOF* BACK!!!! BACK YOU GIANT CHICKEN!!! "CLUCK! CLUCK! CLUCK!" --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep I am against your policy of less userboxes, Cyde. G eneral Image:Wikipedia minilogo.gif E i senhower 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User No Napoleon

Template:User No Napoleon
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Insanely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Take it out of template space. Nhprman 21:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep agree with BigDT Heltec talk
Keep; subst if deleted. Leaving editors alone is a good thing. Septentrionalis 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. (I don't like people who are not Napoleon) -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Why we don't focus on improve the Wiki instead of creating userboxes that permanently harm the server? —SHINING EYES 01:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Pleaqse find something better to do than WP:POINT because wikipedia is not a soapbox. It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Your time could be better spent reverting vandalism or creating articles... really its just a harmless user box Kingpomba 04:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete this serves no encyclopedic value. I agree with Doc. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 05:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Besides we seem to have at present too many little Napoleons dreaming of controlling every aspect of Wikipedia community. Friendly Neighbour 06:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC) updated on 08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. Please don't substitute yourself to Wikipedia and don't define what our goals should be. Thanks. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
KEEP. all these userboxes should be saved without actual arguments other than a cut-and-paste "userboxes that show any personality or tatse should be beaten and dragged through the streets, then tarred and shot." basically what i'm saying is that unless you have specific arguments with one's meniality, don't nominate 30 or so boxes up for deletion. viva la userboxen! --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 15:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes will only be truly saved if they are moved to the User space, where they are beyond the scope of reviews and deletions like this. Please see WP:MACK for the proposal to do this. Thanks. Nhprman 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep Oh but it's not funny, however lack of humour is not a reason to delete --T-rex 17:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep see aboveHezzy 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I am convinced this applies to everyone on Wikipedia. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean it's the least divisive userbox we have? So why do you want to delete it? Friendly Neighbour 08:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong KEEP - Good God, man, enough with the crackdown on userbox templates! This crap is really getting old, man! (Ibaranoff24 10:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC))
Keep. Deleting this userbox would violate WP:POINT.--M @r ē ino 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - This is false. Making a WP:POINT would be if the nominator had deleted ALL userboxes in the template space. This was an in-process, legitimate nomination. Nhprman 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP Another attempt by the Wikipedia Secret Police to keep us down and flex their muscle. I'll be damn if I let them do this without a fight! Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Bucketsofg✐ 15:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. You can thank Cyde and his Tfd proposals for keeping from finishing this. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 23:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Showing a sense of humour can help to make a person more approachable, and approachability is relevant to collaboration over encyclopedia articles. Zerrakhi 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Stronger Keep than whoever put this up for deletions delete I need to make an automated message for these stupid deletions Darth Rage 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User paranoia2

Just because I think everyone is trying to kill me doesn't mean they aren't. You know what I mean?

Strong Keep because it poses a complex question and, at the same time, is funny. The Updater
Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space. --Doc ^ask? 20:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Does not belong in Template space. Nhprman 21:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Nothing wrong with it. Dev920 22:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Encyclopedic goals should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to userboxes. --Emilio floris 22:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep; subst if deleted. Leaving editors alone is a good thing. Septentrionalis 22:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep This template is used in user pages. No need to delete it since its NOT used in ordinary wikipedian articles. Anonymous _anonymous_Have a Nice Day 00:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sigh I guess it's not been properly explained, but if this is "substituted" and deleted from Template space, it will still be available for use on User pages, just as text. It should not be in Template space, because that should be used strictly for articles. Right now, it's in the same "space" as articles. Please consider Subst'ing and Deleting this as a template. Thanks. - Nhprman 02:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep -- getcrunk juice ^contribs 01:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Pleaqse find something better to do than WP:POINT because wikipedia is not a soapbox. It seems some foolishness by people with nothing better to do has lead to a crusade against Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor If this is deleted its needs to receive a subst: on every instance of its use. Otherwise it is simply irrisponsible on top of foolish.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per WP:POINT Harvestdancer 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. I Lo ve Plankton ⁽^T^—^C^—^U^—^L⁾ 06:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Friendly Neighbour 07:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Keep Should be kept around, it's fine. [[User:Sapientia abhorreo imprudentia|s

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] May 13, 2006

[edit] Template:Pokemonusermadeimages

[edit] Template:ControversialArticle

[edit] Yet more userboxes

[edit] Template:User sumofpi

[edit] Template:User Sumofpi2

[edit] All userboxes below

[edit] Template:User sum

[edit] Template:User carbon

[edit] Template:User benzene

[edit] Template:User clownfear

[edit] Template:User ignorant

[edit] Template:User mad

[edit] Template:User No Napoleon

[edit] Template:User paranoia2

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search