< June 5	June 7 >

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 -- Drini 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Lions[edit]

Template:User Lions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userbox not in use, neither is it substed since it included a (non-existent) category which contained nothing other than pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests (since removed by me). Shiroi Hane 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - stop trying to get rid of all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete unused —Mira 20:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. -MrFizyx 21:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep note that if this is deleted, it can be transcluded as follows: ((User:Boxhunter/Boxes/Lions)). --Boxhunter 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm --Hunter 03:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Pounce on it and snap its spine in a single blow. Unused. If template space is not the place for pov, it's definitely not the place for stupid jokes. (I thought this was the template that says "This user is a lion") --tjstrf 18:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 -- Drini 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Optimist[edit]

Template:User Optimist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userbox not in use, neither is it substed since it included a (non-existent) category which contained nothing other than pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests (since removed by me). Shiroi Hane 22:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - stop trying to get rid of all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete unused —Mira 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -MrFizyx 21:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep note that if this is deleted, it can be transcluded as follows: ((User:Boxhunter/Boxes/Optimist)). --Boxhunter 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since nobody uses this template --Hunter 03:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 19:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete if it's not in use, we don't need it, but no prejudice against recreation if anyone actually plans on using it. --tjstrf 18:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 -- Drini 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Moose[edit]

Template:User Moose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userbox not in use, neither is it substed since it included a (non-existent) category which contained nothing other than pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests (since removed by me). Shiroi Hane 22:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - stop trying to get rid of all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete unused —Mira 20:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -MrFizyx 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep note that if this is deleted, it can be transcluded as follows: ((User:Boxhunter/Boxes/Moose)). --Boxhunter 01:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. --Hunter 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 -- Drini 22:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User CircleK[edit]

Template:User CircleK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userbox not in use, neither is it substed since it included a (non-existent) category which contained nothing other than pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests (since removed by me). Shiroi Hane 22:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - stop trying to get rid of all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete unused —Mira 20:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. -MrFizyx 21:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. --Hunter 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we don't need userboxes for organizations with no members. --tjstrf 18:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 -- Drini 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Kiwanis[edit]

Template:User Kiwanis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Userbox not in use, neither is it substed since it included a (non-existent) category which contained nothing other than pages such as Wikipedia:Userboxes/Interests (since removed by me). Shiroi Hane 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - stop trying to get rid of all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

  If even a single user was using the userboxes I have nominated, I wouldn't even be here, but no-one is - not even the creators. Not only had the relevant (empty) categories not been created properly, all the nominated userboxes have had fair-use images removed which no-one has ever shown enough interest in to replace even with text. Had you even heard of "Kiwanis International" before coming here (I certaintly haven't), or are you simply against deleting worthless things on some sort of misguided principle? Shiroi Hane 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, actually, I have heard of Kiwanis International. This userbox is not harmful, though, so I am moving it to my user subpage. I recommend that all deleted or proposed deleted or speedy deleted boxes also be copied there. It will help to make everyone less uptight about deleting them. --Boxhunter 01:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  However, you name is not Ibaranoff24. Technically I don't think you can refer to a user sub-page when you don't have a userpage - which leads me to my question.. why is a brand new user who isn't even using any userboxes so concerned about them? Shiroi Hane 15:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? You haven't heard of Kiwanis? Nearly every town in the US has local chapters of Kiwanis, Circle K, and Moose. Now I'm wondering if I should have supported you on these. -MrFizyx 16:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm British. Shiroi Hane 11:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I can usderstand then. Seeing as they've already been saved on one or more user pages I suppose the delete won't do any harm. -MrFizyx 12:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-used and hence unmissed. If someone wishes to add a userbox category for charities, they can simply recreate it then. --tjstrf 18:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused —Mira 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -MrFizyx 21:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CameoAppearance 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. --Hunter 03:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 The consensus seems to be for the Portal -- Drini 22:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Physics Series[edit]

Template:Physics Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Physics subjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These templates are apparently a repeat of the rejected branchlist proposal. (See also Wikipedia:Root page.) This type of navigation tool has been endlessly discussed and rejected in the past, multiple times. Srleffler 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to proponents of this template: Check out the physics portal before you assert that this type of navigation tool is necessary or useful. Portals are a much better way to allow exploration of an entire field.--Srleffler 17:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This template is useful for Physicists. No need of deletion. See the inconvenience of Portal. -Austin Maxwell (user:Austin Maxwell)
• Dont Delete This template is very useful for physics students. It is more convenient than Physics portal. Physics portal covers the subject Physics only in general. But this template provides access to all the branches of Physics. It can be illustrated as Physics in a nutshell. I cannot agree with Srleffler and others. You are the administrators. Not users. Ask to the users about this template. Debate between administrators is not a good practice.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.88.236.202 (talk • contribs) .
  • Comment: This ip address appears to be a sockpuppet for user:Austin Maxwell, who has commented immediately above. Do not double-count this.--Srleffler 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to the comment about administrators: this is not an admin discussion forum. This is where the users discuss deleting templates.--Srleffler 12:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't make sense to me to have the same content repeated over many many articles. Maby just a single link? Zarniwoot 14:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • like a link to the portal?--Srleffler 05:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I know, that's the way it usually is. Maybe it should be at the top. Zarniwoot 11:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree with Srleffler. Template:Physics subjects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is not in fact being used and has lots of redlinks. I did work on Template:Physics Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to correct redlinks even when an anon changed "education" to "Education" and broke the link I had created. Nevertheless they are not really needed and the the physics portal tag should be added to all physics pages. --Bduke 22:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. I admit its quite pretty, and I applaud the idea of a series. If perchance it cannot be merged into the physics portal in any reasonable way, then perhaps it can be converted into a secondary physics portal, e.g. Portal:Physics series ? To be clear, what I'm voting on is a big NO to having big-honking nav boxes chewing up valuable real-estate and reader attention. linas 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I created ((Physics subjects)) in order to get a user to stop creating/adding this content to the Physics WikiProject template at ((physics)). (Informing that user of this TfD may be complicated by his/her apparent tendency to use several different IP addresses and usernames for the same edits.) Anyway, I'm not fond of this template as used, but I'm in favor of the content being maintained for possible use in the physics portal; it's also been suggested that it might be valuable as a horizontal template at the bottom of articles. -- SCZenz 06:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. At least in thermodynamics and quantum thermodynamics this template is completely un-necessary both in terms of content and the space it takes up. It might be good somewhere else but I don't know where?--Sadi Carnot 19:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a rather awkward listing anyway. I encourage SCZenz to pursue the physics-footer idea mentioned in his comment, but this thing has no business taking over the top-right corner of these pages. -MrFizyx 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Unless it is changed as in SCZenz' comment. At least change the image... Zarniwoot 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that two anon editors keep removing the TfD tag from this template. --Bduke 12:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of this template seems to use a different ip address for each editing session. He also creates user accounts that he uses for a short while and then abandons. I'm not sure if this is deliberate sockpuppetry, or if he just likes his anonymity.--Srleffler 18:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Because it is a helpful way to navigate through the physics study. I propose to Improveit—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justox dizaola (talk • contribs) .
  • Portal:Physics is, IMHO, a much better way to do that, and it doesn't use lots of space on each article. Zarniwoot 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Justox dizaola. jgp 17:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Particularly for those used to the normal portal links, it's not obvious that there is actually a link to the normal portal there. This sort of thing ought to be done through the portal, however the template looks to be more user-friendly at present, particularly for readers not familiar with physics. Brian Jason Drake 02:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If it can be modified to be a horizontal bar used at the bottom of pages then I would support it, but as it stands as a vertical bar it is far too obtrusive for use across multiple articles. SFC9394 11:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I suppose I wouldn't mind a horizontal template so much, but I think that this is terribly obtrusive as is. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 -- Drini 22:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Google services[edit]

Template:Google services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is not used and obsolete by ((Google Inc.)) that is now more generic. - David Björklund (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partial discussion: Template talk:Google Inc.

Partial discussion: Talk:Google#The_Google_Template_Box

• Delete Make sure all of the things on here are on the new template and delete. --michael180 16:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Michael180. --Disavian 18:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant template. --Terence Ong 03:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Differentiate the two - there have been edit wars previous to this! In fact, the template Google Inc. (which has been proposed as the replacement) has also been supported for deletion also - see Talk:Google#The_Google_Template_Box and Talk:Google#Delete Template:Google Inc. A great complaint with the Google Inc. template was that it was very messy and included many non-Google items (such as the book Google Hacks, which is still in the template for some reason).

I have further checked the history of the templates - Kesla has thankfully merged the upper portion of Google services into Google Inc. However, I still support the creation of two seperate templates - each one extremely different from each other.

• The first would be Google Inc., which would then be focued on the financial and popular aspects of the company - similiar to Template:Apple_Articles. It would include the sections of History, Acquisitions, Google Logo, and so on.
• Google Services, then would be more along the lines of Template:Apple hardware since 1998, which provides an easy to use navbox for quick navigating between pages. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep -- Drini 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User human form[edit]

Template:User human form (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
T1. This template is clearly divisive. It expresses an opinion which not everybody holds and which is offensive to many. The mere act of stating that a person has a belief is clearly divisive. We should remove all such statements from templates, articles, and user space. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is more of an appreciation, much like all of the TV series userboxes. Should we delete all of the Law and Order ones just because some people prefer one of them over the others? --Chris Griswold 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good luck deleting every userbox that has an opinion. I don't see why this would be offensive... It's not attacking anyone and, as ChrisGriswold said, merely expresses an appreciation. Grandmasterka 06:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per ChrisGriswold. It's a userbox, for crying out loud. --Coredesat 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep for WP:POINT attempt. --tjstrf 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WTF? Speedy keep as above. Sweetie Petie 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Template looks to me like a thinly veiled support for nudism, though I agree that this is not a T1 candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but encourage someone to adopt it into user space in line with the German solution. --StuffOfInterest 13:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Sigh. Again with the userboxes? Keep or German solutionit, whatever, just leave the damn things alone. They haven't kill anybody. Yet. --many Revolutions 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Userboxes are non-lethal. --Disavian 18:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as not T1, or Redirect and German Solution at User:Disavian/Userboxes/Human Form.
• Speedy keep. Agree with previous. Enoguh with the userbox freaking-out. K-UNIT 18:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Nominating this is lunacy. EVula 19:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This tfd is crazy. --Bsmntbombdood 19:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No more! —Mira 23:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Disavian. The German solution is also fine, however. jgp 01:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - textbook T1. It isn't what you say, it's how you say it. The obvious, inherent, and intentional implication of this userbox is that anyone who opposes gratuitous nudity sees a problem with the human form (whatever that means) and that there is something wrong with the opposing view. That's divisive and inflammatory. Expressing your personal opinion in a non-confrontational way is one thing. Expressing it in a SARCASTIC way or in one that BELITTLES the other side is T1. This userbox obviously was intentionally designed to belittle or satarize the arguments against pornography. As I've said eleventy billion times, I'm in favor of userboxes in general, but this one is an obvious T1 and ought to be speedied if there is going to be anything close to consistency. BigDT 01:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote this before I read the nominator's comments. Obviously, with WP:POINT comments like that in the nomination, it's never going to get a reasonable hearing as the nominator made it a referendum on userboxes. My argument stands, though - this TFD ought to be closed as a bad faith nomination and irrespective of that, the template ought to be speedy deleted T1 BigDT 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the creator of this userbox, I thought I'd step in and simply say that your analysis of the intent is completely incorrect (irrespective of what this means for a speedy delete). Dylan 04:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question What is T1? Sweetie Petie 08:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply T1 is template speedy deletion criteria one, which essentially states that any template which is "divisive and inflammatory" in nature can be deleted. Depending on how widely or narrowly you interpet this statement, this could apply to everything from blatently insulting or hatespeech (narrow) to any template which expresses a POV. See WP:T1D for additional info on the arguments surrounding it. --tjstrf 08:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks I don't see how this is divisive or inflammatory at all. Sweetie Petie 08:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Canæn 08:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep We should be able to express how we feel. ISD 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep YAUBD (yet another user box debate) --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - stop trying to get rid of all the userboxes! (Ibaranoff24 18:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep until The German solution is implemented (then delete). -MrFizyx 21:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--Mexicansky 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's "divisive." I don't want to burn people who use it alive--or even be inclined to assume bad faith--even though I do disagree with its meaning. Sophy's Duckling
• Keep per above. Dylan 04:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Expresses a POV that is unlikely to offend any sane person, so not divisive. Loom91 06:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, obviously WP:POINT. - furrykef (Talk at me) 09:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ibaranoff24. Stop trying to ban, ban, ban. Some people are just fun-governors. —MJCdetroit 16:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and replace with notice since it is already usefied per WP:GUS --Hunter 03:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I have restored the out-of-process userfication. Please don't do this again. This UBX is in policy. John Reid 20:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 -- Drini 22:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jordanelder[edit]

Template:Jordanelder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A signature shouldn't have a template. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 20:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally unnecessary, would be faster to type the four tildes!! Grandmasterka 23:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. --Coredesat 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. -MrFizyx 21:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, and inform the user of how to make his signature show up whenever he types in four tildes - a lot of users have no idea how to do that. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I guess four tildes or copying/pasting is better. Jordan Elder 03:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC) <--- And I do know that![reply]
• Speedy Delete per sense. EVula 03:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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