< February 9	February 11 >

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 08:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unpopular proposal[edit]

Template:Unpopular proposal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template has no valid use. If a proposal clearly is "unsupported by the community," it's tagged ((rejected)). If not, it remains ((proposed)) until the outcome is clear. There is no intermediate state, nor should there be. Announcing that an active proposal is "unpopular" and "unsupported" is likely to unfairly prejudice discussion participants (just as it would be inappropriate to tag an active proposal "popular" or "supported"). Delete. David Levy 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - will just cause fights. -- Netoholic @ 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Template:Rejected says all that should ever need to be said in this regard. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it is being discussed, then the proposal has some support in the community. pstudier 20:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What they said. Dalf | Talk 23:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Use more often The problem with rejected is that it contains a notice against further editing. In fact is that a proposal made have been voted down in the first draft and need changes. This flag provides and opportunity for policies to be improved. The truth is that real laws take many drafts and are voted down many times before they are voted in. Benjamin Gatti 01:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no damage is being done while the policy is still a proposal so why say it is "unsupported"? Mikker ^... 19:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a proposal is still being proposed despite its unpopularity, keep ((proposed)), otherwise, just tag ((rejected)). No need for a template that combines the two very distinct circumstances. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael Slone (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as skewing/process-creep. Even assuming good faith, this serves no point. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Avi 01:20, 13 February 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 moot. This template was speedy-deleted by Guanaco. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DoNotDeletion[edit]

Template:DoNotDeletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
New, ungrammatical, unused and likely unneeded Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant with ((cleanup)). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN Circeus 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Superfluous. -Chairman S. 01:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DoNotDeletione this, per nom. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Utter rubbish. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 19:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Uh, delete, obviously, since I see no connection between anything in the template. Don't think it is BJAODN quality (but that's just me). Speaking of which... is it patent nonsense and a speedy? It doesn't make any sense, anyway. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael Slone (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Erm, from WP:CSD#G1: Patent nonsense: no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. It doesn't have meaningful content, because a cleanup tag is not going to stop an admin from deleting a page tagged with it. It also is horribly incoherent, perhaps unsalvageably. Speedy delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged as such. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per MarkSweep. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 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 moot. This template was speedy-deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User participant userbox war[edit]

Template:User participant userbox war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive, inflammatory, misleading, pointless, unencyclopedic. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, block User:Dussst for creating it. -- Netoholic @ 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete; we're all on the same side of the "war" to build an encyclopedia. This userbox encourages factionalism and has no business in the template space. Johnleemk | Talk 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. Placement in TFD is divisive, inflammatory, misleading, pointless, and anti-free speech; block User:MarkSweep for continued WP:POINT disruption. --Daniel 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not addressed the substance of this debate, so your opinion will have to be discounted. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy: WP:POINT is about disruption. We're supposed to be having a constructive debate here, which is hardly disruptive, unless we count your efforts to derail it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not address the "substance" of your TFD's, because it's pretty clear there is none. Rather, you are wasting Wikipedians' time and energy by listing broad swaths of userboxes, knowing fully well that the majority will never pass, in order to take the real policy debate on userboxes club and beat it to death with the cudgel of process.

As for "derailing" the debate - you are the one who is in the motorman's seat on this. That you have been so easily spotted as making a WP:POINT is your problem, which I am certainly not alone in recognizing. --Daniel 18:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • See Wikipedia:Free speech; there is no free speech on Wikipedia. I've speedied the userbox as a blatant attack template. TFD IS NOT A WAR. WE ARE ALL WARRIORS ON THE SAME SIDE IN BUILDING AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Johnleemk | Talk 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you neglect to point out that we are talking about templates strictly used in user pages where airing POV is not only allowed, but is part-and-parcel of why user pages exist.

And no, we are not all warriors on the same side when you have people like Mark Sweep attempting to filibuster an actual debate with unnecessary process. --Daniel 18:59, 10 February 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 (14k/9d/1o) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Telewest[edit]

Template:User Telewest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising. No encyclopedic or community value. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per discussions at Templates for deletion#Template:User_TWC. Also, disclosing where you get your news from can help disclose your bias, thus making you more accoutable to NPOV (and people can do that voluntarally!). Mark, please ease up on the anti-userbox campaign. Mike McGregor (Can) 09:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that Jimbo said chillout with the userbox deletion, yet nominator is flooding TfD with userboxes. --Dragon695 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not addressed the substance of this debate. Plus Jimbo never said we couldn't debate the deletion of templates. If you want to avoid this, stop creating boxes in template space. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I notice that no-one is attempting to delete the Operating System userboxes? Ck lostsword|^queta! 10:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. This is getting pretty annoying. And this userbox is not hurting anything. --Fang Aili 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the question posed above? The issue here is not whether this template is hurting anything. Per WP:TFD, templates that are not encyclopedic can be deleted. You haven't countered the claim that this temlpate is unencyclopedic. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. - TheKeith 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Stop flooding TFD with these userboxes to make a WP:POINT.--God of War 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stop flooding TfD with nominations that arent really needed - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per God of War. Nomination is blatant WP:POINT violation and thus invalid. --Aaron 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Intent of the nominator aside, I see no reason for this to be in the template userspace -- template space is for articles, not for stuff meant for use on userpages alone. I would support moving to userspace if anyone desires so. Johnleemk | Talk 17:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strog Keep per Fang Aili and God of War. --D-Day 20:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnleemk.--Alhutch 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. --Douglasr007 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete boxcruft --Doc ^ask? 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In what way is this encyclopaedic? I thought we were creating an encyclopaedia here. linas 05:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- I'm a userbox user/creator, and this is useless. Morgan695 22:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my promise to vote/nominate the other "TV-provider" uerboxes when they were found. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I'm sure this one too will be speedied... Things are getting predictable. Larix 09:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These kind of userboxes contribute nothing to Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is no much more of a case for deletion for TeleWest template than there is for any other ISP, television channel or radio. Only ISPs seem to proposed for deletion: so biased. Captain scarlet 08:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 08:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Fkmd 04:01, 18 February 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 (11k/7d/1o) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 08:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Freeview[edit]

Template:User Freeview (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising. No encyclopedic or community value. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per discussions at Templates for deletion#Template:User_TWC. Also, disclosing where you get your news from can help disclose your bias, thus making you more accoutable to NPOV (and people can do that voluntarally!). Mark, please ease up on the anti-userbox campaign. Mike McGregor (Can) 09:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that Jimbo said chillout with the userbox deletion, yet nominator is flooding TfD with userboxes. --Dragon695 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I notice that no-one is attempting to delete the Operating System userboxes? Ck lostsword|^queta! 10:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. Fang Aili 14:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. - TheKeith 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) and do not have an independent "right to exist". --MarkSweep [[U[reply]
• Strong Keep - Stop flooding TFD with these userboxes to make a WP:POINT.--God of War 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stop flooding TfD with nominations that arent really needed - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per God of War. Nomination is blatant WP:POINT violation and thus invalid. --Aaron 16:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as WP:POINT, why not delete all userboxes then, and see what responce you get. Regardless of whether you like them, they still have a right to exist. Ian13/talk 16:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • You're mistaken about the deletion process. If you re-read WP:TFD, you'll see that templates should be of encyclopedic value. Unlike articles, templates are a means to and endser talk:MarkSweep|(call me collect)]] 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What if the template pertains to userspace? Nothing about that. Super Speedy Dry Keep --D-Day 20:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing has a "right" to exist on our servers. They're here to provide for an encyclopedia, not for LiveJournal II. Rob Church (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete boxcruft --Doc ^ask? 01:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In what way is this encyclopaedic? I thought we were creating an encyclopaedia here. linas 05:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletehelohe (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my promise to vote/nominate the other "TV-provider" uerboxes when they were found. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I'm sure someone will speedy it. Things are getting predictable. Larix 09:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These kind of userboxes contribute nothing to Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Fkmd 04:02, 18 February 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 (9k/6d/1o) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User NTL[edit]

Template:User NTL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising. No encyclopedic value. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per discussions at Templates for deletion#Template:User_TWC. Also, disclosing where you get your news from can help disclose your bias, thus making you more accoutable to NPOV (and people can do that voluntarally!). Mark, please ease up on the anti-userbox campaign. Mike McGregor (Can) 09:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that Jimbo said chillout with the userbox deletion, yet nominator is flooding TfD with userboxes. --Dragon695 09:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I notice that no-one is attempting to delete the Operating System userboxes? Ck lostsword|^queta! 10:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. No reason to delete. --Fang Aili 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. - TheKeith 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Stop flooding TFD with these userboxes to make a WP:POINT.--God of War 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stop flooding TfD with nominations that arent really needed - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per God of War. Nomination is blatant WP:POINT violation and thus invalid. --Aaron 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete boxcruft --Doc ^ask? 01:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In what way is this encyclopaedic? I thought we were creating an encyclopaedia here. linas 05:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is maybe the least interesting information one can put on his userpage.helohe (talk) 12:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my promise to vote/nominate the other "TV-provider" uerboxes when they were found. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These kind of userboxes contribute nothing to Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Fkmd 04:02, 18 February 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 (9k/5d/1o) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Sky[edit]

Template:User Sky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Advertising. No encyclopedic value. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 07:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per discussions at Templates for deletion#Template:User_TWC. Also, disclosing where you get your news from can help disclose your bias, thus making you more accoutable to NPOV (and people can do that voluntarally!). Mark, please ease up on the anti-userbox campaign. Mike McGregor (Can) 09:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that Jimbo said chillout with the userbox deletion, yet nominator is flooding TfD with userboxes. --Dragon695 09:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I notice that no-one is attempting to delete the Operating System userboxes? Ck lostsword|^queta! 10:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. No reason to delete. --Fang Aili 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. - TheKeith 15:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Stop flooding TFD with these userboxes to make a WP:POINT.--God of War 15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stop flooding TfD with nominations that arent really needed - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per God of War. Nomination is blatant WP:POINT violation and thus invalid. --Aaron 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete boxcruft --Doc ^ask? 01:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In what way is this encyclopaedic? I thought we were creating an encyclopaedia here. linas 05:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, userboxes are not intended to build the encyclopedia because they are for user pages - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my promise to vote/nominate the other "TV-provider" uerboxes when they were found. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These kind of userbvoxes contribute nothing to Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Fkmd 04:02, 18 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comixpedia[edit]

Template:Comixpedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a Wikipedia sister project. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've reverted it to it's correct form. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Dread's comment and correction.Mike McGregor (Can) 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep corrected version. --Dragon695 09:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in compacted form: surely nominator could have done this himself instead of nominating yet another template for deletion? —Phil | Talk 11:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No brainer in its current form. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dread's corrected version. --Aaron 16:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - don't see a need for a template here, there won't be as many things linking to Comixpedia as, say, to Wiktionary et al. Add relevant external links to the external links section; create one if needed. Comixpedia could also be used as a reference. Concerned that people are misusing the feature just to save time. Rob Church (talk) 22:33, 10 February 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 Speedy Delete under CSD T1 by Tony Sidaway.--Alhutch 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against Iraq War[edit]

Template:User against Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive template. There's very little room for real-world politics on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox. This template serves no useful purpose, as it doesn't help us do a better job at writing an encyclopedia. And it's ugly, too. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Stop flooding TFD Mark! Why don't you just consolidate these into Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/userbox_templates_concerning_beliefs_and_convictions. Of course you can see what happened there. POV userboxes have been PROVEN to be acceptable by consensus. 86% of the people there voted to allow this kind of userbox. Give it up already.--God of War 03:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't provided any argument how this template does not violate WP:NOT. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, its not an article. Ian13/talk 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT applies to everything on Wikipedia, not just articles. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 04:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stop restricting freedom of speech. Give it up Mark!Arbiteroftruth 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no "freedom of speech" principle on Wikipedia. You have not addressed the claims of the nomination. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - irrational argument. --Dragon695 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not addressed the claims of the nomination. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It offers a useful insight into the user's POV. That way when he/she edits a related article, we know any preconcieved biases. I'm sorry, but nobody is 100% objective. Stating a strong opinion on your userpage alerts the community to a potential troublespot. I welcome anyone pointing out my mistakes if I happen to accidentally add my pov to an Iraq-war related article. Anyhow, userpages are not subject to NPOV. --Dragon695 09:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a user page. It's a template. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Userbox templates are intended solely for the use of Userpages. They are therefore very, very different from other templates, and cannot be arbitrarily mixed in with non-userpage templates on the assumption that they all follow the exact same rules; templates for articles and templates for userpages follow entirely different standards, with templates for userpages existing in a kind of nether-region between Wikipedia-space (based on organization), Template-space (based on mechanism and placement), and User-space (based on usage). In the exact same way, Category:Wikipedians and all of its subcategories do not follow the same rules as other Categories, such as NPOV, NOR, and verifiability and notability standards (though they still follow some civility standards, like userpages); they too exist in a strange area betwixt Wikipedia-space and User-space, and happen to be in the Category-space for purposes of practicality. This matter is much more complicated than you imagine it to be (and at the same time, much simpler). -Silence 19:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep POV is not banned - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 08:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per Dragon695's comment. I believe that users volunteering they're POV on they're user page makes them more accoutable to NPOV. Mark, please ease up on the anti-userbox campaign. FREE THE USERBOX! Mike McGregor (Can) 09:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Boddah 12:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon695. Free the userboxes! And the Iraqis, but that's another argument for somewhere other than the encyclopedia.  ;) Rogue 9 13:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - imho, this is exactly the kind of template that we should delete. to me, it is the kind Jimbo was referring to when he said that userboxes that divide us as wikipedians instead of uniting us towards the common goal of creating an encyclopedia should not be used. Trödel•talk 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mark, why not just get on with writing the encyclopedia? --Fang Aili 14:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Userspace is not NPOV bound, as has been said before, and this userboxes expresses a legitimate viewpoint in a manner neither insulting nor provocative. "It's ugly" is not a rational argument. "Jimbo said it sucks" is not a rational argument.In addition to that, I suspect that TFD nominations are very selective. How come this user box was nominated for delition, while this one has not been? And, for God's sake, stop claiming that userboxes delay progress of the encyclopedia. If the campaign against userboxes and free speech stopped, we would be contributing to the encyclopedia and sorting out POV questions on the talk pages now, instead of trying to save freedom of speech! Vargher 14:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have misread the nomination. This is template space, not user space. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - MarkSweep's TfD nominations can no longer be taken seriously, as he is in the middle of a major WP:POINT-violating campaign. --Aaron 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not provided any argument to refute the claims of the nomination. And remember that WP:POINT is about disruption. I'd stongly suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep --ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I created this template and I stand by its continued existence. --Revolución (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you haven't provided any actual argument for this template's continued existence, your opinion will have to be discounted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote can't be discounted. --Revolución (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I vote not because its ugly, our idol 'god' Jimbo tells us to or because I oppose userboxes. I do however think that it wllnot give any insight into a person, and will only separate. (And please, I do not need to be told what I think or how in your opinion my vote will be weighted. Thanks!) Ian13/talk 19:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Divisive, does not help the goals of the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The only people sicker enough than those who attack users on their talk page for having a userbox that disagrees with their views are the same ones who constantly put pointless self-serving Tfds on this page. --D-Day 20:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment please restore the template. It was deleted without consensus. --Revolución (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. But if you are against the Iraq War (as am I), just say so on your userpage. --Cyde Weys 20:43, 10 February 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 moot. Speedy deleted three times, as of follows :

• 10:56, 11 February 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User against Iraq War" (t1 'divisive and inflammetory' wp is simply not a campaigning ground)
• 05:24, 11 February 2006 Curps deleted "Template:User against Iraq War" (CSD T1, "divisive" templates)
• 04:05, 11 February 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User against Iraq War" (T1: Divisive and inflammatory)

- Mailer Diablo 10:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against Iraq War[edit]

• Dosen't this have another 6 days left before closing? how is it that its been deleated already? especally since there seems to be a strong consensus towards keep. Also, my understanding of the speedy deleat process is that a item can be speedied if there are no objections or controversy. That is obviously not the case here. Please restore this template so a proper discussion can occur. At this point it seems the "process" only applies when its convienent to those nominating templates for deleation. FREE THE USERBOX! Mike McGregor (Can) 23:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 votes to 5 in favour of keeping, and it was speedily deleted? Someone is seriously overstepping the mark here... As for this userbox being divisive, it's far less divisive that this petty, vindictive, anti-userbox campaign, which is currently leeching away a lot of the fun, community spirit of Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not speedied based on counting the votes in the debate, it was speedied based on the new T1 speedy deletion criterion which allows the speedy deletion of templates which are divisive or inflammatory. I would also request that you read the criteria for deletion on the WP:TFD page. Perhaps this will enlighten you as to why userboxes are being deleted. This is not a petty campaign to take the fun out of wikipedia. We have a policy about templates. Try to change the policy if you want, but for now, the policy should be followed.--Alhutch 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo was clear. See here. Don't go on delete sprees. Jwissick^(t)(c) 06:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why this template should only be deleted if it is both "divisive" and "inflammatory". If it is your opinion that it is divisive and inflammatory, then vote "speedy delete" on the userbox; realize that admins are allowed to vote and discuss these matters too, they don't have to ignore all discussion just because they can :). If a consensus for "speedy delete" is attained, it may be deleted. Otherwise, obviously people disagree with the idea that the template is "divisive and inflammatory"; such disagreements are understandable, and should be resolved through discussion, not through "might makes right" deletions and revert-wars (the template's already been restored, in fact, which is why a Deletion Review is unnecessary; simply reopen the TfD and let's continue, rather than adding a whole new level of bureaucracy to it!). Process is being misused here to stifle debate and circumvent consensus, and the letter of the law is being used to contradict the spirit; rather than trying to use force to override others' views, why not talk to them? The fact that not even one person had voted "speedy delete" (even though several voted for a normal "delete"!) in the above discussion shows that this deletion was excessively hasty; the option should have been suggested and discussed before it was initiated, and to do otherwise will only lead to much, much more argument and strife than a simple, dinky little box could ever cause.

I understand the concerns of people who oppose userboxes like this, and have no strong opinion one way or the other regarding this particular userbox, but I'm sure that there's a lot more worries among the Wikipedian masses about administrator-privilege abuse and misuse or circumvention of process than there is about some silly little box that criticizes a highly unpopular war. That's what's really getting people way more upset than this trivial matter merits: the fear that they are being shut out of Wikipedia discussions by a powerful minority. I'm perfectly aware that process is only a means to an end, not an end to itself, and I'd be the last to suggest causing Wikipedia harm just for the sake of process, but in this case it's causing Wikipedia more harm to ignore process, or to seek new ways to circumvent consensus (like interpreting new Deletion criteria broadly), and thus causing arguments about the arguments themselves!, than the actual userboxes themselves are causing. Show that the users' concerns about hasty, power-abusing, consensus-overriding Speedy Deletes is baseless by calming down, letting tricky discussions like these run their course (rather than assuming you're right and everyone else who voted is wrong), and then choosing the best course of action available based on the full TfD discussion, not on your own personal convictions and interpretations of complex policies and the exact scope of "divisive and inflammatory" (which is certainly not such a black-and-white and simple thing). Speedy-deleting userboxes like this early in their debate, while possibly justifiable by policy, is not ultimately in the best interests of the encyclopedia simply due to the amount of community unrest it will provoke. Valuable editors are vastly more likely to be driven away from Wikipedia by perceived process-abuse and frustration with TfD-vote circumvention than by being offended by some silly userbox someone has (though hopefully noone will be driven away by either, as both are humorously trivial); so I vote, strong cool-it. Thassall. -Silence 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was golden, Silence—well said. (Other than striking the unneeded POV highly unpopular, I couldn't have said it better myself.) – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, DB! Also, since this isn't an isolated incident, I should probably mention here (even though I've already rambled on for far too long, my apologies) a few other templates that need to be undeleted so discussion can continue: Template:User Anti-UN, Template:User Anti-ACLU, Template:User no Rand. Remarkably, none of these templates received even ONE vote for speedy deletion out of dozens of keep votes and a handful of deletes! (and GWB2 should very likely be undeleted too, at least until the discussion is finished; it only received a single "speedy" vote, and numerous votes specifically opposing the (mis)use of "speedy-delete" for this userbox.) I don't see what the big deal is about giving these five userboxes more time; "I don't support the UN" is hardly "I hate Jews".
• Wikipedia is based on common sense and consensus, and both are being violated here: common sense because it's obvious that speedy-deleting in direct violation of an overwhelming user consensus will cause nothing but more conflict, controversy, and edit-warring (and since the new Speedy-Delete Criterion was specifically created entirely as a means to try to avoid having those things happen (see Jimbo's justification for it: his biggest concern isn't the userboxes themselves, but the community division that may be caused by debates and edit-wars and conflicts over them, and that, ironically, is exactly what his new Speedy-Delete rule is being used to exacerbate by a handful of slightly overzealous, though well-meaning, admins), this usage of speedy-delete is in direct violation of the spirit, meaning, and purpose of the criterion, and even of the letter by most users' interpretations), and consensus because everyone who's bothered to participate in the discussion apparently disagrees with speedy-deleting, even the ones who voted "delete".
• If you wish to show them the error of their ways, then explain the situation to them (since it is indeed true that some may not yet be aware of the new change to speedy-delete policy) and see how many change their votes before rashly tossing aside an entire discussion! It's a much simpler and more pleasant way to handle these matters than simply ignoring the entire debate and going over everyone's heads to do what you want, whether you're ultimately right or wrong about the box itself!. While I'm sure that everyone here is interested only in doing what's best for the encyclopedia, remember that whatever short-term benefits may come from eliminating a Userbox now rather than waiting a couple of days to do it after discussion, there will be more long-term harm caused to Wikipedia if valuable editors are driven away or turned off by such jarringly unilateral and abrupt actions. What's so terrible about talking this stuff over for a minute before we pick our options, I ask ye? A few words over this and a couple more days in TfD to let things cool off and reach a proper consensus won't kill any babies; a measure of debate, disagreement, and discussion is healthy for a collaborative encyclopedia, not harmful. (And now I will finally get off the soapbox and shut up. Toodles.) -Silence 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I suggest that some of the people commenting above make similar comments over at the CSD talk page re:criterion T1? It's obviously causing more problems than it was intended to fix. Grutness...wha? 07:32, 11 February 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 (11k/6d/1o) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Bad Religion[edit]

Template:User Bad Religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with ((User band-3|Bad Religion)). We should prefer generic templates like ((User band-3)) over specific ones like this. If colors etc. are important, change ((User band-3)) to make it more configurable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepLet the Userbox project worry about this. If someone want's to go to the trouble of creating a userbox then let them. It doesn't bother anyone. It will be off in it's own userbox category sub-page where you can just ignore it.--God of War 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template should NOT be deleted. Are you nuts, Mark? Do you just hate my templates? You should be ashamed (if this template is deleted again). Sorry, if I was harsh. Alex 101 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't said why this template should not be deleted. As I've stated in the nomination, it is redundant. Unless you can offer a rebuttal, your opinion is irrelevant. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, Alex 101, it would appear that you're voting against the nominator and that you have not addressed the concerns raised in the nomination.--Alhutch 21:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - irrational argument. --Dragon695 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is exactly the same situation as with ((User Green Day)). Michael Slone (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally pov, there is no such thing as a bad religion. Mis-informed maybe but not bad.--71.28.250.210 09:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anons don't get to vote. Also, try paying attention; the box is about the band which is named Bad Religion, not about thinking religion is bad. Keep. Rogue 9 13:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep This template is much better. FREE THE USERBOX! Mike McGregor (Can) 09:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This userbox hurts nothing. --Fang Aili 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User band-3 was made as an alternative, only used if someone couldn't find a userbox specifically referring to their favourite band. I know, I made it - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Dragon695. --Aaron 16:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No evidence of harm. I find the argument that generic templates hould be preferred in this case overly tidy-minded: music fanboxes are an obvious place for hairy-to-generalise customisation. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete boxcruft --Doc ^ask? 01:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV-box (personal criterion). -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all POV userboxes. --CFIF 23:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Compromise with subpage?. D'know if this helps, but I created a subpage for specific band templates to reduce clutter.--Urthogie 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subsitute it. You can't pollute Wikipedia with user templates for every single band!
• Keep. oh so much more useful than Vash. aa v ^ 06:57, 18 February 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 (8k/4d) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Green Day[edit]

Template:User Green Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with ((User band-3|Green Day)). We should prefer generic templates like ((User band-3)) over specific ones like this. If colors etc. are important, change ((User band-3)) to make it more configurable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keepLet the Userbox project worry about this. If someone want's to go to the trouble of creating a userbox then let them. It doesn't bother anyone. It will be off in it's own userbox category sub-page where you can just ignore it.--God of War 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This template should NOT be deleted. Are you nuts, Mark? Do you just hate my templates? You should be ashamed (if this template is deleted again). Sorry, if I was harsh. Alex 101 03:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - irrational argument. --Dragon695 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that you've essentially said nothing at all? Per the TFD guidelines, redundant templates can be deleted. You have not addressed this issue, and I don't see you claiming that this template isn't redundant. Unless you start following the TFD process and engage in a debate of the substantive issues, your opinion will have to be dismissed. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you flood TfD, you can't expect complex answers. Besides, I don't see how my method of voting is any different than those who leve NO EXPLINATION AT ALL. So far, I believe Doc and Tony have voted in every single userbox case to delete with no substantive explination, so where's your outrage there? Anyhow, redundant would be having multiple Greenday userboxes saying the exact same thing. Having different ones for different bands is similar, but not redundant. Is it anymore redundant as having different Babel templates for different languages? You see, like Babel templates, it's about finding people who share common interests. I can go and run a "What links to this" and instantly find out everyone who has a greenday userbox. Say I wanted to edit or create an article about Greenday? Now I could find a whole lot of people that I could ask to review the changes I made. Perhaps I need more information on a subject which a greenday fan my be more knowledgable about (or could direct me to resources which explain what I want), I could leave a question on their talk page. You can't do that with metatemplates or subt: boxes, sorry. Please cut the crap and stop trying to invalidate opposing votes. --Dragon695 09:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be under the entirely mistaken impression that this is a vote. Let me assure you, it's not. It's a debate about the merits of particular templates. Unless you participate by addressing the substance of the debate, you may as well not say anything. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be under the entirely mistaken impression that the word "vote" inherently implies majority/plurality voting. Let me assure you, it doesn't. —David Levy 19:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are enough bands people might like that it's worth using something like a configurable ((User band-3)) instead of ten thousand ((User Foobandzi))s. Michael Slone (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per God of War, Alax 101. FREE THE USERBOX! Mike McGregor (Can) 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. However if the ((User band-3)) userbox can be made more configurable, that would be preferable over lots and lots of band userboxes. I think it's important to be able to change the colors, because who wants bright-and-shiny yellow for a band such as NIN? Not happening. --Fang Aili 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep User band-3 was made as an alternative, only used if someone couldn't find a userbox specifically referring to their favourite band. I know, I made it - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Dragon695, even though Green Day is the most overrated band of the last decade. --Aaron 16:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not addressing the central issue of this debate. This is not about whether Green Day is overrated or not. In fact, this has nothing to do with Green Day at all. I put it to you that this template is redundant. I encourage you to follow the WP:TFD process and debate this assertion on its merits, or else your opinion will have to be discounted as irrelevant. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He said "per Dragon695", meaning that he has the same opinion as Dragon695, so he is addressing the issue - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 17:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete boxcruft --Doc ^ask? 01:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV-box (personal criterion). -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subpaged. Dknow if this helps reach resolution, but I subpaged specific band templates so as to reduce clutter.--Urthogie 17:51, 13 February 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 moot. This template was speedy deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Anti-UN[edit]

Template:User Anti-UN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). See the criteria at the top of WP:TFD. Please provide arguments to support or refute this claim. Other comments may be discounted as irrelevant to the purposes of WP:TFD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The argument for deletion is not helpful or noteworthy. --Daniel 03:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will ask the closing admin to discount your opinion. You seem to have completely misunderstood the purpose of templates and the purpose of this discussion. Templates are supposed to help us in the goal of writing an encyclopedia. I'm asserting that this template does not meet this criterion. If you do not plan to address this claim, you may as well not participate in this discussion. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Give it a rest mark. Userboxes don't have to be encycolpedica. Also, you can't toss out arguments that you personally don't agree with.--God of War 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't userboxen have to be related to the encyclopaedia? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • God of War, have you read the criteria on the TfD page? They're pretty clear.--Alhutch 21:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - I'm pro-UN, but I respect the desire of some users who disagree to voice their opinions in their userboxes. --Dragon695 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all well and good, but we have a policy about templates being NPOV and encyclopedic. This template is clearly POV and unrelated to the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 21:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 04:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Censor Of Freedom Of Speech at it again. Give it up Mark! Arbiteroftruth 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - (looking at User:God of War) It's Déjà vu all over again. Is this a User:Tony Sidaway sockpuppet? Hey, Mark, this template is about as helpful as the one you proudly display on your userpage letting everybody know you don't speak Sumerian. In all seriousness, this template lets users know you have a strong personal opinion regarding a subject, that you may be interested in editing articles related to it, and may be source of information regarding what adherents to that opinion believe. So there. Nyah! Don't try to wikilawyer the Lawyer2b 04:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ;-)[reply]
  • All wikilawyering aside, this template violates policy. do whatever you like in your user space, but this is not user space we're talking about. This is template space. We have policies about templates. They have to be NPOV and encyclopedic. This one is clearly neither of those.--Alhutch 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Enough of this user box deleation... If you don't like it, tough! Jwissick^(t)(c) 05:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It's my right to dis-like the UN, and I am proud of it.SFrank85 05:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the proud creator of this template and ((User Anti-ACLU)) I consider them my babies. (sigh) Your comment makes me choke up with pride. (sniff) Who knew they would be loved by so many! (wiping tear from eye) Thank you.  :-) Lawyer2b 05:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Yeah, it's just a userbox, to be used on user pages. And how many user pages are even remotely encyclopedic? —Larry V 06:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to forget that per WP:TFD templates can be nominated for deletion if they're unencyclopedic. Userboxes such as this one simply don't belong in template space. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a rules-layer, stop gaming the system, and most of all please stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a point! We get it already, you don't like userboxes. However, there are many who disagree. Userboxes are not conventional templates and as such, a policy regarding them is being formulated over at Wikiproject Userboxes. Feel free to contribute to it, but please cut this nonsense out. --Dragon695 09:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sweep is following policy. That should be clear to anyone who is familiar with the policy at WP:TFD. He is most certainly not violating WP:POINT.--Alhutch 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Big old Keep I believe that users volunteering they're POV on they're user page makes them more accoutable to NPOV. Mark, please ease up on the anti-userbox campaign. FREE THE USERBOX! p.s. I love the UN, but keep anyway Mike McGregor (Can) 09:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep POV ok for userboxes Boddah 12:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because <snip massive personal attack that I'm thinking of right now>. Also per Mike McGregor. Rogue 9 12:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep A userbox is allowed to display a POV, also be a "negative" one. Anclation 13:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Actually, Mark, if you're so dead-set against userboxes, instead of nominating them one at a time, go the whole hog. Nominate WP:UBX and WikiProject Userboxes for deletion. Oh wait, you won't do that because you already know precisely how it would go and what that would mean for your attempts at nibbling away at the edges, don't you? Rogue 9 13:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is there a set policy yet for templates in the user namespace? WP:UBP Intangible 14:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These constant userbox TfDs are a waste of time. --Fang Aili 14:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I support the UN whole-heartedly, but I realize that those with a different view must have the freedom to express their thoughts. If this userbox was deleted, one would have to remove all other userboxes with a reference to the UN. I do not support that. Vargher 15:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I dont see a pro-UN userbox up for TfD. You have to have both sides of the argument, otherwise its bias - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've been convinced by the argument that userboxes should be NPOV. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw a sillier argument on an fD page once, but it was so silly that it escaped my mind immediately. TfD is not a vote. It is not enough to show up on TfD and say something silly and hope the little bold "keep" will see you through. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • MarkSweep has still not responded to the three examples above I give that are on point as to how templates like this are useful. Lawyer2b 17:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Nomination is WP:POINT violation and thus invalid. --Aaron 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm not against the UN, but I'm not against free speech either. --Revolución (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Free speech and WP:NOT. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I think anything 'anti' is not required. Ian13/talk 19:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep (anti-delete) Larix 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There will be nowhere to hide when they become corrupt. --IdeArchos 20:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this template is divisive and completely unrelated to the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after considering comments made throughout the day - I am going to have to go with too divisive and not related to our mission. Trödel•talk 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this, and all the other complete and utter shit cluttering up our servers. All right, so it's a negligible amount of disk, but let's face it; it's wasting time and space to keep whining about the things, and having people maintain them. Just gut the lot and have done with it. Then go back to writing something useful. Rob Church (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Dosen't this have another 6 days left before closing? how is it that its been deleated already? especally since there seems to be a strong consensus towards keep Mike McGregor (Can) 23:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC) what gives?[reply]
    • Because the admins have become corrupt. Any userboxes that I put on my userpage that end up being deleted, I will recreate them in my userspace. Try to censor that, fascists! --Revolución (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is unbelievable. Please calm down, there is no need for hysterics at this point. We have policies, and we are following. Please familiarize yourself with the policies at WP:TFD and WP:CSD before you start calling people fascists.--Alhutch 23:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it is unbelievable, and I'm not talking about the reaction. The template violated no policies. It is not a personal attack, as the UN is not a person, and it was worded civilly. CSD:T1 is invalid, instituted without consensus, and is possibly the worst thought out policy ever to plague this encyclopedia in any case. The new policy itself is more "divisive" than any templates it could possibly be used against. Rogue 9 00:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • • The template violated the policy at WP:TFD that says templates must be NPOV and encyclopedic.--Alhutch 00:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wow, they didn't even bother to insert the debate closing tags here. Is it time for a mass of RfA filings yet? --Aaron 00:09, 11 February 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 moot. This template was speedy-deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Anti-ACLU[edit]

Template:User Anti-ACLU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic). See the criteria at the top of WP:TFD. Please provide arguments to support or refute this claim. Other comments may be discounted as irrelevant to the purposes of WP:TFD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The argument for deletion is not helpful or noteworthy. --Daniel 03:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the criteria at TfD? They're pretty clear.--Alhutch 21:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Give it a rest mark. Userboxes don't have to be encycolpedica. Also, you can't toss out arguments that you personally don't agree with.--God of War 03:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not about userboxes, it is about templates. Per WP:TFD, templates may be nominated for deletion if they are unencyclopedic or tendentious (not NPOV). Accordingly, this template has to disappear. You of all people should follow policy and process here. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you saying? All userboxes have to go? Through numerous votes people have advocated for the continued use of userboxes. They have become accepted there. If you want to change this then you can propose a new policy to disallow userboxes. Nominating them one at a time is not the way to go about this.--God of War 03:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TFD is very clear. All tendentious templates have to go. If you want to have tendentious userboxes, you're free to code them directly on your user page, within the limits of WP:NOT and the user page policy. But not in template space. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - I'm pro-ACLU, but I respect the desire of some users who disagree to voice their opinions in their userboxes. --Dragon695 04:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Me too! I think the ACLU has done a lot of good. However, I will defend the right of other people to criticise.--God of War 04:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not about whether you're pro-ACLU or anti-ACLU or have some other opinion about the ACLU. It's about the fact that this is an unencyclopedic and tendentious template, and per the TFD policy it should be deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userpages don't have to be encyclopedic and they don't have to be NPOV. Don't you have anything better to do? --Dragon695 09:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a userpage. It's a template. There's a difference; the big ol' "Template:" in front of the page is usually a good indication. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and possibly move to userspace per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Censor Of Freedom Of Speech at it again. Give it up Mark! Arbiteroftruth 04:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - See comments at Anti-UN Template discussion above. Lawyer2b 04:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Enough of this user box deleation... If you don't like it, tough! Jwissick^(t)(c) 05:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have failed to follow the the WP:TFD process by not addressing the substantive issues of this nomination. I'm hereby asking the closing admin to discount your opinions. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you have failed to follow WP:DICK. You are intentionally aggrivating people by flooding TfD with userboxes. You know damn well that this is a highly contentious area and that efforts are being made to reach a compromise on a userbox policy. Making these nominations and/or deleting out of process only serves to piss people off and lead to general incivility. --Dragon695 09:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Pertaining to MarkSweep, I second that.--71.28.250.210 09:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, sockpuppets don't get to vote. --Dragon695 09:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: What Dragon695 said. (About MarkSweep's statements violating WP:DICK, not sockpuppets.) --Aaron 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I believe that users volunteering they're POV on they're user page makes them more accoutable to NPOV. Mark, please ease up on the anti-userbox campaign. FREE THE USERBOX! Mike McGregor (Can) 09:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users are free, within the limits of WP:NOT and the user page policy, to express their biases on their user pages. But not in the template namespace. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep POV ok for userboxes Boddah 12:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the criteria at WP:TFD. POV not ok for templates.--Alhutch 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mike McGregor (Can). Rogue 9 13:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. *yawn* --Fang Aili 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Userboxes are allowed POV - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy keep - Nomination is WP:POINT violation and thus invalid. --Aaron 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all userboxes. This vote brought to you the Userbox Deletionist Cabal. --Cyde Weys 20:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is getting silly. The nomination is not WP:POINT, it's according to policy which is clearly outlined on WP:TFD. This template is POV, divisive, and completely unrelated to the writing of an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after considering comments made throughout the day - I am going to have to go with too divisive and not related to our mission. Trödel•talk 21:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dosen't this have another 6 days left before closing? how is it that its been deleated already? especally since there seems to be a strong consensus towards keep Mike McGregor (Can) 23:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus towards keep is completely ignoring policy. All you have to do is read the policy outlined on WP:TFD. Also, there is a new CSD criterion which allows templates that are divisive and inflammatory to be deleted.--Alhutch 23:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not ignoring policy; one cannot make a personal attack against an entity that is not a person. And the new CSD guideline is bullshit of the highest order; it was instituted unilaterally and is itself far more divisive than this template or any other could ever possibly be. Rogue 9 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • CSD is not the only policy I linked to. Please take a look at WP:TFD. Templates are supposed to be NPOV and encyclopedic. This template is neither of those.--Alhutch 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should be aware (but I'll assume good faith and trust that you don't) that userboxes do not follow the same as article-space templates; they are in the same userspace only as a matter of convenience, and there is broad (indeed, near-universal) consensus that userboxes need neither be NPOV nor encyclopedic (though helping improve the encyclopedia or its community is a good thing, but that's esoteric enough that one shouldn't assume s/he absolutely knows what "helps the encyclopedia" when numerous others disagree), in the exact same way that User Categories do not subscribe to the same rules as WP:CfD. This speedy-deletion was out-of-process and is more likely to be divisive and inflammatory than the userbox itself, ergo it should be reversed before it causes a harmful metadebate. It's not worth just to kill off one pretty colored box; fifty more will take its place tomorrow anyway, so why not help contribute to creating a userbox consensus on one of the Userbox Policies out there, rather than trying to use force to override the views of people you disagree with? (Disclaimer: This segment is not especially directed at any specific user, but is just general advice.) -Silence 01:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please direct me to the policy that says Userboxes are exempt from rules about template space.--Alhutch 01:14, 11 February 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.