< February 13	February 15 >

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 by Physchim62 (02:53, 19 February 2006 Physchim62 deleted "Template:User Unionist" (T1)) - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Unionist[edit]

Template:User_Unionist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
POV userboxes on user pages will no doubt cause disruption on wikipedia if a page is altered by someone with this box or any other politically motivated user box it attracts the wrong people and possible revert wars. Alibabs 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It has already been established that "controversial" is not a deletion criteria for userboxes as long as they are not deliberately confrontational. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Oi! I've already put in my Profile that I'm a Conservative. Therefore I am also a Unionist (ever heard of the "Conservative and Unionist Party"- our party's full title?) If you want to get rid of free speech on Wikipedia go ahead! But if you want more that one-party politics on Wikipedia reinstate this link! —AlbertW (AlbertW) 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't want ANY politics on Wikipedia; we're not a democracy, or a micronation, or any of those things. We're an encyclopedia, and divisiveness has no purpose here. If you need to identify your political orientation, please do so on your userbox in your own words, as I doubt you agree 100% with every single thing the CaUP says and does. -- nae'blis _(talk) 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Enough with the userbox deletionism already. -Xol 02:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Admonish nominator, for the same reasons stated in the deletion nomination of ((user Irish Republican)), to wit, this is a notable point of view, the expression of which will help editors understand each others' biases, leading to a more neutral encyclopedia; moreover this is an example of a userbox so much more divisive to nominate for deletion than to place on a user page. Shame! --James S. 03:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cuiviénen. Chairman S. | Talk 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per james S. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cuiviénen. —Andux^␅ 14:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I dont think something like uniting the UK (which has already happened) is going to spark a fury of rage into someone just because they see a userbox about it - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Discourage POV boxes if you must but don't purge them. --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Obviously - Bad faith nomination--God of War 20:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Admonish nominator. There is no call for deletion of the box above the Irish Republican one (on the page Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics), which merely suggests Irish Nationalism, and is on a par with Irish Unionism. Had it been "User is a Loyalist" I might have had another opinion. Incidentally, there is no apparent template for the aforementioned box. --Mal 11:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cuiviénen. --Terence Ong 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - TheKeith 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cuiviénen. --Dragon695 02:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep

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 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MLB HoF[edit]

Template:MLB HoF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was using a fair use image. I deleted the image and just turned it into a text line, but now that is creating a lot of awkwardness in the linked pages. But the template is unncessary because, from what I can tell, the linked articles already mention and/or categorize the players as Hall of Fame members. delete. --Fang Aili 23:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and find a non-infringing image -- perhaps an image of the Museum or of one of the plaques. I think this template is an important one to keep, since it quickly and prominently identifies a member of the Hall of Fame. Jpers36 00:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have sent an email to the Hall of Fame to see whether they will release the logo for Wikipedia's use in this manner. The text of my request is available on my userpage. Jpers36 19:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image that was used was the Hall of Fame logo; I suspect the plaques are all copyrighted, so using an image from one of them would probably be less acceptable than the old logo. MisfitToys 00:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I don't see the point of this; all the hall of fame members are already categorized, and as their baseball career is almost always their only or at least their primary claim to fame, this template is unnecessary. --Spangineer (háblame) 05:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; see Jpers36, above. Having a prominent identification of HoF players is preferable to simply linking the Baseball Hall of Fame article in a sentence. --Ebayjay 09:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template serves no purpose not already served by categories. Encyclopedias are not made up of little tags that say "This x is a y". --FOo 10:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful template to quickly identify HoF members. No Guru 06:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons cited by Ebayjay, assuming a suitable image can be found. -Colin Kimbrell 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons cited above. It is an easy way to identify Hall of Fame Members, as well as a solid launching pad for the HoF itself. Players elected to the Hall become part of something larger - this template helps identify that, in what I believe is the appropriate spirit. If permission is not granted to use the logo, surely another image cen be found, either a picture of the Hall, a new image of a baseball, or something else for which permissions may be obtained. --Chancemichaels 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]
• Keep, for most of the reasons cited. The HOF logo is not being used here commercially; the HOF wouldn't have a basis for objection if it objected. Besides, I've busted my hump on the Joe DiMaggio page. User:no ID, 21 February 2006

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Breed[edit]

Template:Breed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template, as far as I can see. TexasAndroid 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused (appears to have been created for a subsequently abandoned editting effort.) – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doug Bell. Mikker ^... 20:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unused - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:51, 15 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 deleted as patent nonsense. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:19, Feb. 14, 2006

Template:Authjwpuppet[edit]

Template:Authjwpuppet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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 SPLIT, not actually a seeming request for deletion. -Splash^talk 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Semi-vegetarian[edit]

Template:Semi-vegetarian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template has been split into ((User_pesco/pollo_vegetarian)), ((User_pescetarian)), ((User_pollotarian)) Fasten 12:58, 14 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 deleted by Physchim62 (02:54, 19 February 2006 Physchim62 deleted "Template:User Irish Republican" (T1)) - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Irish_Republican[edit]

Template:User_Irish_Republican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete . Alibabs 05:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC) POV userboxes on user pages will no doubt cause disruption on wikipedia if a page is altered by someone with this box or any other politically motivated user box it attracts the wrong people and possible revert wars. reason updated Alibabs 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no reason for deletion given. Angr/talk 07:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. Chairman S. 09:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. —Nightstallion (?) 10:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly userfy. —Andux^␅ 12:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. Superdude99 14:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. Looks like this nom might also be a WP:POINT violation by a Unionist. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not Paisleypedia. --Daniel 18:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. No listed nominator, either. --Fang Aili 19:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So, comments against the deletion of a template identifying people as Republicans citing that it might be Yet Another Unionist Plot. There so has to be a joke in there somewhere. 20:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Given that I'm not even irish, I think I can be neutral. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Mikker ^... 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep no question at all Mícheál 21:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. Enough with the userbox deletionism already. -Xol 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a notable point of view, and its expression will help editors understand each others' biases, leading to a more neutral encyclopedia; moreover

• Admonish nominator for this, perhaps the best example of a userbox so much more divisive to nominate for deletion than to place on a user page. Shame! --James S. 02:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep discloses editors POV allowing other editors to understand it, which is a good thing. Mike McGregor (Can) 08:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Theres nothing wrong with it! I wish people would stop flooding TfD with unneeded nominations - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Stupid nomination. --Tiocfaidh Ár Lá!
• Keep These userbox deletion nominations cause far more disruption than any userbox ever could.--God of War 20:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not any more disruptive than any other user box. Joeyramoney 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. --Terence Ong 15:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - TheKeith 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Angr. --Dragon695 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Angr. --Mal 07:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mostlyharmless 05:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the userbox go? WHo deleted after it was made clear the majority wanted to keep it? ALso, the Unionist box, the Basque Country box, Catalonia, Scotland, wtf? --Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 13:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I do modify it. as somebody can not count. helohe (talk) 23:32, 22 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 delete. -nMailer Diablo 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox[edit]

Template:Campaignbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, not necessary now that ((Battlebox)) has been replaced by ((Infobox Military Conflict)). —Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominated, deprecated. --Loopy ^e 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SoLando (Talk) 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 20:38, 14 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Battlebox[edit]

Template:Battlebox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used on any articles, obsoleted by ((Infobox Military Conflict)). —Kirill Lokshin 03:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominated, deprecated. --Loopy ^e 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete SoLando (Talk) 04:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Off to the trashcan -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 04:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 20:39, 14 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 delete - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Siege of Pleven[edit]

Template:Campaignbox Siege of Pleven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by ((Campaignbox Russo-Turkish War, 1877-1878)). —Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominated. --Loopy ^e 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 20:40, 14 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 delete - Mailer Diablo 02:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Battles for Shipka Pass[edit]

Template:Campaignbox Battles for Shipka Pass (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by ((Campaignbox Russo-Turkish War, 1877-1878)). —Kirill Lokshin 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominated. --Loopy ^e 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 20:40, 14 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 deleted. — Feb. 20, '06 [00:54] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Template:Elections1704-DE[edit]

Template:Elections1704-DE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is just a paragraph of text. Unnecessary and should just be pasted into the article. JW1805 (Talk) 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chairman S. 05:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I created and placed the template, agree with the basic point, and am in the process of doing just that. I would appreciate the courtesy of some time to implement as there are several articles. It would also be appreciated if the distracting message went away. stilltim 18:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all links removed. stilltim 21:18, 14 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 ditto. — Feb. 20, '06 [00:55] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Template:Elections1776-DE[edit]

Template:Elections1776-DE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is just a paragraph of text. Unnecessary and should just be pasted into the article. JW1805 (Talk) 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chairman S. 05:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I created and placed the template, agree with the basic point, and am in the process of doing just that. I would appreciate the courtesy of some time to implement as there are several articles. It would also be appreciated if the distracting message went away. stilltim 19:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all links removed. stilltim 03:59, 15 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.