< February 3	February 5 >

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UrsulineDallasStudent[edit]

This userbox template looks nice, but is totally unused and unnecessary so it should be deleted. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 21:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is only a week old. I'm sure someone will come along and be appreciative of this.--God of War 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't they teach math in schools anymore? This was created in early January. It's a month old, and no one is using it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Larix 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many specific schooling userboxes, and they havent got put up for deleted. And, as said above, its only a week old, give it a chance! - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | •
- Don't they teach math in schools anymore? This was created in early January. It's a month old, and no one is using it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)^{T | C} 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as no one is using it, it looks useless to me. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused templates make template space unmaintainable. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Not enough time has elapsed. Either contact its creator and find out what the story is or try again at a later date. --Dragon695 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dragon695. --F a ng Aili 04:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Doc ^ask? 09:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on, this isn't even one of the dreaded political userboxes. If you saw 'I am from the Ursine Academy of Dallas' in the text of someone's userpage you wouldn't go to 'edit' and remove it, so why delete this? As for 'no-one uses it', in the case of a week-old template that's circular logic. Why is it being deleted? Because no-one uses it. Why does no-one use it? Er... maybe because it's going to be deleted? --Malthusian (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't they teach math in schools anymore? This was created in early January. It's a month old, and no one is using it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- perfectlly acceptable, but no one is using it --T-rex 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dragon695 Boddah 19:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it will be appreciated when found. It remains harmless. --Dschor 23:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We should encourage high schools students to contribute academically to Wikipedia. BlueGoose 03:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, delete. Some of the people on the keep side are deliberately lying, or mistaken, about this template. Something like the stub-sorting projects' proposal system may be needed to keep the cruft down. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:02, 9 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 REDIRECT to Underconstruction. -Splash^talk 23:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UnderCon[edit]

This orphaned template is redundant in the extreme. ~MDD 46 96 20:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Er, yeah, this is a wiki. -- Mithent 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. -Chairman S. 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template:Underconstruction. —Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((Underconstruction)). xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((Underconstruction)); redundant. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((Underconstruction)); redundant. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless its non-short-term utility can be shown... Tom e r ^talk 09:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When arent things under construction on Wikipedia? - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((underconstruction)), like others have said. It sounds like a pretty good shortcut. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ((underconstruction)) – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:37, 6 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. This just about crosses the two-thirds level, but those who would delete it make, to me, rather more persuasive arguments than those keeping. Remember that templates are not articles, and we don't lose any encyclopedia (usually) in deleting one. I get the impression that, perhaps, with careful rethinking some scheme incorporating a future-rewrite of this may come to be but, for the time being, those who would use it appear to think it should go. -Splash^talk 23:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Axiom[edit]

There was a discussion a while ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics about using those in math articles, and people thought they were ugly. I nominate this for deletion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A priori it was a plausible notion to give axioms some sort of visually distinct status, but it just doesn't look good. (There's also no clear inherent distinction between axioms and other propositions, so I'd see it causing problems even if it did look good.) --Trovatore 19:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugly box, and not very useful. - Gauge 23:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately. -lethe ^{talk +} 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it looks good, and it's useful to make important things (like axioms) stand out visually. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 03:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit to make it look nicer (perhaps a tasteful pastel background?) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - change the template to just (({1))} if you want to clear the formatting, but having the template already in use is good for when someone does find a good way to format the axioms. --AySz88^-^ 04:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in that case it still shouldn't be called "axiom", because there's no good way of distinguishing between axioms and other propositions. For example the current debate was triggered when Schnee added the box to continuum hypothesis. It's possible, of course, to work axiomatically from CH, but it's sorta rare, and even when it is done, people don't ordinarily call it an "axiom". (There's an odd contrast here with the axiom of constructibility, which most set theorists with an opinion on the matter believe to be false, but for some reason is given the name "axiom"; I'm not really sure why that is.) As another example, consider Zorn's lemma versus the axiom of choice; they're equivalent in ZF, but Bourbaki perversely takes Zorn to be the axiom. So which one gets the template? --Trovatore 07:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - They really should all be called posulates, but it's kind of established that a formalisation of a theory is given by a logic plus axioms. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the point is that there's no general agreement about what formalization is being used, even when everyone is talking about the same subject matter. --Trovatore 02:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. linas 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. A template for axiom/theorem/lemma/corollary may be helpful, (without the purple-lined box), but this one is not. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. >Radiant< 20:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though having a style guide that makes use of templates for definition/lemma/theorem stanzas would be a good thing, I think. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but edit. As several people voting to delete have pointed out, this is not a bad idea, just ugly. So I vote to edit it to make it look better instead of deleting. I agree with Charles Stewart that using templates for styles for various types of elements is a good use for templates. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:41, 6 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 NO RESULT. Renominate on SfD if you like. -Splash^talk 23:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Organic-compound-start and Template:Inorganic-compound-start[edit]

I've nominated these two stub-like templates at WP:SFD. Not quite sure they belong there, though, please take a look. Conscious 10:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They look like stub templates to me; let WP:SFD handle them. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:32, 5 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. -Splash^talk 23:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-DPRK[edit]

A template similar to this was created at the Wikimedia Commons. However, as it was discussed at Commons:Deletion_requests#Template:PD-DPRK, works before 2003 made in the DPRK are not automatically PD, so this template is misleading and not correct. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 07:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comments at Commons:Deletion_requests#Template:PD-DPRK convince me this template is not accurate. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:26, 5 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 Shanel 14:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mohammed[edit]

This template has no purpose but to criticize other users' views on a specific topic. It also speaks of a Wikipedia policy that does not exist. joturner 04:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see the current discussion on WP:AN/I. Several individuals said that they would block (or support blocks) for removing the image after one warning. If that is indeed going to happen, then it is helpful to have a warning template that doesn't simply accuse the user of generic "vandalism", but instead both (A) expresses sympathy with their concern, and (B) warns them that they may nonetheless be blocked if the behavior continues. If your concern is that these blocks are against policy, I think you have a good point, but remember that Wikipedia also works on consensus and that the consensus is very clearly that the image stays. If you want, we can start an official policy discussion (Wikipedia:Mohammed image use policy?) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good faith effort to deal with a serious problem. Gamaliel 04:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see (weak keep). This template is much too specific. We may or may not need a template which points out that WP:NOT:censored, and if we do need such a template, let's keep it generic. The present template is only applicable to a handful of articles, but warnings for specific articles can be placed in the article itself using comments (see George W. Bush for an example). However, it has a useful purpose for the time being, so let's make sure that it doesn't strike any wrong notes and keep it for now. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Speedy rename and reword. The current name is insensitive and uninformative. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Feel free to rename and/or reword it if you think that would be helpful. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even after this current event dies down, the article and potential for reversions will remain. But we can rename and reword if there are any issues with that. NoSeptember ^talk 04:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per discussion on ANI. If this ruckus dies down, we can delete it then. Johnleemk | Talk 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Userspace templates have a very high threshhold for deletion and this one doesn't come close. —Cyde Weys 2006-02-04 05:45Z
Keep. Necessary. Useful. Effective. Accurate. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is repetitious of the disclaimers. Wikipedia is not censored and you may find images you don't like. I see no reason to specifically warn users about it. -- I read tje discussion on ANI... I don't think this is necessary but pragmatically maybe. I stick by my opinion to delete but consensus overrules, obviously. gren グレン ^? 06:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Cyde Weys, Jtdirl and Gamaliel. --Aaron 07:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all others Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wiki isnt censorship is it? Fkmd 12:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep this is a vandalism warning notice for unconstructive edits on a particular high profile article. We wouldn't delete ((Test5)) would we? ALKIVAR™ 14:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The article is being vandalized more than any other article has ever seen. As Johnleemk said, let's discuss discontinuing this template when the fuss has died down. But for now, this is a vital template in maintaining policy and consensus on a sensitive subject. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 14:12, 4 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.

February 4, 2006

Template:User UrsulineDallasStudent[edit]

Template:UnderCon[edit]

Template:Axiom[edit]

Template:Organic-compound-start and Template:Inorganic-compound-start[edit]

Template:PD-DPRK[edit]

Template:Mohammed[edit]