< March 5	March 7 >

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

The result of the debate was delete. However, since this template is being replaced by Template:World gym champs, it will be re-created into a redirect to that template to prevent other users or the original creator from creating it again. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

Template:World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am nominating these templates for speedy deletion because I have just replaced them with Template:World gym champs. There is no reason to keep them. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, this doesn't appear to meet any criteria for speedy deletions. Pepsidrinka 03:55, 9 March 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. However, since this template is being replaced by Template:World gym champs, it will be re-created into a redirect to that template to prevent other users or the original creator from creating it again. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World Artistic Gymnastics Championships[edit]

Template:World Artistic Gymnastics Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am nominating these templates for speedy deletion because I have just replaced them with Template:World gym champs. There is no reason to keep them. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 22:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, this doesn't appear to meet any criteria for speedy deletions. Note, you could have just combined both nominations into one nomination. Pepsidrinka 03:56, 9 March 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. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fork of Template:Logo. —Cryptic (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So is someone going to change Logo to allow the sub-category to be specified? Or do you want them to go back to using Template:Sports-logo and the like? --JeffW 23:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If the functionality is moved into ((logo)), then delete. If not, then we need this template to clear out Category:Logos (which is far too big). SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Logo2 isn't a fork, it's a byproduct of being unable to locate an admin to make changes in the original logo template (which is protected). Currently both templates are up for deletion. I think the editors (including myself) doing the logo sorting basically just want the text of temp:logo replaced with the text of temp:logo2.--Esprit15d 18:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move optional functionality into ((Logo)) per comments above. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:01, 8 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redir from US postal ab[edit]

Template:Redir from US postal ab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is heavily used; if anyone can show the slightest value in it I'll withdraw my objection. Its only function seems to be to add a cat to a rather uninteresting kind of redirect. John Reid 19:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, potentially slightly useful. Via editing this template, it is for example easy to change whether these redirects should be in the "unprintworthy redirects" category or not. That can of course be done with (sub-)categories alone, but I don't see any advantage in subst'ing all the uses of this template. Kusma (討論) 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the purpose of the cat is to group this type of redirect because it is so uninteresting -- therefore perhaps to be excluded in some theoretical print version of the project? I can't quite see value in that (especially as it is quite unthinkable ever to print the project in anything like a comprehensive version); but I'll go so far as to agree someone else might. John Reid 04:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: these redirects are "boring", and classified as such. I can't tell you what exactly the creators of the template were planning to do with it, though I am willing to believe they knew what they were doing. About printing: the German Wikipedia (which is about 1/3 the size of the English) is going to print, see for example here. Kusma (討論) 04:09, 9 March 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 kept -Frazzydee|✍ 02:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Academy Awards Chron (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Listify: The biggest problem I see on this navigation box right now is there are currently way too many red links (ie there are no articles). Other templates have been deleted in the past because of the excess of red links. If someone is willing to create the articles, I will change my mind, but until then the template should be removed for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Is it possible to hide the box from the page in the meantime, rather than simply deleting it entirely? I'd recommend keeping it, in spite of the red links. MisfitToys 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd like to see it kept - maybe spruced up a little bit. I think the biggest problem I see with it is that about 50% of the years link to empty pages. I'll try to fill a few of those in, but I can't do it all by myself. If someone wants to help, let me know./Will1410 23:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Important Nav Template. JonMoore 23:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The red links may inspire cinema buffs to do the research and fill in the gaps. I personally could not care much less about the Academy Awards and their history --- but 40 or 50 million people do watch them every year and the news is dominated for about about a week or two every year ... and they receive inumerable references throughout the rest of the year. So they are clearly as important a cultural phenomenon as any of the specific works of drama and fiction that are included in Wikipedia. Wiktionary not withstanding Wikipedia has certainly blurred the lines among almanac, gazetteer, lexicon and encyclopedia and I expect it to continue to do so and I see benefits that arise from it as well. JimD 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It'll grow. jengod 00:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If anything, the redlinks are good, as they make obvious how much work is needed in what should be a "fun" popular culture area. Redlinks help us grow. Xoloz 02:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: red links will recede over time. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I made the templete so can't anyhow say I want to deete it. About the fact that currently there are many red link is due to incomplete wikipedia information about Academy awards. Very soon all the pages will be there and so there no point about the red links. I couldn't put up all the pages because of lack of time. I conceived it as being a faster method of travelling through timeine than the already there previous - next navigation. which will soon loose its purpose. There is such a naviation table for Grammy Awards too. Vivek 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 11:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It'll grow. --Tone 14:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above users. Deckiller 22:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I concider it a unanimous decesion and there fore remove the to be deleted tag. Vivek 00:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the discussion is currently unanimous, as a general rule we keep TFD, CFD, and AFD debates open for the full 7 day time period. Please do not remove the TFD tag beforehand. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling and sorry for ignorance. Vivek 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sue Anne 06:45, 12 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wstress5[edit]

Template:Wstress5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I am the creator of this template which is now redundant to ((wstress3d)). All uses have been converted to the alternative template. Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as per nom. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 03:20, 8 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antarctic expeditions sidebar[edit]

Template:Antarctic expeditions sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(2 delete, 4 keep)

DELETE - Template is outdated, to large and offers only minimum information, replaced by List of Antarctica expeditions, which can be added to articles ==See also== section. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, simply because something lists history doesn't make it "outdated". It is a side-running Template, so length really isn't an issue since it's not longer than any of the articles, and a "See also" serves a very different purpose than a Template. If you feel it needs to be updated, feel free by all means to add to it. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The purpose of the template is note Antartica expeditions, if we add them all it will be a mile long, hence the need for a list on it's own page. The template is no longer meaningful, as it does not provide enough information. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 01:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, looking at the list there have been 36 expeditions in the past 300 years. The template only seems to cover the 20th Century, which cuts out 11 of the expeditions. This means 25 missions total, of which the template currently lists 19. I don't see how that makes it "outdated" or "too large". Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 01:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the list is only just starting it will have many more links, when I have the time. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, worth noting that nominator SirIsaacBrock has been reverted (not by me, by others) for mass-blanking the template twice in the past, for some reason has an inexplicable hate of a WP Template :Þ Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 08:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Remember to WP:AGF, Sherurcij. He didn't know what the process was to delete, and so after he mentioned it on the talk page, and nobody objected (albeit it was only 4 hours), he tried to delete the page by blanking it. --Rory096 18:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, worth noting that the creator User:Sherurcij of the template is claiming ownership and making childish accusations. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 11:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• expeditions sidebar&diff=42398714&oldid=42398521You know that Wikipedia expeditions sidebar&diff=42393171&oldid=42393051 logs everything, right? :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 03:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all comments above. CG 11:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While this template may not be ideal, it's still useful. I like having a side-running template to tie all the articles for Arctic expeditions together. I would like to advocate for improving the current template, rather than doing away with a template altogether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CKA3KA (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, possibly reconsider the choice of expeditions and topics that should be listed, but no reason to delete. Kusma (討論) 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above -- the template is useful, what problems it has with being "out of date" can be fixed by improving the template. I see no reason to delete. ~CS 22:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the template can be fixed and its a lot cleaner looking than the list and fits on the sidebar whereas a list would make the page a lot longer -- Tawker 18:41, 12 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominican Republic infobox[edit]

Template:Dominican Republic infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete-- It was reformated to the Template:Infobox country form. MJCdetroit 02:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. —Nightstallion (?) 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pagrashtak 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and, perhaps, rename as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_6#Template:Infobox_Australia. Perhaps rename for consistency with an agreeable standard. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Roxi2 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CG 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's only included in one place, and we routinely delete templates for being single use.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and my reasoning at Australia. Superm401 - Talk 01:16, 13 March 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 consensus -> keep. Also keep in mind that WP:AUM is currently being disputed. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Australia[edit]

Template:Infobox Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. With exception to the edit action, it is a carbon copy of the Template:Infobox country form. Exactly. So why does there need to be a special carbon copy of it? MJCdetroit 15:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, singleuse metatemplate. --Golbez 18:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Nightstallion (?) 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 23:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep It is not a copy, but an instance of Infobox country. How does it hurt? It makes maintaining and editing the Australia article simpler, with a lower incidence of people accidentally damaging the infobox. This infobox and others like it was kept after a TFD vote in October last year. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We regularly delete many, many templates for being single-use. They are then substed into the article without further ado. I fail to see why that precedent doesn't work here.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful to keep the template mess out of the article namespace. There is no shortqge of template namespace, and this template is not in opposition to any template guidelines.--nixie 01:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This same discussion happened when I joined Wikipedia over a year ago and it was resolved to have the template outside the article. It is stupid to change things back and forth over time. Xtra 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Substing this in the article makes it easier for anyone to edit it, which is the entire point of a wiki. Pagrashtak 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Tone 14:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it assists in the maintenance of the Australia article: by reducing the risk of vandalism to what is an essentially static feature; by lowering the article size; and, by removing an excessive and intimidating mass of code that can serve only as a deterrent to legitimate edits. Being a metatemplate is not a reason for deletion. Had the nominator asked, or indeed noticed the previous deletion debates, he'd have been well-informed on the need for this template. --cj | talk 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need. It works on over 130 other country articles, somehow I think it will work here too. That's a precedent.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cj, good thing that I didn't ask you. As for your tone, allow me to retort. Well informed...for the need for a carbon copy. Yeaaa, ok then... Oh, and yes I did notice the previous deletion debate and I don't think that I am the only person who thinks it's silly. I agree with Narya, if it works elsewhere it will work here. As for vandalism...it is going to happen—one extra mouse click is not Fort Knox. If the articles for places that are loved as much around the world as the U.S.A and Israel can deal with vandels (and use the infobox)—it is safe to say that Australia can manage too. You know...without the impregnable extra mouse click. MJCdetroit 03:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous TFD. For those who don't understand how this works, all this template does is call ((Infobox Country)). This separates the long and confusing template code from the main article, which has many advantages all of which were discussed in the original debate. --bainer (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite seeing how being in Australia is any more confusing than in United States or People's Republic of China or any of the other 120+ articles it's used in. If it survives there, I believe it will survive just fine here.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and, perhaps, rename As above; makes editing easier and keeps the infobox discrete (and discreet!) from the article. As well, despite quiescence, discussions regarding the use and standardisation of meta-templates to consistently capture this information are unresolved. Consider renaming to an agreeable standard. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per previous discussions. JPD (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. Agnte 12:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Roxi2 16:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (User's second edit)[reply]
• Delete. Meta-template, un-wiki and needlessly complicated. Wikiacc (?) 20:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 22:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Khoikhoi 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment. Most of the keep voters are regular editors of Australia. I don't think any of the delete voters are. Does the existence of the template consume anywhere near the amount of resource that the existence of this debate does? --Scott Davis ^Talk 03:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a prior nominator for delete of this and similar templates, I sympathize with the delete votes, but considering the result of the last vote (and of this vote to date), I fail to see what has changed in five months except the date, so I don't really see the point in the nomination. This looks like it's headed for a no consensus result again, but just to be on the record - Delete Caerwine Caerwhine 04:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until there is a better solution for keeping infobox code out of the main article. --Martyman-(talk) 22:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you explain the many single-use templates which have been deleted for that reason? They are substed into the article, which introduces sometimes complicated markup into the article. This really isn't about helping new editors. The Template:Infobox Country markup is actually quite clean, precisely because it is a template. A bunch of single-use metatemplates serve no one.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, single-use template. Schutz 13:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary and overwhelmingly contrary to existing style. The vandalism arguments are only advocating security thorugh obscurity, which always fails. It is a metatemplate that should avoided (for style and convenience reasons, not performance). Superm401 - Talk 01:11, 13 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:El Salvador infobox[edit]

Template:El Salvador infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Out of date and was reformated to the Template:Infobox country form. MJCdetroit 18:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. —Nightstallion (?) 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pagrashtak 06:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and, perhaps, rename as per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_6#Template:Infobox_Australia. Perhaps rename for consistency with an agreeable standard. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 09:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we keep an orphaned template?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Roxi2 02:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CG 21:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orphan and per my reasoning at Australia. Superm401 - Talk 01:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, singleuse metatemplate. --Golbez 21:33, 13 March 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 kept and replaced with text from logo2. Note that no tfd notice was put on the template, so a lot of people probably weren't aware that the template was up for deletion. Nevertheless, I'm replacing the text here with logo2 and partially using my own judgement on this since we won't lose any functionality. If there are any issues that I overlooked, you can let me know and I'll deal with it. -Frazzydee|✍ 13:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Logo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template has a glitch that causes it to include everything in it's subcats in the main cat as well, creating a HUGE category, despite that fact that several editors are working to sort it. ((Logo2)) (created by User:JeffW) ostensibliy corrects this problem, and is now primarily being used by the wikipedians doing the sorting. This temp should be deleted, or (my preference) it should be replaced with the text of logo2, so that temp:logo can still be used, but without the glitch.Esprit15d 19:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like replacing the text would be a better option; why make a 2 if we don't need it? .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 19:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Painfully obvious keep. Edit templates, don't fork them. —Cryptic (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in fact, editing Template:Logo to be like this is a horribly bad idea - the difference is that Template:Logo2 has the option to categorize images into an arbitrary category instead of Category:Logos, thus making it even more difficult to track what's tagged with this. An additional category, Category:Unsorted logos or such, could be added if truly necessary, and that overridden with the argument, but everything should continue to go into Category:Logos as well. —Cryptic (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I wouldn't have created a logo2 if I'd been able to edit logo. I asked for help in the Technical section of the Village Pump but didn't receive any, so I was bold and created a new template. You're last is curious because the whole problem is that the images of all the logos are going into Category:Logos making it unusable. In every other category it's possible to create sub-categories and depopulate the parent category. It should be possible in the Logos category as well. --JeffW 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• In any case, you can always overwrite the content of ((logo)) and delete ((logo2)). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Pagrashtak 01:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and edit to give ((logo)) the new functionality - we need this to be able to manage the associated category, which is excruciating at present. I take it this requires an admin? ::Supergolden:: 12:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 11:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit to be like ((logo2)), and then Keep. This shouldn't break anything, since using ((logo2)) without a parameter has exactly the same effect as using ((logo)). Also, note that ((logo2)) has been put up for deletion since this began. SeventyThree^(Talk) 14:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Add in optional functionality from ((logo2)) and keep. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:05, 8 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User respect[edit]

Template:User respect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

POV userbox. Computerjoe 20:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator Computerjoe 20:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Created to prove a point experimentally. I'd even say this could be speedied - while it's not "clearly" divisive, I've seen way more harmless boxes speedied without hesitation. Misza13 ^{T C E} 20:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete muchly. only used to prove one specific point that only one specific person adheres to.-Joeyramoney 20:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Created and used by an argumentative individual to try and prove a point. Paulrach 21:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Used only by user to prove a point and spamming it throughout the community.--Metros232 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Metros232. Mikker ^... 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ... not only devisive but cannot concievable serve any encylopedic purpose whatsoever.JimD 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being used solely for trolling and harassment Search4Lancer 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete being spammed on other users' pages (such as my talk page). -- RevRagnarok 02:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--cj | talk 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RevRagnarok et al. - TomPhil 11:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 11:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's perfectly legitimate to feel that way. It's also legitimate to cross out a flag if one wishes; I suppose one could show the EU/US/UN/British/Whateveristani flag on fire instead, but I have a feeling that the user would find that even more offensive. Rogue 9 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Technically, it's a "POV" userbox. Really, the view is so derivative such that it is nearly useless. Xoloz 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RevRagnarok Metamagician3000 03:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: we should allow some freedom of speech through userboxes. Deryck C. 08:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the new userbox policy which should soon be put into action, divisive/POV/freespeech UBXs can be allowed as long as they're just SUBSTed on user pages. Misza13 ^{T C} 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue. Proposal failed consensus; see below. John Reid 04:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Used solely to harass other users. If someone wants to use it legitimately, let them recreate it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Freedom of speech" on Wikipedia is a misconception and in fact no such right exists here. Wikiacc (?) 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because these templates don't exist anymore. Ashibaka tock 23:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't have any special enthusiasm for this UBX but no policy opposes it. UBX policy is still forming; the recent poll was heavily attended and still fell short of consensus. TfD is not the place to make backdoor policy. That said it is always wrong to paste UBX on other user's user pages and if this UBX is being used in that way then that action should be addressed -- not the UBX. John Reid 04:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD T1 Cynical 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:POINT. DJR (Talk) 18:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (not speedy), per Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Superm401 - Talk 01:14, 13 March 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.