< May 15	May 17 >

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. Note, I'm not an admin, this is just book-keeping already deleted templates. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spoiler in Elliott[edit]

Unused, orphaned, unencyclopedic. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 21:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, patent nonsense. --Rory096 21:32, 16 May 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 by user:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties2[edit]

Template:UK ties2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, orphaned. ((UK ties)) is used in the United Kingdom article. Thanks/wangi 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:03, 17 May 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 by user:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK ties3[edit]

Template:UK ties3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, orphaned. ((UK ties)) is used in the United Kingdom article. Thanks/wangi 20:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:03, 17 May 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 Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan article[edit]

Template:Japan article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template "places a small Japan Article symbol () in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is an article related to Japan" - see Operation Ten-Go for an example.

It is likely to conflict with the ((featured article)) star. It - and any others of its ilk - should be deleted for the same reason as the ((good article)) symbol: we do not clutter up the main article space with this sort of metadata. These articles should be identified, if need be, by a template on the talk page. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, ugly self-reference. For what it's worth, I despise ((featured article)) for the same reasons. Not to mention that any article that is "related to Japan" should be able to identify itself as such in the first sentence, lest it lack context. Unnecessary, ugly, and useless.--Sean Black 18:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, you just unintentionally introduced me to a new feature! Now I can check to see if an article is well-researched before I even click the talk page!! Thanks! -Aknorals 09:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I clarified where the template should be used (on the template itself). It should never be used in the main article namespace (and therefore won't ever interfere with the Good Article icon). This was clarified on the WikiProject Japan page, but I forgot to update the description on the template itself. I've also removed it from the Operation Ten-Go article as it shouldn't have ever been placed there. This template is only to be used on project articles (such as the notice board, etc.) which are part of WikiProject Japan in order to provide a quick way of identifying them and a quick way to return to the main project page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be a little easier for me to vote keep if the template was called something like Project Japan article. That would also stop all the people who don't read the descriptions from adding it to their articles as well.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  04:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with renaming it. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that this is not intended to appear in main article space - however, I strongly doubt that adding a little icon to the talk page is the right thing to do either - isn't ((WikiProject Japan)) a better solution? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's for the talk pages only, and mainly for articles in the main namespace. This puts a tiny icon in the top right corner of the project article itself, which makes it easier for people to easily find other Japan-related projects. There are getting to be quite a few of them, and this makes it much easier to find all of them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which sort of articles is this being added to, other than ones in the main article space? Perhaps some sort of category would be better? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Other articles have a note on the talk page that such-and-auch a wikiproject is looking after them. The main namespace is for the encyclopedia, the talk pages are for its internal workings. Cross-namespace references are despised for precisely that reason. Dr Zak 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just noticed ((Hong Kong article)) which does the same thing with a different picture for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong. Slambo (Speak) 10:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OMG. TFD before these things proliferate. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom American Patriot 1776 11:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. It's unobtrusive. It's helpful. It's never on wiki main space. --Kunzite 02:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• ... in addition... There are multiple sub-projects of WP-Japan. Rather than including *two* box headers. So it's also a space saver. --Kunzite

• Delete, there's almost a thousand WikiProjects last time I checked, and if there's a similar link for each one, things can get chaotic fairly quickly. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How would it get chaotic? Since these are only used on project pages, they shouldn't interfere with each other. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely unnecessary clutter. It's best just to have the Wikiproject notice on talk pages link to a category. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perfect example for "things that are not worth inserting metadata in the article namespace for". -- grm_wnr Esc 14:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Titoxd. CG 17:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This icon is redundant and too specialized to be put up there in the corner. There are better ways of identifying WikiProject pages already being used. ~MDD4696 15:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless BrokenSegue 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strong delete. Coffee 19:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep less clutter than two WikiProject boxes on many talk pages. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Projectfy. Make a series of x-related symbols for other things. A great graphic symbol companion for categories.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per MDD4696. RexNL 22:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom SYSS Mouse 00:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless clutter. Wikipedia's simple presentation is one of its strengths. Nathcer 10:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. — mark ✎ 13:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte' per nom--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems the instructions have been changed to make it clear that it should not be placed in the article space, whats the problem now? Homestarmy 03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete redundant 131.194.196.34 05:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete in order to minimise the growth of metadata on Wikipedia articles. Harro5 09:05, 26 May 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 close as impossible. — sjorford++ 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SF|This user has got a fish in the oven.[edit]

Pointless and proposes cruelty toward fish QuizQuick 15:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the link correct here? It links to a blank Templated Userbox, not anything to do with fish. Nhprman 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, it's on his homepage, but somehow it doesn't show up as a a userbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fake_User — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuizQuick (talk • contribs)

• The code is ((User blank|SF|This user has got a fish in the oven.)). This means that you really want to delete ((user blank)). Friendly Neighbour 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone blank this section as an improper nomination then. I'd do it, but I'd at least like to have a second opinion before doing so. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason to blank it. --Rory096 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• That's a custom userbox made using Template:User blank, it's not its own template. --Rory096 21:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think this nomination should be closed as it's an improper nomination. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ummm ... speedy allow it to continue to not exist? BigDT 03:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy allow it to continue to not exist as per BigDT ;-) - Nhprman 04:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If I wrote SF - Hail Stalin on something just as inflammatory using that template, would I be immune from deletion, is that it?QuizQuick 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template isn't the problem, though, is it? You don't need Template:user blank to write "Hail Stalin", you can just write it. If somebody created Template:user Hail Stalin, then that could be nominated for deletion, but there is nothing in this template (remember, that is Template:user blank) that is anti-fish, so your deletion request makes no sense. — sjorford++ 08:30, 18 May 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 Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User Sex[edit]

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space.QuizQuick 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No redeeming value. Dr Zak 15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same reason as above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuizQuick (talk • contribs) .

• This user proposed deleting this template and also voted (without signing). Friendly Neighbour 19:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least until WP:MACK is decided. Friendly Neighbour 15:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a template, but Subst and move to User space, where it can be preserved and used, as per WP:MACK. Nhprman 15:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Point me to a policy saying that templatespace is only for articles, please. --Rory096 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, No need to delete it, theres countless others that arent "encyclopedic" as well. DemonWeb 20:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DemonKyoto La Pizza11 22:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and also, the countless others that aren't "encyclopedic" will go away eventually.-- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as all user templates are unencyclopedic and this discussion has been hashed out countless times now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Geesh, since these don't even go into namespace, who cares? -Oscar Arias 01:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as divisive and inflammatory BigDT 03:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- templates do belong in template space — Preceding unsigned comment added by T-rex (talk • contribs)
• Keep - Seems no different than many other user boxes. // Liftarn 06:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Sinificant Major Keep -- this is a template, not an ency article. Moreove, this addresses us users -- not the pedia articles. If someone wants to say "This user enjoys sex" on their Userpage, they should have the right to say it! It may be contovesial to some users, but it doesn't violate policy. KEEP IT! Jason Palpatine 07:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 08:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep your pants on keep People have to stop proposing user boxes that they dont agree with up for deletion as uncyclopedic. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 14:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tempalte has sexual connotions which may be offensive. Should not be in template space. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I find your objection offensive. This isn't the 700 Club. We aren't here to stupid-proof Wikipedia. --mboverload@ 23:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Until a concensus policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 18:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What harm does this cause? Fairsing 18:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:UBX, Wikipedia:Userbox policy and T1. T2 is not valid at this time.
• Keep. Wikipedia is not to be a judge of morality; deleting something because some consider it culturally unacceptable is unacceptable. To resolve T2, rewrite this template as "This user is interested in sexual intercourse." -Silence 22:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Sex" is not a synonym for "sexual intercourse". ~MDD4696 15:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• An obvious keep. I wouldn't use it myself, but it's harmless. There are several userboxes that needs deletion more than this one. // Liftarn
• Definetely keep. This must be a joke; please, this isn't high school. Most people enjoy sex, I'd like to know how this could possibly be offensive to anyone. In that regard, the template is encyclopedic: it states a fact about the user. It's no different than saying "This user enjoys sleep". Or "Thomas Edison enjoyed science".(Patrick 14:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Srrong keep Offensive content? Wikipedia is not censored. Divisive and inflamatory? Do you have that on copy and paste or something? Everything at TfD cannot be divisive and inflamatory - you're just ruining that argument! If people want to say they enjoy sex - let them. - • The Giant Puffin • 13:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Harmless. (Davi Medrade 23:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep if you are prude and don't like to see the word sex, change the text to "User likes the act of procreation" :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepand sigh - Stop nominating userboxes for deletion, for crying out loud. Beno1000 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I suspect a Puritan Cabal. Anwar 07:05, 27 May 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. Note, I'm not an admin, this is just book-keeping already deleted templates. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User dy[edit]

Template:User dy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created ere I found out another likewise category and "userbox" had existed for some time. I propose it for deletion, as well as its category. --Svippong 13:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Subst save this from future deletions by moving it to User space as per WP:MACK. Nhprman 14:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it and cat Dyslexia + Wikipedia = Scary --mboverload@ 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not harming anything, and this one is actually informative, because people can know that that's why they keep making spelling errors or whatever. --Rory096 18:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant to ((User dyslexic)). A redirect would be fine, too, if nobody wants to change all the instances of this template. --Rory096 04:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extremely useful as it explains why an user may make a lot of spelling errors. Keep at lest until WP:MACK is decided on. Friendly Neighbour 20:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you make a ton of spelling errors, you shouldn't be changing articles. --mboverload@ 00:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can still fight vandalism, though, as at least one of our highly dyslexic contributors does. Ashibaka tock 00:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true and a good point. I retract my previous statement. --mboverload@ 00:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you do. I know some very intelligent dyslectic people whose expertise could be handy here. A dumbass like me can always copyedit the article created by a dyslectic genius :-) Friendly Neighbour 07:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G7 - This just makes those of us on the pro-userbox side look bad. User:Svippong is the only author of that userbox. He requests that it be deleted. Speedy G7. BigDT 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, what's wrong with this userbox? --Rory096 04:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in particular, but it doesn't matter - the only author says it was mistakenly created and asks to delete it. That's a textbook G7. I think his reasoning was that it is a duplicate of ((User dyslexic)). As it's a duplicate, he found it to not be needed. As the only author has requested deletion of a page created in error, a speedy seems logical. BigDT 04:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why does "This just makes those of us on the pro-userbox side look bad?" --Rory096 04:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Arguing to keep one that is an obvious and non-controversial speedy BigDT 04:21, 17 May 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 by User:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Avatars[edit]

Template:Avatars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A license tag that is a combination of "Fair use" and "I found it on the internet". The height of insanity, plus it is unused. Dr Zak 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Creator didn't understand Wikipedia very well, and he has now abandoned his account. Aguerriero (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete serves no useful purpose on Wikipedia Fnarf999 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment withdraw/cancel this deletion vote, and suggest it again (if it makes sense): "height of insanity", "did not understand Wikipedia well". Issuing emotions is not required for a deletion vote. Akidd dublin (abandoned 5/2006) 15:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, other copyright templates exist for such images. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:00, 17 May 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 by User:Aloan Circeus 21:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blockquote[edit]

Template:Blockquote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is a orphan and is simple a shorthand (</blockquote><blockquote>). —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What the hell? --mboverload@ 06:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparently has no content at all. In other words, "What the hell?" - Nhprman 06:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, springbreak cleaning? Let's go is what i say... - The DJ 12:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rubbish Fnarf999 14:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mboverload put it nicely. --Rory096 18:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, although it would be funny if somewhere in the deepest darkest recesses of the Wikipedia source code it used this template for almost everything and removing it crashed the Wikipedia project... just a thought.... :-) -Oscar Arias 01:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=) --mboverload@ 01:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as ... as ... what the heck - no content whatsoever is just an article CSD and not a general one? Ok ... I guess it's just regular delete BigDT 03:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. AnnH ♫ 08:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete...even though there's nothing here. --Coredesat 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per mboverload. -- Nathan 22:06, 18 May 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. Feel free to redirect this to ((spam)) for use on user-talk pages only. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template:NoSpam[edit]

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

A template that requests people not to spam - WP:BEANS. Should not be used, ever. Raul654 00:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I was under the impression that that template was a warning template for spamming. JoshuaZ 02:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look at the inclusion list -- it's being used almost exclusively in articles, *not* on user talk pages. Raul654 02:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-duper strong delete not useful, btw, that beans pg made me laugh... then i tried it... :) American Patriot 1776 02:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This tag just clutters articles. There doesn't need to be an advisory on every article about what to do and not do... links to WP:EL and warning tags can be placed on individual user talk pages when necessary. Good intentions, but this one needs to go. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 02:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless this is a legitimate warning tag used to warn spammers in certain cases. Otherwise, policies should be sufficient without ubiquitous warning templates like this. Nhprman 06:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unnecessary. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above ... - The DJ 12:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not the right way to warn, no other function; PS how do I remove these beans? Fnarf999 14:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have seen this used as a warning template - if it is removed then we will get more new users receiving the more confrontational vandalism warning templates on their userpages, through lack of any useful alternative. WP:BITE. Cynical 20:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is just ((spam)) in a box, so there's no difference between this and the normal warning template. --Rory096 23:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I took a look at some of the pages where it is currently in use. It looks like it is being used to combat persistent spam. Obviously, the thing about the welcome page doesn't belong in article space, but that's a problem solved by fixing the template, not by doing away with it. BigDT 04:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- if it is changed to say that it should only be on talk pages, otherwise Delete as redundent --T-rex 06:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We already have ((spam)) for user talk pages. Having this for articles is a really bad idea. AnnH ♫ 08:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would probably only encourage peopel to spam --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't need templates in the article namespace to remind people not to break the rules. This is unencyclopedic. Protection templates are bad enough. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or move to Talk page. Warnings like this don't need to polute articles. --StuffOfInterest 18:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Nathan 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:BEANS is funny. Freddie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Redundant to the ((spam)) series of templates, but the name of the template makes sense so I support a redirect instead of an outright delete.. --Icarus 09:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Bookandcoffee 07:37, 22 May 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bryan Singer[edit]

Template:Bryan Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sorry but template-cruft. The information in the template is already listed in the TOC on the Singer page, so it isn't really needed there. On the film pages, the director is already listed in the infobox at the top or in the first sentence or two. It serves no purpose and starts a bad trend. What next... individual templates for all the involved actors in a film? For the writers? composers? AlistairMcMillan 17:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree, not needed. Aguerriero (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutly American Patriot 1776 20:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. --Coredesat 10:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -- Nathan 22:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where have you been? Director templates are becoming more and more prevelant. Quentin Tarantino has his own template (Template:Footer Movies Quentin Tarantino); hell, even Uwe Boll has one (Template:Uwe Boll Films). Mr. Spielberg, too, has one (Template:Steven Spielberg). I'm not saying that it's right, but it's already happened - there are many director templates. Hbdragon88 23:08, 23 May 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.