< May 19	May 21 >

May 20, 2006

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 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:OntarioSH[edit]

Relisted today as there was no discussion on May 12. No vote from me. Angr (t • c) 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. However, shrink down the Secondary Highway shield up top, or allow me to make a smaller one. It has potential as a template. Let's give it a chance. If anything, consider even using the template in the Talk Page. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - rather big and not very useful. --SPUI (T - C) 13:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and shrink size. -- Kukini 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete per SPUI; this would be more effectively presented in list form. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete and listify. Jibbajabba 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: if no one would nominate it for deletion, i'd create a page listing all the highways. However, i still think this could be useful by navigating from one highway page to another. it's much like the Interstate Network Template...
Weak delete since it duplicates List of Ontario provincial highways. I moved the graphic so that it will hopefully have a smaller footprint, if it gets kept. As mentioned in past discussions (linked to above by freakofnurture), junction navigation boxes have much greater utility for most users. -- Zawersh 04:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Headgear box[edit]

Template:Headgear box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created to replace template Headgear which was deleted. However in the discussion almost all of the participants who voted to deleted, voted to deleted this template as well see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11#Template:Headgear for the full discussion. Jon513 20:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I lean towards keep, as I have no problem with a bottom box. My problem is with a placement as a top-of-page box. Let's hang onto this one and implement it more fully. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Not a particularly useful infobox, and precedent was against it. If this survives the TfD, I'd suggest a rename to something along the lines of "apparel" or "clothing" rather than head gear, which conjures up images of orthodonics. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Agreed that "Headgear" conjures up images of orthodontics. But I didn't come up with the name that this was based on. However, I think that "head wear" would be a more appropriate title if we choose to rename, provided that this template survives. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep: as a box at the end of the page, it functions as a nicely designed "see also" collection (quite different from the authoritive top template). Comment: since there are no subcategories of head gear but only the head gear items, it could easily be changed into a category (unlike a template "solar system" which does have branches/subcategories first: "planets", "moons" and "asteroids"; and only then the items "earth, venus, mars, etc"). Could, not necessarily should. -- ActiveSelective 10:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, this is task for primary categories at the end of article. Pavel Vozenilek 19:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete. As above. In this format not linked to a project it is unnecessary and better as a category. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 19:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedy delete WP:CSD#T1 by Xoloz. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, this is task for categories. Pavel Vozenilek 19:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Shutup[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Anti-war topics[edit]

Template:Anti-war topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ludicrously long, replace by category. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

Keep. Not any longer than Template:Anarchism sidebar and Template:Fascism sidebar or Template:African American topics sidebar. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. If it's too long, it can be trimmed, sections can be cut, etc. If there's nothing wrong in principle with the template, there's no reason to delete it. Kalkin 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Needs cut down or split up, not deleted. Also, I 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 04:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: Although I agree with what you are saying with regard to userboxes, this is not a userbox, it's a normal template. The Ungovernable Force 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. The length of the template only serves to highlight the notability of the topic, in my view. If it is deemed "too long" for the articles it is included on, then perhaps the template should be adjusted, but certainly not deleted. —GrantNeufeld 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Similarly to the above. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I have used this template many times when navigating Anti-war topics; I've found it very useful. I think the size issue can be solved by moving elements into another more specific template. - Solar 10:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speedy Keep but Anti-War topics should be reworded. Netscott 11:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to admins: Schuminweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been spamming user pages to gather votes to influence the outcome here. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 10:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text of the message is: "Template:Anti-war topics is up for deletion. Please weigh in on the discussion. Thanks!". Thryduulf 12:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]}

I don't think there is a problem with this. The more people who are aware that are aware of the process of template deletion and their say in it, the better. Sophy's Duckling 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote-stack spamming is bad. Netscott 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote spamming has been ruled out by the arbcom irrespective of message. Schuminweb broke the rules. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}Reply[reply]

- And in typical hot-headed style, Jtdirl blocked me without warning. WP:CIVIL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Soliciting votes. --bainer (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also don't think that this kind of vote solicitation through spamming of talk pages should be condoned.--Jersey Devil 23:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. This is a very useful navigation template, and is not much longer than Template:Christianity or Template:Islam for example. If it does need to be split, then I suggest that the anti-war organisations section would make a useful template on its own, leaving a link to List of anti-war organisations on the main template and possibly a very few (about 3 at most) of the most notable (perhaps Not in Our Name, Stop the War Coalition and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament). I will suggest this at the template talk as well. Thryduulf 12:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep I think that's extremely helpful. Sophy's Duckling 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep we have templates a lot longer than this. Perhaps it should be redone, but the template is useful. Falphin 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep--it's a useful template. I don't see the harm. --Lukobe 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep, per above comments. --Sanguinus 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, has proven useful to me. If Fear EIREANNs opinion "too long" is enough for deleting templates, it would imply the deletion of many templates that are also long, like the Template:Irish Free State for example. Also, the length of the template is typically a thing discussed on the template's discussion page. Why refuse to give your opinion or advise on the discussion page? Why opting for deletion right away? -- ActiveSelective 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per above comments. Kukini 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per above. // ^The True _Sora 02:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete as per nom --Strothra 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep: As mentioned by a few others, this template is no longer than any others. Even if it is, just trim it down, don't delete it. If you want to make a large category as well, do that too, but why delete this? I have found it useful. The Ungovernable Force 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, per comments above. Discuss length on talk page.--JK the unwise 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Netscott. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep nirvana2013 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep As a registered Republican and supporter of the current conflict in Iraq, I really don't see anything wrong with this template. People have the right to believe what they want to believe. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 14:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep The template is useful on it's own and is of aid to a larger project. I think deleting it would be a wrong action to take. Rather the template should be allowed to develop and improve. I've used this template and found it useful; it's certainly an appropriate device and aid the articles it's associated with. Calicocat 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, as the template is a useful way to allow users to move among these related topics without requiring authors to include references to every related article in each article (for example, if I want to compare the Opposition to the Second Boer War with opposition to World War II, which oddly has no article). --Habap 14:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Anti-war is too vague (for example, I don't view George Galloway as anti-war, but it has been included in his article), and lacks a world-wide view (it focuses on anti-war movements in the western world). In response to J Sweeton, people have the right to believe what they believe, but wikipedia is not a soap box. Andjam 08:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment If there template focusses on Western anti-war movements, the solution is not to delete the template, but to expand it to include other anti-war movements. While I probably disagree vehemently with many of the subjects of the articles, organizing them doesn't promote their point of view. I also don't understand how you could see Galloway as not anti-war. (I'd never heard of him before, so I am just trusting the Wikipedia article.) --Habap 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article on Galloway has this: Galloway stated "I am on the anti-imperialist left... If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe.". Apparently Galloway strongly favours the Cold War and possibly Soviet-backed aggression Bwithh 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are varrious problems around putting the template on to biog' pages but that doesn't mean that it should be on no pages. Also, how does this template act as a soap box any more then Template:Fascism sidebar? Both are usefull what ever your political perspective.--JK the unwise 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep but drastically cut down Expanding this Anglo-American biased template to include other anti-war movements would make it far too long and unwieldy. I favour cutting it down to a menu of simple categories with no mention of specific organizations. Bwithh 14:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - too long atm, but a useful tool. -- infinity0 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I really think that the template is far to U.S-centric and the contents of it could theoretically be endlessly long. I'm not sure either way for delete or for keep but I just thought I'd add my two cents.--Jersey Devil 23:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the debate was improperly nominated, relaunched a discussion at WP:COMIC Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:GreenLantern[edit]

Template:GreenLantern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is highly inaccurate and useless insomuch as there are various characters known as "Green Lantern", and hence each individual character has his/her own page and corresponding template (in most cases). As each Lantern has his/her own character specific allies/adversaries/notable stories, this template does not accomplish the purpose it seems to have been designed for initially. NetK 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete per nom as long as this template isn't being used anywhere that a better template isn't available.--Ssbohio 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete as this template is a "catch all" listing the allies, colleagues, adversaries and such for one or two Green Lanterns (which already have their own templates) and which fail to apply to the other Green Lanterns listed. NetK 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and kick over to WP:COMIC to try and fix this mess - What a trainwreck. NetK made replacement "templates" (which are used in only one article each) for each of Hal Jordan, Kyle Rayner, and possibly others, and removed a template that was supposed to be for the Green Lantern Corps as a whole. I understand why, because this template had lots of stuff that was only important for one single character instead of the Corps as a whole, but the two new templates are just as bloated as this used to be and largely overlap. Personally, I think all of them need to be merged together into one a single unified-subject template or all deleted, but in any case, this is a more-complex issue that won't necessarily result in deletion, something that should be discussed at the relevant Wikiproject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- A_Man_In_Black: Since we both agree that none of these templates perform the appropriate task, what is an alternative suggestion? You concede that the GL template has "lots of stuff that was noly important to one single character" and my solution isn't workable from your frame of reference. So please offer constructive suggestions instead of proclaiming a fellow editor's point of view as a "trainwreck". I'd expect a little more civility from an administrator. NetK 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - This situation is a trainwreck, and I stand by that statement. It was a trainwreck before you came to it, honestly, with the oogly, bloated old ((GreenLantern)) mucking up the place. You made a good-faith effort to fix it, but it isn't yet all dealt with, as now we have several single-use templates (which, honestly, still aren't ready for prime time) instead one ugly navbox template.
    As for stuff related to only one character, you actually did a great job of slimming down this template, such that I think it should be used as the starting place for a single unified template and the other single-use templates should be deleted/redirected. Like I said, keep and remit to WP:COMIC for further refinement and discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - A_Man_In_Black: Thanks for your kindly reply and the clarification, I definitely concur there should be a compromise that will satisfy most parties. When I initially saw the template with an "ally" of all the Green Lanterns as Alexandra Dewitt (aka Kyle's Girl-in-the-Fridge) I was like "huh"??? So either we have a generalized template with not much detail for all GLs, or specific templates with the level of detail initially intended. A complex issue indeed. NetK 13:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - This template was orphaned before being placed on TFD, and the TFD notice wasn't placed anywhere on the template itself. I didn't learn that this was on TFD until I checked whatlinkshere for the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User Christian[edit]

Template:User Christian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was controversially amended by several editors in an edit war over which all parties have acknowledged regret. DRV discussion resulted in a consensus to undelete and relist this template. This a procedural nomination, so I abstain. I urge all commenters to treat this matter with respect. Xoloz 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep and Reword to avoid T2. Keep - If edit war is used as a rational to delete a(n) template/article, then many pages on Wikipedia has to be deleted as well? -Hunter 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move and rewrite. The edit war merits an RfC at the least (and perhaps even an RfAr, on Cyde in particular). But the template itself is currently violating T2. However, since T2 is a new proposal, we should avoid deleting too many templates with it and generating controversy and division. So instead, circumvent the problem by both preserving the template and adhering to CSD T1/T2: move this template to ((user christianity)), change the text to "This user is interested in Christianity.", and for anyone who wants the original, simply subst the raw code to their userpage. The exact same course has been taken for every other template on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, mainly as a preventative measure to avoid a big, ugly war over implementing T2, when we should be worrying about editing the encyclopedia, not squabbling over userboxes. -Silence 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree, though this was not the reason this template was nominated for deletion (Sorry, I believe in due process). If this is used as the reason to nominate this template for deletion, I probably would support your view and vote the same as you. Hunter 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move and re-write as per Silence, or speedy delete as CSD t2. --Doc ^ask? 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep as is. There is no harm in allowing Christians to identify themselves as such. Bucketsofg✐ 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good thing nobody's suggesting they aren't allowed to do that, then. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Buckets Homestarmy 20:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep if a user is allowed to write "I am Christian..." on his user page why can he put it in a box? Jon513 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He can. People object to users putting the text in a template, not to putting the text in a box. Personally, I think both objections are rather silly, but there's clearly significant support for the idea that there shouldn't be belief-expressing templates, else T2 wouldn't have lasted this long (though there seem to be more people who oppose than support its usage). -Silence 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super-strong keep. Enough of this stupid userbox erasing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong keep per Jon513. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongest possible keep. This is ridiculous. There is no legitimate reason that I can find for deleting any userbox template. User pages aren't going to be neutral. Users should be allowed to identify themselves with any group they choose. Alan 03:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep (obviously) I agree with the user, Akcarver. It is simply ridculous and offensive to Christians who love to tell someone that they are. Weirdy 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Keep as is. Does nothing to harm the encyclopedia and there are resources to spare at this time. Gateman1997 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep That "edit war" was ridiculous. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This is a pretty obvious T1 speedy, so I don't see any point in discussion on a TfD. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to see proof that this userbox has led to any division among users, besides the edit wars and the speedy deletion. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it were obviously so, Mr. Sidaway, I would not have relisted it. While your observation is welcome, it is inaccurate. As for the good served by this discussion -- a calm discussion helps ease tensions, and mollifies the anger of those rightly upset with the events surrounding the previous improper speedying of this template. As I said, consensus at DRV did determine the previous speedy was improper. Xoloz 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

D-Day: Look no farther than the Jason Gastrich RFC. --Cyde↔Weys 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep There is nothing offensive whatsoever about the words "This user is a Christian." Sophy's Duckling 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Sophy's Duckling Brian | (Talk) 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obvious speedy keep. Think about how to show convincingly that this template violates "Don't be a dick". — Timwi 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, I'm getting dragged into this dumb userbox war. For those of you who think a vote for keep==subt and delete... no. The content is not the purpose of the userbox. The ability to find other users of a certain POV to help balance out articles is the purpose of a userboxe. If the purpose was to say "I am a chirstian" on your user page, then people could just type "I am a chirstian" on their user page. --Rayc 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: maybe you weren't around for the Great Userbox War, but your keep rationale is the exact reason that it got started. People use this kind of template in deletion debates to "rally the troops." —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep — speedy if possible. Nowhere near T1/T2 in any acceptable formulation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Not divisive. —MiraLuka 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep Per many keeps above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep (not "subsist and deleate")... it would be helpful to know who is a Christian, esspecally if editing articles relating to Christanity. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep: First off, I'm not a christian and am actually quite opposed to the religion (and pretty much all others) but I do not see any harm in allowing someone to express their affiliation as a christian. If the problem is that it's a template, than just speedy delete every template that expresses an opinion and get it over with, instead of slowly doing this one by one. The Ungovernable Force 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep - Why delete something that simply states what you are? Some people aren't afraid of showing what they are and have no issue with others knowing. Some people may just put it there for "status" but that's highly unlikely in this case. Clearly doesn't violate any of the T's... --Ivorydust 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep You cannot be offended by this. Thats just stupid. And it simply states that the person is a christian. It give people an insight into who they are, so they can understand their edits more without wrongfully judging them. If people wanted the Userbox war to end, they would stop wrongfuly nominating countless numbers of userboxes - • The Giant Puffin • 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongest keep possible - is this political correctness gone mad once more? I'm not Christian but many of my friends are, and so are millions of other people in the world. This is insanity. Surely if you delete this, you have to delete all the religion ones. Michaelritchie200 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - Unless a decision is made to delete all templates expressing beliefs, be they religious, political, food preference, favorite sports teams, etc. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep - I am a Christian and I find it pathetic that you're offended by this. This just tells people that the user is a Christian. I disagree with Atheism but you don't see me proposing deletion on the Atheism templates. --Tuspm 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - I'm not offended by this template; I just don't think it's an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources. A This user is interested in Christianity template would be quite encyclopedic and would avoid giving the impression that we edit as advocates here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete -- if this gets template gets kept, I'll recreate "User satanist" (which is currently protected against creation). If we allow one religion, we should allow them all. :-) bogdan 07:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure that just about everyone who voted "keep" above would agree with you: fairness is the most important thing. So rather than exacerbating an error by asking it to recur elsewhere, why not fix the original error? Nominate ((user satanist)) for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. It should at the least be undeleted, moved and rewritten to say "This user is interested in Satanism.", as this one should; deletion is completely unnecessary. -Silence 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're going to talk about fairness then why not delete the template on the Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians? If there are satanists on wikipedia feel free to go to undelete. Falphin 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should recreate the satanist userbox is this is kept. I dont think that we should have one religion on here, and not have another. The spagetti monster one should be kept because it is a legitimate view - • The Giant Puffin • 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consistency with userbox policy right now. First off, this will probably just get speedied regardless of what ever decision is reached here. I agree, if this is allowed, Satanism should be recreated, but don't count on it. Until we can come to a consensus about userbox policy there is going to be a lot of mixed messages sent out, and there's not much we can do about it. The Ungovernable Force 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats because this whole userbox thing is one big war. Admins deleting like its going out of fashion, and others trying to stop it. The sooner a good policy gets through the better. Even if templates are kept on here, theyre either renominated, speedied or end up protected - • The Giant Puffin • 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep, why can we have geographical but not religious categorization. There is already an entire Category on this.Falphin 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Why not have 2 templates, one that says, "This user is interested in Christianity" and the other "This is user is a Christian" It is NOT our place on wikipedia to decide who and who is not a Christian. So, both are completely NPOV. Falphin 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. --Dragon695 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep & Let's try to put all this behind us. --Pilot|guy 19:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
whether it says "this user is a christian" or "this user is interested in christianity" it's divisive, and a CSD:T2 speedy. Delete along with every other template that expresses a religious or political belief. Userify these if you want but keep them out of templatespace... ++Lar: t/c 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- How clear is it that T2 does not have consensus, and hence it can't be used as a justification for deletion. Ans e ll Review my progress! 09:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- In fact, T2 is gone as of a few hours ago. Removed by Tony Sidaway who had been supporting it in fact. GRBerry 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. If you don't like it, don't use it. Wombdpsw 04:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Expressing what one's POV is is acceptable in User space. "This user is a Christian" and "This user is interested in christianity" are very different statements, not substitutions. Wikipedia:May Userbox policy poll which would make policy explicitly authorizing this and similar user boxes (although in a different space) is very close to having the requisite consensus to become policy. GRBerry 20:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ultra super strong keep. I think that this is even on TfD is ludicrous, and I'm not even a Christian. I feel that allowing users to state their religious affiliation is absolutely 100% in the spirit of userboxes. - furrykef (Talk at me) 00:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I'm an agnostic who enjoys pissing off the Religious Right, and even *I* think we should keep this one. Stev0 02:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep. A contributor's religion is useful to the encyclopedia. Beno1000 19:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Die in a Fire (Delete), as per bogdan's comments. --Disavian 22:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong delete - I do not beleive in religion userboxes on Wikipedia. —M e ts501^talk 01:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, this has no business being in template space, and its use as a vote-stacking device has already been confirmed in the Jason Gastrich RFAr. --Cyde↔Weys 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- The above user was a partisan in that RFAr and did not give us a link to follow. Here is the link: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich. His assertion that this template was used as a vote-stacking device is not in ArbCom's findings of fact. I have reviewed the evidence page to that case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich/Evidence). It is quite long and I might have missed something, but I find no reference in that evidence to this template - the only template referred to is Template:User_Native_American. Most of the vote-stacking problems in the case were external solicitation of votes. Links 53-59 are internal diffs, but at the least the first and last the individual receiving a vote stacking solicitation did not have this template on their user page. So far as I can tell, the "use as a vote-stacking device" assertion is entirely false. GRBerry 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 11:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep There is nothing offensive, and it makes a plain statement about the user's beliefs. As long as it does not lead to persecution, why delete it? Pretty much what everyone else said. --WillMak050389 05:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User No Napoleon[edit]

Keep was closed just a few hours ago! I don't usually opine like that, but at least a couple of days... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, as was decided in the TfD discussion that ended earlier today. Bucketsofg✐ 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Following the Consensus, wow it seems so long ago that I created this userbox... I'm glad to see many people like it, but I also jumped off the userbox bandwagon a few months ago... I would almost prefer to see it deleted so that users would stop copying each others user boxes and come up with some clever ones on their own like i did back when I enjoyed having userboxes on my user page. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Serious speedy delete Croat Canuck, just becuase you created the template doesn't mean you own it, it's not my rule, it's not your schools rule, it's the law, it's an angry face.Myrtone@Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20.com.au 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does that comment count as a double vote? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Keep per all above. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Keep per all the above again. Sophy's Duckling 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per above. —MiraLuka 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep- we can't just repropose templates that were just up for TfD. It defeats the purpose of TfD alltogether. // ^The True _Sora 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep merely because it just went through tfd! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep (in template form) per Linuxerist, TheTrueSora, Bucketsofg, et al... Mike McGregor (Can) 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Non-Napoleon awareness among Wikipedians is an important thing to me. EASports 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep and Keep means keep. If a userbox is kept on TfD, you're not supposed ot just re-nominate it - • The Giant Puffin • 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stronger Keep its funny.
Keep and Keep means keep. --Dragon695 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
keep. I use it. Yuval madar 06:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Satanism-footer[edit]

Template:Satanism-footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redirect to Template:Satanism. Currently has no pages using it. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep No harm, no foul. A redirect isn't consuming too many electrons. --Ssbohio 02:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete no need. - Tutmosis 12:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete unused template redirect. —GrantNeufeld 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete Unused. Too big also. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 10:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)}Reply[reply]
Strong Keep. Usefull.Hezzy 18:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment: This is not a vote for deletion of Template:Satanism, just the unused redirect to that template (the redirect is called Template:Satanism-footer). If the redirect were actually useful, it would be being used. Since it's not used anywhere, I don't see how it might be considered useful. —GrantNeufeld 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Comment:What harm does the redirect do? I'm not asking this to argue, I honestly don't know and would like to know how deleting this would help anything. The Ungovernable Force 05:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - Comment: I first came across the template during an instance of vandalism on it. I forgot about it for some time, until I randomly stumbled across it again. It's an unused redirected template that has been previously vandalised? I see no reason to keep it. If anyone wants to use it, why not just ((satanism)) instead? I could see keeping it if there were many instances of it already in place, but as there's not, why keep an extra template around that is serving no purpose? ^demon^{[yell at me]} /19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, unused. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep, redirects are cheap. --Rory096 07:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Actually, this should probably be speedy kept and put on RFD, but it's a bit late for that. --Rory096 21:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment 1) Nothing links to it. 2) It has not always been a redirect. Three users edited while it was not a redirect. 3) It was a redirect from 18 July 2005 to 19 March 2006, then it was a big box of text until an IP address vandalized on 1 May 2006 and the nominator reverted back to being a redirect. I dislike seeing people discussing based on an incomplete statement of the history, but can't bring myself to care about the outcome. (Yeah, this might be a POV driven failure on my part.) GRBerry 19:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong Delete. Yes redirects are cheap, but unused redirects that are targets for vandalism are pointless wastes of time to keep around. -- Zawersh 04:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete since it's unused. Can't this be speedied, since it's empty of content? ---J.S (t|c) 21:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]