< November 30	December 2 >

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 section.

The result of the debate was to userfy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used to promote smoking or - much worse - promote the (false) impression that smoking is harmless. No encyclopaedic function. — Ligulem 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Used for neither such purpose. It states that the editor is a smoker. I smoke. I do not promote smoking, I do not state (especially given the way I cough on a morning) that smoking is "harmless". This no more "promotes" smoking than a userbox stating that the user's Zodiac sign is Aquarius "promotes" being born in late December to late January. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as an Aquarius, I feel I should tell you - you've got your date range wrong. :) JPG-GR 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. It's the nicotine affecting my brain ;) Late Jan/late Feb, of course. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@Tonywalton: Well, the current template text reads "This user loves smoking". I would then suggest for you to remove that box from your user page and instead use the text "This user is a smoker". The latter wording wouldn't be promoting anything, whereas the current wording sure does. It spreads an image. That's how the tobacco industry build their marketing campaigns (see the "i'm lovin' it" campaign as an example from an entierly different industry). We have a lot of users in their teens here (I'm not). Telling them that smoking is cool - by saying "I love it" - sure is promotional, moreso if we admins do it. We shouldn't use our userpages like this. Besides, you could use the text "This user coughs in the morning because he is a smoker". This would be fine by me :-) --Ligulem 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me as well. Migrate and reword to that would be acceptable to me. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Migrate to userspace if kept. Serves no encyclopedic function and therefore does not belong in the template namespace. JPG-GR 22:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would be the socially responsible thing to do. Shinobu 00:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Migrate to userspace, though I must really wonder how the nominator concludes "This user loves smoking." promotes the impression that smoking is harmless. CharonX/talk 13:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Um, yeah, in hindsight I think I might come a bit dense across with my nom. The thing with tobacco "advertisment" is that some people do think, smoking must be harmless if advertising is still allowed (here: If "I love smoking" userboxes are still allowed on Wikipedia) - but that's my POV. Maybe I should just have edited the text of the userbox to "This user smokes", which would be an acceptable compromise for me. Ligulem 16:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy per all the other pointless userboxes. I prefer to delete them all, but see no reason to single this one out. For that matter, also see no reason to change the text. Garion96 (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS notwithstanding. Wikipedia is not a dating service, and it is doubtful that identification of smoking editors would ever help in writing an article. Since this userbox is probably not harmful (except in encouraging the creation of similar userboxes), I'd also be fine with a Migrate to userspace. / 15:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
• Userfy. This doesn't belong in the template namespace, because it can be divisive. However, it's a perfectly acceptable statement to make in userspace. Of course, a version that was reworded to tone done the enthusiasm would also be acceptable in userspace.— Gavia immer (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per GUS. Joe 04:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should say, to be clear, that the current wording, as Gavia well observes, would/will be altogether acceptable in a userbox situated in user space, and so I, for one, don't mean to suggest userfication as a "compromise"; userfication is counseled by GUS, but I cannot imagine that any changes to the underlying text should be necessary. Joe 04:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Does this help? (oh and btw, userfy) >Radiant< 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No. --Ligulem (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No collaborative use. Under what circumstances would an editor need to seek out smokers due to them being better equipped to edit an article? And this is said as someone who has the box on their userpage (I am using a public computer and am thus loathe to sign in) and will continue to have it until it is deleted. However, I must protest, albeit between coughs, at the subtext of civil authoritarianism accompanying this nomination. While there is an argument for a userpage being used to proclaim a like/dislike of a certain activity, there is absolutely no justification for editors to push their personal preferences on the wikipedia namespace, especially if they are to do it in a nasty and impolite way and link to pictures deliberately meant to cause offence. Not in the wikipedia spirit, I feel. In the words of Bill Hicks, "Non-smokers. I'd quit smoking if I didn't think I'd become one of you". 128.243.220.21 (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Point taken. I've removed my link above. --Ligulem (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2007 (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 section.

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 per author's request. SkierRMH (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Given Name Revised Example (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This appears to be just a redundant duplicate of Template:Infobox Given name 2 (aka Template:Infobox Given Name Revised) with some minor coding differences; apart from a transclusion on its talk page, the only use is on an archived talk page (Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 18). Any new uses can use the better-known template. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. I set up this page to provide an example for debate about how to revise the template. Debate is over. Delete. Remember 21:03, 1 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fraternity Box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be not generalizable, redundant with ((Infobox Fraternity )) . Toddst1 15:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)))[reply]

• Delete as unused & redundant per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and as a template consisting of only one red link. JPG-GR 22:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons cited above. Henrymrx (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:28, 2 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cyprus Squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No squad list should alive except World Cup. — Matthew_hk tc 09:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 09:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. – PeeJay 12:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, cruft (i.e. per nom). Punkmorten 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and project concensus. Neier (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roads in London, Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Box of non-notable items, mostly red links. Unlikely to be helpful in navigation. Peter Grey (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This template is useful for information on roads in London. Most major cities in Ontario have templates such as this one and removing it would be unfair. Filling all the streets with information takes time. I have filled Wonderland, Bradley and Wellington Roads with useful info. I will keep adding more over the next month so the amount of red links will go down. Merkin77 (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 04:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Windsor actually has a whole separate article on its roads and another on its bike trails. Therefore, London can have a small collapsible template. —MJCdetroit 05:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: Every city has arterial roads. Simply identifying them does not give the reader any encyclopedic information. A (single) sub-article on roads and traffic in the city might be more appropriate. I love trivia about London as much as anyone, but I live right beside Wellington Road and it is definitely non-notable. Peter Grey (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait, I'd be willing to give Merkin77 a chance to fill it out a bit. If all the content is deemed non-notable after that then fair play. Jdcooper (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This isn't about trivia on London's roads--it is about being fair. Windsor's template has many red links yet it is not a candidate for deletion. Many other Ontario cities have road descriptions very similar to how I have written them. To deem the whole template as useless because it isn't entirely filled in is ridiculous. Merkin77 (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hence the nomination was for non-notability. Peter Grey (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? This template does allow people to view relevant info about roads in London. I'm using the same format other municipalities are using. If you deem London to be "non-notable", then you must do the same for Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa, etc. Merkin77 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 06:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sylvia Browne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Series of only two articles. — -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "See also" would work just as well. SkierRMH (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SkierRMH. Not enough content to warrant a template. JPG-GR 07:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per all above. Malinaccier (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need for a navigational template between exactly two articles. Maralia 18:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Cheers. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:28, 2 December 2007 (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 section.