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The result of the debate was an early closure - keep/nomination withdrawn. east.718 at 03:38, January 16, 2008

Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday[edit]

Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I realize nominating this template may be controversial, but it is with the best interest in mind that it has on people who naively use it. I have seen several "Oppose" votes on various RfAs because the user's goal appears to be solely to gain adminship, as evidenced by the use of this userbox. Therefore, I believe the existence of this userbox is a setup for failure, on a certain level, and should be deleted. Use of this box may actually hurt someone's chances at becoming an admin, which is absolutely contrary to the intentions of someone who places it on their userpage. — 12 Noon ^2¢ 22:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose moving to WP:MfD, as specified in WP:TfD#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that, but WP:TfD#What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD) states "Templates that reside in mainspace should go on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion." Since this template is not in the "user:" namespace, it implies it should be nominated here. Please advise if this is actually the incorrect forum. Regards.--12 Noon ^2¢ 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this userbox is popular, neutral, project-oriented, and generally useful, and I have no evidence that it affects RfA votes. If you can provide concrete evidence that it genuinely does prompt editors to oppose RfAs, I might rethink. Happy‑melon 14:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this is the correct forum for anything in the Template: namespace, regardless of where it's used. (I have no opinion on the template under discussion). — Gavia immer (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, only idiots oppose people with this template. Majorly (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, nothing wrong with wanting to become an administrator. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 15:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the problem is with the people, you can't solve it this way. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This helps people know whether someone is willing to be nominated for adminship, as well as the reasons above. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - although I remember a certain RfA that someone attempted to bomb due to this template a template similar to this one [oops], I think that it is useful for, as Casmith_789 said, nominators to find whether potential nominees wish the nomination or not. --tennisman 16:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I sincerely would like to be an admin some day, and I don't see how this hurts the project. DodgerOfZion (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per Majorly. Wikipedia is full of idiots. Suggest putting Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls up for discussion as well. Potential nominees can simply be asked, and the ideal candidate would never add themselves to this category (though I would never base an oppose on that). User:Dorftrottel 18:31, January 15, 2008
  • Comment: Isn't that statement ("Wikipedia is full of idiots") a violation of a central tenet of this project? DodgerOfZion (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would think it's a statement of fact. Or calling a spade a spade. :) And idiots can mess up things with the best intentions. Their good faith doesn't come into question. - TwoOars 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I too agree that wikipedia is full of idiots, I think the template serves the purpose of identifying people who have the time and the inclination to take up the extra work of adminship. It makes the job of whoever does the admin-hunting much easier. - TwoOars 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would make the job of an admin-hunter (whatever that may be) easier if the user in question would instead request a coach, no? --12 Noon ^2¢ 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This template is just an indication of a willingness to do extra tasks. A request for admin coaching is asking for guidance. Not exactly the same thing... If I wanted to become an admin someday and think I'm not ready yet, but am confident that I can get there on my own, I would probably use this template rather than going to an admin coach. - TwoOars 19:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I would never oppose an RfA on "power hunger" argument, I would be more likely to do so if I saw someone had been through admin coaching than one displaying this template. Doing admin coaching strikes me as a means not to prepare yourself for the extra menial tasks that the admin bit offers, but rather a means of saying "look at me, I can do this. Now promote me!" I would be more concerned about someone who wants to be an admin strongly enough to take coaching than I would someone who uses this userbox to say "if you need help with those menial tasks, I'm right here". Of course, that's not to disparage those who have been sysopped through either method - as I said I have no aversion to either. But I can see how some people would. Happy‑melon 19:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Can help indicate a user, and may also, to an extent, show a rationale behind some actions. I don't see any reasons for deletions apart from those listed in the nomination, which aren't that major. But I respect 12 Noon for deciding to get opinions on this into the open. Rudget. 19:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per snowolf. Tiptoety ^talk 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a very popular userbox. It should not be deleted because it displays a good feeling about a user wanting to become an admin someday.Swirlex (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit conflict Keep. Power-hungry admins can, and likely will be delisted. Having a template shouldn't harm an RfA in my mind. I can see the Adminship power craze side of this as well, but admins generally are trusted and do well in their job. Also, It would generate a whole heap of red links. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 22:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe that any opposition to an RfA based on this userbox alone would be severely misguided. There are many great users who simply want to be more involved with the running of this project. If there is a problem here it is not with the template. --S.dedalus (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This can help people who nominate that this user wants to be an admin. They do not have to ask them. Ohmpandya (Talk to Me...) 23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see nothing wrong with this template, either technically, or according to Wikipedia policy. J.delanoy (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template does not suggest that the user's only goal is to gain adminship. I've used this template for quite a while, and to me it simply expresses a general interest in becoming an admin, not actively pushing for it. As the template says, "administrator someday". That's a long way from the I'm just here to gain power by becoming an admin sort of idea you seem to be claiming it states. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per User:Pyrospirit. I don't see anything wrong with this userbox. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 01:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I had this userbox before I became an admin. I don't find it controversial, disparaging, or any other way detrimental. It's also good for finding admin candidates to coach or adopt. Useight (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW Closer as keep recommended. Tiptoety ^talk 02:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would withdraw it as "point well taken", but for the one "delete" !vote. With the recent brew-ha-ha's on a select few RfA's, I was surprised this was not near as controversial as I suspected.... Good to know, good to know! --12 Noon ^2¢ 03:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not think that the reasons to delete are enough to delete it. Captain panda 03:23, 16 January 2008 (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!) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mortal Kombat faction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, as no Mortal Kombat factions are notable enough for an article. — Pagrashtak 18:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom; unused and unlikely to be used. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -unlikely to be used. SkierRMH (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom; unused templates, hmm. See my template deletion policy. --tennisman 16:30, 15 January 2008 (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!) 02:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Wales historic county (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Replaced by Template:Infobox historic subdivision which has the capacity to display a wider range of data and is suitable for any unit in any country (this one just worked for Welsh counties). — MRSC • Talk 15:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - superseded. SkierRMH (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• CSD:G6 (housekeeping) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:26, 21 January 2008 (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!) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:River Shannon table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Single use. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete per nom and others. --tennisman 16:31, 15 January 2008 (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!) 02:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User TNTF2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userbox for a taskforce that was deleted. — Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - not needed. SkierRMH (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This looks like WP:SNOW, so no objection; but I thought userboxes went to MfD. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  CSD:G6--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 19 January 2008 (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!) 02:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userbox for a taskforce that was deleted. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - not needed. SkierRMH (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This looks like WP:SNOW, so no objection; but I thought userboxes went to MfD. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  CSD:G6--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:41, 19 January 2008 (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!) 02:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Ferry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated and replaced by ((Infobox Ship Begin/doc)). - Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Good job with the conversions! TomTheHand (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created this template about 18 months ago, as at that time ((Infobox Ship)) was heavily geared towards military/naval vessels rather than commercial ferries, and the syntax was too sophisticated for me to modify. However, as this issue has now been overcome and the template is no longer used in any articles, I can see no reason for keeping it. --RFBailey (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated, now that our standard infobox can accommodate the same data and instances of the old one have been replaced. Maralia (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RFBailey and nom. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Brad (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If not for the other contributions this would be a speedy under WP:CSD#G7. Happy‑melon 10:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH (talk) 06:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (yes, I know that;s redundant...) AWESOME new one!!!! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:14, 16 January 2008 (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.