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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DC Supervillian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

By title and current placement by the author, this navbox covers Category:DC Comics supervillains which contains 675+ articles (692 w/ redirects) and Category:DC Comics supervillain teams which covers an additional 62 articles. I'm sorry, that way to much for a navbox. J Greb (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed the utility of such a box is questionable with such magnitude. Additiionally, this is a box with fairly wide parameters (particularly for a comics navbox), and the line between villain and hero is often gray in modern comics (should Captain Atom be included or Hal Jordan?). Finally, villain is spelled wrong in the template. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. J Greb beat me to the nomination. This template will either encompass 675 articles, making it pages long and a uselessly indiscriminate list in template format, which is already served by the category pages, of it becomes a limited list with an arbitrary determination of which characters are worthy for listing. It adds nothing to any character page that isn't already there in either format. ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even though it won't stop from being deleted. If you look at it has been changed and is only stuck with more major characters. Although since the name of the template section is spelled wrong, I guess there is no way to change that unless by moving it which I did enough of that, I guess it should be deleted. But I was hoping it wouldn't. For right now I think the spelling of it on the main page is the only problem now. Maybe I could be allowed for a do over after the deletion, then it should be fine. Captain Virtue (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, the miss-spelling and the cut-and-paste moves aren't really the issue. It's the potential breadth of the 'box.
    I can appreciate that you have a specific idea about what the 'box would be, however, once it's put in place, it becomes fair game for others to add to. Right now we've got issues with characters/topics/articles that are being added to relatively narrowly defined 'boxes - ((Hulk)) is a big one where Spider-Man, X-Men, and Thor specific characters keep getting added because "Hulk fought them" - and with what constitutes a "notable" or "major" character for inclusion - ((Batman)) and the never ending "add my fave" debate. The last thing we need is a set of, at a minimum, 4 navboxes (DC and Marvel, hero and villain) that will each either run hundreds of articles in content or be a serious strain on editors fighting over which characters are "notable" or "major" enough, or actually rightly DC or Marvel characters for that matter, to be included. - J Greb (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with what you just said if there is one thing that I would put out if you notice inside the edit template it specifically says please don't add anying or delete without discussing why first. And then I would hear them out and approve or disaprove, normally if someone would argue why a character would be in there it's because he maybe does in some respects like arguing that the Ventriloquist should be in the Batman enemies section. So in a way I don't mind if they add one they just need an strong reasoning and source in the talk page before adding. Captain Virtue (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even with such request, that does not negate that the template has very broad and poorly defined inclusion criteria, which consequently diminishes the utility of it. - Sharp962 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --Conti|✉ 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not as bad as Template:Lists of countries was, but still too close for comfort. Bloated to the point of harming usability. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appropriate as a category, not a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Far too broad to be a navbox. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Supervillians (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to the above TfD. Though this one looks like it was an earlier version of that template. Either it's a duplicate or it's a potentially larger navbox. J Greb (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated above, poor utility and confusing. Spelling errors. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete As per J Greb, it does look like this would be a clean up of the more relevant category above. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not necessary for right now. It is an original, if it stays, I do have plans for it that I have already have discussed to you J Greb. But still I just realized the spelling of the title supervillain was wrong and that's my main focus of why it should be deleted. Captain Virtue (talk)
• Delete. Same reasoning as template immediately above, plus misnamed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Far too broad to be a suitable navbox. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same reason as for the related template above. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:After War Gundam X mobile units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles have been merged to List of After War Gundam X mobile weapons. As a result, this template is no longer used and no longer needed. Farix (Talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no longer useful for nagivation. Unless you're trying to navigate the list, and that's what the TOC is for. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too few articles to justify a separate navbox. Could probably use one for After War Gundam X in general though, similar to ((Mobile Suit Gundam 00)) and ((Mobile Suit Gundam SEED)) (don't know for sure, since I haven't actually looked yet). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Merge done there is no more justification for this template. --KrebMarkt 05:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There ought to be a WP:CSD to cover this, but sadly no. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:23, 15 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk)

Template:WPCouncilRec (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Template:WPCouncilRec the utility and purpose of this template has become unclear. Much of the language is redundant to material already present in Template:Project and no alternate wording or usage for a project footer for WikiProjects with respect to the WikiProject Council is clear. Optigan13 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as indicated on the linked discussion, the template has outlived its usefulness. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per the linked discussion. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:59, 12 August 2009 (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 discussion was keep User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links a few episodes out of hundreds on the grounds that they feature Sideshow Bob. See discussion for deletion of Family guy road trip. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My logic for creating the template was that users were continually adding a list to the Sideshow Bob page. Also, these episodes are unique because Bob has had so few speaking parts so it does have a well-defined and limited criteria and easily linking between episodes does have its uses (now if it was episodes featuring Homer, THEN it would be pointless). Is this a WP:POINT nomination? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not needed. All episodes should be linked, within prose, from the character's article anyway. DJ 01:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what about linking from the actual episodes? Cape Feare and The Italian Bob share a direct link (Sideshow Bob's involvement), so the template is useful in tying them together without listing all similar episodes in every article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This template has little to no significance to articles and has no reason to be used. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the kind of navigation box I would actually use. The main Sideshow Bob doesn't have a quick-to-read list of the different episodes. Yeah, they're all mentioned in the text, but you have to scan through the whole article to find the one you want. The Sideshow Bob episodes are a significant group of episodes in that they have their own internal continuity, so it makes sense that users would start reading about one, and then want to read about the others. (By the way, I'm not familiar with the Family Guy template you mention, so a link would be helpful.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_August_10#Template:Family_guy_road_trip. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a template hidden at the bottom of the pages and links articles with a narrow and well defined scope. If this does gets deleted, I would suggest adding a collapsible table to the main article if this template is deleted. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I find it useful. Even if all these things are referenced in prose, I tend to look for infoboxes for my navigational needs. However, its not as useful on the pages for those episodes. Still its not really that much less useful than Template:Religion in The Simpsons. In general, I prefer infoboxes to scanning through the article to find the links I need. — JediRogue (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clear navigational purposes for Sideshow Bob episodes. CTJF83Talk 07:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful navigation tool for the Sideshow Bob article and the episodes he appears in. Theleftorium 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per above. The Flash ^{talk} 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Useful navigation tool. Rhino131 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unlike the Family Guy template, the articles in this template are actually significantly related. Navigation helper. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are sufficient articles linked to warrant a nav template, and the character is a major component of the episodes listed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per above. Dt¹²⁸ SpeakToMe 16:06, 21 August 2009 (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 discussion was speedy delete as test page. Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HIS BIRTHDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, replaceable by typing "May 9, 1980" (which actually involves less typing than using the template). Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harris Jayaraj (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and inappropriate use of template, not used anywhere. Johannes003 (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Four articles is not enough to warrant a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2009 (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 discussion was speedy delete per myriad of related 1632 discussions Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009

Template:R from 1632 character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and inappropriate use of templates. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ricky. Have a beer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:32, 11 August 2009 (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 discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Untrue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Note - the template creator and several of the participants in this discussion were found to be WP:SOCK accounts. These have been collapsed or stricken. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this template because it accuses Wikipedia content (and inherently, those who added it) of containing fabrications, lies, etc. It says that there is an intent to mislead people, which is an accusation of bad faith, and further says that "such fabrication must be immediately removed." Per WP:SOFIXIT, if an article truly contained WP:BLP violations or gross untruths, any editor should simply deal with the problem, or if it is in the context of an edit war or article ownership problem, an editor should bring it up on a talk page or notice board rather than leaving a comment that the article is a bunch of lies. In practice, this kind of template simply becomes a way of registering discontent. The template is relatively new and infrequently used. Most legitimate uses of this template are better served by adding the "NPOV" or "Unreferenced" templates.

• Delete(as nominator) - Wikidemon (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to pose a question here. Can anyone point to a place where the template has ever been used appropriately? I discovered it because it had been placed on a controversial article by an editor who thought the article was biased, which is clearly not a good use (good faith editors should not accuse other good faith editors of spreading lies). Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• response to your question - right now, this article is located on the page Zachlumia. without this template, the article would recquire five separate templates in order to contain the same ifnormation. I feel that having just one or two templates that re more inclusive is both more educational to editors and readers but less cluttery and less unpleasnt to look at. User:Smith Jones 17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you not see how inherently absurd it is to take the time to place a template that reads "Such references and claims must be immediately removed." ? If something is that serious of a violation, then JUST REMOVE IT. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in a prefect world, it would be easy to be bbold and simply strip things that violate policies. however, this is Wikipedia nad not a magical fairyland where everyone agrees all the time. in the spirit of collegial and cooperatiev editing, we must instead of unilaterally taking action decide to work with the users who put such information on the article and work with tem on the talk page to preven tthem from turning into a violant content dispute or a WP:3RR violatron. This article is to call attention to all passing editors that some content is in serious dispute allowing for a collegial and respectful resolution rather than the edit warring that is growing increasingly common in this dark age. User:Smith Jones 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Hoo-boy, what a soapbox that is. Besides running afoul of the verifiability, not truth pillar, it is also a bit redundant, as there are other templates that raise the point better with far less eDrama, e.g. Template:Hoax and Template:Disputed. Tarc (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - This Template is just the sum of four long existing Templates that are in use - and nothing more. It was made with copy/paste, and if you think all that you said in your comment above, then you have even more job to do with half of the templates in use. If you think that something in it not comply to the rules of Wikipedia, why did you not just edited and adjust text to your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules. I believed that one template is easier to find and add and occupies less space. So, I strongly oppose deletion of this template, maybe some editing can solve your problem with it. And nobody accuses Wikipedia of nothing !!! Hoo-boy Tarc, what a pecepcion you have, "as there are other templates that raise the point better with far less eDrama, e.g. Template:Hoax and Template:Disputed", only this template is made of these two (and other two)! --Santasa99 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Which four? Perhaps these need to be checked. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redirect to template:disputed. Although this template could be edited to have less implication of bad faith, other templates mentioned above already do the job better. A template giving more specific reasoning should be more likely to get problems fixed (and less useful as an edit war weapon) than one with vague claims of lies or terminological inexactitudes. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

!vote edited by me. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this template is one of the few tools that we as Honest Wikiepdians have to warn readers against ongoing edit warring, fabricaiton fo sources and information, and outright hoax-related material that sometimes creeps onto the Wikipedia. without this template, we would have to implant 4 or 5 other templates to contain the same infromation that this SINGLE template does, and we will lose a critical tool for spurring collegial and cooperative editing instead of deceptive editing on the part fo some POV-pushers. User:Smith Jones 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  If there were literally fraudulent sources or info in an article, then they would be removed, no question. The manner in which this template can an has been used though is nothing like that at all; it is put to use by the losing side of a content/policy dispute, hence the inflammatory rhetoric of the template text. For an actual hoax article, again, we already have Template:Hoax. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment thats a reaonable point, HOWEVER some of the cases that a source does exist but it is misrepresented by use of weasel words or even bizarre manipulations to make it seem as if they say something that the source doesnt support. alternatively, entire paragraphs have been rewirtten on some articles to deceive and manipulate readers who trust that a source says what the Wikipedia Article that cites it refers to. User:Smith Jones 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Smith Jones, I totaly agree with you.

sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
comment - Blpdispute, BLPunsourced, BLP sources, Hoax, Despute, Misleading, Conflicting were my source in making Untrue template. Untrue template does not contain anything that is not written in these that I mentioned ahead. And I was very careful about this. I wanted a template that only emphasizes this warnings, and put them in a SINGLE box, instead 4 or 5.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Contrary to the representations made above that this template is just a combination of other notices, it actually contains much stronger language that actively asserts the falsehood of the article material. The other templates mentioned describe articles as disputed or poorly sourced, not false. Even the strongest of the other templates, ((Hoax)), only says that the article might be a hoax. This template also attributes bad faith to editors, including "deliberate lies." Also, there is already a template, ((Article issues)), available for use when an article has multiple issues, so this template would be redundant even if reworded to more civil language. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So, it MUST be deleted, noway it could be edited and/or adjusted. (And you talk about bad faith.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 August 2009 comment deleted as socking

It seems to me that the sentence that resulted from combining other fragments conveys a different meaning to any of the individuals, like a quote accidentally taken out of context. This would be a fixable problem, but the redundancy is not. This template could be made an alias of the closest match. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the stength of the template might be unlawful, but i have created a replica that is less potentially inflammatory yet still contains a synthesis of the four or five templates that it is intended to replace. User:Smith Jones 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revision is more neutrally worded, which is a good improvement. But it is still redundant to other, more widely used templates, so I'm sticking with my delete vote. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep, this template is a good idea, I am strongly for keeping it. Actually, there should be made one for every other issue. Without one template that combines several templates into SINGLE, we would have to use sometime 3, 4 or 5 other temp's. And as user Smith Jones pointed, "... we will lose a critical tool for spurring collegial and cooperative editing instead of deceptive editing on the part fo some POV-pushers. I (sooooo, absolutely, positively) fully agree with him (with S.Jones)! "--Umagli (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • comment - And I would argue that, when we stumble upon totally fabricated, falsified article that have nothing with reality and truth, we shouldn't be afraid to say that loud and clear. We shouldn't afraid of editorial wars, in the case of some nonsensical articles and deliberate lie, because the author probably relying on that fear - simply its not like that we dealing with controversy or bias and partial, onesided point of view or anything like that. If some one inventing part or whole story we should be able to respond without fear before we start deleting.--Umagli (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not need a template for every possible situation. And if a template says that "such references and claims must be immediately removed", then for Pete's sake remove the claims instead of adding a template on top of them. --Conti|✉ 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template is phrased over-aggressively (/too strongly) and it duplicates other, more precise, better-phrased templates which can be used instead. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we encounter something fabricated and falsified we should remove it immediately. Not simply tag the article with a template. Garion96 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - The strongest arguments for keeping this template are these contradictory arguments for deleting it; first you say we need more general then more precise, then we don't need a template for every possible situation (?!). "If we encounter something fabricated and falsified we should remove it immediately", well, this is not an argument, we don't do this without warning, discussion, argumentation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabeSabe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — SabeSabe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • Er, yes, we do remove fabricated information in articles without warnings and discussions. Also note that the above user created an account to comment/!vote here. --Conti|✉ 18:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep Yes, SabeSabe made the point. I agree, you guys hardly have provided any arguments to delete.--ZmajeviOdBosne (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — ZmajeviOdBosne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Another brand new account.. --Conti|✉ 18:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Wow, how perspicuous, you mast be psychic.--ZmajeviOdBosne (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, but I can see your contributions. :) It's also interesting that you add userboxes to User:Santasa99's (the template's creator) user page. --Conti|✉ 19:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Please someone, VOTE where ?!--SabeSabe (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] As I have already said, argumentation is your (strongest) virtue. :)--ZmajeviOdBosne (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For SabeSabe and ZmajeviOdBosne saying that we don't provide a valid enough argument. Actually we provide a pretty solid argument even though everybody's reason are completly different. One is that the whole template is presented in a very forceful tone like it was actually written by Adolf Hitler. It suggests that Wikipedia is a democracy, which it is not. I also feel turned off by the phrase "In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research." and "Please see the article's talk page for making any controversial decisions regarding this article.", which doesn't seem helpful at all and seems very conflicting from the readers point of view. Two, there are templates like ((unrefrenced)), ((disputed)), ((hoax)), ((misleading)), and ((update)). Some of these are listed on the Template page, which questions why we need this template in the first place. You might of also forgotten about ((citationneeded)), ((who)), and ((whom)), which are very important parts of marking questionable content in articles. Three, as I am siding with the other people here. WP:SOFIXIT renders ((untrue)) inerit as we remove unsouced content if we can't find sources, we find sources for content that happened but hasn't properly source and we fix gramatical, spelling and posture errors, there's also WP:BLP which describes the way a biography should be written and also implements certain rules pertaining to sources, notability and prose so what's the use for ((untrue)) if there isn't going to be an article that's going to require it. That's all. --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the smear tactics being used to discredit people who want ot keep this article. just because this is the first articel they've made while logged in doesn't mean that they are a WP:SPA and as far as ic an tell there isn't a restriction on how old your acount must be before you are allowed to ahve an opinion here. Quite frankly, this debate has become unnecessarily ugly. i havenothing but respect for the people who want to delete this template; I disagree with them but I dont think thtat they are being dishonest or tendentionus in their reasons. Likewise, the people who want to keep this article are acting in the best of intentions and please let's tone down the rhetoric and focus on the template and not on what other people have in their heads. User:Smith Jones 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actual new users of the wikipedia are likely to be pretty unaware of the arcanery of article deletions, reviews, arbcoms, etc... When new accounts make their first edits to such pages, it is almost always a red flag of past involvement. This is what the template is for, all it does is provide a tag to the closing admin that there may be more to an account's "vote" than appears at first glance. There's no reason to whip up the eDrama about it, so please, chill. Tarc (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's not all it does. I was resently subjected to CheckUser as a result of this very discussion and it was found that I did not operate sockpuppets. The problem with this tag is the same one that people say that is the problem with the template Untrue; it appears to assume bad faith inadvertently and creates the impression that disagreeing users are playing unfairly or dishonestly. The tag should be used only before a CheckUser has been enacted and it shouldn't really remain after the alleged sockpuppets have been proven not to be sockpuppets. My argument remains the same that it's possible for someone to edit extensively before registering, and only feel the need to register when they see something like this. I can understand your suspicions and concerns; I am not saying that they're unreasonable, only that instead of lashing at out at me the Checkuser complaints should be filed only against the two suspicious accounts instead of at me since I didn't do anything wrong by having a contrary opinion. User:Smith Jones 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion that any checkusers should be filed here. Perhaps you are confused regarding the difference between a single-purpose account and a sock-puppet? Tarc (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser already has been filed. Smith Jones has nothing to do with this, but ZmajeviOdBosne (talk · contribs), SabeSabe (talk · contribs), Santasa99 (talk · contribs) and Umagli (talk · contribs) are of course the same person. Garion96 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, had no idea about that. It was fairly obvious those 4 were either socks or meats, but Taylor Karras' lumping smith-jones in with em was ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I thought that he was the sockpuppeteer due to an over dramaticly comment he posted about SPA's. And I didn't know that Umagi or Santasa99 were sockpuppets either, just skipped my mind. No offense Smith Jones. Anyways, this has gone too far, this is just a discussion on whether to delete the template, not some flame war. So please, let's just drop this. --Taylor Karras (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. anyway, how long do templates_for_deletio discussions are supposed to last? This one seems to have run 8 days and I am not seeing any new arguments from either side. due to the fact that most of the people saying keep apart from I were sockpuppets, I think that there is strong consensus at this point for delete even though I feel that I have reformed this article to avoid being too WP:ABF and incivil. Is there an administrator in charge of handling deletion for this template? User:Smith Jones 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven days is the standard, but sometimes there is a backlog, particularly for cases like this one, where there is a lengthy discussion that an administrator needs to read before closing it out. I imagine someone will be along to close it within the next day or two. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the quick reply. I understand about the backlog but I didnt know if templates followed the same rough timeframe (7 days) as articles for deletion. User:Smith Jones 23:21, 18 August 2009 (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.