< February 11	February 13 >

February 12, 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. -Splash^talk 00:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If defined call3, and others[edit]

Template:If defined call3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:If defined call2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:If defined call1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Meta-templates with many layers (usually called in a template, and both additionally call ((If defined call))) as mentioned in its previous TFD, but now completely orphaned. Wikiacc 19:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - These were the more inefficient cousins of an already bad concept. Previous TFD decided delete, and they are orphaned. -- Netoholic @ 21:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (speedy?) as redundant. They're only used on a few archive pages, not sure if they need to be subst:ed there. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 00:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: concur with all above. Can ((prod)) be used on templates? —Phil | Talk 11:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Note that [personal attack removed] the existence of discussion over a template does not make the template divisive, it simply indicates that there are some issues with the template to be resolved. -Splash^talk 00:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anarchism table[edit]

Please see Talk:Anarchism for deadlocked discussion. This is just another waste of time and energy, as the template does not even serve any real purpose, not even for those proposing it!!!Harrypotter 14:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Might as well work on it. Infinity0 ^talk 14:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --AaronS 16:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete // Liftarn 16:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As a WP:POINT nomination. Don't bring the table here just because there is a dispute about it. Disputes should be resolved at WP:RFC. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amen. The nomination for deletion is frivolous. Hogeye 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (and the 'anarchism' trees) they are far too simplistic and POV. You can't seriously use such contorted and bias rubbish on wikipedia -- max rspct leave a message 19:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tables, charts, and trees of this sort are inherently oversimplifications of a complex and highly disputed topic. Sarge Baldy 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why not? If you think it's a waste of time, then don't participate in it. How is it any more of a waste of time than Wikipedia itself? Why prohibit others from utilizing it? How rude and authoritarian. RJII 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because something takes time to reach consensus doesn't mean you should give up, that's a sign of bad collective decision making. The table is POV because it hasn't reached consensus yet. It is true that simplifying something will ultimately impart some kind of bias, but even a hundred page essay on the subject is hopelessly simplistic in comparison to the subject matter (no matter what the subject matter is). Anarchism is confusing so organizing a table to help people make sense of it can't be a bad thing if it's done correctly. Let's work it out. CJames745 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, you might have noticed, is that about half the editors of the page consider these visual interpretations inherently POV and a waste of time. I think part of the problem is that some people define anarchism in terms of what is, while the rest of us define it in terms of what it is not. Thus the idea of trying to list all strands of anarchist thought in a chart seems impossible, and indeed this one ignores existing traditions such as anarcho-primitivism on the grounds it doesn't translate well into a chart. I don't find it possible to plop anarchism onto a chart, nor do I think it should be reduced to a series of economic theories. Sarge Baldy 18:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But that's why it is now explicitly refered to as anarchisim classified by economics. A chart simplifies anarchism only as much as an opening paragraph to an article does the same thing. That is why the article exists in the first place. To expand upon the subject. CJames745 23:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per T1: "Templates that are divisive or inflammatory". The arguments going on at Talk:Anarchism prove that this template meets that definition. Angr/talk 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not material well-suited to table form. Bacchiad

The result of the debate was DELETE. I thought CfD did the template deletion when the only purpose was to populate a deleted category? -Splash^talk 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Needs-verification[edit]

Template:Needs-verification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The category that this template points to was deleted per CfD on Feb 4. I don't know if someone would rather it pointed somewhere else, or whatever...but it is not terribly useful in the current form. Syrthiss 13:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "I'm not sure, so delete" isn't a compelling argument I'm afraid --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Man I get a bad enough reaction with ((unreferenced)). This thing is ugly, and would just irritate editors even more than ((unreferenced)). -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of ((unreferenced)). -Xol 01:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was (29 keep/11d) (72.5% majority) keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wdefcon[edit]

Template:Wdefcon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's the complement of the MFD on Wikipedia:WikiDefcon: [1]. After seeing comments like "vandalbot is trying us to get defcon raised to 1" it seems clear to me that this is inviting to vandalism, and we don't want to encourage that. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per drini and my comments on Wikipedia:WikiDefcon's MFD page. --light darkness^(talk) 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per my comments on the MFD: It's unnecessary, since most users who would use it are already active in countervandalism. Worst, I think that it's actually harmful to Wikipedia: it encourages vandalism by transforming the issue of vandalism into a militaristic vision of epic battle. This is one of many similar manifestations of this militarism that should be eliminated in favour of simple tools. A Defcon is not a 'simple tool'. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^') 07:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
~~No vote~~ Keep. Technically, the vandalbot wants us at DefCon 1, but his main purpose is to get us to disallow all anons from editing, and he thinks that by getting us at DefCon 1 would make us realize a problem. However, if there were no organized system, he'd just have to vandalize even more for us to really notice, so deleting DefCon may not be the answer. Then again, Pathoschild is right, it's not really useful anyway. And it's 3am and I have no idea if I'm even coherent. --Rory0 96 07:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you realize that even if defcon goes to 1, anon edits WON'T be restricted? the defcon is an unofficial subjective thing. Carries no weigh whatsoever. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too effing right. Lock the database because a bunch of kids on RC patrol think we ought to? Stuff and bollocking nonsense. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we're not gonna protect anything, it's the damn vandal that wants us to. That's the whole fucking point. --Rory0 96 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know, it's the vandal that wants universal semi-protection and thinks DefCon 1 will make us do it. That's exactly the point, DefCon isn't really important at all. --Rory0 96 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the MfD. --Malthusian (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep Keep Keep!!!!!! It's not inviting people to vandalise, its just showing the level of vandalism!!!--Ac1983fan 12:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go and read the talk page of that template and associated pages prior to posting a mindless CVU endorsement. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:And as you might not have seen, I tricked out my User Page to support this template.Ac1983fan 13:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Wry smirk) Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the only alert system against vandals. However, there needs to be better montors\controlers of this template to ensure accurate monitoring. - Dynamo_ace Talk
"Alert system". Hmm...alert system. Well that's not really the wiki way, is it? But then again, the wiki way's gone to hell in a handbasket. Let's have the Wikimedia black helicopters! Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quick! Grab your tinfoil hats! But what would you call WP:ANI, or indeed recent changes itself if not alert systems? the wub "?!" 01:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely no evidence that this encourages vandalism --Ryan Delaney ^talk 15:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence either way, I concede. But firm evidence it's a waste of time and a waste of space. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Ryan Delaney's comment.Bayerischermann 16:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userfy if someone wants it), Wikipedia is not Star Trek. JYolkowski // talk 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when this is used it is an effective meausure for bringing more rcp's to action. If I see the status on this go up when I log on, I generally start rcp before other daily routines. As for a this being a comliment to the MFD, I didn't vote keep on it, as having that page isn't nearly as useful to me. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Shrink is decided, or if someone would like to propose one, I would find a smaller version of this template just as handy (perhaps only showing the level and comment, but not all the possible levels?) xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 00:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete manually updated and totally subjective, it doesn't show anything meaningful --pgk^(talk) 18:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per xaosflux. I have the template on my user page and I start my daily activities from there. If I see a higher Wdefcon that normal (4/5) I immediately hop into IRC and get going at helping out. For me, it is a great tool for looking at the current amount of vandalism at a glance. If we didn't have it, I most likely wouldn't rcp as much due to the amount of extra time it would take just to size up the current situation. There's a cleanup backlog that needs doing and NPOV issues that need solving too. --Zsinj^Talk 18:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How about if the images are cropped down so that only the Wdefcon level is shown? This would greatly shorten the template. Also, the text could be made a bit smaller if space is really that much of a concern. --Zsinj^Talk 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xaosflux. NaconKantari e|t||c|m 18:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xaosflux. I first got into vandal fighting after seeing the template on someone's userpage... Mikker ^... 19:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting? This isn't a damn war. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any use for this one. Grue 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but shrink, since it really is rather large. Could be made smaller and less conspicuous. Thor Malmjursson 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable compromise, perhaps. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thor Malmjursson's reason. Brian | (Talk) 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat useful. --Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; good riddance. Ral315 (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I always found this stupid. Red Alert :) Gerard Foley 21:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like it, don't use it. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 06:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per xaosflux. I have a lot to keep track of and not a lot of time to do it, as do many other users, and it is instrumental in my decisions on whether or not to patrol for vandalism outside of my usual watchlist.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can use this to know whethor to go on RC patrol or not. Levels 2+ could be scaled to be used more, and it could be smaller, but lets just edit it.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per T1, "Templates that are divisive or inflammatory". The arguing over this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiDefcon proves that it is divisive. Angr/talk 07:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to CSD T1: "Its existence and invocation is still controversial." --Zsinj^Talk 23:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be kidding!? So lets just speedy any template that attracts a mix of keep and delete votes on TfD as "divisive" the wub "?!" 01:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I use it. I don't usually fight immediate vandalism, but I have jumped in a couple times at DefCon 3. Seems useful to me. If people don't like it, don't put it on your page, duh. The part about militarism is just silly. This general denigrating of people who are doing boring work fighting off vandals is insane. Also, I'm getting pretty fed in general with people deciding they want to delete other people's stuff. What, are you bored? Deletion is supposed to be for cruft and garbage, not decent work that you don't happen to like. Herostratus 09:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pfft. Not even sure I risk commenting here. If you can't spot the militaristic vein this injects into the project, then you probably shouldn't be commenting. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Herostratus. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This site is getting too delete-happy. Deckiller 19:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Too much crap coming in. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But I also agree that it should be shrunk - perhaps to display only the current level number? Misza13 ^(Talk) 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the arguments of the keeps outweight those of the deletes. --rogerd 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. That's nothing like how it works here. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ryan Delaney and Herostratus.Soothing R 20:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it a nice tool to use when I want to see if the Counter Vadelism Unit needs even more help than I give normally. American Patriot 1776 00:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this cruel world, the kind of help the CVU needs is unforthcoming. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This template is in no way divisive. Articles about terrorists could be deemed devisive under similar logic, but yet they provide information. I agree that it helps me decide when the Counter Vandalism Unit needs my help.
Sign your sodding vote and let's be done with it. Rob Church (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - What purpose does it serve? I don't know about any other cvu members, but I revert vandalism whether it's an overwhelming amount or just a little trickle. The CVU is not a law-enforcement body nor is it a military - a Defcon makes it seem like we are. Oh, and Rob Church, your comments in reply to people saying keep are getting a bit arrogant. --Tony (Talk), Vandalism Ninja 22:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't say that I rely on it too much, but it's clearly a heavily-used template. I don't think TfD is the proper place to decide its place in the proper scheme of vandalism monitoring. For those who don't like it, I recommend proposing something in the spirit of WP:CUV's counterpoint to WP:CVU. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 00:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people find it useful. the wub "?!" 01:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but shrink. --Ypacaraí 02:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Many many people have this on their user page, including myself - i think it makes a good addition to Wikipedia -Benbread 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - extremely useful. If you don't like it, don't employ it on your userpage. --Joe 19:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we just end this discussion, please? The AFD thing is really screwing up my userpage :) Deckiller 00:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Üβer Keep - Extremely useful... It's our only system of protection... and if you don't like it, don't put it on your user page.--IAMTHE E GGMAN (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Ryan Delaney's comment. --Dragon695 02:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a condition rating is intended not to let people know what condtion it is but to let people know what to do in response. A military base at threatcon alpha would let anyone come in and out, bravo would have id checks, charlie would have vechile searches (primarlly desigened at stopping explosives/weapons), delta would have checks on people leaving the base (desigened to stop intelligence theft). My problem is that wp has no policy on what to do at a 4 compared to a 5. "Ok boys we're at a level 4, uh wm continue reverting vandalism" Without a list of specifed actions to take for each level (in the form of a wp wide policy) this template is nothing but a pertty picture.--mitrebox 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was (16 keep/12 delete/1 other) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User anti-fascism[edit]

Template:User anti-fascism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - Template is clearly divisive and/or inflammatory, and, like User:No Rand and User:No Marxism, should be speedy deleted. Deletions must be consistent and fair. This template is not NPOV in nature. (nominated by User:Nhprman)

Note: Please avoid the temptation to delete the warning notice on the template, since it's the only way people can get here and vote to keep or delete the template.

Strong Keep If you are going to nominate a 'anti' something, you must to be NPOV nominate the 'pro' as well. The nomination is POV and therefore invalid. Would you also have a problem with a User Anti-Hitler as well? It is not divisive or inflammatory. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 05:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the policy on templates at WP:TFD?--Alhutch 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither divisive nor inflamatory. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 05:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "User No..." and "user anti..." are divisive sentiments. "User Marxism" or "User fascist" are not. Nhprman 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such a claim is an opinion. I happen to disagree. I also think that too many users and admins are abusing CSD T1 - a criterion which I oppose vehemently due to the conflicts it has invariably created, but which was instated by rule of dictator, and therefore didn't have to go through all that bothersome nonsense of "consensus". --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this new policy must be used equally and fairly. For the record, this is not a POV deletion. I am solidly anti-Hitler. Nhprman 06:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, user fascist isn't divisive? So you don't think a Jewish editor who, say, lost grandparents in the holocaust would find this offensive? Something isn't automatically divisive because it has "no" or "anti" as a prefix ("this user says no to anti fascism"; "this user is against the idea that there are an even number of stars in our galazy"). Mikker ^... 19:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 06:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TFD, which says that all templates must be NPOV and encyclopedic. This template is neither.--Alhutch 06:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TFD doesn't say that all templates must be NPOV and encylopedic - it simply states that you may want to nominate it for deletion if it is not - and as this template is intended to be used in userspace, that's a moot issue anyway. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isnt opposing fascism a good thing? Or do the admins (rightly) assume that it can refer to them as well as Hitler? - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is not whether opposing fascism is a good thing. Please see MONGO's vote below.--Alhutch 19:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's been made clear that opposing fascism (or marxism or randism) is not the goal of an encyclopedia, especially one that ostensibly "neutral." Imposing one's POV on the project is not acceptable. Nhprman 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Glad to see that despite their whinings to the opposite, the anti-userbox honchos have no qualms about coordinating and stacking votes. --Daniel 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Althought Dussst, Hitler was a Nazi. Benito Mussolini was Facist. --D-Day 12:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia.--MONGO 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And somehow fascism does help us write a better encyclopedia? --Daniel 21:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - the question is not whether fascism is good or bad. I think most rational people would agree that fascism is bad. the question is whether this template should be deleted. please don't confuse the issue.--Alhutch 23:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. violet/riga (t) 16:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless. Doubt there are many neo-nazis editing wikipedia, and, if there were, I'm not sure we should go out of our way to not offend them. ('be tolerant of everything except intolerance itself'). Mikker ^... 19:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Dussst--God of War 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No encyclopedic value --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Mikkerpickker - 69.207.46.112 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if someone finds this divisive or inflammatory they better emigrate to North Korea so they won't have Internet access and live in the society that is to their taste. Grue 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And how, exactly, do POV statements like this help us write a better encyclopedia? Nhprman 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Directly. I highly doubt that anyone who finds this template offensive would be an asset to Wikipedia. Grue 21:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your point, but on the other hand, we do not sign oaths when we start editing here swearing that we are not Fascists, Communists, anarchists, etc. These belief boxes only seem to create "tribes" of people who use server space to fight amongst themselves, and that space was intended for unbiased, NPOV articles Nhprman 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You want tribes? Look no further. The userbox deletion wars have done more to polarize the community than any single pastel shaded box ever could.--God of War 02:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, only one 'tribe.' The dispute is between "tribalists" who want to spend thousand of hours creating, editing, and discussing Userboxes (boxes about hobbies, religious beliefs, politics and slamming other people's views we may not like, like this one, for instance) and the "Wikipedians" who seem to simply want to edit the encyclopedia. I'm leaning towards the latter group. Nhprman 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all POV userboxes. --CFIF 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am really tired of all this trolling with POV userboxes. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all POV userboxes. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Sarge Baldy 09:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MONGO. Banez 17:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Somewhat along the lines of Jimbo's request. I really want to stress the point here that userboxes are an extention of wikipedia in a much more iconic way than a statement on a userpage. When we are on Wikipedia, we are not for or against anything, except the success of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Userboxes are highly visible, more associateable with Wikipedia itself, and have a good potential to taint the reputation of wikipedia as a neutral establishment dedicated to factual information and lack of bias.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well put.--Alhutch 22:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Are Wikipedians not allowed to be against or anti- anything? An opinion is never universal, so by its nature it's bound to be "divisive or inflammatory" to someone. I am not a fan of flauting these POV boxes but I believe people can hold strong opinions and still edit responsibly. Might as well purge all POV boxes and get it over with if you're afraid of being divisive instead of filling up the tfd log with them. --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If we keep "belief" Userboxes, let's rename them "Bias Announcers," because they insinuate bias, and create controversy. I have to point out that some Userboxes were "speedy deleted" while others remain. If all boxes stay, the ones deleted need to come back. But since some have gone, ALL should be deleted until this debate is sorted out. I'm not saying "purge them all" but I'm close to it. Nhprman 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think it is ridiculous that pro-anything is NPOV but anti-anything is POV. The entire concept of userboxes is doomed if that is the position the community takes. Rexmorgan 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listen. Jimbo's statement was (edited, emphasis added) was: I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political/religious/etc. userboxes and asking others to do the same. Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad... I think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC) OK? So keep the userbox and use the "what links here" function to find and engage each user who is using the userbox. If they don't want to delete it ask them to subst it.Yes this is time-consuming but so it bloviating about it all over the 'pedia, wheel wars, etc. See User:Tony Sidaway/Jimbo's request. All you have to do is basically drop Jimbo's note onto their page and I'm sure 80% will comply. The remainder? It'll be a teaching moment. Herostratus 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subst it if you want it. Proto||type 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete al user boxes except for very few. Caesarion 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-userbox (personal criterion). Herostratus' appeal above is not incompatible with this nomination. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But change. The idea is a politically sound notion. It might be best used with a different icon in it though. --Mal 18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all user-boxes(both pov and npov).helohe (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rexmorgan. --Dragon695 02:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the "User:Authority" (pro-authoritarian) and - more importantly - the "User:Fascism" Userbox templates have been deleted, apparently very recently, I'm a bit puzzled why this template is not also deleted, since the pro-fascism counterpart is gone. (User:Jwissick, above, suggested that to be NPOV, the pro- had to be deleted too. I'm curious what he has to say about the situation now.) So, unless we have some kind of double standards here at WP, this needs speedy deletion. Also, this voting has gone on far longer than any other in the deletion logs, curiously. Nhprman 07:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - or bring back the User_fascist box. Wikipedia is not to decide what's good or bad, and by having only 1 choice it is denying people the right to think for themselves. Boothman 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TucsonInfoBox[edit]

Delete per Sherool. --Alhutch 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dalbury^(Talk) 03:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not used. Mikker ^... 07:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was (15 keep/13 delete/1 other) no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User vomit[edit]

Currently categorized under Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny. Therefore, Keep. Sct72 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because someone says it's funny, that means it's funny, which in turn means we're obliged to keep it? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 02:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, for people with a sense of humor. Sct72 02:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I laughed when i saw it.. There should be a lighter side to WP... especialy with all this devisive TFD and Speedy deletes. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 02:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep let there be humor, FREE THE USERBOXMike McGregor (Can) 03:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 06:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. I pity any user for whom this box is continuously accurate. Michael Slone (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its funny, and cannot possibly offend anyone! And Cyde, you can't just say "delete all userboxes, this one included". Its not a vote, its a discussion. You just saying that wont count for anything when the discussion is closed - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Divisive, supports Communism, is a secret message to Al Qaeda terrorists, worships Satan. Also speedy the Userbox project and permanately ban everyone who has a userbox on their userpage. Just kidding. Speedy Keep per all above. No valid reason is given for deletion. --D-Day 12:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- the template is not encyclopedic. that's reason enough for deletion. check out WP:TFD criteria.--Alhutch 23:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously, this template does nothing to help us write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 14:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete silliness. violet/riga (t) 16:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO. Mikker ^... 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MONGO. Wikiacc 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic or community value. CG 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep neither divisive nor inflammatory. Grue 21:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gross but funny, and not hurting a damn thing. --F a ng Aili 00:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless.--God of War 02:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sense of humor. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a troll? You're really reaching now. Sarge Baldy 09:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per MONGO. Banez 17:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merely silly, not harmful Herostratus 10:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if you want it, WP:SUBST it. It is easy. Proto||type 10:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too silly for words. Completely useless. Humour on user pages is ok, but then substitute it, or be original and invent you own box, not in a template. Caesarion 14:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as silly, non-encyclopedic, transitory cruft. Perhaps subst it onto the userpages that use it now... ahh that would be two folks, D-Day and Richardkselby. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's funny! (Ibaranoff24 04:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete --Mal 18:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's funny and harmless! --Dragon695 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Due to the fact that there a number of humourous userboxes on the list of userboxes and this just applies to them. If this to be deleted then the others may be too. - Erebus555 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lighten up. --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 23:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ga-?[edit]

Template:User ga-? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Doesn't make sense. "?" is not one of the standard language categories at Category:User ga. Should be in Irish, not English if it is meant to be a real language template. Angela . 01:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sure someone is making a point with this...Mike McGregor (Can) 03:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Making a WP:POINT perhaps? I don't understand your reasoning to keep this. It isn't used anywhere. Angela . 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. If it were a language template, it would be in Irish. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weal delete only because it isnt used. If this userbox is used, then I change to keep - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dussst. Mikker ^... 19:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ? is not a valid level at Wikipedia:Babel. Wikiacc 19:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as it remains orphaned. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sarge Baldy 09:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even understand what it's trying to say. "Strictly speaking native to the Irish language but not fluent"? Huh??? Angr/talk 07:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably a person of Irish descent in Ireland who does not speak Gaelic. Still, that shouldn't be in Babel format. Delete —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some things do have to go, now and then. --Dragon695 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was moot. Speedy deleted by Physchim62 (T1, bloody stupid and frankly offensive). - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User m1911[edit]

Template:User m1911 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with various NRA-related templates, and needlessly provocative by combining politics and religion. Next thing you know, there will be boxes asserting that She always keeps a round in the chamber. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Legitimate template that is merely humorous and makes absolutely no reference to the NRA or politics. --Aaron 01:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and block MarkSweep for deletion spree against Jimbo's Instructions, WP:POINT and WP:DICK. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 01:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There were two parts of Jimbo's Instructions - "...don't make any crazy userboxes designed to try to trip this rule, and don't go on any sprees deleting ones that already exist." The continued creation of all kinds of userboxes without regard to the "this rule" or the discussions is also very disruptive. Btw, I am abstaining on this one for now Trödel•talk 03:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would HARDLY call this "crazy". Template:User admins ignoring policy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) sure. User m1911 hardly. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 04:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would disagree. ((User admins ignoring policy)) is a valid sentiment that many Wikipedia editors share, and which Wikipedia policy agrees with. (Personally, I display the box on my userpage - but I always subst: my userboxen, so it wasn't affected by the template's out-of-process deletion) --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, User admins ignoring policy is a very valid point, which i display in subst form on my userpage. But i think this userbox is funny, and shouldnt be deleted - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 10:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not provocative at all. makes no refrence to the NRA. slippery slope argument is not a valid reason for deleation. FREE THE USER BOX! Mike McGregor (Can) 03:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:UUB. —Andux^␅ 06:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. I cannot see any value whatsoever in this template, but if a person wants to display it, so be it. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all userboxes, this one included. --Cyde Weys 07:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfied to ((User:Userboxes/M1911)). Please attempt to seek a reasonable compromise rather than continue these disruptive nominations. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 08:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WTF?!?! Moving it to [[User:Userboxes/M1911] is an attempt to end-run around the template namespace and this deletion vote. -- Netoholic @ 10:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to me to be a good faith attempt to try and reach a compromise and end userbox nominations, which tend to be highly disruptive. --Teh Puppet 10:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If anyone is confused about (what I take to be) the intended meaning of this userbox, the quotation at M1911#Culture might help. –Sommers ^(Talk) 12:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does nothing to help us write an encyclopedia.--MONGO 14:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Factional/polemical/non-Wikipedian userbox. Wikiacc 20:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, only used on one user's page and not likely to be used elsewhere. JYolkowski // talk 01:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How many people use it is irrelevant as it was just created 2 days ago. Jwissick^(t)^(c) 02:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Harmless.--God of War 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stop userbox trolling. These deliberately divisive userboxes have no place in Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 03:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Dalbury. enough already. This template has absolutely nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia.--Alhutch 06:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A truly awful template, but frankly I don't care what people have on their userpages. Sarge Baldy 09:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For some reason the "God's gun" phrase bothers me. If it said "this user likes (whatever gun)" I'd vote keep. --F a ng Aili 19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreeing with God of War.--Anglius 03:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a wildly POV userbox (personal criterion). -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is harmless, and expresses a user's personality. As the original uploader of the image that is used, though, I do find it interesting that my pistol has become the center of such controversy :-) (And, no, I don't have the userbox template on my userpage.) Yaf 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mostly harmless and 42. --Dragon695 02:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]