< May 23	May 25 >

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Gangster[edit]

This is very offensive for many readers. I fear those users. -- 20:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic template. --Cyde↔Weys 22:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, UE. --kingboyk 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems unneccesary and divisive. RN 22:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I see no reason to delete it. Sophy's Duckling 00:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's highly amusing, and it's not like the gun is actually pointing at anything. Lady BlahDeBlah 01:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Claims of their being unencyclopedic are countered by the idea that WP:ENC doesn't mention items only used on Userpages. Templates exist in omnispace, and are not articles. Further, divsiveness seems a remote possibility. I doubt very many actual gangsters spend their time editing Wikipedia, so usage of this template is almost certain to be in an ironic or humrous vein. Further, the arguments presented above relate to whether this particular version of the userbox should exist; they are content-based. If the content of the userbox is the real concern, then change it: "This user is interested in gangsters." Also, oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Read it again: "Wikipedia is not a Blog Service" and "Wikipedia is not a Message Board" would seem to be the most appropriate here. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible speedy delete, is promoting crime and violence. Alphax ^τεχ 02:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - How does this promote crime and violence? It's not as if it says "Join a gang" or "Go kill". This userbox promotes violence no more than a "This user is married" userbox would promote marriage. Timrem 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So long as this is still an encyclopedia. --InShaneee 02:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy delete dreadful stuff, intimidation.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--HereToHelp 02:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unless it can be satisfactorily explained to me how it is offensive. It is meant for use in the user space, therefore it does not need to be encyclopedic. Also, don't "subst and delete" unless that is the expressed consensus; keep means keep, and no consensus defaults to keep. Timrem 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: What's the flipping harm? ACS (Wikipedian) 03:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recreate when wikipedia has a jail. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't imagine this being anything more than a tool of intimidation and it contributes nothing but an aura of fear to one's user page. Treima 07:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Intimidating? The gun isnt pointing at anything! Do you find going on Firearm intimidating? Should we delete that too? - • The Giant Puffin • 07:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: it would appear that some of the contributors above have forgotten that user-space exists to support the creation of the encyclopedia which should be our reason for being here in the first place. If the user is an expert on firearms or on gangster culture, then they should say so: proclaiming membership of an illegal organisation of some sort is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, intimidating template, offensive. --Terence Ong 10:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'll agree on this one for delete since it is just a joke. To be precise, because it doesn't say anything true about the user. People saying this is for intimidation really need to get a sense of humor. I do however disagree against the whole crusade against everything that isn't dry and personalityless around here. CelestialRender 14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While I don't find it particularly funny, I really think this is harmless. Arguably, lots of other userboxes aren't terribly relevant to building an encyclopedia, either. Just because you don't share a user's sense of humor doesn't mean you should rain on their parade. - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also don't really see how it could be used as an intimidation tool. "Ooh, watch out, I'm a gangster. If you do something I don't like, I'll... uh... vandalize your userpage." I think even a real gangster on Wikipedia isn't too much to worry about, let alone somebody who just puts up this userbox. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Why delete it? DakPowers (Talk) 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. "Indimidating?" Are you kidding? --Rory096 03:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep pre Rory096, Ssbohio. Mike McGregor (Can) 05:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Cant see how it would be offensive, perhaps if it was aiming at a target or something. However pictures of guns arent offensive, or we wouldnt have articles on them. I also can't see how this picture could be intimidating. Perhaps if I big burly tattoo'd guy was standing over me saying I owe'd him money and put this picture in front of me ... no I think I would crack up laughing at the fact that he proclaims to me "This user is a gangster" --Zer0faults 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see it as T1, but I don't see it as helpful for any purpose. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep makes me think of the song from Office Space. → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Change from a firearm to a picture of a member of the mob or Al Capone or something.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 15:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yo, man, stop deletin' all these userboxes! I vote a keep, yo! Freddie 00:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --StuffOfInterest 02:49, 30 May 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 03:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Senate templates[edit]

Template:89th Senate, Template:90th Senate, ..., Template:109th Senate are obsolete and no longer used in any articles. They can be deleted without any problems. CapitalR 07:37, 24 May 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 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. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Atolls of the Suvadives[edit]

Template:Atolls of the Suvadives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was previously used only in Atolls of the Suvadives. The page is now redirected to United Suvadive Republic. No other artilce uses this template and therefore is not required. Additionally see the talk page of redirected page. Oblivious 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Per nom. Not used for anything, nor likely to be.--Ssbohio 01:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, that's what categories are for. Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 27 May 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 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KyleRayner[edit]

Template:KyleRayner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
identical reasoning to below. Night Gyr 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst. and Delete. DakPowers (Talk) 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as the alternative is ambiguous templates that vaguely cover a multitude of divergent characters instead of this character specific one. NetK 05:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea is not to lose the content but simply to "subst" - that is, to put the text of the template into the article. The rationale is that the template is currently only used in one article. Nobody - as far as I can gather - is advocating a fullon zapping of it. --kingboyk 19:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Harmless. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete it would be best if it's only to be used in one article. However, if there are plans to use it in other articles then of course keep it. --kingboyk 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - Doesn't need to be a template if it can only be used on one article. --Cyde↔Weys 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Serves a useful encyclopedic purpose, if only on one page. No identifiable claim of policy violation, no rationale to subst.--Ssbohio 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Superceded by the catch-all ((Greenlantern)). --InShaneee 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is the problem, however, with the "catch-all" format relating to different characters. Alexandra Dewitt (aka Rayner's "Girl-in-the-Freezer") is "not" an associate nor ally of every GL, only Rayner himself. Just citing one instance of the GL template's bad premise. NetK 04:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. ACS (Wikipedian) 03:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see a reason to delete it if at least one of the editors of that article thinks it's useful and has reasoning. Is there actually a push to get rid of every template?
• Delete as only used in one article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:05, 26 May 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 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 14:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HalJordan[edit]

Template:HalJordan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-use template, not usable anywhere else. needs subst and delete. Night Gyr 02:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst. and Delete. DakPowers (Talk) 02:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as the alternative is ambiguous templates that vaguely cover a multitude of divergent characters instead of this character specific one. NetK 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, unless it's to be used elsewhere. --kingboyk 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - Doesn't need to be a template if it can only be used on one article. --Cyde↔Weys 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Serves a useful encyclopedic purpose, if only on one page. No identifiable claim of policy violation, no rationale to subst.--Ssbohio 02:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Superceded by the catch-all ((Greenlantern)). --InShaneee 02:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That is the problem, however, with the "catch-all" format relating to different characters. Alexandra Dewitt (aka Rayner's "Girl-in-the-Freezer") is "not" an associate nor ally of every GL, only Rayner himself. Just citing one instance of the GL template's bad premise. NetK 04:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. ACS (Wikipedian) 03:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as only used in one article. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 17:05, 26 May 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 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 template was deleted by HereToHelp -- Cowman109^Talk 20:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Applecomputer[edit]

Template:Applecomputer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only used once. Subst: and delete. HereToHelp 02:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst: and Delete. DakPowers (Talk) 02:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. --Terence Ong 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd like to point out that there is a WikiProject Macintosh and it might have been nice to ask them first if they had plans for the template or any reason why it shouldn't be subst'd (I've now done it). Of course, subst and delete if it's to be used only once otherwise keep. --kingboyk 19:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Actually I was the one who created it about six months ago and I really didn't have anything planned in particular, and we have other templates for that. Besides, the effect to the reader is the same.--HereToHelp 20:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but you didn't say that in your nom you see :) Thanks for clearing it up. In that case, I support subst and delete. --kingboyk 20:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - Doesn't need to be a template if it can only be used on one article. --Cyde↔Weys 22:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy subst and delete There seems to be no reason whatsoever for this template - it just uses infobox company as it should. RN 22:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst on article page. Gateman1997 00:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per editor of original template.--Ssbohio 02:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I went ahead and got it out of there, the tfd notice on top of Apple Computer looked really bad.--HereToHelp 02:53, 25 May 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 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 Keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW. It seems extremely unlikely the result of the debate will be anything other than "Keep", and many editors are calling for a premature close. Why waste everybody's time when we know the outcome? kingboyk 10:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wdefcon[edit]

Template:Wdefcon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
What's this, a template that transcludes userpages? Do we really need a subjective (since anyone can change it to what they feel) "alarm system"? I'd say userify, but I'm not sure if that's already done, I'm nominating the Template: namespace one. -- Drini 01:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I find it useful. Although it an inapproprite use of the template namespace, that can be fixed with one move to ((User Wdefcon)). DGX 01:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that moving it to {User Wdefcon} makes it stay on template namespace? -- Drini 01:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant it should be placed at ((User wdefcon)) like userboxes so they are more appropriate. DGX 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm pointing that such action doesn't change the fact it'd still be on template namespace -- Drini 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we shouldn't get rid of everything in the template namespace. DGX 02:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Userfy Bastique▼^parler _voir 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Userfy Naconkantari 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the excellent arguments for deletion that have been made in the past. FreplySpang 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The debate about the project page was notably diferant then the debate about the template, as reflected by the outcomes. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (where it is) as a useful tool to alert people when their efforts can be best used to prevent vandalism. I usually drop what I'm doing to help revert vandalism if I see its up to level three. Timrem 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Timrem. G.He 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Timrem. DakPowers (Talk) 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:BEANS. Anyone who would need to know this is already in #vandalism-en-wp anyway. We don't need to reward vandals with a quick update on this template showing them how effective they are. --Cyde↔Weys 01:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not on IRC as much as I used to be, but if I'm at home and this hits 2 or 3 I usually come in to work the issue. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Cyde: How does this reward the vandals exactly? That argument is completly a matter of an opinion from yourself. There is nothing there that help vandals. This template is designed to help users realize whenever there is a serious problem with vandals such as a vandalbot and such. DGX 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to question the use of citing WP:BEANS in this arguement. In my understanding of the essay, it means not to give vandals ideas as to better ways to vandalize. This template provides no ideas to vandals on how to vandalize, it just gives an indication of how active vandals are. In fact, the official policy page on vandalism could give a vandal more ideas than this template, and I don't see anyone challenging that under WP:BEANS. Timrem 03:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Extremely useful template, already survived a tfd with a large keep percentage. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Also, I have never used #vandalism-en-wp (or IRC in general), and I would like to know the vandalism level. IRC use is not required for vandal fighting, nor should it be. Prodego ^talk 01:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong like King Kong Keep Excellent, Über-useful tool. Its the first thing i look at when logging on to wikipedia. And your argument of "well anyone can change the level" is just bunk... because... erm.. isnt that the whole idea behind wikipedia? um der der der! --NightDragon 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On that note drini, the reason its subjective is that, basically, the community of users who tirelessly do RC patrol use that to keep tabs on how much vandalism is roughly going on. If the thing is at 5, i usually wont RC patrol, but if its at 3, then i will def. jump in. I mean sure, CVU members could sit there and put the status in text in the discussion page, but the template looks cool, is un-obtrusive, and is easy to script into your prefs.js file. --NightDragon 02:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per Timrem and NightDragon -- Shizane ^talk_contribs 02:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This template has been nominated for deletion in the past. The keep side succeeded. This template should be kept for it helps users know the amount of vandalism occuring. This template has helped vandal-fighting more effective. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 06:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per Timren and NightDragon. Very useful - anti-vandalism users can see if there is major help required. DarthVader 07:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless levels are ranged so that more than 2 vandalism levels can actually be used, also, I would prefer is a bot ran this, rather than random users.Voice-of-All^Talk 07:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is useful to those who use it. However, I do agree with the points User:Voice of All mentioned. --Scot^t 09:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep like Speedy Gonzalez.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per many reasons stated above. --Tone 12:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 13:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Used by an offical Wikipedia Policy and by many many many users Aeon 13:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep"--digital_me_{(Talk)(Contribs)} 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I find it very useful. Fast to check and I check frequently. -- Paleorthid 19:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Used all over the place and by sensible users, therefore I can't believe it's a problem. --kingboyk 19:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep — Nathan ^(talk) 19:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be useful and widely used. --Pilot|guy 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• strong speedy keep per all other keeps. ILovePlankton ^{( L)} 20:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is no reason to delete it Sophy's Duckling 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Speedily No resaon substantiated in policy to delete this template. It has direct utility in the creation of an encyclopedia. Not divisive, not inflammatory, not an article. It should not be deleted.--Ssbohio 02:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. The 3 month old TfD was clear as far as I am concerned, and it is handy! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible super speedy we've-been-through-this-already-and-nothing-has-changed-since-then keep! Misza13 ^{T C} 08:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep used by a lot of users with results; plus, we just saved up enough money to get a nice blaring horn for the sound effects. Master of Puppets ^{That's hot.} 09:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Nick C 09:12, 25 May 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.