< May 11 May 13 >

May 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 all. Angr (t • c) 21:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USCongDistState Templates[edit]

I've put up 53 templates and 9 redirects for deletion which have the titles Template:USCongDistState01, Template:USCongDistState02, ..., Template:USCongDistState53. These templates have all been replaced with a single template, namely, Template:USCongDistStateList. The 9 redirect templates are for Template:USCongDistState1 ... Template:USCongDistState9. --CapitalR 23:11, 12 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 moo? - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox clarifications[edit]

I will have Userboxbot (talk · contribs) substitute the userboxes I have nominated if they get a majority opinion to substitute. Sound good? --Cyde Weys 22:44, 12 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 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Assault Series[edit]

Template:Assault Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The "series" consists of two old video games; there seems to be no prospect of any more, and the template serves no useful purpose. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:28, 12 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 moo? - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All userboxes below[edit]

I didn't feel like copying my vote multiple times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below:

  • Yes, thanks, Cyde! Since he did this, he's ironically helped illustrate the dangers of social networking perfectly. I think the evidence of vote stacking below is quite clear. The "keeps" are coming out of the woodwork now, to the tune of 90% "keep" (and I'm not sure people understand what "delete" means - it means only deleting in template space, of course, not from Wikipedia entirely. They could still be text-based boxes.) - Nhprman 02:58, 14 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_pneumono[edit]

((User_pneumono))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Advantage? Deleting it simply takes it out of template space, which is reserved for articles. Deleting it only makes it text, and it can obviously still be used on a User page, just in a different format. - Nhprman 03:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These boxes do not belong in tempate space. Period. Nhprman 18:32, 15 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 subst and delete - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user married bs[edit]

((user married bs))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Abyab 16:18, 14 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user addict pixe stick[edit]

((user addict pixe stick))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Boris[edit]

((User:UBX/User Boris))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Taking it out of template space, where only articles should be, does not delete it from Wikipedia. I can still be used on a user page as text, if you think it's funny. I'd pay more attention to the nominator's words "unencylopedic template" and "template space" than the words "not funny." - Nhprman 03:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst if deleted. CMIIW 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I also find your statements that these templates are 'junk' offensive and rude. I request that you modify your comments promptly. Sergeant Snopake 21:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would only vote Tory if Boris led them - just because you think some people's opinions are 'unfunny' or 'useless', it doesn't mean we should ignore them. HawkerTyphoon 21:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Really, this is no place for a political argument on who you'd vote for... what does it have to do with writing an encyclopedia? BigShock 01:11, 15 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Bright Future[edit]

((User Bright Future))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What you're not saying is that deletion doesn't destroy this box - or "impose" anything on anyone. It simply takes it out of the space reserved for articles. Everyone should be in favor of that. - Nhprman 03:11, 14 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cave[edit]

((User Cave))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone must be living in a cave if they don't realize that deleting this box simply takes it out of the space reserved for articles. They can still use this on thier user page as a "user-fied" text Userbox. If they have a computer in their cave, that is. Nhprman 03:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with this reasoning. It will still be very easy to use once it's moved from Template space. It's a matter of cut/paste. Nhprman 17:30, 14 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Jimbo v. Willy[edit]

((User Jimbo v. Willy))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you support the "Delete" "Userfy" or "Subst" position, you can still keep this box, but it will simply be moved from the Template space to the User space. It's a technical change. It's only "junk" in the Template space, a fine distinction not made by the nominator. - Nhprman 20:43, 14 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User dolphin[edit]

dlph-1 Eeek ack sque'ek ook kkkk'k squeek.

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The debate over Templated userboxes - the "Userbox War" - dates back over a year, probably earlier. In a nutshell, here's how I see this situation: As templates, Userboxes can be (and have been) used to "rally" people of a certain group (Christians, Anti-Christians, Leftists/Rightists, etc.) to support or revert article edits and even to delete or support Userboxes during debates like this one. As templates that are linked together in one place, that lend itself to the creation of categories such as "Wikipedians who are Pro-Life" etc. This is divisive (divides the community into "tribes") and inflammatory (encourages others to create opposing boxes and groups of users.) Those two words are important because, according to "speedy deletion" criteria for deleting templates ("T1" and now "T2",) it means they can be deleted. Bear in mind most Templates are used in the creation of articles - as info boxes, warnings and other notations. So another argument is that Userboxes shouldn't really be there at all because they are out of place. Both are good arguments against having them as templates, IMHO. By "Substituting" them, they remain on Users' pages, and new ones can exist as text, and can be copy/pasted into User pages rather easily. There is a FURTHER argument being made that Userboxes shouldn't exist at all here in ANY form, because they are contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia (to edit an encyclopedia.) But that's really a separate argument, one that I feel it will completely go away if people vote to Delete and Subst. these boxes now. Hope this helps! Nhprman 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So… why this specific userbox? If this one goes, as I said above, the rest of them deserve to go. While I don't want to see userboxes deleted or subst'd or whatever, I think singling out this one, along with the rest of the userboxes on this page, is, in a way, discriminatory. If the grounds for deleting this is because it's unfunny, then that's wrong, because it is funny. If the grounds are that it's an unnecessary bulk in the Template space, then so is "This user is male" or "This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia" or "This user lives in New York," and all the rest, more serious ones. I don't understand why this one should go if you want to keep the more general Userboxes. This guy deserves to stay with all the rest of the userboxes, whether they remain as they are now, are subst'd, or deleted. But putting this one up for deletion just because it's a userbox in template space is completely wrong, IMO. Thanks for your response. --Fbv65edel (discuss | contribs) 21:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're either willfully or deliberately misstating the facts, or perhaps ignoring them. Which is it? Deleting ALL Userboxes from the template space (including this one) but ALLOWING them in User space SAVES THE USER BOXES --- ALL OF THEM. User is male, User is an Admin, User is an idiot - content doesn't matter. They will ALL be saved IF they are Deleted as templates and moved to user space. Clear enough? What is the problem here???? You can continue to crusade to keep them as Templated Userboxes, or work with others to find a solution that saves them as Userboxes. Your choice - and everyone else's here. Nhprman 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's common knowledge (though perhaps not for you) that Template space is reserved for articles AND tools for creating them. Vanity boxes do not meet that threshhold, but they fit fine in the User space. Nhprman 02:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey now, don't be so sharp. If it is "common knowledge", then that should be demonstrated as a policy backed by consensus rather than some arbitrary unspoken rule. PoptartKing 07:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Oh, haha, uncyclopaedic! In that case, I condone deleting everything. Though now I kind of have a cyclic dillema, if *fD to represent the editor's views on whether it should be deleted period or whether it constitutes a violation the policy set forth (which is supposed to be consensus I guess)? Eh.PoptartKing 07:35, 17 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User edible userboxes[edit]

((User:The Raven's Apprentice/Userboxes/User UBX edible))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stronger than the pull of a black hole. I'm abyab, and you can't delete it without MY permission. --Abyab 16:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - They are in template space and that's not where they belong. If they are Deleted moved to the User space these boxes will be available for EVERYONE to use on their User pages, but will NOT be subject to future deletions by those who think they aren't funny, or whatever reason they have. By "keeping" them in template space, you keep them in danger. - Nhprman 18:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may STILL use this on your bloody User page if it is deleted from Template space and Subst'd ("substituted") or "userfied. No one is telling you you can't have this box. What's being said is that it doesn't belong in "template space." I realize this is a technical point, but it's very important to get the facts straight here. The comment above by Malo is right on target: "This sort of thing is okay in the userspace, but not in the template space." Please consider changing your comments to "Delete and Subst." - Nhprman 22:12, 15 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 Deleted --Cyde Weys 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ownage[edit]

((User ownage))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User hostage[edit]

((User:UBX/User hostage))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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/keep - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Senioritis[edit]

((User:UBX/User Senioritis))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamafish-en[edit]

((User iamafish-en))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamalemming-en[edit]

((User iamalemming-en))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamamonarch-en[edit]

Template:User iamamonarch-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can keep it. Just not as a template. If you vote "Delete" it will be saved as text, and you can cut/paste it onto your site. Please consider changing to "Delete and Subst" (substitute as text.) - Nhprman 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You realize, of course, that this is a discussion and a debate, not a "vote" and flippant comments here won't count for much in the final analysis, right? Nhprman 07:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is not a vote, how can "as per nom. and Doc" be a discusson point? Your vote/opinion means basically "me too". Mine is an opinion that the userbox is funny and therefore should be kept. Friendly Neighbour 07:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as per" means I'm agreeing with the substantive opinion expressed by another. Since there are dozens of boxes, I'm not going to repeat it, though perhaps I should, since the argument bears repeating. "It's funny" isn't a valid criteria, as stated in the Template deletion policy. The nominator may have also erred in basing his argument on "funny," since humor is not mentioned as a critera for deleting or saving a Templated Userbox. Note that my agreement stated above was with the nominator's point that this doesn't belong in template space. Also, Doc noted that it is unencyclopedic and I agreed with that point. I also agree with Doc's point that Users should be able to continue using it as a text box (which BTW is identical to the templated box, but simply isn't a template.) Hope this clears things up. Nhprman 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we do agree that "as per" means "I agree". Therefore it is clearly a vote, not opinion. The opinion had been already stated, you just added your vote for it. Friendly Neighbour 17:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I agreed with the logic of the first person who stated it. That's not a "vote," per se, but I see where you're getting that. When the person who closes these nominations goes over these entries, he/she will not be (or SHOULD not be, anyway) counting them up and tallying them. Anyone who "votes" but doesn't specify which part of the T1 (or T2) policies they are agreeing with will probably have their entries ignored. And since Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't have mob rule here, this will be a perfectly acceptable mode of deciding if these stay as templates or simply become Userfied boxes that people CAN STILL USE. Nhprman 17:20, 14 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 Substituted and Deleted --Cyde Weys 01:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamanaeroplane-en[edit]

Template:User iamanaeroplane-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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 Speedy delete (Classic T1) Will (E@) T 19:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User monolingual[edit]

((User monolingual))

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 21:09, 12 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 all. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion[edit]

Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Under the revised CSD T1, and of the recent deletion of ((User Christian)), some of these are applicable for speedy deletion. However, I'll let the community decide. Will (E@) T 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, if you vote to delete, please remember that they should be subst'd first. I abstain from voting. Will (E@) T 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Will. Long overdue. Please note that the broad criterion is now T2. Septentrionalis 15:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - re: "Wikpedia is not a society". Wikipedia IS a community and a community is a collection of various people with different beliefs. There are many places on wikipedia, that are official pages, that refer to wikipedia as being a community, society, etc. And if you delete template boxes, people will include the code on their userspaces. So your argument against userboxes will not stop the problem that you see anyway. DanielZimmerman 07:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not about template spaces to many people. Arguments have come up about these boxes not belonging in an encyclopedia (even though these boxes only show up on user pages and not in articles). So what is the problem with these being in the "template space"? The main question I would have to ask is what difference does it make to wikipedia if I use a template for a userbox or I insert the entire code of the userbox on my user page? If having templates with user boxes effects the performance of wikipedia to the point where wikipedia will perform better with the code on user pages than in the "template space" then I would vote to delete them. Until then, I cannot see the problem with having the template space be utilized for userboxes that multiple people use. DanielZimmerman 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How can you build a community made of diverse people if you reject their diversity. If I want to say Im a Jewish Democrat who eats Steak on my userpage then I will do so whether or not I have a userbox to do it. So even if you delete every single userbox, you will have to then remove any comments about a persons individuallity on their userpage in order to obtain the goal that you seem to seek. Then we start censoring. That would be bad and truely against what wikipedia was created to do. DanielZimmerman 07:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. What I meant was, will there still be a page with the HTML codes for these templates, so that the less creatively-inclined users can still copy them onto their user page, without using a template? IronChris | (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The CSD T1 section clearly stated not long ago that the section 'does not have full community support (see this edit version, after which the caveat was removed with reference to a non-existent page). The policy wording is changing very frequently right now (45 edits in 12 May and 13 May - and 13 May not yet over) and it is not clear what the policy really is, as it might change in an hour. Such flux in an obviously contentious section of policy suggests that the criterion should be removed from policy and 'downgraded' to guideline status. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Let me say something different. I take it now that the interpretation being given to Jimbo's comments at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Userbox debates is that all statements of personal belief are to be expunged from Wikipedia in order to make it better as they distract from creation of a better encyclopedia, among those distractions being statements of religious affiliation. Is this in fact an accurate statement, that Jimbo believes that for the betterment of Wikipedia all personal statements of belief or preference as a matter of self-description are antithetical to the creation of Wikipedia as a quality product? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not going to delete some of them, we're going to undelete all of them: see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates, where both User Christian and User Atheist are under debate for undeletion, and where you are 100% free to nominate any other deleted userbox you want for undeletion. Your argument is based on false premises in that you assume that the deletion of certain arbitrary userboxes is endorsed just because it hasn't yet been reversed. In fact, this is exactly the strategy that is being employed by the users who deliberately stirred up trouble to try to get ((user christian)) deleted: their hope is that by slipping one template through the cracks, they'll be able to get more and more of them deleted ("give an inch, take a mile") by building up momentum. They find this much easier than any direct or open attempts to foster consensus, as all attempts to gather consensus to delete userboxes in the past have failed, leaving anti-userbox admins with no recourse other than to try various backhanded methods at gradual deletion. Your deletion vote is thus misinformed: in reality, if consistency is an issue, it is easier to remedy an inconsistency by fixing 2 or 3 examples (the deleted templates) than by fixing hundreds (the nondeleted ones). -Silence 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment - Thank you! I have been wondering what the big deal was about the template space being used. Bits are bits and I am glad that you queried the developers to make sure that people know what they are talking about. DanielZimmerman 07:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice in theory, but in practice, POV expressions have lead to divisiveness, and Templatized Userboxes have facilitated social networking and other aspects of WP that were never intended or forseen by the founder. - Nhprman 20:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comment. It's risky business, no doubt, but I believe it's a risk worth taking because the potential benefits far outweigh the potential risks. I said more about this in my comment to Mackensen above. Rfrisbietalk 22:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, the policies of Wikipedia, developed by the Founder and current users, do not allow for "facilitiating cultural sensitivity" as a primary goal of the project (though I'm sure it's a byproduct.) "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration." (see: WP:NOT.) This type of open flaunting and contempt for Wikipedia policies is discouraging and maddening. - Nhprman 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have my own website and feel no need to make a new one here. What I do feel a need for, even though that is apparently “discouraging and maddening” for some, is to have ways to seek out relevant factbuilder networking (with the emphasis on fact) FOR ARTICLE-WRITING PURPOSES. That means that I and people like me will actively seek out users with specific backgrounds to help with specific tasks. Tasks. Not barbeque parties or blogs. I and other people like me think that many of these userboxes are a big help in, to quote you, “providing a foundation for effective collaboration”. -- Olve 19:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously the bolded policy statement above is an attempt to keep people from commercialising outside of WikiPedia through or by using their WikiPedia userpage. And, the uses of these templates do constitute a foundation for effective collaboration. The intent of the language against "social networking" is clearly illustrated by this juxtaposition: you cannot possibly have "effective collaboration" without some form of "social networking"; what was meant was that use of WikiPedia resources for the purpose of building online networks outside of WikiPedia should be discouraged. So, that anybody really thought that the intent of the language was to divide and distance "effective collaboration" from "social networking" is just an example of shortsightedness (as "maddening" as that may be), but some people are willing to take shortsighted stances if they think they can contagiously pull a fast one on a lot of people (for their own, "mad", inner power struggle, largely out of ignorance or obsession, of course). I still feel strongly we should Keep All and that this policy language needs to be clarified before it is misunderstood and therefore misused further. Gabriel Arthur Petrie 19:58, 16 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 relisted on May 20. Angr (t • c) 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OntarioSH[edit]

Template:OntarioSH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As per similar templates, redundant with list articles, and categories. — May. 12, '06 [09:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>

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 speedy deleted per T1. Angr (t • c) 19:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Axis of Evil[edit]

Template:Axis of Evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template serves no purpose except to spread a specific POV Jeff3000 04:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this template is based on a specific POV. A state of the union speech is a POV, MLK's letter from a brimingham jail is POV (template of civil rights movement), the Gettysburg address is a POV (template of historical american documents), and every single template of each major religion is based on a POV. Whats your point? --mitrebox 04:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, highly unlikely to provide value to users; hence, cannot justify cluttering major articles with it. -- Visviva 04:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I think the biggest problem with this template is that it's placement in any of those three countries will never stick. Editors will cite it as POV, and remove it from those pages. For example, why should a certain POV have a template, and not another POV; another template will start with Western Axis of Evil and place that on the US page, etc, etc. Other templates do not spread POV but provide easier access to information; religion templates do not spread a POV, they provide different articles that explain the religion hopefully in an NPOV way, (plus you wouldn't see a muslim template on a christian page, and you wouldn't see an "Islam is good" or "Islam is bad" on the template). This template just by it's title spreads a POV. --
  • Delete - what's the point?Timothy Usher 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can think of no usefulness. It is a specific POV.--Jusjih 08:42, 12 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.
More