Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:29, 30 April 2006 editTitoxd (talk | contribs)43,130 edits - {{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 23}} (everything closed)← Previous edit Revision as of 12:32, 30 April 2006 edit undoMyrtone86 (talk | contribs)3,061 edits oh yes they canNext edit →
Line 13: Line 13:
==Holding cell== ==Holding cell==
{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell}} {{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell}}

==== ] ====

I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!] 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

====]====

This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.] 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

Revision as of 12:32, 30 April 2006

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header Plaese click here to start a new debate

Debates

April 30, 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 Circeus 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television Black

Template:Infobox Television Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is an unused black styled version of {{Infobox Television}}. The DJ 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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 (user request) Just another star in the night 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Chad-Sudan

I made this but now realise there is already Template:Chadian-Sudanese conflict, please delete it, thank you. --Horses In The Sky 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and agreed, thanks for posting it. The only user to maintain the suggested page also placed it here, and as such, I'd like to grant his/her request. Logical2u 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mexico infobox

Template:Mexico infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mexico infobox is a single-article infobox that recalls another template, just as {{World War II infobox}} did. / / Brendenhull (talk • contribs) | 12:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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. — xaosflux 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hell

Template:User Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-

I disagree, Strong Keep. Religious and humourous userboxes are here to stay for the time being, until Jimbo Wales enforces his Febuary 20th decree. Please see the deletion review on this page for reasons as to why not to delete these. There is no discussion on this topic either, and this user is enforcing his personal beliefs. I see no need to delete these, and I encourage others to support freedom of speech and of personal beliefs on userpages, especially those considered humourous. Logical2u 12:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
yeah t'was me, sorry everyone (Johnny Copper 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep. Blasphemousness is not a reason for deleting a template, but I cannot see how this is blasphemous. As an atheist, most Christians say I am condemned to Hell. Hence, Christians should be pleased I display this template in awareness of my grossly sinful condition. Mgekelly - Talk 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep unless every religion-related userbox is also deleted Mícheál 02:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete 'strict' does not mean dishonest (that is highly offfensive and I would like an apology), it is a relating to the fact that a siginificant portion of wikipedians are situated in the USA are are thus US style liberterians, also most Australian wikipedians are US oriented and thus are also of that type, shairng loose moral. I am a genuine middle class Australian with strict morals, for example, I am more serious about, in particular, vandalism that maybe deeply insulting, such as Nazi vandalism. In this case, I have no particular view on some belief related template, but if they are socially inapropriate, they are one of my most serious pet peeves.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
  • Speedy keep, obviously a misunderstanding of the rules of deletion. Misplaced Pages is not censored for moral beliefs. --Rory096 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously delete "Misplaced Pages is not censored for moral beliefs." I consider this as being based on loose morals of US liberterians and US style liberterians elsewhere.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
  • Hrmmm ... how about subst? This thing obviously doesn't belong in Template: namespace as it isn't encyclopedia-related. That's simple policy. But to avoid pissing off users, I could subst it everywhere it's used first. That seems like a good compromise. --Cyde Weys 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that actually a policy? Looking over Misplaced Pages:Template namespace, I'm not seeing anything of the sort. While I agree with you it would be nice if Template: was reserved for main namespace templates, the two possible actions as I see it from such a development would be either wiping out nom main-space templates (which would be massively wasteful as there are many many useful templates for Misplaced Pages: and User:) or creating template namespaces for everything, which also seems to be overkill. PoptartKing 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, I don't really see how this is polemic. PoptartKing 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. No question about it, it's not divisive, not likely to be used for "vote" solicitation, even if it includes a template --- in other words, keep unless all userboxes except WikiProject boxes are eliminated. (This includes babelboxes.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Some of us may actually use this userbox as an indication that we actually believe we are going to Hell, not "based on loose morals of US liberterians and US style liberterians", whatever that means. --Rocketgoat 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and suggest nominator read Aucassin and Nicolette. Septentrionalis 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Absurd, just absurd. I take offense to people taking offense at my "hell" userbox. Skeletor2112 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Excuse me? You voted on your own proposal to have something deleted three times? That's just stupid. Obviously no one wants this userbox deleted, so you might as well forget about the entire prospect, pal. Burstroc 07:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think the nominator has made a strong enough argument for deleting this userbox, which, in my opinion, is not divisive enough to merit deletion, and is damned funny. I think the general consensus is that censorship because of a moral position is not cool at Misplaced Pages.Cerealkiller13 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Aw, for the love 'a... I for one am getting a little tired of people these days recoursing to the bonfire to expunge anything they don't like or find offensive. Don't like Christmas? Have it banned. Don't like the theory of Evolution? Get it bounced from the schools. Despise crucifixes, yarmulkes and Muslim head scarves? Forbid people to wear them. Don't like editorial cartoons? Just riot and threaten death upon the publishers until they stop printing them. Go through the local library and destroy any book you personally disagree with. Don;t dare ignore or gasp engage with a viewpoint you disagree with, because you'll end up contaminated. If we hold to that asinine standard, there is going to be nothing left, and we'll be left sitting upon the ashes of another Library of Alexandria, because I gaurantee you there is something that offends everybody. I will die before I let that happen. Pat Payne 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is meant to be funny, and I don't see what's so "blasphemous" or "offensive" about it. --Eastlaw 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So, since this vote has been up for four days or so, and, with the exception of the nominator, there has only been one delete vote (and an explicitly weak one at that) and 23 keeps, can someone simply assume that the community consensus is keep and remove this? Cerealkiller13 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because it pisses off the Pat Roberson-style Christians. The Fading Light 01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Shawn 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As per norm -- - K a s h 15:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Religious guys always want to set the rules, but this time I'll speak up. I don't see the problem for a christian to keep this userbox in Misplaced Pages: if you want, you put it in your page, if you don't want to, you let it be. I'm atheist, but since I see there are many christians in Misplaced Pages, I think it's right to have in Misplaced Pages christian Userboxes; the same way, christians should allow atheists to have their humorous userboxes.

And...c'mon, the definition "blasphemous" is ridiculous! --Hard Rock Thunder 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for the same reasons as user Pat Payne, plus I like the style of humour this template represents. --Dudo2 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep because its funny, and, ironically, sometimes true. GANDALF1992 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: How is this blasphemous? Obviously, slapping this userbox up on somebody else's page is rather unacceptable, but that's already the case for most other userboxes. I fail to see how stating an opinion about oneself is wrong, as opposed to stating an opinion about the universe or some supposed universal truth. ---Bersl2 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - obviously a lost cause, but what is the point? People speak of humor, but is that the purpose of wikipedia? Not that talk pages can't include it...further it seems more likely to be used for vandalism than self-identification. Is it possible to get stats on this?Timothy Usher 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
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. — xaosflux 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User not-Drug-free

Template:User not-Drug-free (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

  • I disagree, Strong Keep. If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this? Otherwise it seems like repression of free speech. Logical2u 12:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. But as long as we are all pretending it is, you are right - both pro and con boxes should be deleted. Nhprman 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If we delete both, yes, I agree with that. At the moment though I only put this here because it was in the same place as User-Hell above. I find offence with singling out on specific aspect of it. So if drug use and no drug use boxes are to be deleted, I agree to delete them both as divisive and sometimes too much of a politcal statement. Until that point becames the issue, I want to stand next to my earlier statement that for the time being these should be saved in that the user proposing for deletion hasn't really explained his terms nor followed proper procedure in deleting them. However, now I feel unvalidated and all sad and stuff. I guess what I'm saying is, I disagree with the procedure used to nominate this template, and this current debate should be closed for no delete, but I would vote the other way given the drug related ones for deletion. More explanations: Yes, isn't it socially appropriate? How can we know? It IS part of society. Is dividing wikipedia down the middle appropriate? Probably not.Logical2u 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
  • I see no problem with someone nominating the "no drug use" box for deletion, based on fairness, though I hope the nominator of that Userbox makes a more compelling case for deletion than lack of "social appropriateness." That's not a proper argument and I expect this template will be saved because to that. The nominator showed POV by nominating this one and not the other at the same time. Most nominations are for both sides of the argument. - Nhprman 18:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"I am not drug free" is not a viewpoint? It doesn't provoke? Isn't it meant to? Sure it is. It's a template in order to meet other people who are also not drug free (and the anti-drug template is designed to work the same way.) Unfortunately, social networking is not why we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think that, then ALL userboxes can be seen as aiming to meet other like-minded people, not just this one. I have this template, and I can assure you that I have never even spoken to someone else who has it, nor do I intend to. And no, it is not aiming to provoke. It is a fact, just like being drug free is a fact, believing in god is a fact, liking chocolate is a fact. In this respect, it is no different from any other userbox. IronChris | (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe that ALL Userbox Templates have the potential to draw us away from our primary goal here (editing an encyclopedia.) The fact that these are TEMPLATES allows for that social networking to take place. Even if you don't engage in it, many others do, and use these Templates to defend or delete friendly or unfriendly userboxes and form mini-tribes here. All, according to WP policies, is a distraction and not our primary mission here. On the other hand, if this message was simply written on your User page, very few would ever care. But create it as a template, and it becomes a legitimate community issue and ends up in debates like these. Nhprman 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - If it's deleted, we will just continue to use the content, and continue to make the statement. The userspace itself is not encyclopedic at all, it's for personal viewpoints and personal information. Trying to sterilize Misplaced Pages will only serve to waste time debating rather than contributing. --Avillia 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, obviously a bad faith nom. " socially appropriate?" --Rory096 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously speedy delete "If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this?" Because one is more socially acceptable than the other, and I am getting a bit upset at other wikipedians behaviour towards me and my strict morals, In the real word there do exist social classes in some societies where this is perfectly normal and ani-moral judement (as is, unfortunaty, almost universal among wikipedians) can itself be a form of moral judgement.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
It might be worth noting that this is the nominators vote. This anonymous comment comes from a lazy Logical2u
  • Hrmmm ... how about subst? This thing obviously doesn't belong in Template: namespace as it isn't encyclopedia-related. That's simple policy. But to avoid pissing off users, I could subst it everywhere it's used first. That seems like a good compromise. --Cyde Weys 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Once you subst this one, then you'll have to go through substing every other similar template, of which there are at least twenty or so. Then you move into the ones related to this, and from that point it degrades into a mess of code everywhere. On top of all that, it will just encourage similar nominations like this, when the whole matter has already been discussed with an overwhelming consensus on keep. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or reword to something like "this user uses drugs" or something - right now it sounds combative. Just another star in the night 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy (or Strong) Keep. No reason given to delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy (or Strong) Keep.I believe it is outrageous to even think about deleting these boxes. Some might put them up there to make a statement, but what about regular users like me who see it as just giving more information about ourselves, simply? What I mean is, if someone is able to put a box that say 'Im a level 2 singer' for example, then there is no difference for me between that box and this 'not drug-free' user box. Just because some dont agree with this practise should NOT mean that they be given the right to remove our possibility to communicate a useful, interesting fact about us on our personnal page (which is what it was designed for, was it not?)--DragonFly31 07:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it was not designed for any such thing. "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. - Nhprman 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, coudnt the fact that I assert on my user page that I am 'not drug free' provide some other user with the view that I support drug use and therefore provide useful edits and points of views on the subject should it be needed, or should my help be requested on the subject? If the box is deleted, then it is very possible this may happen to man, many people. Particularly since Misplaced Pages is preparing and building a project on such a subject. This box IS 'providing a foundation for effective collaboration', just like most other boxes that exist.--DragonFly31 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with writing "I'm interested in articles on drugs and drug legalization" (or whatever) on your Userpage. Even if you use the Userbox, and "Subst" it, that solves the Userbox Template problem. Few people will have a problem with you saying this in some fashion on your page, and yes, that would be useful to those working on Wiki Projects. The problem comes when it's a template that's used as a tool to recruit other users who are pro-drug or anti-drug (or anti/pro abortion, immigration, EU, etc.) and then rally them to form tribes on Misplaced Pages to "fight" for these causes and prompt POV edit wars in support of them. That's not why we're here. Nhprman 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears as though you have a rather negative view of Wikipedians in general, if you think that this is what we're all out to do. Let's assume good faith, please. If you are so vehemently against userboxes overall, as you claim, may I suggest that fighting against one or two particular boxes, which seem to have overwhelming support, may not be the best use of time? These boxes exist currently and are both widely supported and used. No crime has been committed, no one is attacking anyone else. Is this really such an important problem? romarin 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking of AGF, please don't assume my view of Wikipedians. Saying I have a "negative view of Wikipedians" doesn't even make sense. I guess I just don't have my head buried in the sand (perhaps willfully) when it comes to the games some Wikipedians are playing to "test the boundaries" of the project's rules and policies. The "crime" here is that these box templates are changing the nature of Misplaced Pages, and I have every right to point that out to people who are trying to hijack the project and turn it into myspace. And finally, just because the Misplaced Pages social network is working well, and people are "rallying" to these boxes makes no difference. I will continue to point out the error of their ways. Nhprman 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Although some Wikipedians do want to 'test the boundaries',form clans and change the site to their views MOST DO NOT! It is the reason why this site is one of the greatest that exists on the internet! NPOV is in itself a reason as to why Misplaced Pages is an incredible place of knowledge. Most users do not seek to destroy or unbalance that -- even when they do not agree with something. This is particularly true in this case. Why delete these boxes if knowledge is to be lost from it (because that WILL happen!), without Misplaced Pages benefiting in any way? Why be overly and unecessarily protective of a problem that can be taken care of swiftly if and when it arises? I have no overtly big plan to destroy drug free wikipedians! I just hope that one day, there won't be a need for conversations like this, so that the two life choices of being drug free or not won't matter or cause fuss!--DragonFly31 16:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I grant that many (if not most) are not out to test the boundaries. But many are. A Question: How is Misplaced Pages benefiting from knowing a user is "not drug free"? Or for that matter, that he/she "is drug free"? You're right about drug choices not mattering - both views DON'T MATTER in the Misplaced Pages project, unless a user plans on using the templated box to rally all other pro/anti drug users to advocate one or the other view or to simply "know" other Wikipedians who agree with them. Both goals are contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission and policies. If you truly have no intention to do this, will you agree that taking them out of the template space - while still allowing them on userpages as text-ified boxes - is a wise thing to do, since it ends the community-wide discussion of this issue once and for all? Nhprman 17:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I will certainly not let go of this box issue! If you grant that most Wikipedians are are not out to test the boundaries, then where is the problem? You ask, how does wikipedia benefit from knowing a user is not drug free. The answer is simple; Misplaced Pages benefits (and will benefit) from the use of these specific boxes by abling users that have questions or want to know more about drug use though first hand experiences or points of views to ask the members of the two 'sides' of the choice. Remember, boxes also allow list of people to come together (this is what you dispute-- it is what I am proud of,) not to fight to the death and create clans but rather create contructive knowledge, something that will be made more difficult by the destruction of the two boxes! As to when I say that drug choices dont matter, you've misinterpreted my view; what I meant was, I wished for a place where people won't create petty fights of absolute right and wrong about this issue, but rather place where both views could be debated peacefully without intend to crush one another. Deleting these boxes is one step in the wrong direction. Keeping them, one step in the right. One step towards a more complete and better Psychedelic Drugs' section, a project in the making that requires as much help as it can get.--DragonFly31 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we're talking past one another. I actually didn't ask you to "let go" of the issue, I offered a solution that would end this seemingly endless bickering. The fact that "boxes allow lists of people to come together" is a bizzare perversion of Misplaced Pages's mission (hint: it's got something to do with editing an encyclopedia.) Please read the page "What Misplaced Pages is not" at WP:NOT. it is policy, not opinion. This is not a debating society or a social networking site, and wishing it was one and saying that over and over again won't make it so. - Nhprman 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that "boxes allow lists of people to come together" is NOT a perversion of Misplaced Pages. It is simply an asset that can be used to improve the quality and accuracy of articles in a very simple, direct and unthreatening way. The wish to remove such a tool for some people's moral grounds (as that can honestly be the only reason I can see to remove them, your argument that it incites people to harass rsch other in the form of clans being unfounded) is just ridiculous. Which is why you and I 'bicker' away. And will continue to do so for a while it seems. One last thing -- this user box IS, in my opinion, used to show EXPERTISE in a subject that requires it. It is NOT, when used by most users, used to provoke or offend. The user box 'Hell' gives more probability of offending a user and does not show any 'expertise' in any subject. Since most people in this page support a 'keep' motion, it makes sense to do exactly that. --DragonFly31 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's kind of unbelievable that "User not drug free" shows any expertise, other than perhaps in using drugs, and I still believe most users think it provokes anti-drug types quite nicely. The fact that people are "voting" in droves to "keep" this box doesn't mean it's good for Misplaced Pages. It means social networking works. Nhprman 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OF COURSE the user box 'not drug free' shows expertise in the field of using drugs! Just because it's something you don't agree on morally doesn't mean it is not an area where expertise is not needed! Again, a 'psychedelic' section is in construction in Misplaced Pages, where all types of drugs (depressants, deliriants and so on) are discussed, including their effects! I, personally, don't put it on to 'provoke' other users but to show that I have experienced the use of drugs, therefore could easily help write, correct or debate points on them. Let me remind you -- if you have a look through that 'psychedelic' section, drugs affect individuals in many areas and are connected with numerous other areas of knowledge, eg. different states of consciousness, dissolution of ego, used to trigger psychosis for study purposes, etc... The fact that people are voting 'keep' means that Misplaced Pages benefits, again, from the caring society it has relied upon in order not to let people's individual morals and opinions from getting in the way of opportunities to extend knowledge.--DragonFly31 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually haven't made a moral argument for or against this box, and either opinion is irrelevent (that's kind of the point I've been making.) WP is neither a caring, unjudging society or a judgemental, moralizing one. It's a NPOV encyclopedia. That's it. Still - as I've said about 42 times - feel free to put the coding or text of this box on your Userpage if you want to alert others to your drug-taking status and/or expertise in drugs if you wish. Just keep it out of template space and 90% of this discussion vanishes. - Nhprman 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I was going to let it go, until I saw the deletes are starting to increase in number. The reason why I am so much against deleting this box is simply because Myrtone stated the reason as 'socially inappropriate' for the removal of the template. The reason I love Misplaced Pages and come back every day is because people don't judge on what's socially acceptable; rather all ideas and thoughts are welcome, no matter how stupid, counterintuitive, or crazy. It is an extremely reliable source of information that is NPOV, so you can read about anything without being careful to pick out the undertones or insinuations. I can say what I want (within reason) and people are just going to discuss it. This is why it is pissing me off that this gets deleted. If it gets selected for deletion for another reason, some other day -- then yes, maybe. But not now. It would go against what Misplaced Pages is about.--DragonFly31 06:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the reason given by the nominator wasn't that great. To recap my position: My major concern is that this is a Templated Userbox. Cut-and-paste the text onto a Userpage and that problem goes away, because WP is not a social networking site, and not the place for debates on social issues. Nhprman 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Quoting from Misplaced Pages:Userboxes, "Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." Note the part that says "as a means to an end." You keep arguing that Misplaced Pages is not a social netoworking site, and it's not, but a small amount of social network is necessary to achieve the end result of being an online encyclopedia. The people using these boxes are merely identifying themselves as belonging to a specific group, drug users in this case. I would argue that the higher use userboxes (Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat, etc) have a much higher risk of violating the policy you keep referring to. This particular box, however, does not see such use and is far less likely to violate that policy. On top of that, there are far more frivilous boxes than this, like Template:User arrested no. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First, that's not a policy page you're quoting from. It's also a misinterpreation of the quote. Misplaced Pages is an online community ONLY IN THAT it exists to edit an encyclopedia. It is in no other sense. You also neglected to quote from Jimbo Wales on that page. He said: "User boxes that are designed to provoke, offend, or reflect a POV rather than show expertise are generally discouraged." "User is not drug free" is designed to provoke, not inform or show expertise. Can't a person simply WRITE "I am part of the Legalization Wiki Project, dealing with issues surrounding banned drugs" or "I edit articles on the topic of drug legalization" on their Website - or create a code-only, non-Template Userbox with these messages? If all these boxes were NOT templates, and were simply text on User pages, the arguments here that they are simply identifiers and not an invitation to rally others against or for certain issues would be more convincing. Nhprman 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." I realize that this isn't policy, but it's accepted practice. Also, Jimbo's quote here expresses concern over political and polemical (controversial) userboxes. I don't believe this qualifies as controversial. If anything, it's more of a joke template. This template hardly promotes conflict as you believe. There's less than 50 people linking to it. This template is no worse than the userbox on my page stating that "The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain." As a slight tangent, I do believe that quite a few people abuse the userboxes. I think they should be limited to a single line with maybe 10 at the most. The hundreds I see on userpages do annoy me. However, I don't feel that this one, low-use template needs to be deleted. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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.

April 29, 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.--Sean Black 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User antifa-01

Template:User antifa-01 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominated for speedy deletion but evident reluctance to do so. Editors bickering on talk page, in edit summaries and on template itself about Jimbo's intentions and whether you're a fascist if you delete the template. Note: technical nomination, so no opinion from me, but feel free to have a go on my talk page if you must. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete: Pro-Communist and Anti-Fascist or Anti-Communist and Pro-Fascist. Advocating the destruction of one group, and violently depicting it, while supporting another. This seems pretty inflammatory and divisive to me. --Khat Wordsmith 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep: I see nothing wrong with it. Theres nothing inflammatory about it, well in my opinion anyways. It's just a stand, like you either beleive in God or you're an antheist, you either like bacon or you don't, you either like facism or you don't, you're either one or the other. -- whipsandchains 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Delete Since the nominator is afraid to mention why this technially violates WP policy, I will make his case for him. It's divisive, inflammatory and INAPPROPRIATE for Misplaced Pages. Should we have a template kicking a hammer and sickle now to "balance" this one? NO! But that's where this could lead - though I note a pro-fascism box was quickly "taken care of" when someone created one as a way to make a point. The political merits of this or any other template aside, and forgetting the 'fairness' argument, Misplaced Pages is simply not a soapbox, and support for or against Fascism has nothing to do with this "anti" template existing here. It's appalling to think templates are being "saved" because they are "correct" in their political viewpoints, but that's what I've been reading about why this box is so precious. Everyone should please review WP policy before jumping on the "save the 'correct' template" bandwagon. Nhprman 00:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And I should note that while I abhor fascism and fascists, I never once voted up an attempt to delete their userboxes. Why? Because there's bigger things to worry about on Misplaced Pages than fascists ability to put up a Kick Me sign on their own backs -- like the fact that racists routinely vandalize pages and get away with it, and that the hostile environment this fosters has never been properly dealt with.
If someone wishes to have a mouthbreathing anti-communist userbox, I say that's fine and dandy. We've already got pro-capitalist and pro-Objectivist userboxes, and those are already pretty close to that. --Daniel 19:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not afraid, merely disinterested - I was clearing out the speedy delete category, this template had been there for hours and had no reasons given under the existing criteria for a speedy delete. I remain disinterested in the reasons for deletion or keeping this template, but I'd rather not be misrepresented by either side. Thanks. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, I think people could take a lot of offence at this DannyM 09:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Offensive, to whom? Advocates of pogroms and genocide? People who dispatch thugs to go after "sick art?" They're already offended by the fact that Misplaced Pages allows for editing by Jews, people of color, trade unionists, et al. Why the hell should a project built around freedom of honest inquiry be worried about the opinions of those who oppose freedom, honesty, and inquiry? --Daniel 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The same argument can be made against thuggish Communism, which has killed or ensalved hundreds of millions, so where's your anger against that political philosophy? This is why Misplaced Pages is no place for narrow political crusades. Deleting all political Userboxes will bring that honesty and freedom you seek back to the project. It's getting lost now in these Userbox wars Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You just answered your own question. Why should a project built around freedom say it's okay to think one way and it's not okay to think another? Last I checked, isn’t that what you've been saying fascists do? Say everyone who doesn’t agree is evil? --Khat Wordsmith 19:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Re-read DannyM's comments, and my own. His argument is that fascists will be offended by this userbox. That would make sense, were Misplaced Pages a fascist website, censored along the lines fascists dictate. It isn't -- and if Misplaced Pages were ever censored along fascist lines, then say goodbye to at least half of the over one million articles on English Misplaced Pages.
This userbox is simply a token acknowledgement that there are those Wikipedians - of many backgrounds, beliefs, and interests - who aren't going to stand idly by as fascists attempt to use thuggery to intimidate the rest of us into submission. While I strongly wish Jimbo and company would actually bother to look at what opening the door to fascists' participation in the project actually means (e.g., the alienation of a good number of people), this userbox does nothing to do anything beyond stating a common, honest belief. --Daniel 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether any one political philosophy is "wrong" or "right" is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages and this is not the place for Wikipedians to "battle it out." The entire discussion is moot, and there is no "right" to express one's belief in, or opposition to, a certain political philosophy. WP policy states: "Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech." It's not a question of defending or attacking Fascism, it's a question of whether the template should be gathering supporters and opponents in the way these always do (and we're seeing it here in this argument.) It - and all other political Userboxes - are taking users away from the core purpose of the site. Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever. Feel free to beat a strawman until your knuckles are bloody. This is not a matter of "unregulated free speech" on Misplaced Pages - this userbox appears nowhere other than user space where it does absolutely nothing to work against Misplaced Pages's mission. I've never argued for unregulated free speech on Misplaced Pages, and to the opposite I wish people like you would actually bother to regulate the type of racist garbage that gets posted daily in the articlespace. You don't - and that's why people post up userboxes like this. --Daniel 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The straw man is the attempt by some to smear all those who oppose this Userbox as a racist. Bad move, and they need to assume good faith. Your comment that this appears "nowhere other than user space" is incorrect. This is a template, and is in template space, making it subject to community discussion and consensus. However, put the raw code on your Userpage and very, very few will even care to comment, and the community aspect of the box goes away. But if it's going to be a tool to "organize" other anti-Fascists, be warned that pro-Fascists and anti-Communist boxes will be allowed, too, and selective censorship will not be tolerated because, as we hear ad nausem (only when it suits people's wishes, apparently,) "Misplaced Pages is not censored." Nhprman 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
**Strong Keep, “The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” I can see the point of NPOV thing and I understand if you dont want to offend anyone but come on, there are some things you KNOW that you have to take stand against. Besides, how many articles get vandalize with racial slurs and attacks on an hourly basis here on Misplaced Pages? The people you are so afraid to offend doesn't seem to mind offending others now do they? Why not just remove all the Holocaust articles since according to them it never happened that way it' ll be really NPOV. -- whipsandchains 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That's right, we all have opinions. But thinking - no, KNOWING - that your own opinion is right and other peoples' are wrong, and that all material you think is "wrong" should be erased isn't going to work so long as someone else holds a different opinion. That's why this project is supposed to be done in NPOV, so that all the differing opinions have a chance to be recorded and documented so that all the information the differing opinions will let in are let in. People who aren't fascists (the vast majority) can put in information about the holocaust - but there are a few people out there who just, gosh-darn-it, KNOW that that information is false. Are you saying we should let them delete those pages? No, they can put in a different page that some people have a different opinion. By proudly proclaiming that people KNOW that you are right, what message are you really sending? Everyone's point of view is the same as yours? If that was true, no one would have created this button which attacks the POV of another group. Of course, I could have completely misread what you had to say, please inform me if I am mistaken. --Khat Wordsmith 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps the use of the word you in that part of first sentence was misunderstood, I was refering to myself in a third person view (poor choice of word I admit). And gosh-darn-it, you just made my point. Why delete something you don't agree on? Like you pointed out, instead of deleting the holocaust article, they made another one right? Then why delete this template? You can make a pro-facist template and put it on your userpage for all I care, I can't force you to see things my way, thatd be rather hypocritical now woudn't it? This template here just represents the fact that I am antifa. It's not like I go around and vandalize articles or userpages with this template, its just used on my userpage (where I'm suppose to put my POVs correct?) to indicate that I am anti-facist. -- whipsandchains 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • You are very, very, very right. One can make a pro-fascist user-box and put it on his or her user page. You are 100% right. Just as someone can make an anti-fa userbox and put it on his or her own userpage. But the fact is that, for some reason I don't quite understand, I'll admit, when someone makes a template of something like that, it gets deleted. I've watched all the pro-fascist user boxe templates get deleted while the anti-fascist userboxe templates stay were they are. I'm just saying either keep both (which is very unlikely to happen) or remove the templates of both and allow people to use their own on their own user page or someone other than Misplaced Pages. Personally I'm over the opinion where the pro- and anti- anything userboxes should be able to remain as templates, but there are people, as you rightly said, who are malicious about these sorts of things and will go to great lengths to change said templates. Unlike vandalism on articles, towards which Misplaced Pages should be putting it's efforts into in order to stop, I think it's a better solution to nip this problem in the bud and, again, as you rightly said, have people who feel strongly about certain things to make their own userboxes for their own user pages.--Khat Wordsmith 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason these Userboxes are being deleted as Templates is because, as Templates, they are being used to round up people of like interests who then act in concert with others, and that makes this into a social networking site, which, according to Jimbo and others, Misplaced Pages is NOT. Again, policy states: 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. By creating political templates, and gathering "supporters" to "save" Templates that are popular from being threatened, and "rallying" forces to delete unpopular or opposing ones, this has become the focus of the project for many Users. And that's not the reason why we are here, theoretically. Nhprman 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete frankly this is a t1 speedy. But since people keep saying these things are better debated here, let's see if tfd can do it's work. If not, we can speedy it later. --Doc 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, offensive template, this can be speedied. --15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, if this template is offensive, inflamatory and divisive then surely that opens the path to deletion of most userboxes, personally i'm offended by organised religion, so y'know. Feel free to ignore the userbox, just like you'd ignore someone who favoured antifa's approach (Johnny Copper 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
  • If it simply stated the user supports something, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but right now it goes on to make a controversial political statement in connection with it, so I'd say Delete unless it is changed. Just another star in the night 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages.--Ssbohio 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You see, that's the problem. It is quite possible for a user to edit in a NPOV way on articles that he/she has an apparent POV on. I don't really have a problem with these kind of templates in general, but often they are used to factionalize like this and add to the myth that everyone comes here to edit in their POV rather then improve articles. Just another star in the night 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • But, the same fact set can be used to justify the opposite view. If we go about restricting people's expression of their POV, the issues they care about, then we perpetuate the myth that those who come here are disinterested NPOV angels. Since it is, indeed, possible, even almost certain, that a person with a POV can do NPOV work, it follows that a person with an admitted POV has an additional reason to make sure his work is above reproach. In all the thinking I've done on this issue, I don't see a disclosed POV as the negative others do, especially in comparison to the alternative, where the same people have the same points of view, but keep them hidden. It's axiomatic that withholding information leads to less accurate judgment. More information means better decisions.--Ssbohio 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If people have a POV, and it appears in their editing, it will be obvious whether or not they have a User box on their User page, and POV editing will be reverted. Users without boxes are judged on their editing abilities alone, as it should be. "More information" on a User's POV has created the appearance of POV even where it doesn't exist, and has lead to escalating User box Templates that have been more and more insulting and inflammatory, causing these debates. So in practice, the "knowing more helps us" theory has been shown to be flawed. Furthermore, the real myth here is that Misplaced Pages is a place of unrestricted free speech. It's not, especially on User pages, which are not designed to be personal Webspace. (see WP:NOT) Nhprman 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And the corollary is that the absence of a userbox somehow eliminates the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican, a Democrat a Democrat, and an "antifa" an "antifa," regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with you that the lack of a template doesn't eliminate the user's belief. That's an easy one to agree with. Also, I agree that trying to police user pages is not something we should be doing, other than in the case of the odd person who notes the he is a pedophile or admits to loving the idea of mass murder. That's not to say the WP community has no right to set policy for userboxes, or even user pages. The key point I'm making is that as long as these boxes are Templates, and are being used to link like-minded people together to create "tribes" that contend with one another in a POV fashion over these boxes, then they are a problem, because Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a social networking site. If the raw code of all boxes were to be placed on userpages, 90% of that particular problem vanishes, because they are no longer Templates in the template space, but simply code or text on a user's page. There is another level of the issue that says that it's not a good idea to make POV political/social statements on the user page, in any format, because they imply that these biases will likely be transfered to the articles the user edits. But that's not to say I believe we should ban people from saying "I'm a Catholic" or "I oppose Fascism" on their pages. I just think it's a bad idea, generally, and I'd urge people to consider not doing it (as Jimbo himself has done on occasion.) Nhprman 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic template. Also meets T1. --Cyde Weys 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete. Disagree with Cyde's reasoning, but it does meet T1, which seems to be policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A definitive decision needs to be made whether or not all userboxes expressing POVs need to be moved to userspace. Dragging them individually through a deletion process is a waste of time, as they can potentially multiply more quickly than they can be produced. Until then, they must all be allowed, at least where not personal attacks. I find a lot of things offensive. I find the babel template that proclaims that everyone should speak American English offensive. This kind of petty squabbling is poisoning and dividing Misplaced Pages. Mgekelly - Talk 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is somewhat labour intensive to delete one at a time and that some standardisation of policies must take place. Whilst the issue is beng decided, our best judgement must prevail, taking each case as it comes. Cheers. Nhprman 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (an American who doesn't mind the Queen's English)
  • Your reasoning rings true, but unfortunately that's not policy. And practically speaking, if the template isn't deleted here, it'll be speedied. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete per Arthur Rubin and per (am I actually saying this?) Doc. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there is a big difference between pro and anti fascist. it's not inflammatory.
  • Keep It is not offensive--Hattusili 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Well....it appears from the word choice and the actual article behind it that its sort of supporting violence, and you know, that's just not right. Homestarmy 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We all know that this isn't what Misplaced Pages is for. This kind of campaigning makes a joke out of the idea of getting together to create a neutral encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
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. Debating this one template is not the way to get it deleted. Please discuss this at Template talk:Start LUL box.--Sean Black 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Waterloo & City Line link

Template:Waterloo & City Line link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Just my two cents but wouldn't just be easier and more reliable (as newer users might not know effects of altering templates) to type in the text into the railbox?, Im going to try this line first to gauge opinion, as its a small (and atm closed) line. Thanks DannyM 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, admittedly deleting just one template of a group is stupid, but I was using this one to see how people felt and then we could think about deleting the other templates of a similar nature (as written in opening para), for example for the railway line boxes (i.e. those that operate normal rail services), link to the railway line through an IW link, and that seems to work well enough (on a bigger system) so why use two systems when one works perfectly? DannyM 08:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all - completely pointless to have this link as a template. Mgekelly - Talk 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Entirely pointless: what's the point of having a template that's the exact same length as the original link? If it was unbearbly long, or was a piped link that woudl take a lot more time to type out, I could see its purpose, but otherwise it's rather pointless. Hbdragon88 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Please read my explanation. The only parameter that is passed to the navbox is "Waterloo & City Line". This is then used to lookup both the link and colour. Compare:
    line = Waterloo & City Line
    with
    line_link = ]
    line_colour = {{Waterloo & City Line colour}}
    do you think we should edit hundreds of pages, just to make the templates more complicated to use? ed g2s • talk 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Either way, deleting this template is not an option, this should be discussed on Template:Start LUL box, or somewhere more suitable. If there is a consensus to change the system (which is unlikely), then you can nominate the templates for deletion. As it stands, they have a well defined and essential use. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Republican

Template:Republican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Republican) and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming tribes of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. I'm also inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting.
  • This is not a Userbox. It does not and is not intended to live in userspace. It applies to candidates for (US) office, presumably on a page about the election or the office, rather than about the candidate. (It's unnecessary as applied to a candidate or officeholder.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right. I've allowed my comments to get off track. This, however, is an unecessary template. Simply writing the word "Republican" does the job just fine. Nhprman 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Democratic

Template:Democratic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Democrat") and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming "tribes" of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. But the fact they are stored in Template space, and are therefore put into "categories" that are abused by some who want to "meet other people who believe X" then it's a warping of Misplaced Pages's mission, and it's vital that this aspect of the problem be dealt with. As for your other point, I am inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting. Nhprman 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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 criteria G7: author's request Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:MAGovernors2

Template:MAGovernors2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I created it as a test. It's now blank and ready to die. —Markles 10:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom --Dominic 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A navbox for an odd assortment of pages that seem to have no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Some of the listings are professions (e.g., system administrator), some are job titles (e.g., webmaster), and others are user privileges (e.g., IRC channel op). Fixing this navbox to be inclusive of the current links and also NPOV to include other similar articles would make it enormous. There are better-defined categories to do this job. --TreyHarris 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

delete, Silly, meaningless grouping. Night Gyr 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, stumbledon this recently and was immediately reminded of the whole Misplaced Pages:Branchlist fiasco. Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Contra

Template:Contra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is very similar to the Oppose and Support templates that were also deleted (LOG). Black and WhiteBlack and WhiteTALKBlack and White 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not taking a position here, but I'm alarmed in reading the log of the earlier TfD that the prevailing consensus was that it imposed too much server load to repeat the same image many times on a page. That's just not true. Any image will only be loaded by the browser once per page, no matter how many times it is used. For example, the bullets on this page are an image, and it doesn't cause the servers any problem. --TreyHarris 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 
ul {
   ...
   list-style-image: url('bullet.gif');margin-left:1.5em; margin-right:0; margin-top:.3em; margin-bottom:0
   }

"ul" stands for unordered list, or bulleted list. So, in the HTML <ul> will automatically add the bullet GIF for every list item (<li>). But the GIF image is only 50 bytes large, as opposed to 762 bytes the image the template uses is. —Black and WhiteTALKBlack and White

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.

April 28, 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 speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Circeus 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Unamerican and others

Template:User Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Against Americanisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Not Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These userbox templates could be considered offensive and exist in some cases solely to show anti-American sentiment. It could also be considered offensive that these boxes use an upside down United States Flag. I also see no other such boxes for other countries. Perhaps a better alternative, such as to the "against Americanisation" box would be to be for allowing nations to maintain their individual cultures. —Aiden 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't these userboxes get deleted a long time ago? I thought I remembered them from somewhere.... Homestarmy 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and delete any future un- and anti- boxes degrading ANY nation or its flag. These are divisive and inflammatory to the extreme, and is meant to be. WP is not a soapbox. Keep political bias out of this project, please. Nhprman 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Bullshit, there is absolutely nothing offensive about them. --Dragon695 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. — xaosflux 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ancient Greece topics

Template:Ancient Greece topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another large collection of links; an indiscriminate collection of data. Septentrionalis 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep, it's for navigational purposes, not data collection. While at the moment it is not heavily used. it most certainly can be, and provided it makes it through this TfD, I'll ensure it is. PoptartKing 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I shall declare I have a vested interest in the template as I created it. I am aware of its failings as I listed on the talk page. It is however, not an indiscriminate collection of links (see the Ancient Egypt template, my inspiration for this one). --Knucmo2 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, is used in this case for navigational purposes as stated by PopartKing above. This template can be improved. --Andy123(talk) 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Epochs

Template:Epochs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is unencyclopedic and nonsensical, POV towards some kind of New Age mysticism, and it also contains a copyrighted image. I suggest deleting it. Lovelac7 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Of the few pages which include the only on topic inclusion is Root Race, there seems to be an edit war with the image in the template with some claiming fair use. It could be subst: into Root Race and removed from other pages. --Salix alba (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
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 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Star-planetbox primary

Template:Star-planetbox primary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox secondary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template sequence for providing extrasolar planetary system information has poor semantics: the first planet in the list is handled differently to all subsequent planets, which could be confusing for editors and makes maintenance of the list more difficult (e.g. if a planet is to be inserted before the first one in the list). The table markup in this case is more concise and simpler to use than these templates, so I suggest subst:ing the instances in articles, then removing this template sequence. Chaos syndrome 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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 all deleted, no userpages broken. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Babel-48

Template:Babel-48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There was a previous TfD for all of the fixed size Babel boxes, but it was withdrawn due improper formatting and concerns about users from other language Wikipedias being unable to copy their language boxes here. Despite those issues the TfD was trending delete until it was closed. This new TfD only applies to Babel-21 through Babel-48... all of which are used on fewer than ten pages each, less than fifty pages in total, and for the majority of them no pages at all. All of these can be replaced with {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}, {{Babel-N}}, or {{Babel-X}} to provide the same functionality. This TfD does not include Babel-1 through Babel-20 because they are in more common use and might theoretically be needed for other language 'transplants'. Note that I also changed Babel-16 through Babel-20 into redirects to Babel-X as a test case... theoretically all of the smaller Babel boxes could be changed to do so, but I am not advocating that currently. CBDunkerson 11:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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 --Cyde Weys 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Olde

Template:User Olde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Useless and silly, not used on any pages. Night Gyr 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

April 27, 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. Angr (t • c) 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan infobox

Template:Japan infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Japan infobox is a single-article infobox that is not needed in Misplaced Pages. Delete.--Brendenhull (talk – edits) | 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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 redirected to {{cleanup}}. Angr (t • c) 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Clean up

Template:Clean up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{Cleanup-date}} 165.189.91.148 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. I had to remove the TFD notice to do it. If anyone objects, they can put it back but I really don't see the point in the debate. Mangojuice 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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 merge and delete. Angr (t • c) 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NY-bt

Template:NY-bt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{NYC Bridge}}. Latter is younger, but is prettier and is being used. NY-bt is unwieldy, is only being used on two articles, which are not bridges/tunnels, but rather related organizations. They can go without a template, I think. Delete.- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete Per CCoMack. ILovEPlankton 00:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Angr (t • c) 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:OSPALeague

Template:OSPALeague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Online Soccer Project Alpha (2nd nomination) - running its template through process here. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Angr (t • c) 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan map

Template:Japan map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It's a copyright tag that basically says "I don't know what the copyright on this image is, but I'm uploading it anyway on the off-chance that it's a free license". We don't need that sort of image, and we don't need this tag. --Carnildo 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Angr (t • c) 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Recently, Tifego (talk · contribs) attempted to create this template, intending to tag the only page of a user, who is not yet proven himself or herself as sockpuppet. The template is the same as Template:SockpuppetCheckuser and doesn't include the phrase "has been blocked indefinitely". It is not currently used on other userpages and looks pointless than the main tag. Although, comfirmed or verified sock puppets that are found by Checkuser are generally permablocked and tagged with {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. I don't think no one is ever going to use it wisely. -- ADNghiem501 04:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • He was proven a sockpuppet; the Checkuser came back confirmed that he is a sockpuppet. But, go ahead and delete this template if you want, because it can be replaced just as well by the "confirmed by evidence" template there is no template to replace it but I don't really care anyway. –Tifego 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I see. BTW, I subst'ed the tag you placed, so I could easily edit to remove the tfd notice and non-existent category from it. It won't be deleted on the sock's page. -- ADNghiem501 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
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. Angr (t • c) 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:United States infobox

Template:United States infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an orphaned template that isn't used in the main namespace. Brendenhull seems to have marked this article for deletion 3 days ago, but there was never an entry made here in the log. Andrew c 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

April 26, 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 Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:India infobox

Template:India infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The infobox is one that is a single-article infobox and recalls another template, just as Template:World War II infobox did.--Brendenhull (talk – edits) | 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Italy infobox

Template:Italy infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Same as Yugoslavia infobox, single-article infoboxes need speedy deletion.--Brendenhull (talk) | 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia infobox

Template:Yugoslavia infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-article infoboxes need speedy deletion.--Brendenhull (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 delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:CPS series

Template:CPS series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template refers to a series of Super Soaker water gun models (See Super Soaker and CPS 2000). Only one of these pages exists. The template is effectively a request for a very large amount of information about a very narrow topic. Unencyclopedic; this belongs on "supersoakerfans.com" or some such site.

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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Citepaper

Template:Citepaper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper version (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper publisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper publisher version (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Each of these has the following issues: 1) The parameters are only uppercase, which means that URL=http://www.url.com does not equal url=http://www.url.com (most commonly used on {{cite web}} et al), 2) None of the parameters are optional (unlike {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc), 3) They are redundant to {{cite paper}}, which was created because of these reasons. 4) Three other templates of a similar name were created to allow for optional parameters (version, publisher, and both), which has been taken into consideration with {{cite paper}}. The templates have now been deprecated and migrated using WP:AWB (using this script), and are pointless except for their use in some userpages, talkpages, and Misplaced Pages namespace (this is a simple matter to convert, though). Hence, I'm suggesting their deletion. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the remaining three. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Suicidehelp

Template:Suicidehelp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Were this a template designed to exist as a userbox, it would likely be appropriate (assuming arguendo one believes userboxes may display points-of-view). In its current iteration, though, the template intimates that it reflects policy (see, e.g., in the employment of the collective "we"), where surely there is no policy, and, in any case, is irredeemably POV (one may consider, I suppose, a template that exists only to convey that Misplaced Pages is not a resource one ought to consult toward the determination of whether he/she ought to kill him/herself, but even such a template would likely be POV, inexpicably elevating postings about suicide above postings about, say, religion; we don't, and oughtn't, to have a template suggesting that those who come to Misplaced Pages in order that they might decide which is the one true religion that they ought to follow should search elsewhere). Even as the POV the external link advocates (scilicet, that one oughtn't to kill him/herself) is one with which, in general, most here likely concur, it is nevertheless a POV, and, in any case, we should not have templates directing users that they ought to take a search elsewhere because we haven't information for them; they will likely reach that conclusion without our telling them. Hence, delete. Joe 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain. I agree that allowing this template could lead to a slippery POV slope, among other problems. I mostly created it as a resource for those who were concerned about the possibility of suicide threats being real rather than vandalism. Going to pass on voting. No hard feelings if its deleted. Tijuana Brass 06:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. But for a different reason. I think it goes beyond the scope of what wikipedia is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for suicide prevention, and I think the concept is great....but not as a template. It's my opinion that if you come across a user who appear suicidal, then an actual, personal conversation with the user through talk pages is much more appropriate than a template. Secondarily, what makes that help site any better than any other help site? It could set precedent for other such templates that, in effect, could give the appearance of wikipedia "approval" of certain external cites. I really want to vote keep, but I wouldn't feel right doing so. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; per Joe's "irredeemably POV" and Swatjester's first point. I genuinely appreciate the intentions behind the template's creation, and I guess my comments re suicide in the admin space have led in some degree to its creation, but I couldn't imagine placing it on a user's page. Discussion is a better alternative. Thanks to the creator for the proactive response to negative comments must be expressed, though. Colonel Tom 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in accordance with well reasoned arguments presented above, especially the one about using person to person communication, not a template, as a way to reach out. Full marks to all involved for having wanted to try this approach out, though. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Swatjester. This is an extremely delicate issue, an ugly one size fits all is not a sensitive way of dealing with it. the wub "?!" 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The unacceptable POV is simply the advocacy of a particular resource. But lo! WP already has an NPOV 'suicide help' resource: the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. While I do agree that personal conversation is preferable, it can't hurt to have some (NPOV) tool like this at our disposal. Let's reach out in a WP way. - PatrickFisher 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, I think we ought to have a Template:Suicidehelp and it should have the same content as the existing "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. - PatrickFisher 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Why have I been fooling around with these self-help ideas when we can do proposals, vows, even toasts, all via template! Just think! {{proposal}} could lead to {{acceptproposal}}, unless there's a {{commitmentfear}}, which would then be resolved by {{financialsecurity}} and followed by {{proposal2}}. Then, {{parenttalk}}, {{tuxrental}}, and {{bachelorparty}}, {{keepdownthenoise}}, {{keepdownthenoise2}}, {{nexttimei'mcallingthecops}}, all before {{wedding}}. Hopefully, no divorce templates will be coming, as I have yet to design {{wedding2}}, {{wedding3}}, and the inevitable {{mailorderbride}}. Tijuana Brass 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious you've never had a life partnet. Everyone knows {{makesuretheyrereal}} comes first! All joking aside, someone should get Jimbo to register WikiWedding NOW. People have been married underwater, in space, in WoW... but never on a wiki... imagine the edit summaries! Garrett 12:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
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.

April 25, 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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dual image

Used on two pages - very specific, no need to be a template. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:UC taxobox

Template:UC taxobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Israeli University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox malaysia university (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Czech University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox German University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Russian University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Greek University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Hong Kong University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox University Undergraduate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
In the continuing effort to consolidate the multiple infoboxes for universities. All templates are no longer in use in articles. Some of the other templates were deleted earlier Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 28. These probably don't need to go through the entire process, but I would like another admin to close them out. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 I know I'm getting in sticky there, but look at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Regional Politics. I don't see a reason to single these two. Feel free the nominate the whole batch,though. Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User N-K

Template:User N-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
template should be deleted due to conflict tension between Azeri and Armenians. If Chechnya deletion is applicable, then to avoid bias, Karabakh should be removed. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Delete as Nom. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I should stress it is currentely used by nobody as all of the Armenian users who put that userbox use code. So real reason is we have wasted template that is not linked to anything. That I think should not even be considered vote and be listed as a speedy deletion candidate, but if you insist so shall I. --Kuban Cossack 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Please dont use that game here. That user box is in section of Separatists templates in the regions section of user boxes. It has similar make up as Chechnya. Thats what i mean about your bias POV. Chechnya does not suit you due to your nationality. But karabakh is a different case? Please have some dignity. Noxchi Borz 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have dignity, unlike some of the comments you have put on the talk page of the template below. --Kuban Cossack 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
like which ones mr Kazak? Noxchi Borz 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If you insist:
  1. When I told about previous votes I got:Which vote? vote among the Russian nationalists?
  2. Then comes even more cunning comment:No Russian admins or people of Russian background voting will count as valid.
  3. Russian POV will not be tolorated! But it seems yours shall be.
  4. Need I go continue? --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I already stated that many things might not suit you but they should exist on Wiki. I guess a person who has participate din this shameful war can not understand that. Many innocent people were killed and mostly due to Russian imperialist policy. You found easy way out from this conflict. To kill every Chechen. In your case, i cant even talk about dignity. Its something else. Farewell Mr Kazak.Noxchi Borz 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I was told not to feed the trolls, I will say I take no shame in Restoring Russian territorial integrity and avenging 250,000 Russians that were forced to leave, beaten or killed by the terrorists. I pride in that. --Kuban Cossack 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. See my comments on User Independent Chechnya. (the following quoted from what i said on user independent chechnya debate below, then reworded to N-K) This isn't for articles. mabye you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent Nagorno-Karabakh" userbox if you feel so inclined.--preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 06:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • These templates are being stored in the Template space, making them a community issue. If they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we will know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. But if you want to give people an excuse to not trust you, or to second-guess your edits, by all means, tell people to question your judgement. I would simply suggest that it's not a good idea - Nhprman 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Karabakh", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Azerbaijanis should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to opinion, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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 I know I'm getting in sticky there, but look at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Regional Politics. I don't see a reason to single these two. Feel free the nominate the whole batch, though. Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Chechnya

Template:User independent Chechnya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was already deleted twice previously, author who recreated it knows this. Kuban Cossack 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please maintain the NOPV. There are great amount of people who support Chechen independence. So far, the deletion was made by Russians, therefore pro Russian POV. Please respect the guidelines of Wiki on NPOV. The independence issue of Chechnya is relevant in separatist section. If there are template on Karabakh independence than dont be biased on Chechnya. --Noxchi Borz 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Which "Russians" deleted the page in the past? User:Kelly Martin? Please have decency not to mislead others, if you are unable to prove your allegations. --Ghirla 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Karabakh is irrelevant, but if it comes up I will support its deletion. Make a personalised user box if you have to. As for all Russians being nationalists, watch WP:NPA. --Kuban Cossack 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Why will you support deletion of karabakh? dont you find it biased due to your Russian origins and that you have participate din war in Chechnya? How about creation of Abkhazia box will you support its deletion? Noxchi Borz 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I will never create Abkhazia box nor South Osetia, nor Transdniester, nor Crimea, nor Kosovo, nor Palestine nor any other POV box because that is a pure source of conflict. On the contrary I will support their deletion if they are created. I do not like this double standard of NPOV you trying to pursue. I mean you might as well create a UserNazi template in that case.--Kuban Cossack 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you are correct about double standard for NPOV in Wiki. Whast your stand on Abkhazia, S Ossetia Kosovo? Ill tell you after why i ask you this. Noxchi Borz 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal thoughts that I keep for myself, that are not part of my wikipedian status in any shape or form. I'll just say that I have not created any templates that have those places and do not intend and will not create them, for reasons explained above, and will support their deletion should the question arise. --Kuban Cossack 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Eupator, Karabakh is next Noxchi Borz 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Chechen, i'm using code on my page and not a template :) --Eupator 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You are the best Armenian, well thats what you think. Noxchi Borz 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment On the one hand, the primary purpose of userboxes is to "alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing" as per WP:Userboxes. Userboxes that state that "this user supports XYZ" do not help with editing, but rather serve as soapboxes, something that WP policies explicitly forbid. To quote Jimbo Wales, "userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian". On the other hand, there is a ton of "regional politics" userboxes at and almost all of them go against these guidelines. If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future. Ahasuerus 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    Fully support your proposal, and this template is good place to start it off with. --Kuban Cossack 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. And not because I am Russian. I'd vote the same way if I saw "This user supports independent Texas". KNewman 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Newman. There are tons of user boxes which claim the support for Karabakh independence, basque, catalonian, tibetan. Why dont you delete them? So you are biased in Chechnya case? Noxchi Borz 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Just show me where to vote. KNewman 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, when Chinese or Spanish colleagues will put up the notices here, I will support them. As per Ahasuerus's comment above. --Kuban Cossack 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Mr Kazak, than first vote and delete those "politically incorect" user bosex before Chechnya. You case is obvious, you are Russian and biased in the terms of Chechnya. Mr Ahasuerus should start deliting Karabakh, Tibet, Basque, etc. Lets see how active you will be. Im sure you are only active in Chwechnya case. Noxchi Borz 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As an author of several artciles I find much more time well spent writing new articles rather than voting for deletions, and purifying wikipedia from POV from articles that are not related to me or the ones I write is not my priority. That I leave to the administrators, which I am not and do not intend to become. Should a colleague notify me and ask for my opinion on the matter I shall certainly participate and support the deletion of the template in question, and if the case of templates like the ones you named above arises, I will certainly support their deletion. --Kuban Cossack 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s Chechnya is not Texas Numan. US did not wage genocide of local population and bombed Huston to the ground (looking like berlin of 1945). Noxchi Borz 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The only Genocide in Southern Russian state of Chechnya was committed against the local Russian and Cossack population by savage Chechen beasts.--Eupator 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that IS a POV. --Kuban Cossack 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
yes its typical POV. As defender of genocide victims, maybe you should mention Khojaly massacre eh Armenian? I think you will find true beast and savage animals there.Noxchi Borz 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I condone the slaughter of Azeri civillians by Azeri soldiers. --Eupator 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Ldingley, or Borz whoever you are, this is your job, that is EXACTLY why such templates and images like these are a timebomb for conflicts (now that you got yourself into one, enjoy it, it was what you wanted to have respectible wikipedians loose their temper, I am not going to pacify you), which is EXACTLY why I think Ahasuerus is right about their total purge from wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for loosing temper mr kazak or whoever you are. If you condemn one template this must apply for all. You have typical POV which is against Chechnya and her independence. I do agree with Mr Ahasuerus but you are only demanding the deletion of one particular template which does not suit you. This is not what Wiki is about. This site was not created to suit you or Russian imperialism. Im Sorry. Noxchi Borz 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah nice joke. But i dont think its funny. Armenian. Noxchi Borz 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not because I support Chechnya's independence, but for the sake of compromise. A simple concept of freedom of expresion of thought, no? Kober 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case why not create This user is a nazi or white-power templates? Seriously a line has to be drawn what can go into wiki or not. Like I said above we either allow xenophobic templates like this user is a russophobe/anti-semite etc.etc. or we do not allow any. I personally do care about the quality of wikipedia as a reference source and would hate to think what would happen if such templates originate.--Kuban Cossack 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
belive it or not i agree with you Kazak :) Hey can i vote twice ? :) Joke. I will nominate karabakh next. Noxchi Borz 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As Eupator stated, the userbox for Karabakh is code and not a template. Of course, you'd love it if the Karabakh independence userboxes were removed from every user's page, but it's not going to happen. Hakob 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP The desire for independence does not have anything with hate or xenophobia. Of course there might be xenophobic Chechens like xenophobic Russians/Poles/Americans etc., but independence is not xenophobic per se like Romanov's Flag is not xenophobic per se. It is not neutral allowing symbols of independence for some unrecognized entities and denying for others. Jasra 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! Noxchi Borz 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes and this flag was official and RECOGNISED in its history. Moreover I coded all of my userboxes and did not use tempaltes. So your analogy is totaly wrong. Although I understand the angle you are coming from and is so far has been the most sensible I have heard during this campaign. --Kuban Cossack 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Typical Russian nationalist POV. From what i have seen in your user box, there are tons of indications of this.
So do expain why you voted against for Nagorno-Karabakh.--Kuban Cossack 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- has been speedy deleted several times in the past two months, good thing to have the debate recorded here. --William Allen Simpson 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete T1. ed g2s • talk 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have Tibet, Kurdistan, and Assyria independence templates, what's wrong with Chechnya? —Khoikhoi 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. Noxchi Borz, I sympathize with you, but there's not much you or I can do. TheJabberwʘck 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This divisive and useless template has generated tons of hate talk already and was deleted twice. How does it help one to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages, I'd like to know. This voting is a waste of time. With or without the vote, it will be deleted as per Jimbo's ruling on divisive hate-templates. --Ghirla 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or replace with "User supports partitioning of Russia", but seriously, I don't mind if it stays. Speaks much of users, who post such divisive stuff at their talk. The easier it would be for others to make up their minds about such fellows. See and for more. --Irpen 05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don’t think Misplaced Pages should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't support dismemberment or partitioning of Russia yet I do not support occupation of Chechnya either. //Halibutt 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well in that case I can make templates Free Bialystok, Free eastern Pomerania whose occupation I do not support. --Kuban Cossack 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete abdulnr 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Misplaced Pages is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
  • Slippery slope Keep I dont have an opinon about this issue, but its a major slipperly slope between endorising whether the XBOX is better htan the gamecube, and this issue. --larsinio (poke) 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question to those who want to delete and give the arguments about the lack of encyclopedic values or causing division? Would you like to delete all the unity/separatist movements templates or just this one or a few selected. If just this one - give the argument why this one promotes more hate than for example the one advocating for Srpska Krajina or N-K? If all the category - you should propose voting for the deletion of all the category and not just this template. Removing a selected template from the category violates the policy of NPoV. Jasra 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. If Chechnya is deleted, the whole section of separatist templates should be removed. N-K is headed for deletion, Srpska Krajina and the rest will follow if NPOV is respected. Noxchi Borz 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's why I wrote:
If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future.
above. Regional politics in particular is full of advocacy userboxes, but other types of userboxes can easily get out of hand as well. At some point there will have to be a single policy in place or else there will be no end to "my advocacy is more valid than your advocacy" disputes like this one. There are also technical problems with userboxes vs. "code" vs. Transclusion. The last straw poll on the subject was inconclusive, so all we have to fall back on is Jimbo's quote above and the statement that Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place for political campaigning, and userboxes created or used for this purpose may be deleted. For the sake of consistency, I would recommend deleting all "This user supports political campaign" userboxes at the same time as opposed to spending hundreds of manhours on debating them on a case by case basis. Ahasuerus 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly endorse this sensible, reasonable approach. Unfortunately, Jimbo himself refuses to take the action necessary to give some substance to his nice words and make this happen, and several thousand users endlessly debating this will never find true consensus on this issue. I don't know the solution to this problem other than action by Jimbo. Nhprman 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Like I said above if we have one template, we have many other hate-provoking ones. Although this is a 💕, it should also be a credible one, not a mess. Do you forcast wiki's reputation when swastikas begin appearing on user pages? Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. --Kuban Cossack 10:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The only hate promotion on Wiki is your Russian fascist flag which you have besides your name. Maybe you can fool some people here but not me. Don’t be hypocrite and blame others for things which apply to you. Russian fascism is one of the most dangerous ideologies for civilized world. Pay attention to recent events and systematic murder of non-Russian people in Moscow. Today Russian Neo-nazis (in these days a very popular movement in Russia) rallied again and actually waved those flags which you use here. I guess some users like you can also use flag of the Third Reich (it was also an official flag of Germany in 1940s). This whole situation is a shame and complete waste of time. There should no compromise what so ever for fascism and ultra-nationalism anywhere. Russo Fascisto No Pasaran! Noxchi Borz 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are reminded not to feed the trolls. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Btw all of my familly fought against the Nazi invaders (and their Chechen collaborators) so I shall not even comment on that trollish bulls..t. As for the flag that was the historical flag of the Russian Empire. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, Even if people are nazis, even if they are fascist, if this is what people believe than they have a right to put them on thier userboxes. that's what free speech is. in democratic society people have a right to be racist and to resort to bigotry. that doesn't mean that they are right, but free speech is what makes freedom freedom! that you can say anything you want and not be subject to a McCarthyist intimidation. that'ss what tolerance is! that people can have different beliefs, even if they're wrong, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others, have a right to have a unique opinion. i'm not promoting hate, i'm promoting free speech. and "seperatist" does not mean hate. even if it sometimes leads to that, they are not synonomous. it is not ethically wrong, you are not committing thoughtcrime to think that the chechyens can have thier own country. whether they ever do, that's not the point.--preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Free speech is allowed, but think of the quality of wikipedia as a good reference source when people begin using templates such as those above. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't for articles. maybe you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent chechnya" userbox if you feel so inclined. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • These templates are being stored in the Template space, even if the templates are displayed on user pages. They are therefore a community issue. However, if they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. As for your call to create opposing Userboxes, you illustrate the reason why these boxes are divisive and inflammatory. Misplaced Pages is not the place for political debates and ethnic feuds. - Nhprman 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Any userbox can be divisive. We can either accept this fact and agree that not everyone will be happy or remove all the userboxes (at least all the political ones). Kuban Kazak said: Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. - in this case your Tsarist flag can also be divisive and you keep it. I received no answer why THIS PARTICULAR template is more devisive than any other of a political character. Quite a few people voted for deletion admitting that they are any templates showing political stands. However if just this one template is removed and the other will stay - this will cause the situation when one PoV is put above the other. I would suggest these people reconsider their vote, unless they have some arguments that this particular template is worse than any other of political orientation (so far I didn't see any arguments given). Proposal for deleting the whole "political" category is more rational, and I can see arguments both for and against, but it should be a separate voting. Jasra 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Chechnya", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Russians should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to free speech, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, Cossack, if your entire family did help fight against the nazis and chechyns, respectable as that may be, i'm not seeing how there's any way you can remain neutral about this and wanting to see it deleted for reasons other than your own opinion. you have a right to stating your opinion, and so do they. the point of userbox deletion is to get rid of unapplicable and unneecessesary ones, and ones that specifically refer to hate, not to find more people who have one opinion than the other and delete userboxes solely on the fact that it's a contreversial topic that has a clear minority that doesn't have the numbers to defend itself. you say that "wikipedia is not a soapbox" but the very reason you are trying to delete it is because of your own POV on the topic. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a minority group. Chechnya is an integral part of Russia which is recognised by all governments and the United Nations. Those who support its independence thus support the breakup of Russia with no respect for its territorial integrity or the international community. Btw the Beslan and Moscow Theatre terrorists came under that flag that the template uses. Finally there not all Chechens are anti-Russian, quite the opposite Ramzan Kadyrov for instance, and how many Chechens right now are living in Moscow and making excellent careers there? The template is also insulting to Chechens as well due to naive users who choose to put it. The reason for its deletion is that it has no use. Finally I shall repeat myself that wikipedia is a reference source and I do not want its credibility doubted because some editors choose to show off themselves as such. Finally if a template User supports al-queda arises or independence of Afghanistan with the Taliban flag. How do you expect people, particualary relatives of those that the Chechen and Al-queda terrorists killed will value wikipedia? Free speach is not an alibi to degenerate wikipedia into a nationalist propaganda machine. --Kuban Cossack 20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, that is your opinion. you are entitled to your opinion. it is completly fine for you to have that opinion, and you can support it all you want, you are entitleed to free speech. but other people have other opinions and they are also entitled to free speech. if someone has a significant opinion it is not beyond thier rights to have a userbox. A userbox does not represent the views of wikipedia as a whole. a usserbox represents the views of anyone who uses the userbox, and if other people decide to use it that is thier right. having a userbox does not support division and conteversy. it is merely an act of free speech. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
And this free speach not only goes against wikiettiquette but is extreamely offensive for some. That is the issue. Should wiki be allowed to have such anger generating images. Userpages or articles is irrelevant as user pages are still part of wikipedia. User pages are subject to fairuse image restrictions, so they should be equally censored from hate provoking templates. --Kuban Cossack 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
So, essentially what you are saying is "Free speech only applies if you agree with me, because we're right and they're wrong." that's not the point! they may very well be wrong, but they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way. and this is not. the mere stating for a desire of independence is simply stating belief, not an attempt to offend. also, if it's the flag you're trying to remove, then that doesn't involve deletion of the entire userbox, just a substitution of the flag, and this isn't the place for that debate. as it has already been said before, the flag on your sig offends some, but you don't seem compelled to remove it to make sure nobody gets offended. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way And this template does exactly that. It provokes users towards immediate disrespect. When a user states Free Palestine on his box how do you think a Jewish person (particulary someone who lost a relative from a suicide bomb attack) would react to an article seeing written by that person. Of course he will think it is biased, and already a little template provokes hate and anger. That is the issue here. Misplaced Pages is not for political debates. Templates that spark friction should not exist. The user can code the template if he wants to, but doing that he is saying that I am not using wikipedian tools and doing so on my free accord. And yes free speach is a important provided its not abused. This template is insulting in its manner and nothing more. I find it offensive, and what you are saying just because some people find it offensive and others don't its alright. So since when have everybody who voted against become second sort users, where wikipedia sanctions others to use such offensive templates by providing them. That way you are saying its alright for someone to feel offended and nothing should be done about it. That is the issue. And I will, if need to, take this to the arbitration committee. --Kuban Cossack 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Weasel-inline

Template:Weasel-inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An inline template for what one user defines as weasel words is inherently disruptive. This was not requested, there was non consensus to add, and there is no need for it. Irishpunktom\ 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

        • The top one does not go after every instance of what an editor decides is a "weasel word", rather it flags that they exist and suggests that the problem be dealt with on the talk page--Irishpunktom\ 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Redirect5p

Template:Redirect5p (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, redundant to {{Redirect}}, and harmful as links like this should always use the entire title of the article. When a link like this gets put into print, it needs to use the correct article name - "see foo" pointing at "bar" is misleading. Hairy Dude 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's useful for pointing to specific sections, such as the usage at Multitrack recording. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If that's the only intended usage, it should just be the same as {{Redirect}} but with an extra parameter to specify an anchor. As it is, it's too flexible. Hairy Dude 13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, why do we want to hide the fact that the link points to an anchor at all? I can't see a good reason for wanting to. Hairy Dude 13:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There were until just now only three uses in article namespace. One used link text that was to a nonexistent article, and the others used ambiguous text to a disambiguated title, both of which should just use the full title, so I changed them to use {{redirect}}. So Multitrack recording is now the only instance of this usage. Hairy Dude 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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 under G7. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stargate race/Instructions

Template:Stargate race/Instructions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was PRODded with the reasoning "Purely esoteric and created for maintenance work to templates; work complete, page unneeded", but PROD is for articles only, not templates, so I'm bringing it here. No vote from me since I have no earthly idea what this template is used for. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete The vast majority of the links in this template are red. Even if those articles exist, they're probably by another name than "at the Summer Olympics". This template is insane, it's huge, and it's not helpful for navigating to other articles Ned Scott 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment there is an aim to have "X at the Summer Olympics" for every national olympic committee (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics/Articles). (And also a "X at the Winter Olympics" for every NOC) Andjam 07:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The template was created September 2004, and this is as far as it's gotten? -- Ned Scott 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
9 of the top 10 medal-winning NOCs have articles (the exception, East Germany, no longer exists). Andjam 08:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if this was a template featuring just those 10 I wouldn't have a problem with this. But it's not... At best I can see this template being used once more articles have been created, as well as being reformatted to not just look like a huge blob (maybe some sort of grouping by continent or something). But right now it's just... not useful, at all. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • When is eventually? Like I said, the template was created in September 2004. This is the kind of template you make AFTER you've done most of the articles, not before. And, again, I'd like to point out that it's a huge ugly blob. Even if all those articles were there, it's painful to use it for navigation. Maybe the template could be changed to have the articles that you currently have, then a link via the WikiProject to a list of articles that need creation? -- Ned Scott 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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.


April 24, 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. Pagrashtak 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador is served by rebroadcasters of the very same TV stations that serve St. John's, as are dozens of other Newfoundland communities. The one local station it did have is now a pure rebroad itself and has been for some time. BBM considers the province a single market. I appreciate User:MapleLeafFan04's affection for the subject, but taken to its extreme, it would mean most Canadian TV station pages would be cluttered with templates representing every rebroad area. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Pagrashtak 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:FEUbox

Template:FEUbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant in purpose with the standard university infobox, except dressed up in the school colors of FEU. Coffee 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Pagrashtak 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:ImpersonatorProven

Template:ImpersonatorProven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused according to What Links Here and Google. I can't find any talk about it's creation. None of the categories that pages would use if they were tagged with this have any text on them, so I'm guessing it's redundant. SeventyThree 10:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

delete, unlike with sockpuppetry it is obvious whether a user is impesonating someone else or not. Thryduulf 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this would be a good template... but where would it go? --Domthedude001 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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 to delete. Pagrashtak 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Atmospheric sciences

Template:Atmospheric sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks strikingly similar to the summarily rejected Root page family of templates and other paraphernalia that were deleted nearly unanimously in various venues. — Apr. 24, '06 <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 under CSD A2 (even though it's not an article, i think it applies.) Circeus 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Comuna of Chile

Template:Comuna of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is in a foreign language, and refers to a template which has never existed (nonexistant, no deletion log). I'm guessing it was moved from a different language wikipedia, and then forgotten about. Not used according to what links here. Only one editor - I've notified him on his talk page. SeventyThree 07:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 userfy Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

I'm relisting this template on TfD per the deletion review decision. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 redirect Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Line 1 Green

Template:Line 1 Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I found this with a TFD tag, but not listed here. It looks like the only edit was in December 2004, which is strange (it would mean creation and tfd in one edit). Unused by what links here. No vote SeventyThree 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Div 60

Template:Div 60 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deprecated due to m:ParserFunctions and no longer in use (would be db-author except others edited it). TimBentley (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - As one of the others who edited it I endorse this deletion. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Marseille infobox

Template:Marseille infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (what links here + google); replaced in Marseille by {{Large French Cities}}. SeventyThree 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Madeira

Template:Madeira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (by what links here), and redundant with {{Municipalities of Madeira}} (which is more inclusive). SeventyThree 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:RahXephon infobox

Template:RahXephon infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Meta-template that attempted to take the Template:Infobox animanga out of the article RahXephon. It was only used in the RahXephon article and has no potential of being used in any other article. It also made it more difficult for editors who wanted to modify the contents of the infobox. TheFarix (Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Made in the same spirit as Template:Republic_of_China_infobox. That template is not used on any other Article namespace pages either. The Template:RahXephon infobox has the potential of being used if RahXephon:Pluralitas Concentio, RahXephon_(manga) warrant creation. Delete until then. Also see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_infoboxes#Search_engine_appearance. --GunnarRene 08:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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. Pagrashtak 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Russia infobox

This template needs deletion because it is a single-article infobox, and is not used even in the article on Russia.--Brendenhull (talk) | 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Template:User not-Drug-free

I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

Template:User Hell

This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-( Plaese click here to start a new debate

Debates

April 30, 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 Circeus 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television Black

Template:Infobox Television Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is an unused black styled version of {{Infobox Television}}. The DJ 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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 (user request) Just another star in the night 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Chad-Sudan

I made this but now realise there is already Template:Chadian-Sudanese conflict, please delete it, thank you. --Horses In The Sky 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete and agreed, thanks for posting it. The only user to maintain the suggested page also placed it here, and as such, I'd like to grant his/her request. Logical2u 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mexico infobox

Template:Mexico infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Mexico infobox is a single-article infobox that recalls another template, just as {{World War II infobox}} did. / / Brendenhull (talk • contribs) | 12:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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. — xaosflux 14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hell

Template:User Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-

I disagree, Strong Keep. Religious and humourous userboxes are here to stay for the time being, until Jimbo Wales enforces his Febuary 20th decree. Please see the deletion review on this page for reasons as to why not to delete these. There is no discussion on this topic either, and this user is enforcing his personal beliefs. I see no need to delete these, and I encourage others to support freedom of speech and of personal beliefs on userpages, especially those considered humourous. Logical2u 12:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
yeah t'was me, sorry everyone (Johnny Copper 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep. Blasphemousness is not a reason for deleting a template, but I cannot see how this is blasphemous. As an atheist, most Christians say I am condemned to Hell. Hence, Christians should be pleased I display this template in awareness of my grossly sinful condition. Mgekelly - Talk 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep unless every religion-related userbox is also deleted Mícheál 02:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete 'strict' does not mean dishonest (that is highly offfensive and I would like an apology), it is a relating to the fact that a siginificant portion of wikipedians are situated in the USA are are thus US style liberterians, also most Australian wikipedians are US oriented and thus are also of that type, shairng loose moral. I am a genuine middle class Australian with strict morals, for example, I am more serious about, in particular, vandalism that maybe deeply insulting, such as Nazi vandalism. In this case, I have no particular view on some belief related template, but if they are socially inapropriate, they are one of my most serious pet peeves.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
  • Speedy keep, obviously a misunderstanding of the rules of deletion. Misplaced Pages is not censored for moral beliefs. --Rory096 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously delete "Misplaced Pages is not censored for moral beliefs." I consider this as being based on loose morals of US liberterians and US style liberterians elsewhere.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
  • Hrmmm ... how about subst? This thing obviously doesn't belong in Template: namespace as it isn't encyclopedia-related. That's simple policy. But to avoid pissing off users, I could subst it everywhere it's used first. That seems like a good compromise. --Cyde Weys 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Is that actually a policy? Looking over Misplaced Pages:Template namespace, I'm not seeing anything of the sort. While I agree with you it would be nice if Template: was reserved for main namespace templates, the two possible actions as I see it from such a development would be either wiping out nom main-space templates (which would be massively wasteful as there are many many useful templates for Misplaced Pages: and User:) or creating template namespaces for everything, which also seems to be overkill. PoptartKing 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, I don't really see how this is polemic. PoptartKing 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. No question about it, it's not divisive, not likely to be used for "vote" solicitation, even if it includes a template --- in other words, keep unless all userboxes except WikiProject boxes are eliminated. (This includes babelboxes.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Some of us may actually use this userbox as an indication that we actually believe we are going to Hell, not "based on loose morals of US liberterians and US style liberterians", whatever that means. --Rocketgoat 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and suggest nominator read Aucassin and Nicolette. Septentrionalis 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Absurd, just absurd. I take offense to people taking offense at my "hell" userbox. Skeletor2112 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Excuse me? You voted on your own proposal to have something deleted three times? That's just stupid. Obviously no one wants this userbox deleted, so you might as well forget about the entire prospect, pal. Burstroc 07:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think the nominator has made a strong enough argument for deleting this userbox, which, in my opinion, is not divisive enough to merit deletion, and is damned funny. I think the general consensus is that censorship because of a moral position is not cool at Misplaced Pages.Cerealkiller13 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Aw, for the love 'a... I for one am getting a little tired of people these days recoursing to the bonfire to expunge anything they don't like or find offensive. Don't like Christmas? Have it banned. Don't like the theory of Evolution? Get it bounced from the schools. Despise crucifixes, yarmulkes and Muslim head scarves? Forbid people to wear them. Don't like editorial cartoons? Just riot and threaten death upon the publishers until they stop printing them. Go through the local library and destroy any book you personally disagree with. Don;t dare ignore or gasp engage with a viewpoint you disagree with, because you'll end up contaminated. If we hold to that asinine standard, there is going to be nothing left, and we'll be left sitting upon the ashes of another Library of Alexandria, because I gaurantee you there is something that offends everybody. I will die before I let that happen. Pat Payne 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is meant to be funny, and I don't see what's so "blasphemous" or "offensive" about it. --Eastlaw 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So, since this vote has been up for four days or so, and, with the exception of the nominator, there has only been one delete vote (and an explicitly weak one at that) and 23 keeps, can someone simply assume that the community consensus is keep and remove this? Cerealkiller13 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, just because it pisses off the Pat Roberson-style Christians. The Fading Light 01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --Shawn 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As per norm -- - K a s h 15:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Religious guys always want to set the rules, but this time I'll speak up. I don't see the problem for a christian to keep this userbox in Misplaced Pages: if you want, you put it in your page, if you don't want to, you let it be. I'm atheist, but since I see there are many christians in Misplaced Pages, I think it's right to have in Misplaced Pages christian Userboxes; the same way, christians should allow atheists to have their humorous userboxes.

And...c'mon, the definition "blasphemous" is ridiculous! --Hard Rock Thunder 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep for the same reasons as user Pat Payne, plus I like the style of humour this template represents. --Dudo2 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep because its funny, and, ironically, sometimes true. GANDALF1992 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: How is this blasphemous? Obviously, slapping this userbox up on somebody else's page is rather unacceptable, but that's already the case for most other userboxes. I fail to see how stating an opinion about oneself is wrong, as opposed to stating an opinion about the universe or some supposed universal truth. ---Bersl2 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - obviously a lost cause, but what is the point? People speak of humor, but is that the purpose of wikipedia? Not that talk pages can't include it...further it seems more likely to be used for vandalism than self-identification. Is it possible to get stats on this?Timothy Usher 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
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. — xaosflux 15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User not-Drug-free

Template:User not-Drug-free (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

  • I disagree, Strong Keep. If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this? Otherwise it seems like repression of free speech. Logical2u 12:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech. But as long as we are all pretending it is, you are right - both pro and con boxes should be deleted. Nhprman 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If we delete both, yes, I agree with that. At the moment though I only put this here because it was in the same place as User-Hell above. I find offence with singling out on specific aspect of it. So if drug use and no drug use boxes are to be deleted, I agree to delete them both as divisive and sometimes too much of a politcal statement. Until that point becames the issue, I want to stand next to my earlier statement that for the time being these should be saved in that the user proposing for deletion hasn't really explained his terms nor followed proper procedure in deleting them. However, now I feel unvalidated and all sad and stuff. I guess what I'm saying is, I disagree with the procedure used to nominate this template, and this current debate should be closed for no delete, but I would vote the other way given the drug related ones for deletion. More explanations: Yes, isn't it socially appropriate? How can we know? It IS part of society. Is dividing wikipedia down the middle appropriate? Probably not.Logical2u 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
  • I see no problem with someone nominating the "no drug use" box for deletion, based on fairness, though I hope the nominator of that Userbox makes a more compelling case for deletion than lack of "social appropriateness." That's not a proper argument and I expect this template will be saved because to that. The nominator showed POV by nominating this one and not the other at the same time. Most nominations are for both sides of the argument. - Nhprman 18:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"I am not drug free" is not a viewpoint? It doesn't provoke? Isn't it meant to? Sure it is. It's a template in order to meet other people who are also not drug free (and the anti-drug template is designed to work the same way.) Unfortunately, social networking is not why we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
If you think that, then ALL userboxes can be seen as aiming to meet other like-minded people, not just this one. I have this template, and I can assure you that I have never even spoken to someone else who has it, nor do I intend to. And no, it is not aiming to provoke. It is a fact, just like being drug free is a fact, believing in god is a fact, liking chocolate is a fact. In this respect, it is no different from any other userbox. IronChris | (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do believe that ALL Userbox Templates have the potential to draw us away from our primary goal here (editing an encyclopedia.) The fact that these are TEMPLATES allows for that social networking to take place. Even if you don't engage in it, many others do, and use these Templates to defend or delete friendly or unfriendly userboxes and form mini-tribes here. All, according to WP policies, is a distraction and not our primary mission here. On the other hand, if this message was simply written on your User page, very few would ever care. But create it as a template, and it becomes a legitimate community issue and ends up in debates like these. Nhprman 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - If it's deleted, we will just continue to use the content, and continue to make the statement. The userspace itself is not encyclopedic at all, it's for personal viewpoints and personal information. Trying to sterilize Misplaced Pages will only serve to waste time debating rather than contributing. --Avillia 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, obviously a bad faith nom. " socially appropriate?" --Rory096 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Seriously speedy delete "If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this?" Because one is more socially acceptable than the other, and I am getting a bit upset at other wikipedians behaviour towards me and my strict morals, In the real word there do exist social classes in some societies where this is perfectly normal and ani-moral judement (as is, unfortunaty, almost universal among wikipedians) can itself be a form of moral judgement.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
It might be worth noting that this is the nominators vote. This anonymous comment comes from a lazy Logical2u
  • Hrmmm ... how about subst? This thing obviously doesn't belong in Template: namespace as it isn't encyclopedia-related. That's simple policy. But to avoid pissing off users, I could subst it everywhere it's used first. That seems like a good compromise. --Cyde Weys 05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Once you subst this one, then you'll have to go through substing every other similar template, of which there are at least twenty or so. Then you move into the ones related to this, and from that point it degrades into a mess of code everywhere. On top of all that, it will just encourage similar nominations like this, when the whole matter has already been discussed with an overwhelming consensus on keep. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or reword to something like "this user uses drugs" or something - right now it sounds combative. Just another star in the night 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy (or Strong) Keep. No reason given to delete. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy (or Strong) Keep.I believe it is outrageous to even think about deleting these boxes. Some might put them up there to make a statement, but what about regular users like me who see it as just giving more information about ourselves, simply? What I mean is, if someone is able to put a box that say 'Im a level 2 singer' for example, then there is no difference for me between that box and this 'not drug-free' user box. Just because some dont agree with this practise should NOT mean that they be given the right to remove our possibility to communicate a useful, interesting fact about us on our personnal page (which is what it was designed for, was it not?)--DragonFly31 07:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • No, it was not designed for any such thing. "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. - Nhprman 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In this case, coudnt the fact that I assert on my user page that I am 'not drug free' provide some other user with the view that I support drug use and therefore provide useful edits and points of views on the subject should it be needed, or should my help be requested on the subject? If the box is deleted, then it is very possible this may happen to man, many people. Particularly since Misplaced Pages is preparing and building a project on such a subject. This box IS 'providing a foundation for effective collaboration', just like most other boxes that exist.--DragonFly31 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I see no problem with writing "I'm interested in articles on drugs and drug legalization" (or whatever) on your Userpage. Even if you use the Userbox, and "Subst" it, that solves the Userbox Template problem. Few people will have a problem with you saying this in some fashion on your page, and yes, that would be useful to those working on Wiki Projects. The problem comes when it's a template that's used as a tool to recruit other users who are pro-drug or anti-drug (or anti/pro abortion, immigration, EU, etc.) and then rally them to form tribes on Misplaced Pages to "fight" for these causes and prompt POV edit wars in support of them. That's not why we're here. Nhprman 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears as though you have a rather negative view of Wikipedians in general, if you think that this is what we're all out to do. Let's assume good faith, please. If you are so vehemently against userboxes overall, as you claim, may I suggest that fighting against one or two particular boxes, which seem to have overwhelming support, may not be the best use of time? These boxes exist currently and are both widely supported and used. No crime has been committed, no one is attacking anyone else. Is this really such an important problem? romarin 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Speaking of AGF, please don't assume my view of Wikipedians. Saying I have a "negative view of Wikipedians" doesn't even make sense. I guess I just don't have my head buried in the sand (perhaps willfully) when it comes to the games some Wikipedians are playing to "test the boundaries" of the project's rules and policies. The "crime" here is that these box templates are changing the nature of Misplaced Pages, and I have every right to point that out to people who are trying to hijack the project and turn it into myspace. And finally, just because the Misplaced Pages social network is working well, and people are "rallying" to these boxes makes no difference. I will continue to point out the error of their ways. Nhprman 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Although some Wikipedians do want to 'test the boundaries',form clans and change the site to their views MOST DO NOT! It is the reason why this site is one of the greatest that exists on the internet! NPOV is in itself a reason as to why Misplaced Pages is an incredible place of knowledge. Most users do not seek to destroy or unbalance that -- even when they do not agree with something. This is particularly true in this case. Why delete these boxes if knowledge is to be lost from it (because that WILL happen!), without Misplaced Pages benefiting in any way? Why be overly and unecessarily protective of a problem that can be taken care of swiftly if and when it arises? I have no overtly big plan to destroy drug free wikipedians! I just hope that one day, there won't be a need for conversations like this, so that the two life choices of being drug free or not won't matter or cause fuss!--DragonFly31 16:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I grant that many (if not most) are not out to test the boundaries. But many are. A Question: How is Misplaced Pages benefiting from knowing a user is "not drug free"? Or for that matter, that he/she "is drug free"? You're right about drug choices not mattering - both views DON'T MATTER in the Misplaced Pages project, unless a user plans on using the templated box to rally all other pro/anti drug users to advocate one or the other view or to simply "know" other Wikipedians who agree with them. Both goals are contrary to Misplaced Pages's mission and policies. If you truly have no intention to do this, will you agree that taking them out of the template space - while still allowing them on userpages as text-ified boxes - is a wise thing to do, since it ends the community-wide discussion of this issue once and for all? Nhprman 17:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I will certainly not let go of this box issue! If you grant that most Wikipedians are are not out to test the boundaries, then where is the problem? You ask, how does wikipedia benefit from knowing a user is not drug free. The answer is simple; Misplaced Pages benefits (and will benefit) from the use of these specific boxes by abling users that have questions or want to know more about drug use though first hand experiences or points of views to ask the members of the two 'sides' of the choice. Remember, boxes also allow list of people to come together (this is what you dispute-- it is what I am proud of,) not to fight to the death and create clans but rather create contructive knowledge, something that will be made more difficult by the destruction of the two boxes! As to when I say that drug choices dont matter, you've misinterpreted my view; what I meant was, I wished for a place where people won't create petty fights of absolute right and wrong about this issue, but rather place where both views could be debated peacefully without intend to crush one another. Deleting these boxes is one step in the wrong direction. Keeping them, one step in the right. One step towards a more complete and better Psychedelic Drugs' section, a project in the making that requires as much help as it can get.--DragonFly31 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we're talking past one another. I actually didn't ask you to "let go" of the issue, I offered a solution that would end this seemingly endless bickering. The fact that "boxes allow lists of people to come together" is a bizzare perversion of Misplaced Pages's mission (hint: it's got something to do with editing an encyclopedia.) Please read the page "What Misplaced Pages is not" at WP:NOT. it is policy, not opinion. This is not a debating society or a social networking site, and wishing it was one and saying that over and over again won't make it so. - Nhprman 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The fact that "boxes allow lists of people to come together" is NOT a perversion of Misplaced Pages. It is simply an asset that can be used to improve the quality and accuracy of articles in a very simple, direct and unthreatening way. The wish to remove such a tool for some people's moral grounds (as that can honestly be the only reason I can see to remove them, your argument that it incites people to harass rsch other in the form of clans being unfounded) is just ridiculous. Which is why you and I 'bicker' away. And will continue to do so for a while it seems. One last thing -- this user box IS, in my opinion, used to show EXPERTISE in a subject that requires it. It is NOT, when used by most users, used to provoke or offend. The user box 'Hell' gives more probability of offending a user and does not show any 'expertise' in any subject. Since most people in this page support a 'keep' motion, it makes sense to do exactly that. --DragonFly31 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It's kind of unbelievable that "User not drug free" shows any expertise, other than perhaps in using drugs, and I still believe most users think it provokes anti-drug types quite nicely. The fact that people are "voting" in droves to "keep" this box doesn't mean it's good for Misplaced Pages. It means social networking works. Nhprman 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • OF COURSE the user box 'not drug free' shows expertise in the field of using drugs! Just because it's something you don't agree on morally doesn't mean it is not an area where expertise is not needed! Again, a 'psychedelic' section is in construction in Misplaced Pages, where all types of drugs (depressants, deliriants and so on) are discussed, including their effects! I, personally, don't put it on to 'provoke' other users but to show that I have experienced the use of drugs, therefore could easily help write, correct or debate points on them. Let me remind you -- if you have a look through that 'psychedelic' section, drugs affect individuals in many areas and are connected with numerous other areas of knowledge, eg. different states of consciousness, dissolution of ego, used to trigger psychosis for study purposes, etc... The fact that people are voting 'keep' means that Misplaced Pages benefits, again, from the caring society it has relied upon in order not to let people's individual morals and opinions from getting in the way of opportunities to extend knowledge.--DragonFly31 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually haven't made a moral argument for or against this box, and either opinion is irrelevent (that's kind of the point I've been making.) WP is neither a caring, unjudging society or a judgemental, moralizing one. It's a NPOV encyclopedia. That's it. Still - as I've said about 42 times - feel free to put the coding or text of this box on your Userpage if you want to alert others to your drug-taking status and/or expertise in drugs if you wish. Just keep it out of template space and 90% of this discussion vanishes. - Nhprman 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I was going to let it go, until I saw the deletes are starting to increase in number. The reason why I am so much against deleting this box is simply because Myrtone stated the reason as 'socially inappropriate' for the removal of the template. The reason I love Misplaced Pages and come back every day is because people don't judge on what's socially acceptable; rather all ideas and thoughts are welcome, no matter how stupid, counterintuitive, or crazy. It is an extremely reliable source of information that is NPOV, so you can read about anything without being careful to pick out the undertones or insinuations. I can say what I want (within reason) and people are just going to discuss it. This is why it is pissing me off that this gets deleted. If it gets selected for deletion for another reason, some other day -- then yes, maybe. But not now. It would go against what Misplaced Pages is about.--DragonFly31 06:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the reason given by the nominator wasn't that great. To recap my position: My major concern is that this is a Templated Userbox. Cut-and-paste the text onto a Userpage and that problem goes away, because WP is not a social networking site, and not the place for debates on social issues. Nhprman 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Quoting from Misplaced Pages:Userboxes, "Misplaced Pages is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." Note the part that says "as a means to an end." You keep arguing that Misplaced Pages is not a social netoworking site, and it's not, but a small amount of social network is necessary to achieve the end result of being an online encyclopedia. The people using these boxes are merely identifying themselves as belonging to a specific group, drug users in this case. I would argue that the higher use userboxes (Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat, etc) have a much higher risk of violating the policy you keep referring to. This particular box, however, does not see such use and is far less likely to violate that policy. On top of that, there are far more frivilous boxes than this, like Template:User arrested no. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • First, that's not a policy page you're quoting from. It's also a misinterpreation of the quote. Misplaced Pages is an online community ONLY IN THAT it exists to edit an encyclopedia. It is in no other sense. You also neglected to quote from Jimbo Wales on that page. He said: "User boxes that are designed to provoke, offend, or reflect a POV rather than show expertise are generally discouraged." "User is not drug free" is designed to provoke, not inform or show expertise. Can't a person simply WRITE "I am part of the Legalization Wiki Project, dealing with issues surrounding banned drugs" or "I edit articles on the topic of drug legalization" on their Website - or create a code-only, non-Template Userbox with these messages? If all these boxes were NOT templates, and were simply text on User pages, the arguments here that they are simply identifiers and not an invitation to rally others against or for certain issues would be more convincing. Nhprman 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." I realize that this isn't policy, but it's accepted practice. Also, Jimbo's quote here expresses concern over political and polemical (controversial) userboxes. I don't believe this qualifies as controversial. If anything, it's more of a joke template. This template hardly promotes conflict as you believe. There's less than 50 people linking to it. This template is no worse than the userbox on my page stating that "The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain." As a slight tangent, I do believe that quite a few people abuse the userboxes. I think they should be limited to a single line with maybe 10 at the most. The hundreds I see on userpages do annoy me. However, I don't feel that this one, low-use template needs to be deleted. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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.

April 29, 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.--Sean Black 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User antifa-01

Template:User antifa-01 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominated for speedy deletion but evident reluctance to do so. Editors bickering on talk page, in edit summaries and on template itself about Jimbo's intentions and whether you're a fascist if you delete the template. Note: technical nomination, so no opinion from me, but feel free to have a go on my talk page if you must. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 22:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete: Pro-Communist and Anti-Fascist or Anti-Communist and Pro-Fascist. Advocating the destruction of one group, and violently depicting it, while supporting another. This seems pretty inflammatory and divisive to me. --Khat Wordsmith 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Keep: I see nothing wrong with it. Theres nothing inflammatory about it, well in my opinion anyways. It's just a stand, like you either beleive in God or you're an antheist, you either like bacon or you don't, you either like facism or you don't, you're either one or the other. -- whipsandchains 23:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly Delete Since the nominator is afraid to mention why this technially violates WP policy, I will make his case for him. It's divisive, inflammatory and INAPPROPRIATE for Misplaced Pages. Should we have a template kicking a hammer and sickle now to "balance" this one? NO! But that's where this could lead - though I note a pro-fascism box was quickly "taken care of" when someone created one as a way to make a point. The political merits of this or any other template aside, and forgetting the 'fairness' argument, Misplaced Pages is simply not a soapbox, and support for or against Fascism has nothing to do with this "anti" template existing here. It's appalling to think templates are being "saved" because they are "correct" in their political viewpoints, but that's what I've been reading about why this box is so precious. Everyone should please review WP policy before jumping on the "save the 'correct' template" bandwagon. Nhprman 00:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • And I should note that while I abhor fascism and fascists, I never once voted up an attempt to delete their userboxes. Why? Because there's bigger things to worry about on Misplaced Pages than fascists ability to put up a Kick Me sign on their own backs -- like the fact that racists routinely vandalize pages and get away with it, and that the hostile environment this fosters has never been properly dealt with.
If someone wishes to have a mouthbreathing anti-communist userbox, I say that's fine and dandy. We've already got pro-capitalist and pro-Objectivist userboxes, and those are already pretty close to that. --Daniel 19:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Not afraid, merely disinterested - I was clearing out the speedy delete category, this template had been there for hours and had no reasons given under the existing criteria for a speedy delete. I remain disinterested in the reasons for deletion or keeping this template, but I'd rather not be misrepresented by either side. Thanks. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 11:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, I think people could take a lot of offence at this DannyM 09:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Offensive, to whom? Advocates of pogroms and genocide? People who dispatch thugs to go after "sick art?" They're already offended by the fact that Misplaced Pages allows for editing by Jews, people of color, trade unionists, et al. Why the hell should a project built around freedom of honest inquiry be worried about the opinions of those who oppose freedom, honesty, and inquiry? --Daniel 17:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The same argument can be made against thuggish Communism, which has killed or ensalved hundreds of millions, so where's your anger against that political philosophy? This is why Misplaced Pages is no place for narrow political crusades. Deleting all political Userboxes will bring that honesty and freedom you seek back to the project. It's getting lost now in these Userbox wars Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • You just answered your own question. Why should a project built around freedom say it's okay to think one way and it's not okay to think another? Last I checked, isn’t that what you've been saying fascists do? Say everyone who doesn’t agree is evil? --Khat Wordsmith 19:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Re-read DannyM's comments, and my own. His argument is that fascists will be offended by this userbox. That would make sense, were Misplaced Pages a fascist website, censored along the lines fascists dictate. It isn't -- and if Misplaced Pages were ever censored along fascist lines, then say goodbye to at least half of the over one million articles on English Misplaced Pages.
This userbox is simply a token acknowledgement that there are those Wikipedians - of many backgrounds, beliefs, and interests - who aren't going to stand idly by as fascists attempt to use thuggery to intimidate the rest of us into submission. While I strongly wish Jimbo and company would actually bother to look at what opening the door to fascists' participation in the project actually means (e.g., the alienation of a good number of people), this userbox does nothing to do anything beyond stating a common, honest belief. --Daniel 19:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether any one political philosophy is "wrong" or "right" is beyond the scope of Misplaced Pages and this is not the place for Wikipedians to "battle it out." The entire discussion is moot, and there is no "right" to express one's belief in, or opposition to, a certain political philosophy. WP policy states: "Misplaced Pages is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Misplaced Pages is not a forum for unregulated free speech." It's not a question of defending or attacking Fascism, it's a question of whether the template should be gathering supporters and opponents in the way these always do (and we're seeing it here in this argument.) It - and all other political Userboxes - are taking users away from the core purpose of the site. Nhprman 22:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever. Feel free to beat a strawman until your knuckles are bloody. This is not a matter of "unregulated free speech" on Misplaced Pages - this userbox appears nowhere other than user space where it does absolutely nothing to work against Misplaced Pages's mission. I've never argued for unregulated free speech on Misplaced Pages, and to the opposite I wish people like you would actually bother to regulate the type of racist garbage that gets posted daily in the articlespace. You don't - and that's why people post up userboxes like this. --Daniel 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The straw man is the attempt by some to smear all those who oppose this Userbox as a racist. Bad move, and they need to assume good faith. Your comment that this appears "nowhere other than user space" is incorrect. This is a template, and is in template space, making it subject to community discussion and consensus. However, put the raw code on your Userpage and very, very few will even care to comment, and the community aspect of the box goes away. But if it's going to be a tool to "organize" other anti-Fascists, be warned that pro-Fascists and anti-Communist boxes will be allowed, too, and selective censorship will not be tolerated because, as we hear ad nausem (only when it suits people's wishes, apparently,) "Misplaced Pages is not censored." Nhprman 01:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
**Strong Keep, “The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it.” I can see the point of NPOV thing and I understand if you dont want to offend anyone but come on, there are some things you KNOW that you have to take stand against. Besides, how many articles get vandalize with racial slurs and attacks on an hourly basis here on Misplaced Pages? The people you are so afraid to offend doesn't seem to mind offending others now do they? Why not just remove all the Holocaust articles since according to them it never happened that way it' ll be really NPOV. -- whipsandchains 18:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
      • That's right, we all have opinions. But thinking - no, KNOWING - that your own opinion is right and other peoples' are wrong, and that all material you think is "wrong" should be erased isn't going to work so long as someone else holds a different opinion. That's why this project is supposed to be done in NPOV, so that all the differing opinions have a chance to be recorded and documented so that all the information the differing opinions will let in are let in. People who aren't fascists (the vast majority) can put in information about the holocaust - but there are a few people out there who just, gosh-darn-it, KNOW that that information is false. Are you saying we should let them delete those pages? No, they can put in a different page that some people have a different opinion. By proudly proclaiming that people KNOW that you are right, what message are you really sending? Everyone's point of view is the same as yours? If that was true, no one would have created this button which attacks the POV of another group. Of course, I could have completely misread what you had to say, please inform me if I am mistaken. --Khat Wordsmith 19:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Perhaps the use of the word you in that part of first sentence was misunderstood, I was refering to myself in a third person view (poor choice of word I admit). And gosh-darn-it, you just made my point. Why delete something you don't agree on? Like you pointed out, instead of deleting the holocaust article, they made another one right? Then why delete this template? You can make a pro-facist template and put it on your userpage for all I care, I can't force you to see things my way, thatd be rather hypocritical now woudn't it? This template here just represents the fact that I am antifa. It's not like I go around and vandalize articles or userpages with this template, its just used on my userpage (where I'm suppose to put my POVs correct?) to indicate that I am anti-facist. -- whipsandchains 20:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
          • You are very, very, very right. One can make a pro-fascist user-box and put it on his or her user page. You are 100% right. Just as someone can make an anti-fa userbox and put it on his or her own userpage. But the fact is that, for some reason I don't quite understand, I'll admit, when someone makes a template of something like that, it gets deleted. I've watched all the pro-fascist user boxe templates get deleted while the anti-fascist userboxe templates stay were they are. I'm just saying either keep both (which is very unlikely to happen) or remove the templates of both and allow people to use their own on their own user page or someone other than Misplaced Pages. Personally I'm over the opinion where the pro- and anti- anything userboxes should be able to remain as templates, but there are people, as you rightly said, who are malicious about these sorts of things and will go to great lengths to change said templates. Unlike vandalism on articles, towards which Misplaced Pages should be putting it's efforts into in order to stop, I think it's a better solution to nip this problem in the bud and, again, as you rightly said, have people who feel strongly about certain things to make their own userboxes for their own user pages.--Khat Wordsmith 20:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The reason these Userboxes are being deleted as Templates is because, as Templates, they are being used to round up people of like interests who then act in concert with others, and that makes this into a social networking site, which, according to Jimbo and others, Misplaced Pages is NOT. Again, policy states: 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. By creating political templates, and gathering "supporters" to "save" Templates that are popular from being threatened, and "rallying" forces to delete unpopular or opposing ones, this has become the focus of the project for many Users. And that's not the reason why we are here, theoretically. Nhprman 22:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete frankly this is a t1 speedy. But since people keep saying these things are better debated here, let's see if tfd can do it's work. If not, we can speedy it later. --Doc 13:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Doc. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, offensive template, this can be speedied. --15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, if this template is offensive, inflamatory and divisive then surely that opens the path to deletion of most userboxes, personally i'm offended by organised religion, so y'know. Feel free to ignore the userbox, just like you'd ignore someone who favoured antifa's approach (Johnny Copper 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
  • If it simply stated the user supports something, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but right now it goes on to make a controversial political statement in connection with it, so I'd say Delete unless it is changed. Just another star in the night 00:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages.--Ssbohio 01:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You see, that's the problem. It is quite possible for a user to edit in a NPOV way on articles that he/she has an apparent POV on. I don't really have a problem with these kind of templates in general, but often they are used to factionalize like this and add to the myth that everyone comes here to edit in their POV rather then improve articles. Just another star in the night 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • But, the same fact set can be used to justify the opposite view. If we go about restricting people's expression of their POV, the issues they care about, then we perpetuate the myth that those who come here are disinterested NPOV angels. Since it is, indeed, possible, even almost certain, that a person with a POV can do NPOV work, it follows that a person with an admitted POV has an additional reason to make sure his work is above reproach. In all the thinking I've done on this issue, I don't see a disclosed POV as the negative others do, especially in comparison to the alternative, where the same people have the same points of view, but keep them hidden. It's axiomatic that withholding information leads to less accurate judgment. More information means better decisions.--Ssbohio 01:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If people have a POV, and it appears in their editing, it will be obvious whether or not they have a User box on their User page, and POV editing will be reverted. Users without boxes are judged on their editing abilities alone, as it should be. "More information" on a User's POV has created the appearance of POV even where it doesn't exist, and has lead to escalating User box Templates that have been more and more insulting and inflammatory, causing these debates. So in practice, the "knowing more helps us" theory has been shown to be flawed. Furthermore, the real myth here is that Misplaced Pages is a place of unrestricted free speech. It's not, especially on User pages, which are not designed to be personal Webspace. (see WP:NOT) Nhprman 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And the corollary is that the absence of a userbox somehow eliminates the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican, a Democrat a Democrat, and an "antifa" an "antifa," regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with you that the lack of a template doesn't eliminate the user's belief. That's an easy one to agree with. Also, I agree that trying to police user pages is not something we should be doing, other than in the case of the odd person who notes the he is a pedophile or admits to loving the idea of mass murder. That's not to say the WP community has no right to set policy for userboxes, or even user pages. The key point I'm making is that as long as these boxes are Templates, and are being used to link like-minded people together to create "tribes" that contend with one another in a POV fashion over these boxes, then they are a problem, because Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be a social networking site. If the raw code of all boxes were to be placed on userpages, 90% of that particular problem vanishes, because they are no longer Templates in the template space, but simply code or text on a user's page. There is another level of the issue that says that it's not a good idea to make POV political/social statements on the user page, in any format, because they imply that these biases will likely be transfered to the articles the user edits. But that's not to say I believe we should ban people from saying "I'm a Catholic" or "I oppose Fascism" on their pages. I just think it's a bad idea, generally, and I'd urge people to consider not doing it (as Jimbo himself has done on occasion.) Nhprman 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic template. Also meets T1. --Cyde Weys 05:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete. Disagree with Cyde's reasoning, but it does meet T1, which seems to be policy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A definitive decision needs to be made whether or not all userboxes expressing POVs need to be moved to userspace. Dragging them individually through a deletion process is a waste of time, as they can potentially multiply more quickly than they can be produced. Until then, they must all be allowed, at least where not personal attacks. I find a lot of things offensive. I find the babel template that proclaims that everyone should speak American English offensive. This kind of petty squabbling is poisoning and dividing Misplaced Pages. Mgekelly - Talk 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is somewhat labour intensive to delete one at a time and that some standardisation of policies must take place. Whilst the issue is beng decided, our best judgement must prevail, taking each case as it comes. Cheers. Nhprman 18:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (an American who doesn't mind the Queen's English)
  • Your reasoning rings true, but unfortunately that's not policy. And practically speaking, if the template isn't deleted here, it'll be speedied. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant Delete per Arthur Rubin and per (am I actually saying this?) Doc. TheJabberwʘck 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there is a big difference between pro and anti fascist. it's not inflammatory.
  • Keep It is not offensive--Hattusili 20:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Well....it appears from the word choice and the actual article behind it that its sort of supporting violence, and you know, that's just not right. Homestarmy 00:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We all know that this isn't what Misplaced Pages is for. This kind of campaigning makes a joke out of the idea of getting together to create a neutral encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
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. Debating this one template is not the way to get it deleted. Please discuss this at Template talk:Start LUL box.--Sean Black 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Waterloo & City Line link

Template:Waterloo & City Line link (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Just my two cents but wouldn't just be easier and more reliable (as newer users might not know effects of altering templates) to type in the text into the railbox?, Im going to try this line first to gauge opinion, as its a small (and atm closed) line. Thanks DannyM 11:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment, admittedly deleting just one template of a group is stupid, but I was using this one to see how people felt and then we could think about deleting the other templates of a similar nature (as written in opening para), for example for the railway line boxes (i.e. those that operate normal rail services), link to the railway line through an IW link, and that seems to work well enough (on a bigger system) so why use two systems when one works perfectly? DannyM 08:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete them all - completely pointless to have this link as a template. Mgekelly - Talk 08:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Entirely pointless: what's the point of having a template that's the exact same length as the original link? If it was unbearbly long, or was a piped link that woudl take a lot more time to type out, I could see its purpose, but otherwise it's rather pointless. Hbdragon88 21:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    Please read my explanation. The only parameter that is passed to the navbox is "Waterloo & City Line". This is then used to lookup both the link and colour. Compare:
    line = Waterloo & City Line
    with
    line_link = ]
    line_colour = {{Waterloo & City Line colour}}
    do you think we should edit hundreds of pages, just to make the templates more complicated to use? ed g2s • talk 08:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Either way, deleting this template is not an option, this should be discussed on Template:Start LUL box, or somewhere more suitable. If there is a consensus to change the system (which is unlikely), then you can nominate the templates for deletion. As it stands, they have a well defined and essential use. ed g2s • talk 11:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Republican

Template:Republican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Republican) and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming tribes of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. I'm also inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting.
  • This is not a Userbox. It does not and is not intended to live in userspace. It applies to candidates for (US) office, presumably on a page about the election or the office, rather than about the candidate. (It's unnecessary as applied to a candidate or officeholder.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely right. I've allowed my comments to get off track. This, however, is an unecessary template. Simply writing the word "Republican" does the job just fine. Nhprman 14:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Democratic

Template:Democratic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's only purpose is to interpose an associated image. That image, however, is fair use. Fair use images are not allowed in templates, unfortunately. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use#Policy. —Markles 11:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, template is unnecessary (you can just write "Democrat") and not in use. SCHZMO ✍ 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary, per Schzmo. Nhprman 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Users, by their very nature, are POV. User space, by its very nature, is POV. Pretending we're all NPOV "angels" serves no rational purpose that I can see. I'd rather have our biases and affiliations out in the open than to start banning their expression. I'm not personally NPOV, but I try to make sure my edits are. These template deletion fights are, in themselves, divisive and inflammatory. I can't see that the benefit outweighs the agitation. If people want to fly flags, so be it. The bottom line, to me, is that it's a waste of resources and an unnecessary limitation when we restrict users' otherwise allowable expressions on their userpages. Obviously, the image needs changed/replaced, but that's not to say that the template should be thrown out as well.--Ssbohio 02:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If people want to "fly flags" they are being divisive and inflammatory, and are seeking a political fight. Forming "tribes" of like-minded people is not the reason we're here on Misplaced Pages. Nhprman 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, the absence of a userbox is somehow being advocated to eliminate the opinion it represents. A Republican will be a Republican and a Democrat a Democrat, regardless of the presence or absence of a template. Further, the same opinions will be in the userspace with or without these templates. We may as well argue for the elimination of personal opinions altogether. While no one should use their userpage as a personal Web page, trying to police opinions off userpages doesn't seem destined either to succeed or to be less disruptive than the current situation.--Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if image is actually "fair use" as opposed to "public domain" (something I haven't verified), Keep otherwise (including if the image is trademarked, as "fair use" for trademarks is a different concept, which we should accept as allowable.) Ignore Ssbohio's vote and Nhprman's comment, as it isn't in userspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's ignore your comments, since this "fair use" argument is a side issue and is not really relevant. I said nothing about it being in userspace, but this and all other boxes should be put in Userspace, not cluttering up Template space. Nhprman 02:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • If the debate is defined narrowly enough, I'm sure anyone's opinions could be excluded. But, the most cursory examination will show that this & similar templates are being used in userspace, wherever they might be stored. Perhaps it's important to consider how these templates are used, rather than only considering where templates are kept, before rejecting anyone's opinion out of hand. I'm with NHPR when it comes to moving these templates into userspace. Deletion is simply the wrong tool to accomplish what could be accomplished simply by moving these templates. --Ssbohio 04:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I totally agree that how they are used is just as important as where they are stored. But the fact they are stored in Template space, and are therefore put into "categories" that are abused by some who want to "meet other people who believe X" then it's a warping of Misplaced Pages's mission, and it's vital that this aspect of the problem be dealt with. As for your other point, I am inclined to agree that the piecemeal deletion of this or that Userbox template is a bad approach. The solution is finding a quick consensus WP-wide on the issue, or getting Jimbo to step in and make the decision based on the most commonly-held view, which you and I agree is moving them out of template space, to end the fighting. Nhprman 17:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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 criteria G7: author's request Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:MAGovernors2

Template:MAGovernors2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I created it as a test. It's now blank and ready to die. —Markles 10:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom --Dominic 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles

Template:Associations/Computer specialist roles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A navbox for an odd assortment of pages that seem to have no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Some of the listings are professions (e.g., system administrator), some are job titles (e.g., webmaster), and others are user privileges (e.g., IRC channel op). Fixing this navbox to be inclusive of the current links and also NPOV to include other similar articles would make it enormous. There are better-defined categories to do this job. --TreyHarris 09:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

delete, Silly, meaningless grouping. Night Gyr 20:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, stumbledon this recently and was immediately reminded of the whole Misplaced Pages:Branchlist fiasco. Circeus 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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.--Sean Black 20:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Contra

Template:Contra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is very similar to the Oppose and Support templates that were also deleted (LOG). Black and WhiteBlack and WhiteTALKBlack and White 17:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Not taking a position here, but I'm alarmed in reading the log of the earlier TfD that the prevailing consensus was that it imposed too much server load to repeat the same image many times on a page. That's just not true. Any image will only be loaded by the browser once per page, no matter how many times it is used. For example, the bullets on this page are an image, and it doesn't cause the servers any problem. --TreyHarris 22:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC) 
ul {
   ...
   list-style-image: url('bullet.gif');margin-left:1.5em; margin-right:0; margin-top:.3em; margin-bottom:0
   }

"ul" stands for unordered list, or bulleted list. So, in the HTML <ul> will automatically add the bullet GIF for every list item (<li>). But the GIF image is only 50 bytes large, as opposed to 762 bytes the image the template uses is. —Black and WhiteTALKBlack and White

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.

April 28, 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 speedy deleted by User:Doc glasgow. Circeus 23:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User_Unamerican and others

Template:User Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Against Americanisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Not Unamerican (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
These userbox templates could be considered offensive and exist in some cases solely to show anti-American sentiment. It could also be considered offensive that these boxes use an upside down United States Flag. I also see no other such boxes for other countries. Perhaps a better alternative, such as to the "against Americanisation" box would be to be for allowing nations to maintain their individual cultures. —Aiden 23:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't these userboxes get deleted a long time ago? I thought I remembered them from somewhere.... Homestarmy 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete and delete any future un- and anti- boxes degrading ANY nation or its flag. These are divisive and inflammatory to the extreme, and is meant to be. WP is not a soapbox. Keep political bias out of this project, please. Nhprman 16:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Keep. Bullshit, there is absolutely nothing offensive about them. --Dragon695 21:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. — xaosflux 14:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ancient Greece topics

Template:Ancient Greece topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another large collection of links; an indiscriminate collection of data. Septentrionalis 22:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep, it's for navigational purposes, not data collection. While at the moment it is not heavily used. it most certainly can be, and provided it makes it through this TfD, I'll ensure it is. PoptartKing 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep - I shall declare I have a vested interest in the template as I created it. I am aware of its failings as I listed on the talk page. It is however, not an indiscriminate collection of links (see the Ancient Egypt template, my inspiration for this one). --Knucmo2 23:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, is used in this case for navigational purposes as stated by PopartKing above. This template can be improved. --Andy123(talk) 00:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
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 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Epochs

Template:Epochs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is unencyclopedic and nonsensical, POV towards some kind of New Age mysticism, and it also contains a copyrighted image. I suggest deleting it. Lovelac7 19:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Of the few pages which include the only on topic inclusion is Root Race, there seems to be an edit war with the image in the template with some claiming fair use. It could be subst: into Root Race and removed from other pages. --Salix alba (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
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 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Star-planetbox primary

Template:Star-planetbox primary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox secondary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Star-planetbox end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template sequence for providing extrasolar planetary system information has poor semantics: the first planet in the list is handled differently to all subsequent planets, which could be confusing for editors and makes maintenance of the list more difficult (e.g. if a planet is to be inserted before the first one in the list). The table markup in this case is more concise and simpler to use than these templates, so I suggest subst:ing the instances in articles, then removing this template sequence. Chaos syndrome 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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 all deleted, no userpages broken. --Cyde Weys 06:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Babel-48

Template:Babel-48 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There was a previous TfD for all of the fixed size Babel boxes, but it was withdrawn due improper formatting and concerns about users from other language Wikipedias being unable to copy their language boxes here. Despite those issues the TfD was trending delete until it was closed. This new TfD only applies to Babel-21 through Babel-48... all of which are used on fewer than ten pages each, less than fifty pages in total, and for the majority of them no pages at all. All of these can be replaced with {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}, {{Babel-N}}, or {{Babel-X}} to provide the same functionality. This TfD does not include Babel-1 through Babel-20 because they are in more common use and might theoretically be needed for other language 'transplants'. Note that I also changed Babel-16 through Babel-20 into redirects to Babel-X as a test case... theoretically all of the smaller Babel boxes could be changed to do so, but I am not advocating that currently. CBDunkerson 11:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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 --Cyde Weys 19:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Olde

Template:User Olde (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Useless and silly, not used on any pages. Night Gyr 04:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

April 27, 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. Angr (t • c) 11:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan infobox

Template:Japan infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Japan infobox is a single-article infobox that is not needed in Misplaced Pages. Delete.--Brendenhull (talk – edits) | 20:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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 redirected to {{cleanup}}. Angr (t • c) 11:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Clean up

Template:Clean up (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{Cleanup-date}} 165.189.91.148 15:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Done. I had to remove the TFD notice to do it. If anyone objects, they can put it back but I really don't see the point in the debate. Mangojuice 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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 merge and delete. Angr (t • c) 11:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NY-bt

Template:NY-bt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to {{NYC Bridge}}. Latter is younger, but is prettier and is being used. NY-bt is unwieldy, is only being used on two articles, which are not bridges/tunnels, but rather related organizations. They can go without a template, I think. Delete.- CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge and delete Per CCoMack. ILovEPlankton 00:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Angr (t • c) 11:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:OSPALeague

Template:OSPALeague (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Online Soccer Project Alpha (2nd nomination) - running its template through process here. - Mailer Diablo 06:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Angr (t • c) 10:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Japan map

Template:Japan map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. It's a copyright tag that basically says "I don't know what the copyright on this image is, but I'm uploading it anyway on the off-chance that it's a free license". We don't need that sort of image, and we don't need this tag. --Carnildo 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Angr (t • c) 10:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock

Template:SockpuppetCheckuserNoBlock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Recently, Tifego (talk · contribs) attempted to create this template, intending to tag the only page of a user, who is not yet proven himself or herself as sockpuppet. The template is the same as Template:SockpuppetCheckuser and doesn't include the phrase "has been blocked indefinitely". It is not currently used on other userpages and looks pointless than the main tag. Although, comfirmed or verified sock puppets that are found by Checkuser are generally permablocked and tagged with {{SockpuppetCheckuser}}. I don't think no one is ever going to use it wisely. -- ADNghiem501 04:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

  • He was proven a sockpuppet; the Checkuser came back confirmed that he is a sockpuppet. But, go ahead and delete this template if you want, because it can be replaced just as well by the "confirmed by evidence" template there is no template to replace it but I don't really care anyway. –Tifego 04:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh I see. BTW, I subst'ed the tag you placed, so I could easily edit to remove the tfd notice and non-existent category from it. It won't be deleted on the sock's page. -- ADNghiem501 05:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
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. Angr (t • c) 10:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:United States infobox

Template:United States infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is an orphaned template that isn't used in the main namespace. Brendenhull seems to have marked this article for deletion 3 days ago, but there was never an entry made here in the log. Andrew c 01:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

April 26, 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 Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:India infobox

Template:India infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The infobox is one that is a single-article infobox and recalls another template, just as Template:World War II infobox did.--Brendenhull (talk – edits) | 23:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Italy infobox

Template:Italy infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Same as Yugoslavia infobox, single-article infoboxes need speedy deletion.--Brendenhull (talk) | 19:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Yugoslavia infobox

Template:Yugoslavia infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Single-article infoboxes need speedy deletion.--Brendenhull (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 delete Circeus 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:CPS series

Template:CPS series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template refers to a series of Super Soaker water gun models (See Super Soaker and CPS 2000). Only one of these pages exists. The template is effectively a request for a very large amount of information about a very narrow topic. Unencyclopedic; this belongs on "supersoakerfans.com" or some such site.

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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Citepaper

Template:Citepaper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper version (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper publisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Citepaper publisher version (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Each of these has the following issues: 1) The parameters are only uppercase, which means that URL=http://www.url.com does not equal url=http://www.url.com (most commonly used on {{cite web}} et al), 2) None of the parameters are optional (unlike {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc), 3) They are redundant to {{cite paper}}, which was created because of these reasons. 4) Three other templates of a similar name were created to allow for optional parameters (version, publisher, and both), which has been taken into consideration with {{cite paper}}. The templates have now been deprecated and migrated using WP:AWB (using this script), and are pointless except for their use in some userpages, talkpages, and Misplaced Pages namespace (this is a simple matter to convert, though). Hence, I'm suggesting their deletion. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 08:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete the remaining three. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
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 01:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Suicidehelp

Template:Suicidehelp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Were this a template designed to exist as a userbox, it would likely be appropriate (assuming arguendo one believes userboxes may display points-of-view). In its current iteration, though, the template intimates that it reflects policy (see, e.g., in the employment of the collective "we"), where surely there is no policy, and, in any case, is irredeemably POV (one may consider, I suppose, a template that exists only to convey that Misplaced Pages is not a resource one ought to consult toward the determination of whether he/she ought to kill him/herself, but even such a template would likely be POV, inexpicably elevating postings about suicide above postings about, say, religion; we don't, and oughtn't, to have a template suggesting that those who come to Misplaced Pages in order that they might decide which is the one true religion that they ought to follow should search elsewhere). Even as the POV the external link advocates (scilicet, that one oughtn't to kill him/herself) is one with which, in general, most here likely concur, it is nevertheless a POV, and, in any case, we should not have templates directing users that they ought to take a search elsewhere because we haven't information for them; they will likely reach that conclusion without our telling them. Hence, delete. Joe 05:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Abstain. I agree that allowing this template could lead to a slippery POV slope, among other problems. I mostly created it as a resource for those who were concerned about the possibility of suicide threats being real rather than vandalism. Going to pass on voting. No hard feelings if its deleted. Tijuana Brass 06:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. But for a different reason. I think it goes beyond the scope of what wikipedia is. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for suicide prevention, and I think the concept is great....but not as a template. It's my opinion that if you come across a user who appear suicidal, then an actual, personal conversation with the user through talk pages is much more appropriate than a template. Secondarily, what makes that help site any better than any other help site? It could set precedent for other such templates that, in effect, could give the appearance of wikipedia "approval" of certain external cites. I really want to vote keep, but I wouldn't feel right doing so. ⇒ SWATJester Aim Fire! 07:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; per Joe's "irredeemably POV" and Swatjester's first point. I genuinely appreciate the intentions behind the template's creation, and I guess my comments re suicide in the admin space have led in some degree to its creation, but I couldn't imagine placing it on a user's page. Discussion is a better alternative. Thanks to the creator for the proactive response to negative comments must be expressed, though. Colonel Tom 14:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in accordance with well reasoned arguments presented above, especially the one about using person to person communication, not a template, as a way to reach out. Full marks to all involved for having wanted to try this approach out, though. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Swatjester. This is an extremely delicate issue, an ugly one size fits all is not a sensitive way of dealing with it. the wub "?!" 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per above --larsinio (poke) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The unacceptable POV is simply the advocacy of a particular resource. But lo! WP already has an NPOV 'suicide help' resource: the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. While I do agree that personal conversation is preferable, it can't hurt to have some (NPOV) tool like this at our disposal. Let's reach out in a WP way. - PatrickFisher 03:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Specifically, I think we ought to have a Template:Suicidehelp and it should have the same content as the existing "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts" section of Template:Suicide. - PatrickFisher 03:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Why have I been fooling around with these self-help ideas when we can do proposals, vows, even toasts, all via template! Just think! {{proposal}} could lead to {{acceptproposal}}, unless there's a {{commitmentfear}}, which would then be resolved by {{financialsecurity}} and followed by {{proposal2}}. Then, {{parenttalk}}, {{tuxrental}}, and {{bachelorparty}}, {{keepdownthenoise}}, {{keepdownthenoise2}}, {{nexttimei'mcallingthecops}}, all before {{wedding}}. Hopefully, no divorce templates will be coming, as I have yet to design {{wedding2}}, {{wedding3}}, and the inevitable {{mailorderbride}}. Tijuana Brass 11:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
It's obvious you've never had a life partnet. Everyone knows {{makesuretheyrereal}} comes first! All joking aside, someone should get Jimbo to register WikiWedding NOW. People have been married underwater, in space, in WoW... but never on a wiki... imagine the edit summaries! Garrett 12:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
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.

April 25, 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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Dual image

Used on two pages - very specific, no need to be a template. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:UC taxobox

Template:UC taxobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Israeli University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox malaysia university (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Czech University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox German University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Russian University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Greek University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox Hong Kong University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox University Undergraduate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
In the continuing effort to consolidate the multiple infoboxes for universities. All templates are no longer in use in articles. Some of the other templates were deleted earlier Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 28. These probably don't need to go through the entire process, but I would like another admin to close them out. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 I know I'm getting in sticky there, but look at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Regional Politics. I don't see a reason to single these two. Feel free the nominate the whole batch,though. Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User N-K

Template:User N-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
template should be deleted due to conflict tension between Azeri and Armenians. If Chechnya deletion is applicable, then to avoid bias, Karabakh should be removed. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Very Strong Delete as Nom. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I should stress it is currentely used by nobody as all of the Armenian users who put that userbox use code. So real reason is we have wasted template that is not linked to anything. That I think should not even be considered vote and be listed as a speedy deletion candidate, but if you insist so shall I. --Kuban Cossack 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Please dont use that game here. That user box is in section of Separatists templates in the regions section of user boxes. It has similar make up as Chechnya. Thats what i mean about your bias POV. Chechnya does not suit you due to your nationality. But karabakh is a different case? Please have some dignity. Noxchi Borz 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have dignity, unlike some of the comments you have put on the talk page of the template below. --Kuban Cossack 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
like which ones mr Kazak? Noxchi Borz 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If you insist:
  1. When I told about previous votes I got:Which vote? vote among the Russian nationalists?
  2. Then comes even more cunning comment:No Russian admins or people of Russian background voting will count as valid.
  3. Russian POV will not be tolorated! But it seems yours shall be.
  4. Need I go continue? --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I already stated that many things might not suit you but they should exist on Wiki. I guess a person who has participate din this shameful war can not understand that. Many innocent people were killed and mostly due to Russian imperialist policy. You found easy way out from this conflict. To kill every Chechen. In your case, i cant even talk about dignity. Its something else. Farewell Mr Kazak.Noxchi Borz 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Although I was told not to feed the trolls, I will say I take no shame in Restoring Russian territorial integrity and avenging 250,000 Russians that were forced to leave, beaten or killed by the terrorists. I pride in that. --Kuban Cossack 21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. See my comments on User Independent Chechnya. (the following quoted from what i said on user independent chechnya debate below, then reworded to N-K) This isn't for articles. mabye you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent Nagorno-Karabakh" userbox if you feel so inclined.--preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 06:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • These templates are being stored in the Template space, making them a community issue. If they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we will know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. But if you want to give people an excuse to not trust you, or to second-guess your edits, by all means, tell people to question your judgement. I would simply suggest that it's not a good idea - Nhprman 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Karabakh", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Azerbaijanis should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to opinion, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
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 I know I'm getting in sticky there, but look at Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Regional Politics. I don't see a reason to single these two. Feel free the nominate the whole batch, though. Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User independent Chechnya

Template:User independent Chechnya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was already deleted twice previously, author who recreated it knows this. Kuban Cossack 19:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please maintain the NOPV. There are great amount of people who support Chechen independence. So far, the deletion was made by Russians, therefore pro Russian POV. Please respect the guidelines of Wiki on NPOV. The independence issue of Chechnya is relevant in separatist section. If there are template on Karabakh independence than dont be biased on Chechnya. --Noxchi Borz 19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Which "Russians" deleted the page in the past? User:Kelly Martin? Please have decency not to mislead others, if you are unable to prove your allegations. --Ghirla 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Karabakh is irrelevant, but if it comes up I will support its deletion. Make a personalised user box if you have to. As for all Russians being nationalists, watch WP:NPA. --Kuban Cossack 19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Why will you support deletion of karabakh? dont you find it biased due to your Russian origins and that you have participate din war in Chechnya? How about creation of Abkhazia box will you support its deletion? Noxchi Borz 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I will never create Abkhazia box nor South Osetia, nor Transdniester, nor Crimea, nor Kosovo, nor Palestine nor any other POV box because that is a pure source of conflict. On the contrary I will support their deletion if they are created. I do not like this double standard of NPOV you trying to pursue. I mean you might as well create a UserNazi template in that case.--Kuban Cossack 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well you are correct about double standard for NPOV in Wiki. Whast your stand on Abkhazia, S Ossetia Kosovo? Ill tell you after why i ask you this. Noxchi Borz 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal thoughts that I keep for myself, that are not part of my wikipedian status in any shape or form. I'll just say that I have not created any templates that have those places and do not intend and will not create them, for reasons explained above, and will support their deletion should the question arise. --Kuban Cossack 19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Eupator, Karabakh is next Noxchi Borz 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Chechen, i'm using code on my page and not a template :) --Eupator 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
You are the best Armenian, well thats what you think. Noxchi Borz 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment On the one hand, the primary purpose of userboxes is to "alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing" as per WP:Userboxes. Userboxes that state that "this user supports XYZ" do not help with editing, but rather serve as soapboxes, something that WP policies explicitly forbid. To quote Jimbo Wales, "userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian". On the other hand, there is a ton of "regional politics" userboxes at and almost all of them go against these guidelines. If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future. Ahasuerus 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    Fully support your proposal, and this template is good place to start it off with. --Kuban Cossack 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. And not because I am Russian. I'd vote the same way if I saw "This user supports independent Texas". KNewman 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Newman. There are tons of user boxes which claim the support for Karabakh independence, basque, catalonian, tibetan. Why dont you delete them? So you are biased in Chechnya case? Noxchi Borz 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Just show me where to vote. KNewman 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, when Chinese or Spanish colleagues will put up the notices here, I will support them. As per Ahasuerus's comment above. --Kuban Cossack 20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well Mr Kazak, than first vote and delete those "politically incorect" user bosex before Chechnya. You case is obvious, you are Russian and biased in the terms of Chechnya. Mr Ahasuerus should start deliting Karabakh, Tibet, Basque, etc. Lets see how active you will be. Im sure you are only active in Chwechnya case. Noxchi Borz 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As an author of several artciles I find much more time well spent writing new articles rather than voting for deletions, and purifying wikipedia from POV from articles that are not related to me or the ones I write is not my priority. That I leave to the administrators, which I am not and do not intend to become. Should a colleague notify me and ask for my opinion on the matter I shall certainly participate and support the deletion of the template in question, and if the case of templates like the ones you named above arises, I will certainly support their deletion. --Kuban Cossack 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
p.s Chechnya is not Texas Numan. US did not wage genocide of local population and bombed Huston to the ground (looking like berlin of 1945). Noxchi Borz 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The only Genocide in Southern Russian state of Chechnya was committed against the local Russian and Cossack population by savage Chechen beasts.--Eupator 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Now that IS a POV. --Kuban Cossack 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
yes its typical POV. As defender of genocide victims, maybe you should mention Khojaly massacre eh Armenian? I think you will find true beast and savage animals there.Noxchi Borz 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I condone the slaughter of Azeri civillians by Azeri soldiers. --Eupator 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Ldingley, or Borz whoever you are, this is your job, that is EXACTLY why such templates and images like these are a timebomb for conflicts (now that you got yourself into one, enjoy it, it was what you wanted to have respectible wikipedians loose their temper, I am not going to pacify you), which is EXACTLY why I think Ahasuerus is right about their total purge from wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack 20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no need for loosing temper mr kazak or whoever you are. If you condemn one template this must apply for all. You have typical POV which is against Chechnya and her independence. I do agree with Mr Ahasuerus but you are only demanding the deletion of one particular template which does not suit you. This is not what Wiki is about. This site was not created to suit you or Russian imperialism. Im Sorry. Noxchi Borz 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeah nice joke. But i dont think its funny. Armenian. Noxchi Borz 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not because I support Chechnya's independence, but for the sake of compromise. A simple concept of freedom of expresion of thought, no? Kober 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In that case why not create This user is a nazi or white-power templates? Seriously a line has to be drawn what can go into wiki or not. Like I said above we either allow xenophobic templates like this user is a russophobe/anti-semite etc.etc. or we do not allow any. I personally do care about the quality of wikipedia as a reference source and would hate to think what would happen if such templates originate.--Kuban Cossack 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
belive it or not i agree with you Kazak :) Hey can i vote twice ? :) Joke. I will nominate karabakh next. Noxchi Borz 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
As Eupator stated, the userbox for Karabakh is code and not a template. Of course, you'd love it if the Karabakh independence userboxes were removed from every user's page, but it's not going to happen. Hakob 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP The desire for independence does not have anything with hate or xenophobia. Of course there might be xenophobic Chechens like xenophobic Russians/Poles/Americans etc., but independence is not xenophobic per se like Romanov's Flag is not xenophobic per se. It is not neutral allowing symbols of independence for some unrecognized entities and denying for others. Jasra 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! Noxchi Borz 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes and this flag was official and RECOGNISED in its history. Moreover I coded all of my userboxes and did not use tempaltes. So your analogy is totaly wrong. Although I understand the angle you are coming from and is so far has been the most sensible I have heard during this campaign. --Kuban Cossack 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Typical Russian nationalist POV. From what i have seen in your user box, there are tons of indications of this.
So do expain why you voted against for Nagorno-Karabakh.--Kuban Cossack 21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- has been speedy deleted several times in the past two months, good thing to have the debate recorded here. --William Allen Simpson 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete T1. ed g2s • talk 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we have Tibet, Kurdistan, and Assyria independence templates, what's wrong with Chechnya? —Khoikhoi 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. Noxchi Borz, I sympathize with you, but there's not much you or I can do. TheJabberwʘck 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. This divisive and useless template has generated tons of hate talk already and was deleted twice. How does it help one to improve the quality of Misplaced Pages, I'd like to know. This voting is a waste of time. With or without the vote, it will be deleted as per Jimbo's ruling on divisive hate-templates. --Ghirla 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or replace with "User supports partitioning of Russia", but seriously, I don't mind if it stays. Speaks much of users, who post such divisive stuff at their talk. The easier it would be for others to make up their minds about such fellows. See and for more. --Irpen 05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don’t think Misplaced Pages should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't support dismemberment or partitioning of Russia yet I do not support occupation of Chechnya either. //Halibutt 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well in that case I can make templates Free Bialystok, Free eastern Pomerania whose occupation I do not support. --Kuban Cossack 12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete abdulnr 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Misplaced Pages is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87
  • Slippery slope Keep I dont have an opinon about this issue, but its a major slipperly slope between endorising whether the XBOX is better htan the gamecube, and this issue. --larsinio (poke) 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Question to those who want to delete and give the arguments about the lack of encyclopedic values or causing division? Would you like to delete all the unity/separatist movements templates or just this one or a few selected. If just this one - give the argument why this one promotes more hate than for example the one advocating for Srpska Krajina or N-K? If all the category - you should propose voting for the deletion of all the category and not just this template. Removing a selected template from the category violates the policy of NPoV. Jasra 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. If Chechnya is deleted, the whole section of separatist templates should be removed. N-K is headed for deletion, Srpska Krajina and the rest will follow if NPOV is respected. Noxchi Borz 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's why I wrote:
If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future.
above. Regional politics in particular is full of advocacy userboxes, but other types of userboxes can easily get out of hand as well. At some point there will have to be a single policy in place or else there will be no end to "my advocacy is more valid than your advocacy" disputes like this one. There are also technical problems with userboxes vs. "code" vs. Transclusion. The last straw poll on the subject was inconclusive, so all we have to fall back on is Jimbo's quote above and the statement that Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place for political campaigning, and userboxes created or used for this purpose may be deleted. For the sake of consistency, I would recommend deleting all "This user supports political campaign" userboxes at the same time as opposed to spending hundreds of manhours on debating them on a case by case basis. Ahasuerus 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I wholeheartedly endorse this sensible, reasonable approach. Unfortunately, Jimbo himself refuses to take the action necessary to give some substance to his nice words and make this happen, and several thousand users endlessly debating this will never find true consensus on this issue. I don't know the solution to this problem other than action by Jimbo. Nhprman 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Like I said above if we have one template, we have many other hate-provoking ones. Although this is a 💕, it should also be a credible one, not a mess. Do you forcast wiki's reputation when swastikas begin appearing on user pages? Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. --Kuban Cossack 10:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
The only hate promotion on Wiki is your Russian fascist flag which you have besides your name. Maybe you can fool some people here but not me. Don’t be hypocrite and blame others for things which apply to you. Russian fascism is one of the most dangerous ideologies for civilized world. Pay attention to recent events and systematic murder of non-Russian people in Moscow. Today Russian Neo-nazis (in these days a very popular movement in Russia) rallied again and actually waved those flags which you use here. I guess some users like you can also use flag of the Third Reich (it was also an official flag of Germany in 1940s). This whole situation is a shame and complete waste of time. There should no compromise what so ever for fascism and ultra-nationalism anywhere. Russo Fascisto No Pasaran! Noxchi Borz 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
You are reminded not to feed the trolls. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Btw all of my familly fought against the Nazi invaders (and their Chechen collaborators) so I shall not even comment on that trollish bulls..t. As for the flag that was the historical flag of the Russian Empire. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Still, Even if people are nazis, even if they are fascist, if this is what people believe than they have a right to put them on thier userboxes. that's what free speech is. in democratic society people have a right to be racist and to resort to bigotry. that doesn't mean that they are right, but free speech is what makes freedom freedom! that you can say anything you want and not be subject to a McCarthyist intimidation. that'ss what tolerance is! that people can have different beliefs, even if they're wrong, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others, have a right to have a unique opinion. i'm not promoting hate, i'm promoting free speech. and "seperatist" does not mean hate. even if it sometimes leads to that, they are not synonomous. it is not ethically wrong, you are not committing thoughtcrime to think that the chechyens can have thier own country. whether they ever do, that's not the point.--preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Free speech is allowed, but think of the quality of wikipedia as a good reference source when people begin using templates such as those above. --Kuban Cossack 22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't for articles. maybe you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent chechnya" userbox if you feel so inclined. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • These templates are being stored in the Template space, even if the templates are displayed on user pages. They are therefore a community issue. However, if they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. As for your call to create opposing Userboxes, you illustrate the reason why these boxes are divisive and inflammatory. Misplaced Pages is not the place for political debates and ethnic feuds. - Nhprman 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Any userbox can be divisive. We can either accept this fact and agree that not everyone will be happy or remove all the userboxes (at least all the political ones). Kuban Kazak said: Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. - in this case your Tsarist flag can also be divisive and you keep it. I received no answer why THIS PARTICULAR template is more devisive than any other of a political character. Quite a few people voted for deletion admitting that they are any templates showing political stands. However if just this one template is removed and the other will stay - this will cause the situation when one PoV is put above the other. I would suggest these people reconsider their vote, unless they have some arguments that this particular template is worse than any other of political orientation (so far I didn't see any arguments given). Proposal for deleting the whole "political" category is more rational, and I can see arguments both for and against, but it should be a separate voting. Jasra 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Chechnya", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Russians should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to free speech, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, Cossack, if your entire family did help fight against the nazis and chechyns, respectable as that may be, i'm not seeing how there's any way you can remain neutral about this and wanting to see it deleted for reasons other than your own opinion. you have a right to stating your opinion, and so do they. the point of userbox deletion is to get rid of unapplicable and unneecessesary ones, and ones that specifically refer to hate, not to find more people who have one opinion than the other and delete userboxes solely on the fact that it's a contreversial topic that has a clear minority that doesn't have the numbers to defend itself. you say that "wikipedia is not a soapbox" but the very reason you are trying to delete it is because of your own POV on the topic. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a minority group. Chechnya is an integral part of Russia which is recognised by all governments and the United Nations. Those who support its independence thus support the breakup of Russia with no respect for its territorial integrity or the international community. Btw the Beslan and Moscow Theatre terrorists came under that flag that the template uses. Finally there not all Chechens are anti-Russian, quite the opposite Ramzan Kadyrov for instance, and how many Chechens right now are living in Moscow and making excellent careers there? The template is also insulting to Chechens as well due to naive users who choose to put it. The reason for its deletion is that it has no use. Finally I shall repeat myself that wikipedia is a reference source and I do not want its credibility doubted because some editors choose to show off themselves as such. Finally if a template User supports al-queda arises or independence of Afghanistan with the Taliban flag. How do you expect people, particualary relatives of those that the Chechen and Al-queda terrorists killed will value wikipedia? Free speach is not an alibi to degenerate wikipedia into a nationalist propaganda machine. --Kuban Cossack 20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Once again, that is your opinion. you are entitled to your opinion. it is completly fine for you to have that opinion, and you can support it all you want, you are entitleed to free speech. but other people have other opinions and they are also entitled to free speech. if someone has a significant opinion it is not beyond thier rights to have a userbox. A userbox does not represent the views of wikipedia as a whole. a usserbox represents the views of anyone who uses the userbox, and if other people decide to use it that is thier right. having a userbox does not support division and conteversy. it is merely an act of free speech. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
And this free speach not only goes against wikiettiquette but is extreamely offensive for some. That is the issue. Should wiki be allowed to have such anger generating images. Userpages or articles is irrelevant as user pages are still part of wikipedia. User pages are subject to fairuse image restrictions, so they should be equally censored from hate provoking templates. --Kuban Cossack 23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
So, essentially what you are saying is "Free speech only applies if you agree with me, because we're right and they're wrong." that's not the point! they may very well be wrong, but they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way. and this is not. the mere stating for a desire of independence is simply stating belief, not an attempt to offend. also, if it's the flag you're trying to remove, then that doesn't involve deletion of the entire userbox, just a substitution of the flag, and this isn't the place for that debate. as it has already been said before, the flag on your sig offends some, but you don't seem compelled to remove it to make sure nobody gets offended. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way And this template does exactly that. It provokes users towards immediate disrespect. When a user states Free Palestine on his box how do you think a Jewish person (particulary someone who lost a relative from a suicide bomb attack) would react to an article seeing written by that person. Of course he will think it is biased, and already a little template provokes hate and anger. That is the issue here. Misplaced Pages is not for political debates. Templates that spark friction should not exist. The user can code the template if he wants to, but doing that he is saying that I am not using wikipedian tools and doing so on my free accord. And yes free speach is a important provided its not abused. This template is insulting in its manner and nothing more. I find it offensive, and what you are saying just because some people find it offensive and others don't its alright. So since when have everybody who voted against become second sort users, where wikipedia sanctions others to use such offensive templates by providing them. That way you are saying its alright for someone to feel offended and nothing should be done about it. That is the issue. And I will, if need to, take this to the arbitration committee. --Kuban Cossack 00:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Weasel-inline

Template:Weasel-inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An inline template for what one user defines as weasel words is inherently disruptive. This was not requested, there was non consensus to add, and there is no need for it. Irishpunktom\ 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

        • The top one does not go after every instance of what an editor decides is a "weasel word", rather it flags that they exist and suggests that the problem be dealt with on the talk page--Irishpunktom\ 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Redirect5p

Template:Redirect5p (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, redundant to {{Redirect}}, and harmful as links like this should always use the entire title of the article. When a link like this gets put into print, it needs to use the correct article name - "see foo" pointing at "bar" is misleading. Hairy Dude 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's useful for pointing to specific sections, such as the usage at Multitrack recording. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
If that's the only intended usage, it should just be the same as {{Redirect}} but with an extra parameter to specify an anchor. As it is, it's too flexible. Hairy Dude 13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, why do we want to hide the fact that the link points to an anchor at all? I can't see a good reason for wanting to. Hairy Dude 13:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
There were until just now only three uses in article namespace. One used link text that was to a nonexistent article, and the others used ambiguous text to a disambiguated title, both of which should just use the full title, so I changed them to use {{redirect}}. So Multitrack recording is now the only instance of this usage. Hairy Dude 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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 under G7. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Stargate race/Instructions

Template:Stargate race/Instructions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was PRODded with the reasoning "Purely esoteric and created for maintenance work to templates; work complete, page unneeded", but PROD is for articles only, not templates, so I'm bringing it here. No vote from me since I have no earthly idea what this template is used for. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete The vast majority of the links in this template are red. Even if those articles exist, they're probably by another name than "at the Summer Olympics". This template is insane, it's huge, and it's not helpful for navigating to other articles Ned Scott 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment there is an aim to have "X at the Summer Olympics" for every national olympic committee (see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics/Articles). (And also a "X at the Winter Olympics" for every NOC) Andjam 07:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The template was created September 2004, and this is as far as it's gotten? -- Ned Scott 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
9 of the top 10 medal-winning NOCs have articles (the exception, East Germany, no longer exists). Andjam 08:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, if this was a template featuring just those 10 I wouldn't have a problem with this. But it's not... At best I can see this template being used once more articles have been created, as well as being reformatted to not just look like a huge blob (maybe some sort of grouping by continent or something). But right now it's just... not useful, at all. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • When is eventually? Like I said, the template was created in September 2004. This is the kind of template you make AFTER you've done most of the articles, not before. And, again, I'd like to point out that it's a huge ugly blob. Even if all those articles were there, it's painful to use it for navigation. Maybe the template could be changed to have the articles that you currently have, then a link via the WikiProject to a list of articles that need creation? -- Ned Scott 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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.


April 24, 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. Pagrashtak 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television

Template:Corner Brook, NL Television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Corner Brook, Newfoundland and Labrador is served by rebroadcasters of the very same TV stations that serve St. John's, as are dozens of other Newfoundland communities. The one local station it did have is now a pure rebroad itself and has been for some time. BBM considers the province a single market. I appreciate User:MapleLeafFan04's affection for the subject, but taken to its extreme, it would mean most Canadian TV station pages would be cluttered with templates representing every rebroad area. — stickguy (:^›)— home - talk - 19:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Pagrashtak 04:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:FEUbox

Template:FEUbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant in purpose with the standard university infobox, except dressed up in the school colors of FEU. Coffee 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Pagrashtak 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:ImpersonatorProven

Template:ImpersonatorProven (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused according to What Links Here and Google. I can't find any talk about it's creation. None of the categories that pages would use if they were tagged with this have any text on them, so I'm guessing it's redundant. SeventyThree 10:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

delete, unlike with sockpuppetry it is obvious whether a user is impesonating someone else or not. Thryduulf 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this would be a good template... but where would it go? --Domthedude001 21:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
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 to delete. Pagrashtak 04:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Atmospheric sciences

Template:Atmospheric sciences (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks strikingly similar to the summarily rejected Root page family of templates and other paraphernalia that were deleted nearly unanimously in various venues. — Apr. 24, '06 <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 under CSD A2 (even though it's not an article, i think it applies.) Circeus 16:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Comuna of Chile

Template:Comuna of Chile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is in a foreign language, and refers to a template which has never existed (nonexistant, no deletion log). I'm guessing it was moved from a different language wikipedia, and then forgotten about. Not used according to what links here. Only one editor - I've notified him on his talk page. SeventyThree 07:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 userfy Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Thermostat Bicker

I'm relisting this template on TfD per the deletion review decision. No vote. Dmcdevit·t 06:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 redirect Circeus 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Line 1 Green

Template:Line 1 Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I found this with a TFD tag, but not listed here. It looks like the only edit was in December 2004, which is strange (it would mean creation and tfd in one edit). Unused by what links here. No vote SeventyThree 02:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Div 60

Template:Div 60 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Deprecated due to m:ParserFunctions and no longer in use (would be db-author except others edited it). TimBentley (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete - As one of the others who edited it I endorse this deletion. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Marseille infobox

Template:Marseille infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (what links here + google); replaced in Marseille by {{Large French Cities}}. SeventyThree 01:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Madeira

Template:Madeira (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused (by what links here), and redundant with {{Municipalities of Madeira}} (which is more inclusive). SeventyThree 00:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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 01:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:RahXephon infobox

Template:RahXephon infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Meta-template that attempted to take the Template:Infobox animanga out of the article RahXephon. It was only used in the RahXephon article and has no potential of being used in any other article. It also made it more difficult for editors who wanted to modify the contents of the infobox. TheFarix (Talk) 00:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Delete Made in the same spirit as Template:Republic_of_China_infobox. That template is not used on any other Article namespace pages either. The Template:RahXephon infobox has the potential of being used if RahXephon:Pluralitas Concentio, RahXephon_(manga) warrant creation. Delete until then. Also see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_infoboxes#Search_engine_appearance. --GunnarRene 08:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
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. Pagrashtak 04:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Russia infobox

This template needs deletion because it is a single-article infobox, and is not used even in the article on Russia.--Brendenhull (talk) | 23:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Template:User not-Drug-free

I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(

Template:User Hell

This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(