Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎[[Template:User against scientology]]: Discussion closed. Result is Keep (no consensus for delete reached)
Line 1,252: Line 1,252:


==== [[Template:User against scientology]] ====
==== [[Template:User against scientology]] ====
:::'''''This discussion is closed. Result is Keep (no consensus for delete)''''' --[[User talk:Adrian Buehlmann|Adrian Buehlmann]] 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
{{ln|Template|User against scientology}}<br />
{{ln|Template|User against scientology}}<br />
'''Delete''' - This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|GuReN6]] 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
'''Delete''' - This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. [[User:Grenavitar|gren]] [[User talk:Grenavitar|GuReN6]] 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:41, 11 January 2006

Help is needed to orphan the holding cell. This can be done by non-admins!


Help is needed to orphan the holding cell. This can be done by non-admins!

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

January 11

Template:Oldvfd

Template:Oldvfd
Delete — Obsolete and now unused. —Phil | Talk 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User allboxes

Template:User allboxes
The purpose of this template is to stack consultations against anti-userbox deletions, disciplinary actions, and changes to policy. It subverts the attempt to find reasoned positions in these processes into tug of wars, or in brief, it is disruptive. Templates expressing support for userboxes in a disruptive manner exist, for example, [Template:Userbox Love]]. The template should be deleted. --- Charles Stewart 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A user should be allowed to state they are in favour of userboxes. This does so. If I notice a userbox expressing an opposite viewpoint, my vote will be the same. This is a comment on a wikipedia phenomenon. As I understand it, this is not only possible, but encouraged. This is after all, a collaborative project and such projects encourage feeback, even if said feedback may be interpreted as negative in content. - Hayter 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hayter. —Andux 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. 'Nuff said. —CJ Marsicano 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hayter - Keith Greer 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definately that userbox love. What's disruptive about that?? I can possible see some people thinking User allboxes as disruptive, but it doesn't actually attack anyone either. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncyclopedia

Template:Uncyclopedia
This template is currently not used, nor should it be. It somehow survived a TfD debate here.

  • Delete. —Ruud 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, though possibly reword. I suspect this is designed to be used on the user talk pages of Uncyclopedia users who get their wires crossed. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is for the talk pages of articles like Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose humourous subject matter could tempt many to non-encyclopaedic updates. Surprised it's not more widely used. — ciphergoth 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: wangi 14:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NPOV does the job. gren グレン ? 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV covers it's use. If it had a use, it would have been used by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Stbalbach 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon

Template:Simon
Delete — Template is overly large and somewhat unwieldy, and is mostly full of red links. Discussion on the template's talk page shows a preference for this information to be a simple category, rather than a full template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too unwieldy to be of any use. Since all of the articles in the template are now in the same category anyway, I don't see a point in keeping this. - Bobet 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too big (even with the font reduction), and full of red links. Also, I'm not sure if it's particularly useful or warranted. -- MisterHand 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unwieldly, no reason to know who owns all of those places, etc. gren グレン ? 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it ike9898 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Template:Protected Area Table

Template:Protected Area Table
Delete template, subtemplates, and associated talk pages — Obsolete; this template (along with its associated subtemplates listed below) has been superceded by Template:Infobox protected area. — Eoghanacht talk 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of subtemplates:
  • Delete all these are now obsolete and I do not believe they are used anywhere in this wiki.--MONGO 03:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - let them clean after themselves ;) Renata 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State park

Template:State park
Delete template and talk page — Obsolete template, supplanted by the more general Template:Infobox protected area. — Eoghanacht talk 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. --Kralizec! 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto --DaGizza Chat 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is now obsolete.--MONGO 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In with the new, out with the old.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — per CSD G7 and vote of Kralizec! above. →AzaToth 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NihonG

Template:NihonG
Speedy delete — Unlinked template. 2 edits. Replaced by, perhaps, Template:Politics of Japan. —Philip N.✉ 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, obsolete template. - Bobet 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods

Template:List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods
Delete — This template is only in use by one article, Salt Lake City, Utah. I wish to convert the entire article to prose, but I don't want to change that part until this template is deleted. I believe I can describe it much more informatively on prose. In addition, all of these neighborhoods are already listed on Template:Salt Lake City. bob rulz 04:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, unused. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, there will be minimal consequence from doing so as the templete is only present in one article and it can easily be copied and pasted. — Seven Days » talk 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after converting into article text, if needed. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Delete. Seems pretty much useless in one article.The Scurvy Eye 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Template:Event y

Templates that just create categories makes that space hard to maintain... ask anyone that works WP:CFD. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Locale length

Meta-template. Uses the "P" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after manually updating any pages using it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CBD. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Converts meters to locale (feet)
eg. {{Locale length|10}} gives Template:Locale length and {{Locale length|1000}} gives Template:Locale length, useful when metric measurments (without imperial feet) are encountered in some pages. Also can be used to in sed no-line-break-space after the between number and unit. eg 1000 m, this is commonly missed and leads to messy pages. - NevilleDNZ 09:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This conversion to feet should be done by hand to ensure that the correct number of significant digits is used. Or you will get something like "approximately 1000 m (3281 feet)" instead of "approximately 1000m (3300 feet)" which is more appropriate. Kusma (討論) 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meta meta gren グレン ? 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country GB, etc.

(Template:Country GB, Template:Country PT, Template:Country NP, Template:Country NZ)

Meta-templates. Used with the "event" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Some templates, eg Template:Infobox Country, are passed the XX country code, and, this provides enough information determin Country name: Britian, and even Nationality: British. i.e. esp useful for template. Maybe we should limit these to important tags... such as only country, nationality and type of event etc... This approach is used extensively by the Template:coor dms, Template:coor dm, Template:coor d and Template:coor etc and documented in the wiki help pages. NevilleDNZ 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't use other poor examples to defend this. Those templates as well are on my list. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several meta-templates related to months

(all templates in the form of "P#", Template:CentaryN, Template:MonthN, Template:Convert month, Template:Month name, Template:Born, Template:Died, Template:Battle, Template:Disaster, Template:Event)

I stumbled onto a pretty arcane series of nested meta-templates. They seem basically devised to compose a complicated structure around converting numbers to months and back again. Template:CentaryN and Template:MonthN seems to be used only for sorting articles into strict time order within categories. This can be achieved manually without all this template-within-template structure. Born, Died, Event, Battle, Disaster, and others create four-layer-deep meta-templates that seem to be used to present dates in a non-standard format (see Edmund Hillary). -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after manually updating any pages using it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CBD. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I checked the Edmund Hillary page and it has entries like: {{Born|1919|7|20|region=NZ}} that correctly puts Edmund into the Category:New Zealand people and Category:1919 births. And correctly formats the dates as per wiki standard. The templates Born, Died, Battle, Disastor and Event seem to categorise corectly also. NevilleDNZ 08:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You "checked" it and it "seems to"? Aren't you the one that created all this and put it there in the first place? Have you read WP:AUM? I don't blame you too much for creating this system, but it's disallowed by policy. Categorization and dates are already handled by existing mechanisms that are easier to maintain and avoid being hogs on the server. -- Netoholic @ 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ThanX for your "friendly" feedback. NevilleDNZ 12:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these (not 'Locale length') could be converted to non-meta templates. I like the concept behind standardized data formatting, but I think these templates should then always be subst'd in once they are formatted to use widely agreed upon standards. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My wiki forensic revealed that there are 10'000 (in words: ten thousand) templates P1..P10000. Patrick created P1..P3 and NevilleDNZ continued up to astronomic 10000. I must say Neto is very friendly... --Adrian Buehlmann 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like they go up to p31 and then only hit major milestones and specific instances up to p10000. So not quite as bad, but wouldn't work properly until all of the entries were filled out. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor admin who has to delete them. I'm asking myself whether it makes sense to do that delete work at all. Deleted articles/templates are still around just marked as deleted, right? So we just increase the garbage by deleting them without gaining much. --Adrian Buehlmann 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-AmE-0

Template:User-AmE-0
Delete — Quite rudely claims that American English isn't English and is actually spelling and grammatical errors, in contradiction to official policies here. Serves no purpose other than nationalistic arrogance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

  • Keep this and all American English templates. Someone should make a policy about userboxes so these don't keep coming up. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This TFD discussion is tainted by talk page spamming by Jamal al din: e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] Demi T/C 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Tainted'? Are those people's opinions unworthy of consideration because they had to be told there was a vote? Do you think they are only voting because somebody else wants them to? ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Templates like these are the reason why everyone wants to delete useful Babel templates now, without taking to drawing up a policy proposal. And cookiecaper, there is a policy discussion on userboxes: WP:UBP. This template is just for user-fun and bears no relevance to writing an encyclopedia or translating. If it has to be kept the wording needs to be changed because as accessed now it is offensive. --Fenice 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it's offensive. There aren't enough offensive templates on Wikipedia right now. Templates by and large tend to be far too pleasant and civil; it's repulsive and runs contrary to our interests here, which is to create a hostile and factionalist environment for inefficient and contentious editing. However, I vote to keep this template only on the grounds that I can also make a template calling all of the Romance languages "poorly-spoken Latin" in a similar way to how American English is poorly-spoken English. Fair's fair. -Silence 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is another userbox with the same text {{Template:User AmE-0}}. In itself it is not any more offensive than {{Template:User AIM-0}}, {{Template:user gb-0}} or {{Template:user 1337-0}}. -- Sneltrekker 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm ambivalent about this style of userbox (I've removed the joke userboes I created for myself), but I think we should hold on ad-hoc deletions until there is some consensus on a coherent policy about userboxes. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and its counterpart that insults users of Commonwealth English, if it exists. Not useful for user categorization. Wikipedia itself is dialect-neutral; if its users aren't, there's no reason to allow themselves to factionalize like this. android79 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I live in America so I speak American English; saying things like color and fall. I don't find this offensive at all. I have no problems with people stating their choosen dialect.--God of War 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this applies to me as well; it's all very silly, isn't it? Like linguistic nationalism. Fact is, some Americanisms are more linguistically efficient than the Britishisms ("color" is simply faster and simpler to type than "colour"), some Britishisms are more linguistically efficient than the Americanisms ("arse" rather than "ass" makes sense as a handy way to avoid confusion with the donkey "ass"), and most variations are just too trivial for any sane person to make a fuss about. If I was the God of Language, I'd just hold a giant international superpoll and have all the neutral parties go through every spelling and meaning variance and pick the most coherent, efficient, simple, and clear form for each and forget about the rest. But since I'm not that, best to just live with it, and to let people hate on (or poke fun at hating on) whichever dialect they want. -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Silence. — BrianSmithson 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There's a whole list of American English templates, these language templates shouldnt be deleted. Plus, if something like this causes offence, then you're obviously too touchy - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saying any language is an improper form of another is a completely false statement. In fact, by saying this, this user should also have taken into account that English is a form of Germanic and, by there way of thinking, is also just "grammatical errors". Not acknowledging this means, or atleast how I have interpreted, just a biased, rude thing to say.
  • Keep Keith Greer 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Kiand 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Offensive, useless. — Seven Days » talk 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per God of War. —Andux 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know Am English's beginnings, I know modern English's beginning and I know where old Germanic languages came from. Knowing all this, I can offer my educated opinion. This is humerous. Leave it be. Silence is right, though. - Hayter 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. —Nightstallion (?) 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally find this userbox a bit offensive, but everyone has their opinions, and they are free to express them in the user namespace. — TheKMantalk 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fairly light hearted to me. Boddah 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silence, and make some more for other ignorant deviations from proper Proto-Indo-European. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I'm talkin' about! Bring back PIE! Lazy linguistic louses, losing lingering locatives later! -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is humorous and not offensive at all. Larix 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a joke, it's not a very funny one. So it sounds more like an attack than a joke. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, though that hasn't influenced my vote. -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The idea behind these userboxes is to entertain. While I'm no longer a member of the userboxes project (and not particularly such a large fan of userboxes anymore), let 'em have their fun. Cernen 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that said, Keep. Cernen 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately - while I am a big fan of British English and sometimes make fun of American English, I do believe that this opinion espressed in such a way is far too vulgar to be accepted by anyoneMsoos
    • Comment For the record, British English is just English (its not a version of the language, it is the language) and it's not exactly immoral. People get offended by anything nowadays. Seeing as it's not hugely bad, can't you just resort to not using it? An American above said they werent offended, maybe if people were as sensible as him we wouldnt have a backlog in the deletion section - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that it isn't accepted by anyone (in which case the template won't find any use and can be deleted as an orphan (just as we do with human orphans)), or are you saying that we shouldn't let it be accepted by anyone? Both seem like strange statements to make; I can understand saying that we should make people express this opinion in customized or fully userfied templates, or simply have them express it in prose, but saying that it's too vulgar to be expressed at all seems a tad odd... What's so terrible about being vulgar every once in a while? -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - How would you non-American speakers of English feel if I created a userbox mocking Commonwealth English? --TML1988 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldnt be bothered. It wouldnt take a userbox mocking proper English for me to know that Americans dont like Brits. Plus, if u mocked English, then you would be mocking American English because it is the original version of your "language" - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, for the record American English is closer to the original version of English than British English. Studies show that people living in the Appalachia Mountains are closest to Elizabethan English... not that it is somehow better for that. You might want to go educate yourself instead of assuming that your version is somehow more correct. The point, however, is that nobody should be mocking anyone, especially ikn a way that goes against clear Wikipedia policies that American English is just as real as British English. DreamGuy 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The moon is made of cheese. See, i can do it too - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as a user of american english). This is an expression of opnion. Any edits in which such a user attempted to "correct" such "errors" would be in violation of policy, and would I trust, be promptly revted. But I see no reason why the suer should not be entitled to express such a view, at elast until there is a more comprehensive policy on user boxes. If a user had such a statement on his or her user page not in a box, how far would soemone get who wanted to remove it as a policy violation? DES (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a supporter of userboxes in general, but this one is just so silly I have to vote delete. I mean gees, all languages evolve. That doesn't make one more "right" than the other. --Fang Aili 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Written chinese doesn't evolve, not that is in any way relevant.--God of War 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a harmless userbox with a sense of fun, adds colour to this encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur completely with Lord Bob. All you people who are offended, every language template as a -0 version, and stop being to touchy! - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete factionalizing userbox --Wikiacc 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is undoubtedly the stupidest TfD nomination ever. Mindboggling. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Lord Bob. It's clearly very tongue-in-cheek; I don't think it warrants your evident indignation.--CapitalLetterBeginning 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I don't understand how this could be considered offensive, I know that I find other various things offensive which others don't understand and tell me I'm "being too touchy" (eg, butchers' windows, horse racing). No need for a template which offends others. --Qirex 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Violates Wikipedia's ideals about etiquette and "good faith". We are supposed to be working together here, not sniping at one another over language differences.--Srleffler 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly harmless userspace template. Gerrit CUTEDH 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, elitist and factually incorrect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Has to be one of the most ridiculous TFD's so far.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2: My watchlist has seen at least a few of these userboxes be sent here to die. Can't Wikiproject Userboxes make their own TfD page? This is supposed to be for useful templates that might have outlived their usefulness, not usercruft. Cernen 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, offensive and insulting. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serves no purpose but to violate WP:CIVIL.--Sean|Black 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Will this be deleted too? Just the same, but the opposing POV: Template:User AmE-5:
en-us
-5		This user can contribute at a professional level of American English.
Definite American bias here - but that's not surprising when such a large portion of editors are American..--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume god faith, will ya? And yes, I hope that one is deleted too.--Sean|Black 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice tough of silliness, nothing rude to be seen here. Pilatus 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Lord Bob and untill userbox poilcy is sorted out Brian | (Talk) 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, this is not the place for it. —Cryptic (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. How is this offensive? 1) He is entitled to his opinion. 2) It won't harm anyone by him always using British English instead of American English, and 3) It's not like it's going to be used outside of his user page. Saying this is biased and offensive is like saying somebody not liking a certain type of music is offensive. bob rulz 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally harmless. Adrian Buehlmann 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Totally useless. --Doc ask? 11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone heard of the word "humour"? That's "humour", not "humor" --Falcon9x5 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I speak enough languages to know that this is a bit of harmeless fun over some minor differences in dialect. Also second what Bob rulz said. Tom 12:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess - this looks an awful lot like irony to me, but some of the above comments show that we should at least give consideration to the idea that some find it genuinely offensive rather than funny. We have enough trouble with disputes around use of language caused by simple misunderstandings without fanning the flames. Plus, as any student of language should know, the British English spellings are often modern affectations, and the US versions are in many ways more correct (and are found in sources such as Chaucer). I'd almost make an honourable exception for aluminium (per IUPAC) but that means I'd have to accept sulfur, and I'm not going to have that. So, away with it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People should be entitled to express their opinions on their user pages, whatever those opinions may be. Especially so considering the lightheartedness of this particular template. --TheCardinal 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - *sigh*, some of you obviously have no sense of humour. You may think I'm being biased, not being a user of American English, but I do not find Template:User AmE-5 offensive one bit. I put the template on my user page simply for a bit of a laugh - I was only more amused to see this TfD with people calling it "factionalising" and "elitist"! I am frightened at how seriously some of you are taking a stupid little userbox. I think people should be allowed to say what they like on their user pages - it's not their fault if it's taken the completely wrong way. --Zilog Jones 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete Only because there is already a {{user AmE-0}}, and the dash after "user" in the template name is against my bias toward userbox syntax. All the AmE templates are pointless jokes, but are not quite patent nonsense, so I have no reason to ban them. An attitude about a language is not a personal attack or group hate. — Eoghanacht talk 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think that it is an important template, it's lighthearted and harmless. I also feel that the nomination could be construed as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Stifle 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - stop being distracting. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A major vote was completed recently, reaching a concensus that POV userboxes should not be deleted. This is a POV userbox. All opinions are going to offend, you can't help or prevent that (unless you eliminate opinions, which is against freedom of speech). If you disagree with this, dont use it. I disagree with a lot of POV userboxes but i dont complain, and I certainly dont try to delete them. You call this bias, what I call bias is this being nominated and the AmE-5 template not. I call that deleting in favour of a particular language or nationality. Guess which one - American! So if this template gets deleted, and my numerous appeals dont work, I call for the AmE-5 template and any other language template with a shred of opinion in it be deleted immediately. Wikipedia userpages will be more boring places, but if you people want to make it that way, don't do it in a biased way just because there are more of you from America than Britain. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but only if it's actually made witty, like the anti-British one above. As it is, it's just mean. ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless userspace content. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - userboxes are free to be NPOV and act as a mechanism whereby people can express things they would be free to express anyway in a standardised format. Plus- it is true. Deano (Talk) 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I do think that American English is crap and I am rude, so having this on my user page is totally encyclopedic and NPOV. Besides, I don't feel like having the same discussion for all userboxes one by one. --Valmi ✒ 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I don't know how many people are aware of this, but this encyclopedia was founded by american english speakers, and this mess is a disgrace--Nn-user 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you are aware that American (English) is based on English, should that make a difference? - Keith Greer 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And America was originally under British rule. Does it matter? No. If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt, so i think you're exagerrating a bit. Take a look at the discussion I linked to a few points up. For every person who voted delete on POV userboxes, over 6 people voted keep. O and Valmi, you sum up my opinion completely. If there is any disgrace, it's American English (which is not an official language, it's a version - look up America on this encyclopedia if you want). NPOV does not apply to user pages, which is why POV userboxes should stay. We dont need this discussion. Such a lareg amount of POV userboxes were voted on based upon the fact that they were POV, not their individual content - and the overwhelming result was Keep. I'll fight to keep as many as these POV userboxes as possible, but I'd appreciate it if you didnt nominate so many of them. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt Actually, he -- tangentially -- has, leaving a comment at [Category:Wikipedians by politics:
'Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more garbage templates. Djegan 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not very professional. Thumbelina 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Provincialist attack. Inferiority-complex issues ought to be acted out elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst I would never advocate actually banning American English, the thought of it is quite entertaining, and people expressing that view on their talk pages is fine. --New Progressive 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a huge USA patriot and I don't find this opinion offensive at all. Lawyer2b 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a) because it is a light hearted piece of humour and b) because we need definite Wikipedia policy on userboxes before we start culling them. --Loopy e 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can mark me as another American who thinks you're all being far too touchy. Kairos 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly offensive. -- JJay 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly the wikipedia userspace has gone beyond the boundaries of being "encylopedic" in nature. Besides, who cares. I rest easy at night knowing that I'm heeding the advice of my mother who said, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." But if some other jag-off (there's an Americanism for you, specifically western-Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh area dialect) wants to show how much of a jerk he or she can be, who am I to stop them? Here's another thing my mom used to say, "actions speak louder then words." Lucky for us here on the WP we have both at the same time. --Easter Monkey 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be insulted at something you have to have cared of their opinion. It shows to people that there is different types of the english language and its only a laugh. The userspace of WP is separate to rest of WP therefore IMO NPOV should not need to apply, if it does then there is no point to the userspace. --Neocal 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Harmless, amusing, etc etc. --Gary Kirk (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The general reason people are giving for deletion is the fact that is may be offensive. But you can't delete something based solely on the fact that it offends (except if it is completely immoral, which this isnt). In an ideal world, everyone would live in harmony, peace on earth, etc etc. But you have to wake up because that is never going to happen. We will never have world peace, and there will always be offense in one form or another. Its called reality. This template, as well as others, is going to offend someone somewhere. Im sorry that's true, but its not hugely contraversial. All other Babel templates have one that says This user does not like x language, but i dont see those here for deletion. Do you? What i think is happening is everyone falling into this pro-America thing going on, creating different rules for anti-AmE templates. You can deny it as much as much as you like, like all the "official" opinions that exist, there is always some fabrication in there. Once again, i call for the deletion for any babel templates with opinion in them to be deleted if this template does get deleted. If we are going to have a NPOV thing going, it must apply to deletiong similar userboxes. Pro-USA bias just wont cut it. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it quite useful in letting people know in a light-hearted way that I don't really want my articles "Americanising" where people change all the words/terms to American variations. Anyway it's just a bit of fun and it's an over the top reaction. I wouldn't care if it was the other way round. Rule Britainnia! Englishrose 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep seriously get over it, it's just a bloody userbox. Our userpage is a place for our own personal opinions and information, and if i prefer to use UK english over US english then so be it. If i want other people to look at my page and see that i use UK english and not US english then they can. If you really have something against it then create your own userbox saying "US english is the ultimate english and all other forms are inferior and wrong".
And if your Seriously taking offence to this, then think about this...
Every other country in the world is getting your American crap beemed onto their TV's and movie screens. So think about all those people that have to hear your bloody annoying accents and pronouciations! e.g. "Skeduel" instead of "Schedule" and "Aluminum" instead of "Aluminium".
So in conclusion i tell you... GET A LIFE! stop complaining about something that doesn't need complaining about. We put up with your crap everywhere everyday! and we don't file complaints or law suits or start bitching about it, we just sit back and say "bloody Americans". And being offended by the personal opinion of a userbox is just childish...
Frexe 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

Template:Sp-sprotected

This invents an extension to WP:SEMI by templatizing the notion of semi-permanent semi-protect. George W. Bush may be a special case, but it doesn't need a template for it, since that comes to imply that the template can be used elsewhere when there is no mandate in policy, or in the discussion surrounding that policy. Indeed, many of the supporters of WP:SEMI were clear that they did not want to see such semi-permanent protection. -Splashtalk 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I find this discreet note much less distracting and more suitable than Template:sprotected. And especially on articles expected to be semi-protected for long periods of time (like the GWB-article), this less dominating note should be more than suficcient. Shanes 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this template gives scope creep to WP:SEMI. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, encourages scope creep, should be discussed at WP:SEMI first. Kappa 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xaosflux, Kappa Lezek 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. George W. Bush is not going to be un-semi-protected for more than a few hours at a time within the next couple years. Several other articles also face similar, albeit less extreme, long-term vandalism problems. —Guanaco 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ugly, unnecessary as there is a far better alternative, and distinctly amateurish-looking. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's meant to be small. If it's ugly or amateurish-looking, fix it. —Guanaco 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks/wangi 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until (if ever) there is a change to WP:SEMI for long-term semi-protection. Even then, this template doesn't explain the reason for the protection and is too unobtrusive. When semi-protection is used it should be clearly stated and a reason given. This is even more true for highly visible pages that new people to wikipedia may hit (lest they think that protection is the normal behavior). kenj0418 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.It doesn't give enough info into why the page is semi-protected.--Dakota ~ ε 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. —Guanaco 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and less distracting. It could maybe be a bit bigger with a table box around it, but I think it's good as a smaller alternative. -Mysekurity 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Byzantine-Arab War

I've already merged it into Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest. Palm_Dogg 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the Battle of Syllaeum, mentioned in the "Byzantine-Arab War" template, isn't itself a "Muslim Conquest" per se, but a defeat that temporarily put a stop to further Islamic conquests in Europe. Possibly re-title "The Muslim Conquests" into something slightly different? — TheKMantalk 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the idea is that the series of wars as a whole is termed the "Muslim Conquests", not that each individual battle is necessarily one. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Loopy e 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User de-5

Template:User de-5

  • I wonder if your personal attacks are _necessary_ to put through these deletions? Much easier to try and discredit a person than discussing policies, Ilmari. --Fenice 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to WP:POINT is not a personal attack. Also, in this case I think Ilmari Karonen's suspicion is quite valid. Creating a sister template for a template that is nominated for deletion before any consensus is reached, particularly when you yourself did not intend to use it, seems to me like a good reason to bring up WP:POINT. Generally speaking, I'd like to suggest that you calm down and assume good faith. EldKatt (Talk) 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Rhobite tells me that I cannot be defended from your insults, EldKatt, because even repeated insulting comments cannot be deleted on this page. Claiming someone is trying to make a point is of course a personal attack. Have a look at WP:AGF. You know this policy. You are citing it right here. Are you never embarrassed? I have asked you and Ilmari several times to stop harrassing me. --Fenice 17:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, continuing this discussion would not lead to anything positive for either you or me. Before I take a much-needed vacation from this whole conflict, I want to point out that I have not lied about anything here or anywhere else, and I have not insulted or attacked you or anyone else. I regret to say that I lack the energy to deal with this conflict (although honestly I doubt it can be dealt with at the time of writing), and this is the last you will hear from me regarding this issue. (I'm cross-posting this to relevant pages.) EldKatt (Talk) 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-standard template, and per nominator. — TheKMantalk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-standard Babel template, for the same reasons as for {{User en-5}}. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with category outside of babel heirarchy (eg. "Professional copy-editor (German)"). Again, I'm against the user-4 category as well but it's easier to create something on wikipedia than to remove it. A four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and "native or native-like" is plenty as far as i'm concerned. ntennis 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per en-5 discussion. Rhobite 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, obviously. The proposed policy was not opposed by anyone. It should have been discussed first before putting it up on deletion.--Fenice 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Replace with professional writer category. -- Sneltrekker 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A policy does not yet exist making these professional languages illegal. I have no problems with people that want to claim this.--God of War 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to a more appropriate location, not de-5. This has the same problems as en-5 and does seem to have been made to provide an argument against deletion in the en-5 debate. - Cuivienen 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the result of the debate for en-5 will, in a way, set a precedent for either deleting or keeping this template (although there's a lot more of a consensus here). I vote delete, though, with the reasoning I have already explained at en-5. EldKatt (Talk) 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5 discussion. --Fang Aili 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5 - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per en-5, and as a possible WP:POINT violation. Lord Bob 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Changes likes these to the babel system should be discussed on meta and not on a single language version of Wikipedia. If we follow this course, the babel system would mean different things on each language version of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. --Maitch 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it already does: the xx-4 levels are nonstandard extensions. They're not used on meta or commons, even though quite a few Wikipedias have adopted them. But I agree that we don't really need more nonstandard levels. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know and I don't agree to level 4 either, but I wasn't around at that point. If it is discussed at meta and they have found a consensus then it's fine, but I don't like you unilaterally changing things - and the fact that you didn't even have discussed a policy makes it even worse. --Maitch 17:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is not harmful to the purpose of WP. --Dschor 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not useful to the purpose of WP. --Doc ask? 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5. --Angelo 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More nonsense templates for peoples personal pets. Djegan 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Holiday

Template:Holiday
Delete — This template was only edited once, back in September 2004; I don't know if this template is even used on any pages. In addition, a better template (Template: Infobox Holiday) has been created and is being added to holiday articles (like Christmas, Yom Kippur). joturner 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:He

The template makes the Hebrew text look butt ugly. JB82{ * } 03:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't look "butt ugly" to me (maybe check your installed fonts?), and adding the TfD notice seems to have broken the markup for every use of this template. android79 06:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep font can be easily changed. Improve don't delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how "butt ugly" would be a criterion for the deletion of anything on a wiki; if it is ugly, make it look pretty. EldKatt (Talk) 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is butt ugly you say? {{sofixit}}. If "butt ugly" were a criterion for deletion in real life, I would have been deleted long ago. (sorry, no picture to prove my assertion will be provided... you'll just have to trust me!) Thank goodness it is not. It shouldn't be here, either. Keep unless technical reasons why it cannot ever be made to work (in a way that honors WP:AUM) are provided. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The question is not whether it can be made to "work", but whether it can ever be useful for anything. Maybe this template does have a valid use, but I can't think of what it would be. Hebrew text on Wikipedia seems to work just fine without it. (By the way, What links here (which admittedly has been buggy lately) shows in being used on four pages, on three of which it is misused (missing parameter)!) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but change it to correspond to {{ar}} (minus the language link), and delete {{Ivrit}} which is then redundant. dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-any

This image copyright tag is equivalent to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}{{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and apparently it isn't used anywhere. dbenbenn | talk 01:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Whatlinkshere has been acting strange lately. I have been seeing templates on pages that were absent from the lists. — Seven Days » talk 03:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I'll renominate it when the link lists are fixed. dbenbenn | talk 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:flsr

No longer in use, as I have replaced this with the more-useful {{flsr box}} (see State Road 9336 (Florida) vs. its old state for an example). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Template:Infobox County/*

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

Template:Infobox County/No flag
Template:Infobox County/Map only

Both were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox County, i.e. some places didn't have a flag or seal. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every U.S. County can use Template:Infobox County. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. Note that the nominations do not include Template:Infobox County. See also my nomination for Template:Infobox Community below. — Seven Days » talk 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I'm concerned, anytime a sub-template is deprecated, it's a speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I fundamentally agree with this. I wonder if this should instead be rolled into recent Template:Infobox Country efforts, for which some systemic updates/changes will be made shortly ... i.e., not to the actual template, but to ensure that countries use the same one? E Pluribus Anthony 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Friendly

A noncommercial image tag. I've replaced it with a fair use tag for all the images at User Friendly characters. The only remaining image using this tag is on WP:IFD. If this template is deleted, please delete Category:User friendly Images, too. dbenbenn | talk 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Ok, rather than tweaking the template to work for all the images under a fairuse protocole, you just decide to delete it. How about you edit it, so that each image can have a uniform description. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't make image-tagging templates that will only ever be used on a dozen images. —Cryptic (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic --Wikiacc 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic. Jkelly 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-free license tags. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic. kenj0418 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qif

Template:Qif

As some people might know I am a fan of that template, but I do not need that template I need its functionality. We have been told by developer Jamesday on WP:AUM that qif harms the servers and thus we should work to reduce the harm. It has thus been identified as violating WP:AUM. I had some hope that qif could be implemented in code and that we could wait a bit before tearing down its use, but that seems not to be the case as the developers do not answer requests in that direction, which is something I do not want to complain about because this is their right. As we know Netoholic is working his way through templates to remove qif and he is backed by WP:AUM which is in turn backed by Jamesday. Netoholic tries to keep functionality as far as possible but if he does not see a way to keep it he requests to downgrade requirements, again backed by WP:AUM. I know that by nominating qif I will be accused for trying to create a MeatBall:ForestFire as some prefer to tear down qif behind the scenes by doing divide et impera, something which I think is not ok (others have qualified me for "stonewalling"). Moving qif to the holding cell until its uses have been removed would better reflect the actual situation. Please express below how we should proceed. Adrian Buehlmann 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Inclined to vote delete, but I would really appreciate it if someone showed me a vital usage of this template - it's nearly impossible to look through this (often very complex) pages that include this to find just how it is necessary. However, given that the template is effectively being orphaned at the moment, it makes sense to put it in the holding cell. Terrafire 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. Looking at just how integrated this is into our content model, I'm going to have to vote keep until a better solution is implemented. Some sort of a notice encouraging people not to use it unless completely necessary would be good though. Terrafire 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy holding cell Phil Sandifer 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. If you want this template deleted, why don't you submit a patch to MediaWiki implementing a more efficient solution. Until then, this template really is needed. dbenbenn | talk 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that the developers owe it to you to give you the functionality you want before they're allowed to fix the database load? Phil Sandifer 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is User:Adrian Buehlmann a developer? I'm just saying that there plenty of contributors to Wikipedia who know how to code, and it should be easy enough to implement a more efficient replacement before destroying lots of work by deleting this template. dbenbenn | talk 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have a look at WP:AUM - the developers have specifically asked us to reduce usage of this template. Phil Sandifer 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Reduce" is not the same as "eliminate". Would you destroy Template:Book reference? As far as I can see, that template really does need the functionality of Qif, or some equivalent MediaWiki functionality. dbenbenn | talk 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about more than one template? Perhaps a tool for creating citations would be a good idea. That shouldn't be too difficult to program. Even I could probably do it. [[Sam Korn]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, please create that tool. Adrian Buehlmann 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Right, I have created a tool that generates plain wikitext. I will post it for testing as soon as I get a Toolserver account, as I don't want to use my own server. Private information could be garnered from it. It'll be up soon, hopefully. [[Sam Korn]] 21:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks to Robchurch, I have the citation tool available. [20]. Feedback welcomed. [[Sam Korn]] 22:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (blank, remove uses, delete) - I have found no template that Qif can't be completely eliminated from by using other methods. I'd have eliminated it long ago if the templates using it weren't all/mostly protected. -- Netoholic @ 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For two reasons. 1) AUM 2) Code that is excessively difficult to understand should be removed or simplified. [[Sam Korn]] 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I would propose that you switch off your computer immediately. I'm shure there is some code inside it you do not understand :-). I also suppose you know how IC design works. Adrian Buehlmann 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not supposed to write my computer code. I am supposed to write Wikipedia code. Making the code more difficult than is absolutely necessary should not happen. I don't know what IC design is. [[Sam Korn]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you do not understand template:book reference then leave it. That's what I wanted to say. There are enough people that understand how it works. The point is that you request that the requirements be lowered to make the code simpler. That's not the same. By the way nobody here objects anyone to make any code simpler if that can be done without breaking existing articles. Or do you really believe we stuff in code just for the sake of making it nedlessly complex? Adrian Buehlmann
          • I pretty strongly think people tend to overthink templates over time. Maybe I'm getting to me a wiki-fogey, but templates really should be simple constructs to help mirror text for consistency, not do complex processing. -- Netoholic @ 09:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is something in your statement. It's a slow creeping process. Somebody comes onto the talk page and asks: "I have an idea, couldn't we do feature XYZ. I need that in article OPXYVKLM". First reaction is usually "Oh, no. Not another request." Then someone comes up with an idea and demonstrates: "look, we can do it by doing trick QSW". Then the "group" around that templates sees that it works and that the "world is not tumbling down by doing it", and it gets implemented. It is damned hard to refuse such request to modify a template. And it is very hard for outstanders to understand why that template group went that way. Problem is also that everybody can finger around with templates, there is no "board" that controls it. For wiki articles, this model is fine, but on heavy use templates that wiki model just does not work. Reverting heavy use templates back and forth is the wrong way. Adrian Buehlmann 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed - revert wars are the wrong way. That does not mean, however, that there is not a right side and a wrong side in a given revert war. Phil Sandifer 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost orphaned; other methods can be used to get the same functionality. --Wikiacc 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after orphaning is completed. Whatlinkshere shows at least 10,000 uses, so "almost orphaned" may be a little optimistic. —Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of those pages simply include a template using qif (as mentioned above, primarily the reference templates and {{language}}). --Wikiacc 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep until we have a replacement. I just talked with brion on IRC and he expressed some support for simple replacement syntax like {{ifdef:param|Whatever}}. There's also an existing feature request on Bugzilla. We just need someone to do the coding. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a good first step. The best thing would be if someone could look at book reference and help us implement that without using qif. I believe there are some more functions needed. For example there should also be something like {{ifnotdef:param|text to display if param is not defined}}{{ifempty:param|text to display if param is empty}}. This could also be done while qif resides in the holding cell. Adrian Buehlmann 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete once orphaned as per developers. Lord Bob 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until we have a replacement that does not rely on CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't like hacks, there is an alternative... use multiple alternative templates and run bots to convert articles to the appropriate ones. Can we have your delete vote now? -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SPUI, or until my proposed renaming (see talk page at WP:AUM) occurs. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). Jamesday has requested that we "reduce" this template's use, and I applaud Netoholic's efforts. Jamesday has not, however, requested that we eliminate the template entirely. I won't support its deletion until I'm confident that all of its current uses can be replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. And no, Phil, this doesn't mean that I advocate "ignoring the devs." —David Levy 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses can also be removed while qif is in the holding cell (provided it is not blanked during that). It can even reside there for as long as we want (of course not forever). I see no point in using qif. It is designed to be used in templates, which is banned by WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template's use should be avoided whenever possible, but it has not been "banned." Placing it in the holding cell would imply that we definitely intend to delete it (and would mandate removal from all pages). As I said, I'm not comfortable supporting such a measure until after all instances have been replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. —David Levy 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you intend for "reasonable similar" to replace book reference calls by plain old non-template media wiki source? If not, how far do you intend to go cutting off features from template book reference? The actual version of book reference cannot be implemented without using qif. BTW you can remove every template call if needed. Jamesday requested to work reduce the harm of qif. So where does qif not harm? Adrian Buehlmann 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with neither the book reference template nor the intricacies of such coding, and I'm not certain that the removal of {{qif}} is feasible. That's why I've voted to keep it for the time being. Jamesday requested that we reduce the extent to which meta-templates are used, thereby reducing the amount of strain placed on Wikipedia's servers. He did not order us to eliminate meta-templates entirely. —David Levy 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot have "a little bit of qif". Technically it would work, but you will never reach consensus where it shall be allowed and where not. And those that remove qif can always cite WP:AUM. So in the end, qif is removed anyway from every template due to WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Just as templates themselves should be used in moderation, there's no reason why we can't do the same with meta-templates (when no suitable alternatives exist). —David Levy 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is widely used. A better testing method would be helpful, but this is working for now. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until an alternative which actually cuts the mustard can be found. The functionality in the reference templates cannot be duplicated by using ugly CSS hacks, which in any case break on certain browsers (not that that seems to deter some people). Reverting to the previous situation where there were umpteen forks for different cases is simply not acceptable. There seems to be an anti-template mentality growing—often expressed in intemperate attacks on those who dare to use templates for performing "simple tasks"—which I find distasteful and unhelpful: I am not particularly interested in having to run to someone else, cap in hand, asking if their bot can do something I am perfectly capable of doing myself. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until orphaned by acceptable replacement templates. I have not seen a single instance where functionality provided by QIF cannot be replicated without using meta-templates. Only instances where those doing the conversion don't know how to do so, or do know how but for some reason refuse. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you make such a statement then the duty of prove is on your side. Show me how to implement the actual version of book reference without using qif and I will believe you. I bet you can't. I will test your implementation and bring up negative test cases. Adrian Buehlmann 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4. May not be 100% (I threw it together in an hour), but it exactly matches multiple test samples and I think it is certainly a 'proof of concept'. It would require '|if=' to be added to every existing book reference call. Let me know if you are interested in using it and I will iron out any bugs. --CBD ☎ ✉ 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted elsewhere, the 'Date' parameter wasn't listed as an option on the talk page for this template. That and various small spacing/punctuation details which I uncovered myself have now been corrected. There are also now two different non-meta versions of 'Book reference' at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4 and a discussion about which should be used on my talk page. Based on this and other templates I believe that everything which uses Qif can be converted to a non-meta version... and would like to take the time to do that before removing Qif. Breaking them all by removing Qif first and then cleaning up the mess seems needlessly disruptive. --CBD ☎ ✉ 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conrad, I appreciate your tireless work. It's a good idea to do two implementations on an existing template so that we can compare. Nevertheless I still have the strong feeling that some functions of qif cannot be mapped to weeble or CSS. I agree with you that first killing qif and then cleaning up the mess is not good for the articles (have thus changed my vote above). I will test your new implementations.
  • CBD has successfully converted template:book reference to the CSS hiddenStructure trick. All test cases passed. Thanks and congratulations! Prove adduced for CSS. Adrian Buehlmann 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for weeble variant! See test cases. All tests are based on CBD's original implementations. Adrian Buehlmann 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a clarification - the 'side by side comparison' and initial CSS version were added to that page by Netoholic here. I'd suggested CSS as an alternate possibility, but hadn't written it up. Since Netoholic built the majority of the CSS version I've just adjusted it to have the URL and Title 'merged', rather than as two separate items, adjusted the minutiae of spacing and punctuation which are so convoluted on this template, and made a few other small additions. Also, there were a couple of things which I wasn't sure how to do with CSS (I don't use it as much) so I implemented them in the CSS version with a variant of 'Weeble' which doesn't require the '|if=' parameter (but is 'uglier' and more limited in scope). Netoholic or someone else might want to convert those sections to CSS if there are ways to do so. And just for the record... after working on this template I am now convinced that nested curly braces were invented for the sole purpose of driving dyslexics insane. ;} --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then! Thanks to both of you for your joint effort in proving me wrong. Adrian Buehlmann 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (blank, remove uses, delete). Unnecessary complication and a resource hog. There really shouldn't need to be any debate on this. It should be a speedy delete. BlankVerse 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because no replacement exists right now. I don't want to go back to the days when there were several different versions of a template that took different arguments. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete once all uses have been cleaned up, although I don't imagine that's going to be anytime soon. JYolkowski // talk 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until replacement functionality is implemented (per CBD), then delete. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once orphaned - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession incumbent

Template:Succession incumbent

Delete — This template is sparsely used as it is almost identical to Template:Incumbent succession box. Philip Stevens 10:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Philip Stevens. No articles in the article namespace use the template, many use Template:Incumbent succession box, so the decision has virtually been made already. Terrafire 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See2

Template:see2

Template:See3

Template:see3

Template:See4

Template:see4

Template:See5

Template:see5

Template:See6

Template:see6


Template:Bigspace

All this template does is create a big space, as in &nbsp; &nbsp;. Silliness. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background

Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background
Delete — A template that consists solely of two other templates and a bunch of text is not partially useful. Also, people can't easily edit the text of the article without having to go through the template. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Golbez 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A number of bio articles for Big Brother contestants failed to give the most basic of explanation of what the show is. They talked of things like "HoH" and "secret partner" without explaining their meaning. This template simply repeats standard text, to give context to an article, for those less familiar with Big Brother, or who haven't watched it in a long time (or never watched regularly). The nominator has not explained any problem with it. If it needs to be improved, please do so. The inclusion of two templates is not critical, and if that's a problem, they can be taken out. --Rob 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Rob, provides valuable context to readers. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this content should be written into articles, not templates. Phil Sandifer 09:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be written in all ten (more later)? I don't understand how this is different then {{United States}} which avoids retyping stuff 50 times, and eases maintenance? For an "in body" example, look at Hamilton Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey which has {{NJ Congress 02}}, {{NJ Senate}}, {{NJ Legislative 02}}, etc... This seems like a common and efficient approach, that will help us keep information in articles up-to-date, while also providing proper context for individual sub-topic/detail articles. --Rob 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apples and oranges. One is a paragraph of text, the others are tabular information. Based on that, you think that if this template doesn't exist, no template should. There are very, very few templates that only insert text. Most are either infoboxes, navigation aids (like the example footers you gave) or procedural ones, not text. Straw man: Crumpled. --Golbez
        • What do you mean "...the others are tabular information...". Only one of the templates I used as an example uses a table. The others were in sentence form, to be blended into various article bodies. I'm not sure how many of these there are, but {{NJ Legislative 40}} makes me think there must be at least 40. --Rob 22:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, sorry, as you can see I switched midway through my comment from "tabular" to "navigational", and didn't go back to change it. And I'm guilty of my own crime, I didn't look at the NJ templates. However, the United States template has nothing to do with this. --Golbez 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are all terrible ideas, and should all be deleted. Article text should ALWAYS be in the article namespace. Phil Sandifer 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you.. actually look at them, Snowspinner? --Golbez 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If these are *all* terrible ideas, as you say, shouldn't there be some sort of central place where we tell people of a convention against them, rather than randomly deleting selected ones. --Rob 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:BEANS - until someone was stupid enough to create them, there was no reason to ban them. Phil Sandifer 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Rob 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Were you the template creator? I hadn't checked. Regardless, my point stands - these templates are stupid, and stupid in a way that had not previously been thought of. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It appears the entire extent of your reasoning is the word "stupid". You haven't given one reason for your opinion, other than to make a personal attack, which you have now repeated (knowing full well how it's being taken). Please consider explaining your position, and let's try to raise the standard for discussion around here. --Rob 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. --Thorri 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- what a badly written template, with grammar and spelling errors! I've moved the text into the article (and done some work on the badly written article as well). The correct template is {{background}}. Now orphaned. --William Allen Simpson 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did bad spelling and grammar become deletion criteria? --Rob 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al, meta templates are evil and this one is not sensible - content in article is appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why do we even have articles on seasons of a television show? --Improv 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this article was getting way to big, and needed to be broke up. I suppose it's a similiar concept to why we have articles for each sequel to a serial movie series that follows a standard format, but has variations worth noting. It's also better than the numerous cases, of individual articles for 30-minute episodes of certain shows. --Rob 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per nom. Dustimagic 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Prior to today I hadn't read Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, which says we shouldn't include templates in templates. So, I used "subst", to avoid this. Perhaps another option is to put the included templates {{background}} and {{spoiler}} in the individual bios (regardless of whether {{Big Brother USA season 6 background}} is kept). I think the issue here is only if we want to give standard background/context information, or if we want to compell all/most readers to read a separate article. --Rob 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this information is necessary in multiple articles, make a Big Brother USA season 6 background article and link to it. Or, better yet, implant this information into each article, as necessary. This is really an abuse of template system. fragmer 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Article text should always be in the article, not hidden in a template. --Bky1701 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So just copy-paste the info into each article. What's so difficult about that? Then at least the info can be customized or edited as appropriate for each individual article, allowing for much better flow and more diverse wording.
  • Delete per above (which is, incidentally, one of the best arguments I've heard in ages for merging all of these anonymous nobodies "reality" TV contestants into a single article per series. And not starting any article on a TV series until at least twelve months after it's aired, this being an encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper and all.- Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - abuse. Templates do not serve this purpose. Renata 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 according to AzaToth. Vít Zvánovec 19:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is simply ugly, an oversized box that adds nothing to the page. Information on name, date of birth and death is already the first pieces of information on the article itself, so it adds no useful content. Regular old photos is all that's needed. Underwent TLD in the past, survived, but many, many people were upset by the decision. Now that it's spreading to other articles it needs to be stopped. DreamGuy 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator, you didn't add the tfd notice to the template itself (step 1 of the instructions at the top of the page here). I've added it there for you. Slambo (Speak) 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Step one says to put in the template or ont he talk page. If you have a problem with that, take it up with whomever wrote the instructions and not me. DreamGuy 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like pushing things a bit. That was the argument last time. I'm transcluding this page so we don't keep rehashing the same argument each time. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discussion is here. —Cryptic (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's a very nice accent to a page that gives the reader a good image of the person they're reading about in their older years or their youth. the box is also similar to something you'd see at a funeral, which is fitting. --Rsdio 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. Template is far from ugly, far from a distraction, and is already becoming a WikiStandard. --CJ Marsicano 07:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This issue has already been discussed. The template is also in heavy use: about 50 articles use it. If you find the template ugly, please be bold and improve it in any way you can. The authors of these article (not TfD) should decide themselves which templates to use.--Fenice 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enables editors to move (generally) unimportant details like the day and month of birth out of the first sentence but still allows them to be found quickly. Especially useful for subjects who were born and died in different countries. Kappa 07:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa and others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not too useful, duplicates info already in text, suggests that place of birth is more important than anything. --Golbez 07:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless decoration, duplicating what ought to be in the text, mostly in the very first sentence. Users whose attention span is too short to get through the first sentence might want to get their information elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously. Possibly block the nominator for his spamming campaign. -- Netoholic @ 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per reasons given above. Needless. — TheKMantalk 08:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need infoboxes in biographies, except possibly for popes, kings and other exceptional cases (and I'm not entirely convinced about that either). u p p l a n d 09:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a useless ugly distraction from the main text. It merely duplicates what should be written in the lead, although some of these boxes lately seem to carry so much information the article become unnecessary. Get rid of the aesthetically hideous blight once and for all. I'm not here because I was spammed, its been stuck on my watch list since the last attempt to clean the place up.Giano | talk 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template is used very infrequently in comparison to the number of biographical articles, which shows that it is little valued by the community. User:Noisy | Talk 10:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To reiterate what I said last time, the result of deletion will be that biographies will use normal tools to put an image up rather than a template, and so will be encouraged to shape the article, images and so on to fit the needs of the subject rather than shoehorning it all into potentially irrelevant templates. — ciphergoth 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Unneccessary, just reproducing text that should be in the lead and a photograph that can be added normally. Totally pointless. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template spamming. / Peter Isotalo 12:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally redundant. Not only does it create a large, clunky, box full of information that is already contained in the first line of the biography, but it places all of this duplicated information right next to... the first line of the biography. I don't think we need to be hitting readers with information in stereo before they've even scanned past the first paragraph. It adds nothing to the article, and aesthetically it detracts a lot, particularly in articles that have a short lead section because the box overlaps into the next section (examples Buddy Holly, Helen Keller) and even two sections (example Henri Becquerel). Rossrs 12:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and enhance Just as country articles have infoboxes (rooted in a template) that summatively provide information regarding them, which are not at all obviated by any sort of lead, so should articles about notable people have bioboxes. Even fictional characters in certain genres have (different) bioboxes. A la dictionaries, (even) refine the template/infobox to include (only) top-level notions uniform amongst all Homo sapiens: dates of birth/death, places of birth/death, nationality, primary function/position/occupation. However, such a box should not contain predecessors and successors for any sort of office/position (which are often accommodated for in footer templates). And nothing more; otherwise, it would get unwieldy and redundant. And as a prior TfD occurred a scant three months ago (without consensus to delete), it's this TfD that is rather redundant. E Pluribus Anthony 12:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is redundant, and when lives become uniform, then "important features" can become uniform. Until then, boxes like this mess up existing formatting, duplicate material already present (a deletion reason), and, unfortunately, lead to edit wars, as original authors get "bold" and remove them and box fanatics get "bold" and insist that there is no option: it must be in, that it is "standard," that it makes everything look exactly the same and that's good, and that all we can do is "improve the box," but not remove the box. If box authors put this in biographies that they themselves had written, you'd never see this level of opposition, but, of course, they go to featured articles where someone else has done the research, found the pictures, and done the formatting and then destroy it all by introducing redundancy and "improving" with an infobyte. Geogre 12:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I learned about this TfD from a spam on someone's page. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 13:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with qualifications. I don't like the template much, and in some cases (Benito Mussolini) a more specialized template would be more appropriate. I also don't appreciate having my talk page spammed; as I've never touched the template in question this falls under the category of solicitation. Ah well, such is life. So yes, keep, but try not to use it. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep - This template even has snap on accessory templates IIRC, and is used in a large number of articles. Deleting it will force some large amount of work on someone or another, to fix all those articles up, that could instead be spent on new articles or useful improvements to things. To the charge that it is large and ugly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It seems similar in size to other infoboxes I have used (see American Bridge Company which uses {{Infobox Company}} or Poughkeepsie Bridge which uses {{Infobox Bridge}}). To the charge that it repeats info in the lead sentence, a LOT of infoboxes do that, I don't see it as a bad thing. I am not even really sure why this was proposed for deletion actually. I watch TfD so would have seen this but I saw it sooner thanks to it being on someone else's talk page... that seems harmless. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for redundancy with the lead. It just isn't useful. Tuf-Kat 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the argument against causing people to do extra cleanup work. However, this vote is strongly premised on retaining its use as an optional feature. I have written many bios, but do not use the Box for some of the reasons above. Hal Jespersen 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, redundant. Varizer 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Worthless. Dustimagic 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - adds nothing to articles except a sense that they've been dumbed down. Worldtraveller 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful and popular template. No reason to handcuff editors by deleting this. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - it adds NOTHING to the article. Nothing. I have always been against this template; it's useless. --Matjlav(talk) 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was nominated previously and survived then. I don't see why it should be deleted now. Slambo (Speak) 21:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and *fD is not a good place to attempt to make sweeping changes to style guidelines. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely uneeded as mentioned above. MechBrowman 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - an unwanted eyesore. Fawcett5 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needlessly repeats information that should be included in the article's introduction. Also, ugly. android79 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my resons on the previous TfD. Unneeded, duplicates info whioch should be in the lead or in the text of an early paragraph. There is no style guideline on the use or non-use of this box -- if ther were there would be no need for this debate, at least not in this form. DES (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. needless. --Pamri • Talk 08:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as last time around. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reason as last time. JYolkowski // talk 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not further the aims of the encyclopedia known as Wikipedia. Repeats information that should already be mentioned in the intro paragraphs (i.e. a few inches to the left) if significant, and should not have to be mentioned near the top of the article at all if it's not significant (i.e. the exact place where these people were born and died). Needless consumption of space, needless overstandardization, needless overboxation. No credible encyclopedia wouldn't do anything as ridiculous as this, so why should we? This is the sort of thing you see in high school textbooks and baseball cards, not in credible academic resources. Plus it's such a fixture of attention and debate all throughout Wikipedia that it draws much-needed attention away from the article text itself; people have spent so much time arguing back and forth over this silly template over so many hundreds of articles, when all of that time could have instead been spent on improving the text of the actual articles. That's what Wikipedia's about, in the end: cold, hard, solid paragraphs of textual information, not all the bells and whistles, all the elaborate boxes and pretty designs and lists. And I love the bells and whistles!! I'm a layout nut. But this just isn't necessary, in any way, shape, or form, on any article. It's just too patronizing, too unencyclopedic, and, above all else, too redundant. -Silence 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and enhance. A variation is used on many of the biographies of philosophers - see FI David Hume. Usualy I hate unnecessary navigation tools, but this one is potentialy useful. Banno 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that variation used on the biographies of various philosophers is without a doubt the worst thing to ever happen to those articles. If that template is ever nominated for Deletion, I'll give it my biggest "DELETE" vote ever; it's even worse than this one, by far. Truly a horrible, tragic, wasteful, and ridiculous template, if there ever was one. Until the day that scourge of a template is removed from Wikipedia, I'm on strike from improving any articles that use it, even though I'm a huge fan of western philosophers. There are some things that a person simply cannot stand for lest his human dignity be forever eroded; boxes like that are among them. Whether this one is deleted or not, that one certainly needs to be. -Silence 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons give by Fenice. And, if you think it's ugly, improve it. That is what Wiki is about, not deleting things you don't like. --Falcorian | Talk 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just ugly but totally pointless. If I decided to add random circle graphics for no reason to tons of articles, would you like it if I said, "well, if you don't like a circle, make it some other geometric shape spread all over articles for no reason"? No, of course not. Wikipedia is making an encyclopedia, which means getting rid of crap like this that has no reason whatsoever to exist, other than for a few box-happy people to lie about and claim it is supported as policy and shove it in everywhere. DreamGuy 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's nice to have that information in a standard, table form instead of having to wade through text for it, especially if it has info not in the intro. It could be made more attractive, but something like it definitely has a place.--ragesoss 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary. Postdlf 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. Mrwojo 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - It's useful for articles where the subject is deceased. I find it easier in writing header paragraphs which include info on birth and death places. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly pointless. --Saboteur 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ditto. – Ham 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the SECOND time it has been listed. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, yes it is, but so what? It did not have consensus to be kept last time. If there is no consensus it's pretty silly to try to portray that as consensus to keep, especially when the vote was as close as it was last time. The way things are set up anyone can make anything and then sneak it in on articles and try to portray it as having broad support (as someone tried to claim to me when they started inserting it across articles on my watchlist) when it has no such thing, just not quite ENOUGH support to get rid of it. That's a completely backassward way to do things, you should only do something like this if it has full consensus to actually do, not just because enough people weren't brought together to oppose it. It's horrible way to run anything. So we vote again hoping for a clear consensus. That's the only reasonable thing to do. DreamGuy 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It usefully sets up the essentials of a subject.Why is so much of wikipedia full of useles arguments anyway?.Gareth E Kegg 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I do not see any change in the situation since my previous vote and hence, I do not see any reason to change my vote. --Gurubrahma 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I can't believe a template as popular as this has been nominated for deletion - this is pathetic. It's not harming anyone, its not ugly, its not large! I'm fed up of these stupid nominations! — Wackymacs 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is widely used and looks just fine in my opinion. Hall Monitor 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redesign or delete Exceptionally ugly template that in its current form defaces articles. There is arguably a need for a well designed template, but this version is hideously ugly in the extreme. Given the amount of design talent on WP, is this monstrosity the best we can come up with? Surely not. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Enhance - This template is very useful as it gives a user a quick glance about the subject's birth date/city/country, death date/city/country. It works very well as a quick overview of a subject. Yes it's information that is in some bios but remember, not all Wiki bios contain everything. I've come across so many Wikipedia bio articles where the subject's death date or city or country isn't even clearly written in the article and is only available in the infobox. And some subject's birth or death dates/city/country isn't even written in the article. Believe it or not, I've seen such articles. I would suggest enhancing the biobox to include nationality, occupation, etc. If it's ugly, then someone should improve on it, not delete it. --speedoflight | talk to me 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very strong keep, only because this has been discussed before, and the result was to keep it. Mac Domhnaill 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Rama's Arrow 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template is concise, useful, and aesthetically pleasing. -- MisterHand 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use {{Infobox Celebrity}} instead. - David Björklund (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto to Golbez. RexNL 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I've edited it so perhaps it works/looks a little better now. — Seven Days » talk 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Haven't we have faced this kind of dispute before?, Come on guys, it is silly to be just foolishing around and just stating, I am going to delete this template because is ugly, What kind of statement is that? this is silly. My proposal is this template should be enhanced and improved, i find it usefull on articles.--HappyApple 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and ugly. Fredrik | tc 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Because:
    • 1) Ugliness and beauty are subjective. There is not a scientific criterion to decide if something is beautiful or not.
    • 2) 237 articles use it! If it is so useless, why are there so many artices with it???
    • 3) Many serious books use such things to give fast informationabout the biography.
    • 4) It is not at all a distraction, and is very useful to standarize the information that every biography should have.
    • 5) An article/template/etc should not be listed for deletion twice! Even if the first time there was no consensus.
    • 6) If you think this article is ugly, simply change it!
Eynar Oxartum 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. A student, for instance, would not be inconvenienced by having to look at the first sentence to find out the person's dates of birth and death (the locations are optional anyways), and would certainly not be inconvenienced by having to look in the infobox's current location to see a photo or portrait of the person. On the other hand, having an infobox for a country is much more handy, because it would take much longer to find out the country's currency, for example, in the absence of an infobox – the reader would likely have to find the Economy section and look for some mention of the currency there. If the intention is to have an infobox for every article at Wikipedia, then may I suggest Wikidata? Before deleting this template, the information given for its parameters should be moved to a more appropriate place in each article. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gives redundant information, has ruined many good articles. Quaque (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ugliness is subjective, usefulness is objective. If over 200 articles use it, it means it is actually useful. --Angelo 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that means it is used. Usefulness is also subjective. I find it useless. android79 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Subjective reasons for deletion; box could provide handy "flash card" information for younger and home-schooled Wiki users; provides handy and quick visual detailing for those who might need it. David Hoag 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP for all of the same reasons that were brought up the last time this was nominated as a TfD.--Lordkinbote 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Briefly: it's too big, it highlights trivial facts (merely because they're easy to standardize), it is inflexible. Much better to simply use the caption feature, which allows the authors to highlight truly meaningful information, which will be different for every subject. The number of times this template appears is meaningless, because this box is often simply imposed on articles by people who did no prior substantive work on a particular biography. -- PRiis 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems harmless. There's no law that says you have to use it if you don't want. Sdedeo (tips) 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More articles are currently used with this infobox. Why does it happen all the time? Adnghiem501 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm falling out of favor of infoboxes in general. --tomf688{talk} 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Cooper template adds some good info about his birth and death. It is something that deserves to be kept, maybe add some info like DreamGuy says but don't delete it. Thistheman 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too big, too useless. --Hn 07:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I love the theory of infoboxes, and think they do have a place for biographical information. Perhaps it could be expanded upon to include other information like a date of birth, nationality, and other quick information. This way people could get an overview on the individual before having to dive in to the article to find what they are looking for. I'd also cut down on the size of the photography a bit. --Toddbloom7 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it, it's great for getting the most important information at a glance, and it's nice to have a standardised form for that. Oliphaunt 12:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Do we have to have this discussion every couple months? This template should be kept until someone comes up with a new argument to delete it. The complaints ir should be redesigned should be met by redesigning it, not by this waste of time. Septentrionalis 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better yet, write a small version as an alternative. Give people a choice. If it is better, it will sweep this one out of Wikipedia. Isn't that the Wiki way? Septentrionalis 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. D. Wo. 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcar1986 (talk • contribs) Adnghiem501 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and enhance. Add a few more items to it. Its a good template and there needs to be one for non-Presidents or heads of states.--KrossTalk 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Infoboxes provide a standard template for representing important information. From the simple standpoint of usability, it is easier to draw information from an infobox than a paragraph (no matter how prominent the information may be in that paragraph). If you feel there is some extra information that could fit in the infobox that is standard to most biographies, improve the infobox. If you don't like the infobox, don't use it in your article. However it is poor form to nominate a template as popular for this (200+ articles) for deletion. Cedars 02:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, dammit. Phoenix2 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is a very useful visual aid to an article, since (like all templates) it filters relevant information out of the article into a separate box. If it's too big, then by all means resize it, but don't delete it altogether. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dammit. Ugly like Mother Love and overtemplatization. - Darwinek 14:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is just getting silly - I don't like your template so I'll recommend it for deletion. We need creativity to add to the blandness of text, we need templates to give a common look and feel to articles of similar subject matter. Ok if this is not a good style or content improv it provide or something better. Oh let's not do that when we can get the current one deleted for no good reason and we'll just get on each other nerves. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Arguments to remove entirely subjective. CaptainCarrot 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Halibutt 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--the template is already suggesting to people some form of inappropriate standardization. It's one thing to use a template for a particular field. But the information that matters most for one figure will not be the same as it will be for another. Keep specific ones, but delete the general one. Chick Bowen 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sometimes the biobox is useful for containing other information, such as Post-Nominal honors and titles which tend to clutter up intro sentences. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you see it in an article and it bothers you, remove it. It may start an edit war, but it will make you feel better and that's what Wikipedia is all about right? Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think asthetics, superficial matters qualify as a valid reason for delteting anything.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Infobox Community

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

Template:Infobox Community
Template:Infobox Community/No seal
Template:Infobox Community/Unincorporated

All were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox City, i.e. some places didn't have a nickname or flag. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every place defined by the U.S. Census can use Template:Infobox City. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. — Seven Days » talk 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahamas TV

Template:Bahamas TV
Delete — Only linked by {{Miami TV}} as a see also, and whatlinkshere therefore shows several other "usages" of the template (really the Miami TV link) (it is also linked to by an article that I don't know how), and only serves to navigate between one redlink -- which practically eliminates the need for such templates!. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WCQuidditch --Qirex 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless improved — For the moment, it has no real purpose. However, if other links are added, this could become useful. — Seven Days » talk 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve on it: Apparently, every template i edit reverts. Every template i CREATE is nominated for deletion, or is simply deleted without notice. It's nice to see wikipedia follows its own rules. Or not.

I think i'm moving on to greener pastures from this desolate wasteland. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site where you can share information and not have to worry about cliques and abuse by senior members and Administration. I guess it's gone that way already. What a pity. Wikipedia had so much potential...

Raccoon Fox 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Template:Frown

Template:Frown

  • Delete — POV. Non-encyclopedic. Created in response to the failed AfD of Saugeen Stripper. Wrathchild 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uncivil. --Rob 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No problem with it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sour grapes. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no business deleting it. Niffweed17 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-POV Dustimagic
  • Delete — Uncivil, POV, and unencyclopedic. — Seven Days » talk 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid POV for a userpage Keith Greer 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just being mean, if it's userpage material move it there. Ashibaka tock 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created and intended to be used as a "useful thing" (quote from creator's userpage) to be used in an uncivil manner (see Talk:Saugeen Stripper#WTF?); isn't intended for use on userpage itself. --Qirex 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only appropriately used in one person's userspace, no need for it to be a template. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I softned it, now it could be almost cute if used correctly.--God of War 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No civil purpose I can see. Definitely no purpose that might help the encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per other supporters. --CJ Marsicano 07:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, plain stupid, waste of space, not encyclopedic. — Wackymacs 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a userbox that's fine on a user page, but not in the context that it was created for, as a commemoration of a failed AfD, and used on its talk page. — TheKMantalk 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per TheKMan. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy If someone wants it for suerpages, etc let them, but calling things stupid borders on civility so remove it from the main spaces. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you guys are no fun. It's outlived its amusingness anyway, so I've put the code my sandbox. I'll remove it from the Saugeen Stripper page. Adam Bishop 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to user space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frown. This is stupid. Lord Bob 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless --Ryan Delaney talk 07:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dmoz

Do we really need that? Adrian Buehlmann 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's a very handy template to have around. Is there something wrong with it? - EurekaLott 15:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ummm...yeah, what's the problem? It's just as useful as Template:GameFAQs or any of the IMDb templates.Wrathchild 15:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thought it does not that much save on typing: example [22]. At least it should be subst'ed when used, but this usually gets forgotten. Adrian Buehlmann 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, it's just one of a number of handy external link templates. Handy is good. Lord Bob 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I disagree that this is particularly handy; it saves perhaps a few seconds worth of key-strokes. Like Adrian, I don't think we need this. This kind of thing just needs a quick style guideline somewhere, not a template. Having said this, I am qualifying my vote with weak since it doesn't seem harmful or much of a drain of resources; it wouldn't bother me much if it's kept. I just noticed that there is a near identical template at Template:ODP, so this is just a template fork which was made instead of just modifying the existing template --Qirex 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:ODP redirects to Template:Dmoz and isn't used in any articles. Wrathchild 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of about 15 minutes ago. Prior to that, it was in use. - EurekaLott 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In light of this and after having thought about it some more, I'm changing my vote to keep. --Qirex 04:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think that in general such templates are a good way of standardizing external links to large and often-linked sites like the IMDB or the ISFDB (both of which have such link templates). There is an argument not to subst such tempaltes, since if the site in question changes its location or internal format, all links can be repaired by simply editing the template. But if frequently used, perhaps such tempaltes should be protected or semi-protected to avoid possible DOS vandalism. DES (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't shure myself about nominating this here and I see now it has enough fans. I have executed the outcome of this nomination and I must say I was astonished that this over there had an outcome of "subst and delete". See for example what I had to do here to implement that consensus (the revision before my change there was clearly the better one for my taste). I feel there is something wrong with the treatment of these kind of templates. It would be much better to eventually implement something like an auto-subst in the MediaWiki software instead of this constant lookout for "subst and delete"-able templates. Adrian Buehlmann 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:afd3

This template is instruction creep. I don't know, maybe it was useful at one point, but now it just makes it harder to nominate an article for AFD. I removed reference to it from the instructions on AFD, and replaced it with the much simpler {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/whatever}}. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I personally find it easier to type {{subst:afd3|pg= then Ctrl-V (paste) the article name that I copied beforehand (I also pasted the article name into afd2). I've tried both, and using afd2 and afd3 is just a lot quicker. Both these templates were originally brought about to reduce instruction creep. It's a lot easier to remember {{subst:afd2|pg=Ctrl-V and the same with afd3. That's just me, but I just found it easier in terms of cutting and pasting. --Deathphoenix 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has been around for a long long time and most people who are familiar with the AfD process are used to using it. Removing it is just to make things more difficult. Your reason for deletion is essentially, "I don't like it." You don't have to use it, but a lot of us I think find it far more convenient. howcheng {chat} 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deathphoenix and Howcheng. FreplySpang (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persoanlly i never use this. I would support editing the instrucvtions to make it celar this is a tool, not a required step in the procedure. But It can be a suefual tool, and it does no harm that I can see. DES (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree with your suggestion to "make it clear this is a tool". Instructions are clearer and simpler (especially for newer users) if they simply prescribe a fixed set of steps that can be performed without understanding the mechanics underneath them. The first time I AfD'ed a page, I had no idea about subpages or how to transclude them. I don't think I even knew how to use templates. The instructions were straightforward, though: cut and paste this text here, that text there, the third text another place, and you're done. A simple page of instructions with templates that can be cut and pasted into place is the best way to make AfD accessible to everyone. Users who are interested in how the templates work can of course explore them on their own, but keep the details out of sight of everyone else.--Srleffler 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This template simplifies the AfD process by giving each step a similar form. The text needed is shorter and simpler with the template. I can't imagine how the nominator sees his version as simpler. --Srleffler 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I run the bot that, every day, finds all the articles that people tried to AFD, but screwed up the process. There are very, very many of them, usually between fifteen and thirty, though I've seen as many as eighty in a single day. While a lot of these don't actually make it to AFD - I speedy keep the obvious bad faith nominations and those without any rationale for deletion, move others to WP:RFD or WP:CP, and speedy others - we're still looking at between 10% and 20% of all afd nominations, every day not getting completely through the process on their own. (That's not counting the people who fail to subst afd3 on the daily afd subpages, but my bot takes care of them automatically and I don't even see them.)

    I don't know whether {{afd2}} and {{afd3}} help or hurt more here. As someone who intuitively understood what was going on when I first saw {{msg:stub}} start showing up back in - early 2004, was it? - I'm inclined to guess that they hurt more. However, I think the right way to proceed is to keep afd3 for those who are used to it, but to try deprecating it, using Phroziac's wording on the instructions, and give that a week or two to see what the real-world effect is. —Cryptic (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have seen quite a few bad AfD's, which begin with putting {{afd}} or {{vfd}} rather than {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Clearly, these are people who never saw the instructions, but who got the tag from somewhere else.--Srleffler 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to those that like it, harmless to others. Also, I like the standard of using a template, as it makes it easier in the future to change how we list stuff, without re-changing instructions, if we ever wish to. --Rob 08:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the person who originally came up with this concept, it was created to help people from screwing up nominations. We could easily go back to the 7 or 9 step process that we had prior to 12th of February of last year, if we wanted... but I don't see how that helps at all. Frankly, the idea for afd3 was to keep consistancy with the instructions. It's a lot easier to do so when all you need to remember is {{afd}}, {{afd2}}, {{afd3}}. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template --Ryan Delaney talk 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template, I've had no problems following the directions for it's use. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As I had already said on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, there is a simpler way to do it, which I described in length. It is harmless, so I wouldn't mind if it stayed, but it should definitely be deprecated. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Template:Sq 300 et al.

Delete all — This is actually a TfD for 14 incomplete, obsolete, unused and long-dormant templates on Polish squadrons. BDAbramson T 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, absolutely no reason to have a separate template (that looks just the same) for each of these. - Bobet 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unfinished and unused templates, which were created by a user that has not contributed since Feb. 2005. Don't really see a future for them. — TheKMantalk 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Not only are they unfinished, unused, and unlikely to be finished, to the extent that they are finished they don't seem to fill a role best served by templates; it would be better to just put the code on the squadron's page itself. Lord Bob 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Totally unnecessary. Dustimagic 01:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV
Delete — image copyright tag that is not compatible with the GFDL as it precludes the sale of the material. Discussed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#PA-KingCountyGOV. Non-free license. Possibly WP:CSD reason I3. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, incompatible with the restriction on "no comerical use" image tags. — EagleOne\Talk 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is a non-commercial use template created after the date where new non-commercial or permission images would be speedies. To that extent, I've added {{noncommercial}} so that images tagged with this will be easy to deal with. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied at creator's request --Doc ask? 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User support Kelly Martin

I think it was pretty obvious from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin that she doesn't like boxes like these. Let's do her a favor and go through proper process to remove this insult to her beliefs from Wikipedia. karmafist 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since a user page doesn't have to be NPOV and this message of endorsement cannot be regarded as insulting. (+Comment somehow two templates got mixed up, can somebody please fix that, because I do not want to modify it). KittenKlub 16:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. David | Talk 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you please explain your reasoning? I'm just saving her the trouble of nominating this. karmafist 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this edit from Kelly Martin. She includes as an unacceptable class of box "Any userbox which tends to serve the purpose of organizing Wikipedians along political, ideological (other than Wikipedia-specific ideologies...)" (my emphasis). Support for a particular Wikipedian in an internal election is clearly a Wikipedia-specific stance. Therefore Kelly has not identified this as an unacceptable type of userbox (it was created by one who has in general supported her reasoning on the userbox issue) and you are exhibiting bad faith in suggesting that she does. David | Talk 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that the nomination could perhaps have been phrased differently, but this isn't an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources, and promotes factionalism. Jkelly 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, I think there's an encyclopedia around here somewhere, and it ain't finished yet. android79 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. DES (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does anyone realise how HARD it is not to post the photoshopped image I have of "her" with a Stalinesque moustache and eating a baby? :| I know people have no sense of humour. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be damn careful if I were you. Joke or not, such an image could lead to legal action. That's something the dear "community" can't protect you from. Rob Church Talk 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing as Ms. Martin hates these things so much, we'd probably be doing her a service. Morgan695 17:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can it get any more ironic than this? My eyes almost popped out when I saw this on my watchlist. BJAODn-fy or Delete. --Gurubrahma 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did it get on your watchlist if you hadn't already seen it? ~Confused~ --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also saw this on my watchlist, because I have TFD on it, and the edit summary is telling enough. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a superb parody of the whole saga. Also, per all your arguments that I can do what I like with my user space. Rob Church Talk 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You forgot the "Nyaa-nyaa :P". Great, are we now down to the "lol PWNED YOURSSLF N00B" level of discussion (that goes for many people here, but I'm replying to you because I thought you'd be above this)? Oh, and keep plus stop listing stuff here just to make some point. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep - and I'm no fan of Ms. Martin's actions, either. How's that for NPOV? ;) --CJ Marsicano 17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. But I wanted to state that David hit the nail on the head. Contrary to popular belief, I have no objection to userboxes generally, and even have seven of them on my user page. Furthermore, I'm touched that there are people who feel strongly enough about my competency and committment to go so far as to create such a template. I do think that many of the people involved in this particular discussion are exhibiting a great deal of hypocrisy, however ("userboxes are fine, except when they support that woman we don't like, then they need to be deleted" is a good summary of some of the arguments for deletion above). I encourage the administrator who closes this discussion to give due weight to the arguments of editors who are recommending deletion based on personal animosity instead of reasoned principle. I'd also suggest that the people who insist that I "hate these things so much" need to (a) go back and reread my comments on the matter of userboxes and (b) go reread WP:CIVIL. I also think that nominating this template for deletion was a very poor move on the part of whoever did it (I didn't notice) since it was virtually certain to create strife in the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an eye on people using it. TCorp 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If templates that are attacking Kelly have to be deleted, then these should be deleted too. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Templates that attack Kelly go against WP policy of no personal attacks. As far as I know, there is no policy against "defending" another's actions. Pepsidrinka 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't it go against WP:NPOV, since for some reason people insist on applying that to userboxes too?Tommstein 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree but keep - I totally disagree with the template and its contents, but I'll defend to the death its right to exist. Deano (Talk) 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. I'm in favor of keeping userboxes I don't agree with as well. Larix 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, naturally. Hurts noone IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipolitical userboxes are no good. Divisive and factionalizing. (Note: my original vote here was deleted in an edit conflict. Everyone, please watch out for this.) FreplySpang (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Haha very funny. the wub "?!" 20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kelly hates userboxes.Gateman1997 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People should be able to express their views on userpages, within reason. Templates like this are part of that process. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deano. D-Day 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per norm.--God of War 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keith Greer 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad faith, WP:POINT, attack. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad faith nom. Sarah Ewart 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this box as well as all others. It was created for the purposes of being nominated for deletion anyway. I think it is funny, myself - but it should be part of a set. How about this for a partner?
KM This user opposes Kelly Martin for ArbCom. Beware the cabal!
--Dschor 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect, regrettably, that there are some here that might say Keep if Kelly said Delete and Delete if Kelly said Keep... so what does her "no vote" mean under that logic? If I vote keep does that mean we are going to get 43 other boxes showing who is supporting whom? Blech. If I vote Delete do I get accused of hypocrisy because I'm a supporter of boxes, even ones that show POV? Blech again. Whoever nominated this really ought to ask him or herself why exactly they did it! So, dear readers, after reading all that, you probably are hoping I'll finally express my opinion!. Well here you go: Mu ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think I offered "no vote"? I'm not totally stupid. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm fine with people expressing support for Kelly or anyone else, but there's no need to have a template for it. This sort of thing could get silly. JYolkowski // talk 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the logic espoused by kelly martin in her recent purge on boxes, this would be a very strong contender for deletion, since its entire aim is to further factions on wiki. However, i do not see this as such a bad thing. She has become a real issue which needs to be debated and faced. Declarations of peoples positions on this should not be discouraged.
  • Strong Keep — And also any userboxes saying the opposite, for example: "this user thinks Kelly Martin should no way be an arbitrator or hold any position of power whatsoever": Both are just as much valid points of view. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • '
  • Delete. as per reasoning in TfD above. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete campaign buttons. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat same as Template:User oppose Kelly Martin. My preference would be the removal of both, but I'm ok with both being kept. I'd be concerned with the fairness of allowing support OR opposition, but not both. kenj0418 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was originally parody and humour by Rob Church, but is now being used as grounds for nastiness by Kelly's detractors. Perhaps BJAODN. --Doc ask? 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User allow fairuse

I don't think this needs a massive amount of explanation. Suffice it to say, that this template may be used to convey the opinion that our users don't like US copyright law. Sorry, but you can't vote that away, otherwise I'd have shot George W. Bush under WP:IAR back in 2003. Rob Church Talk 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whoever created and whoever uses this template needs to have the difference between the law and Wikipedia policy explained to them. [[Sam Korn]] 12:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just another attempt at censorship in the user space. This template has not hurt anybody - leave it be. --Dschor 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Fair use provision in the US copyright law does not (and will not) specifically target the use of copyrighted image within a particularly defined (in the law) namespace in a particularly defined website. The statement "it's the law" in Template talk:User allow fairuse immutable version implies such a misleading statement, that, the action of which, is explicitly and/or specifically prohibited and/or targeted by law. Keep until relevant discussions in WP:FU and Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes have reached a consensus regarding the issue. -- Carlsmith 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily as disruption. --Pjacobi 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlsmith. Larix 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for two reasons. First, that whole law thing. Second, it says "vote". Users who don't know how "voting" works on Wikipedia should not be displaying templates encouraging misuse of policy discussions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dschor. It's ironic that those who want to delete this invoke dislike of George W. Bush since they've invoked his mindset over the past week: i.e "the ends justify the means". karmafist 15:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not irony. I just dislike idiotic American Presidents who ruin the reputations of fine upstanding nations such as the United Kingdom. Rob Church Talk 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The UK ruined its reputation on its own, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Please don't act like Dubya if you dislike him, and put further comments on the talk page. karmafist 07:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth a 24 hour block just to be able to say the following. Fuck off, and get a grip. We're an encyclopedia, not a fucking LiveJournal. If you don't like it, you have the right to disappear. Rob Church Talk 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images which qualify as fair use in an article might not qualify as fair use in a userbox, and this is not the fault of any Wikipedia policy. Fair use is a complicated concept, and it's not Wikipedia's idea. To me, usage of this templates suggests misunderstanding of the concept of fair use. However, deleting the template won't do anything about that, and keeping it will not do further harm. So I lean towards weak keep. EldKatt (Talk) 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Opinions may vary but copyright law is law and no vote on Wikipedia will change it. David | Talk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the creator and users of this template obviously have a weak grasp on copyright law. The use of this template advocates actions that would be copyright infringement - illegal under U.S. Copyright law. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I understand it, the rational behind this is inspired by Wikipedia's own rules on fair use images appearing in userboxes being somewhat over-the-top, as is explored in the Firefox template discussions. A logo or such that the creator and/or company allows to be used to support that product and/or company is currently not allowed in userboxes, per WP's rules - not US copyright laws. If I misunderstand this, I'm sure someone will correct me. - Hayter 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats not my understanding. Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license (cc-by-sa, public domain, etc.). Logos and such are not licensed under the GFDL and so must be used under the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law, or not be used at all. So there are two options for image use: free content or fair use. Any use that falls outside of that is copyright or license infringement. So even if the license says that you can do X, but the image is not under a GFDL-compatible license, the only way that image is usable in Wikipedia is under fair use. Even if you are doing X, if X falls outside of fair use, you can't do it in Wikipedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's it - even when an image falls under fair use, WP does not allow it to be used in a userbox - only on a relevant article. As DES says below, this is a stricter application than US law. - Hayter 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, "fair use" is a defence for a use in a particular context. If you want to write up a detailed rationale for the use of an image in a userbox template, do so. Use {{fairusein|Template:foo}}. The generic {{logo}} fair use rationale is that the image is used for identification purposes in an article. Use of a {{logo}} image in a userbox is what is against policy. If you can write up a reasonable rationale and use {{fairusein}} that would pass {{fairusereview}}, then by all means, do so. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fuddlemark. Jkelly 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per law of the United States of America. Stupid United States of America. Why can't your copyright law allow encyclopaedias to use whatever the heck we want? Someday, we will have an encyclopaedic wikistate of our own...perhaps we should buy Sealand with that $336,539.23 we just raised. Lord Bob 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Wikipedia policy is currently significantly strictler than U.S. copyright law. Some uses of fair uses images which are pretty clearly legel, and others which are at least arguably legal, are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. This template advocates changing Wikipedia policy, not copyright law. There is at least a good argument that the changes it advocates would be legal under U.S. copyright law, at least in many specific cases. Whether this is a good idwa for Wikipedia is debatable, but this template is precisely an attempt to join that debate. There is no valid reason to delete this. DES (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep as per all other supporters, especially DESiegel. --CJ Marsicano 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyright law is complex and this just perpetuates the muddled lack of clarity regarding this. There is no such thing as a "Fair use image". There are images for which "Fair use" can be claimed. It is relatively straightforward to make a strong case for such use on articles directly pertaining to a topic. Making a case for legitimate fair use in the user namespace is much more tenuous (not impossible, but likely far less likely than many proponents seem to think). Better to err on the side of caution with this one, IMO. older≠wiser 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The people voting delete here seem to be arguing against the ideology behind this template rather than the template itself. As I have explained above, I also disagree with the view expressed by the template, but that does not provide me with a reason to vote delete for the very template, as far as I can see: if people feel a desire to say, in effect, (my free interpretation) "I don't know what fair use means and intend to vote on the basis of a misunderstanding", so be it. I'd sooner delete all the meaningless templates about what beverages you prefer, but there doesn't seem to be much consensus towards that either. EldKatt (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if your comment was directed at me, but my vote was not only about the ideology of the template. The template as written perpetuates a fundamental misunderstaning that there is a category of things such as "Fair use images". There is not. There is only specific uses of specific images that can claimed to be "fair use". Beyond that however, this template is not directly helpful in building an encyclopedia. I have no objection if people were to write the equivalent text on their User pages; but there is no need for a template. older≠wiser 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO "Fair use image" in this context meas eaither a) "An image tagfed with one of the fair use licese tags" or b) "an image not available under a free license, and so usable only under fair use if at all" or c) both of the above. Given that understanding I find the phrase useful, although some people may misunderstand it. But then some people may misunderestand almost anything to do with copyright. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bkonrad makes a case for not changing wikipedia policy on this issue -- but not a case for suippresing arguments or views on Wikipedia policy, and so no case for deleting this template. Remember that this template does not itself contain any images of any sort -- it merely advocates a change in Wikipedia policy on how and where such images are acceptable. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. My objections are twofold. First, the template perpetuates an incorrect undetanding of fair use. While you might know better, this template is simply wrong about how it characterizes fair use. Second, it serves no useful purpose for building an encylopedia. Now, people are perfectly free to display their ignorance of fair use on their user pages, but we don't need to keep a template around to make it easy to do so. older≠wiser 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dunno, a template that said "this user knows nothing of fair use, but feels free to hold forth anyway" could be useful, especially if they're about to get in trouble for uploading dodgy images. However a template that helps spread ignorance about both the law and policy is an unqualified Bad Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipolitical userboxes must go. Created to be divisive and factionalizing. (Deleteing them is also divisive and factionalizing, but seems the lesser evil.) Also, I agree with fuddlemark's second reason. FreplySpang (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I see no policy authorizing such deltions. Such deletions should wait on settling the policy issue.
      • You "see no policy authorizing such deltions"? Perhaps you should refrain from holding forth on this issue until you understand the deletion process better. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and futile. US law is miniimal to Wikipedia policy on fair use images (now a policy). Wikipedia strives to serve beyong US borders. TCorp 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but you can't vote away US copyright law. --Carnildo 18:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually you can, but not here. US Law is writtne and can be changed by US legislatiors, who are chosen by vote. however that is irrelevant, because this tempalte expresses an opnion not on US law, but on places where Wikipedia policy is at least arguably more strict than US law requires. DES (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This userbox is not about US copyright law, but about Wikipedia policy TCorp 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wasn't this up for TFD yesterday and was kept.?Gateman1997 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-ultra-super-duper-hyper-strong Keep The principal that we can have a userbox saying people want fair-use images in userboxes says that we keep it. Tom 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, what? Seriously, that was ultra-ultra-super-duper-hyper-strong unclear. Do you mean you'd like for there to be a template that says "this user wishes fair use images were allowed in userboxen, but recognises that it's not really fair use to do so?" 'Cos that would possibly be acceptable. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no problem with people making clear their views on Wiki policy. the wub "?!" 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You want to change policy, go to the relavant policy page and discuss. Garion1000 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ian13ID:540053 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, deleting policy proposals because of disagreement with them is usually considered ill-advised. Secondly, since userspace is not part of the encyclopedia proper, I see no reason why we shouldn't use a more lenient standard (like "whatever won't get Wikipedia in trouble"). I understand why we want to try to avoid fair use images in article space whenever possible, due to distributional issues and preserving the GFDL, but user space is different. Much of the concern here is an example of m:Copyright paranoia. The fact is that a corporation is not going to sue us because a user has a box on his page saying "I support X product". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Keep - I wrote this box. The law may be the law and policy may be policy- but in a free country you are allowed to dislike the law and speak out against the law so long as you follow the law. All this box is saying is that the user wishes policy to change, not that they are breaking policy.--God of War 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a free country. The userbox urges a change to policy, yes. But that change is probably stupid, and the mechanism you want to use to force that change is definitely stupid. Stupid userboxen I can live with; stupid userboxen urging stupid changes to policy I cannot. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So maybe you can use this box to find all the "stupid" users. :) --God of War 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nom's reason for proposed deletion is not very good - damn right I don't respect US copyright law - why would I? Not everyone here is American, so why should we give a rats about US copyright law? The fact that it influences Wiki is the issue that I presume you're concerned with, but that does not stop people's right to an opinion, does it? Or does US law prohibit the right to disagree with the law? Deano (Talk) 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm fed up of seeing user boxes up for deletion! Everyone has their own point of view and their right to express this on user pages wether it be with text, images or userboxes. Why should we take that right away from our very own loyal Wikipedians!? — Wackymacs 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. If you want a web page where you can express whatever you want, there's plenty of hosts out there. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. If there were any such vote it would not be binding, as we can't vote to override law. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detele, but feel free to create boxes declaring your support or otherwise of US copyright policy. Regardless of how you feel about a law, Wikipedia must obey all laws that apply to the State of Florida in the United States. Thryduulf 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This user wants Wikipedia to violate copyright law for the sake of his precious userboxes, and doesn't realize that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Much more of this and I'm gonna start speedy-deleting userboxes myself. -- SCZenz 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DES. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this userbox is clearly advocating votestacking and nothing else. It is a textbook example of the sort of box that userbox detractors drag out as an example to bring all boxes down. Further, it may (possibly) actually be advocating breaking the law, which is an advocacy I oppose. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only positive use I can imagine for this template is similar to Template:User vand, a way to identify users who need to be informed that Wikipedia policy (and indeed the law) are in conflict with their position and who need to be watched in case they violate it. Bryan 00:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyright laws and their interpretation in Wikipedia isn't going to change through voting (at least, not through voting in Wikipedia). And whoever is making these, please concentrate on something else. Having or not having a logo in a userbox is totally inconsequential. - Bobet 01:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Zoe. We can't disobey policy and US copyright law, which the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated and located in. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Bryan Derksen and everyone else. Oh, and there are no votes on Wikipedia, so the template's creator seems to show even further unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JYolkowski // talk 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give him a break, that is a recent development. We had WP:VFD mere months ago.Gateman1997 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which was renamed for precisely that reason - "VFD" was never a vote, always a determination of community consensus. The process was misnamed from the beginning, and quite properly renamed. FCYTravis 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And determining community consensus involves polling the community on what to do about an issue, i.e. a vote. You might not want to call it that, but it's the textbook definition. Rogue 9 01:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and preemptively ban anyone including it for copyright violation. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to call for that then I DEMAND that you show how this userbox is itself a copyright violation NOW or retract your statement. Rogue 9 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see preemptive. —Cryptic (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware of what it means. So you admit to having absolutely no basis besides being ban-happy. Rogue 9 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not admitting anything, merely pointing out your strawman. —Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're admitting that you want to permanently ban people who haven't done anything wrong. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that? Rogue 9 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bratsche. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a sad state of affairs indeed when we won't even let people express an opinion. What's next? Sending out duct tape brigades to silence people you disagree with? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an encyclopedia, and there are certain views that indicate a clear desire to undermine the project, and that's bad. If people want to fully exercize their free speech rights, they can make their own website; this one is Jimbo's. -- SCZenz 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm well aware it's an encyclopedia, and I'm also aware that free speech doesn't apply here (but thanks for the strawman response). I don't consider wanting to revise Wikipedia's views on fair-use to be an attempt at undermining the project. I consider it an opinion, and as we usually encourage discussion, I don't see the harm in this template. Shutting people down because they hold a minority opinion is so anti-wiki and anti-consensus as to be reprehensible. I could see the problem if the userbox said something like "this user ignores guidelines and policy on fair-use images and uses them everywhere they want", but it doesn't say that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuddlemark. Sarah Ewart 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though allowing users to advertise that they are not just willing but eager to cause Wikipedia financial harm has its uses ➥the Epopt 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was planning to make a donation to Wikipedia in the next few days. It was going to be a pretty good one too, but given the attitude of some people, I chose to find something else to do with the money for the time being. --CJ Marsicano 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dearie me, I'm so upset now, I'll hasten to retract my so-thoughtless comment if you'll just please resume planning to make that imaginary donation — not. ➥the Epopt 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on whether I'm allowed to block anyone who displays it. If I am, keep. If not, delete. My guess is delete. Phil Sandifer 08:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to refrain from displaying the template on your user page, Phil - please leave it available for those who disagree. Your silly name change doesn't fool anyone, Snowspinner - we all recognize you. --Dschor 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on Earth? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Sandifer is Snowspinner?! Someone do a CheckUser, quick! Carbonite | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dammit, I knew I should have worn Clark Kent glasses too. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not have your signature link to User:Snowspinner. And not still use that account to edit. You didn't do a very good job covering your tracks—it's amazing that no one figured out you were the same user until now! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 'this user wants Wikipedia to break laws as policy'. - ulayiti (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. This template is pretty useless considering that the ArbComm has clearly come down against the use of fair use images on talk pages. Everybody who has boted keep should read what United States copyright law says about fair use. The section isn't very long, and the criteria for fair use is very simple. BlankVerse 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could quote US copyright law, but that doesn't mean I can't express my disapproval too. Tom 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DES. I might vote delete if U.S. copyright law was clear, but the voters here certainly don't agree (and I myself cannot understand why an image that's called "fair use" can be used on one internet page and not another). Meanwhile this userbox is not hurting anything. --Fang Aili 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is a viatal aspec of "fair use" that where and how you use it matters a great deal, and so what is reasoanble fair use on one internet page may well be nothign of the sort when used for a differen purpose in a different context on a different page. That is the main reason behind the current policy, as I understand it. Most of our usuall justifications for fair use would not apply, or not nearly as strongly, on user pages, and when an image is on a temple it is all too easy for it to be added to pages where the stated rationale does not apply. There are cases, however (like the image on the SEPTA template, and other logo cases) where IMO a plausisible rationale for fair use on templates could apply, and other cases where a valid rationale could apply for user pages. But current policy seems to forbid this, even if copyright law does not. DES (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jimbo has voiced opinion on this template [23], stating "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team." Carbonite | Talk 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dan | talk 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's just stupid to think we can simply vote about this. Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get on with building the damn encyclopaedia. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo, I agree. --Wgfinley 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger than a silly diamond keep This vote is about the userbox, not the idea behind the userbox. I have seen plenty of other userboxes for people supporting proposed policies and policy changes, no reason this one has to go. Remember, we're voting on the userbox, not the idea behind it. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As said elsewhere, Wikipedia fairuse policy is more restrictive than necessary according to U.S. copyright law. If a user wishes to express their interest toward changing policy, a userbox should be allowed as one of those methods of expression. Silensor 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template is useful as a n00b marker if nothing more. In any case, free speech. ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - note that Jimbo actually deleted this template himself before someone informed him about this TfD debate. (See [24] and [25]). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This userbox shows peoples support for a change of policy. Don't delete a person's right to free speech. mdmanser 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A surprising number of people seem to think that this is America, and that we have a right to free speech on here. I am baffled as to why they think that. That being, Nickptar and Mdmanser, that I can see right now without scrolling. You two (and anyone else who might have said it) are horribly wrong - there is no such right here in Wikipedialand. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but I think free speech ought to be respected except under clearly defined circumstances (i.e. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NLT). ~~ N (t/c) 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any speech is only tolerated here in so far as it furthers the end of creating an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. --Doc ask? 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Removed misleading "vote" reference to clarify that this is about users' opinions regarding Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law, not about some fictitious "vote". -Silence 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not again. Keep, and a curse upon the head of whoever is incapable of figuring out that userpages are protected under fair use and that the only thing preventing the use of fair use images in user namespace is extralegal Wikipedia policy, not the law. Rogue 9 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this rather surprising as well. Look at any personal webpage outside of Wikipedia and you are very likely to see various fair-use images. Some Wikipedians - who I'm sure are well-meaning and sincere, but who I think are engaging in m:Copyright paranoia - think all of this is illegal. How many hundreds of New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox fan pages have team logos boosting their support for the team (and often denigrating the other one)? How many of these people have ever even been asked to take them down? What evidence do we have that the copyright holders care about such trivial and incidental uses at all? We're not talking about users hosting copyrighted MP3s on their user pages. We're talking about instances where there is a reasonable claim of fair use and where the rights holders have not even attempted to tell people that they can't use the materials in this manner. Three of the primary criteria for fair use are that the use is not for profit (and obviously this applies to user pages), that the amount used is minimal (again the case - in many cases, we are talking about single screenshots from movies or TV shows, or individual logos), and that the use does not affect the rights holder's ability to make a profit (and how are any of the uses on user pages possibly going to affect that?) In short, I think we have reasonable fair use claims for most of the instances involved here. It's fine if Wikipedia wants to adopt a more restrictive policy. In article space, I completely agree with trying to minimize fair use whenever a free alternative is possible. I see no reason to do this in userspace, but it's not really a big deal one way or the other. But these over-the-top claims that people are "breaking the law" must go - they border on violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. These individuals are acting in good faith and with reasonable claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most personal webpages on the internet do violate copyright; outside of Wikipedia, reuse of images from other websites is quite common. But without a license, that is generally illegal. The issue is not whether the copyright holders care, but what's legal, because the Wikimedia Foundation might be held responsible for deliberate misuse of copyrighted material. Your user page is not your personal page, it's part of the project, and fair use is least likely to apply there because it's not an article about something that requires a picture. Jimbo says (see above) that the current policy on fair use images was adopted on the advice of the project's lawyers—if you think they're wrong, you can copy all of Wikipedia to your own servers, start your own encyclopedia, and get your own lawyers. -- SCZenz 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To say that "most personal webpages on the internet violate copyright" is a rather sweeping claim, with little evidence to back it up. I have pointed out how the de minimis use of copyrighted materials generally under discussion here (usually individual screenshots, or logos for the purpose of showing fan support) meet three of the legal criteria for fair use: not for profit, minimal portion of the original work, and no adverse impact on the company's business. If the Foundation wants to have more restrictive rules on fair use images than copyright law requres, that's fine; I don't really care. (I don't even have a user page of my own, just a redirect to my Talk page.) My objection is specifically to the over-the-top claims of "lawbreaking", which I think are unreasonable given that these are good-faith claims of fair use, and with the more general attitude of copyright paranoia that seems to be running rampant. This is my last comment on this particular issue, since I've wasted enough time here that I should have been using to write actual articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Keith Greer 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wishful thinking versus reality. Why does this remind me of "Loretta" from Monty Python's Life of Brian? Perhaps I can create the "User allow free beer" template, to match. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perm-ban all users with this template then Delete. Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Wikipedia is not geocities. If you want a home page, go some place else. Wikipedia is for building an encyclopedia, and you can't vote to change that. Not here, not in some silly userbox, and not anywhere else. --Gmaxwell 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with a rebuttal: Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Should we file that line under B.S. or a strawman argument? Let's be realistic: The real "fair use abuse" here is coming from those wishing to discourage policy change by consensus. You scream "Don't rock the boat!" but it's those that are being falsely accused of rocking the boat that are trying to steady the ship. Those of you who repeat the obvious "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" mantra along with "Wikipedia is not a free speech zone" seem to forget that English Wikipedia would not EXIST without free speech. We now return you to the WikiRevolution already in progress. --CJ Marsicano 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users with this template are expressing an opinion. Something we are all allowed to do on talk pages and such. They are not getting wikipedia into trouble by actually using hundreds of fair use images. All they are doing is saying what they think about things.--God of War 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copylefting our content is a foundation issue, and such cannot be changed by a vote or local consensus. This template falsely implies otherwise. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who cares, it doesn't change anything. There's no reason someone can't sport this if they feel that's necessary. Cookiecaper 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates policy, period.--MONGO 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As free speech, and is POV so it cannot be deleted on the basis that it promoted an opinion - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template advocates that we change policy to disregard the law. Delete per Jimbo. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDustimagic 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyper-Strength Keep - Userboxes should only be deleted when they consist of personal attacks against fellow members. Promotion of a change to Wikimedia's policies is not something that makes a userbox worthy of deletion. Remember, the debate here is about the userbox, not the merits of the idea proposed by the userbox. - Cuivienen 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Free speech arguments are specious because people donate huge sums of money for the advancement of the encyclopedia, not of userpages. If people want an ad-supported homepage, log in to MySpace. --Interiot 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and watch the supporters. --Pjacobi 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the image is part of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research" then it can be used on userspace. USA/Florida law supercedes proposed WP policy. If the law is changed, policy can reflect the changes; until then delete the template. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t00:14z
    • But a user may engage in criticism or comment on a user page, nor is the above list an exhastuive list of the legitimate purposes for which fair use images can be used. In any case, deleting this tempalte is not only saying that wikipedia policy on this issue should not be changed, it is saying that people should not be allowed to advocate making such changes. DES (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re [26]: I don't see userbox use of non-free images as covered by fair use law. We can't have a policy that supports doing something which is illegal where the servers and foundation is. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t10:18z
  • Strong delete, speedy even. Trödel&#149;talk 08:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In at least some cases, there is a strong case that such image use is lageal under copyright law. Curent wikipedia policy appears to prohibit such use even in such cases. Example, images intended and relased by their creators for individual identification, such as political party logos. DES (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, destructive -- advocates placing the encyclopedia into needless legal risk. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this destructive template for reasons specified above. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plain and simple... copyright law. Gflores Talk 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can serve no purpose except to attempt to hinder the smooth implementation of the copyright policy, which safeguards Wikipedia from liability. As long as users don't indemnify Wikipedia against third party liability, they're not entitled to use Wikipedia facilities to break the copyright law or to obstruct its application. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent keep. Next we'll be trying to delete anarchy userboxes... // paroxysm (n) 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the really good userboxes, we should try to get "permission on behalf of all wikipedians" for those considered fair use (eg. the Camino icon, etc). kelvSYC 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments for deletion seem to be based entirely on the details of U.S. copyright law, while the actual question is whether or not one should be allow to list an opinion concerning such law on a Wikipedia user page. The expression of this opinion does not open Wikipedia or any of its users to legal action - nor, of course, does the expression of this opinion render Wikipedia or its users immune from prosecution under the law. - Scooter 03:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In that case, should the template not be protesting the law? If and until that's changed it's frankly foolhardy to advocate a change in Wikipolicy that breaks it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's harmful to encourage people to think that this is an issue on which community opinion matters. If you don't like the fair use policy, talk to the legal team, talk to the Foundation, but for the current time this is not a community issue but rather one for the Foundation and its decision to remain the free encyclopedia, and to minimize legal risk. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Measurement

Template:Measurement
Delete — This is an unfinished template that does not seem to be currently in use. The material covered is dealt with well elsewhere and I see no need for this table. Srleffler 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like it's supposed to be a template for creating articles about cemeteries. Delete, because it's pretty fairly useless.--Sean|Black 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can still transclude a template from your userspace, yes. However, the problem here is that it's not really a template- it's fine for a standardised format for cemetery articles, but the problem is that the way trancslusion works will produce just what the template says unless you include optional parameters (which is difficult and confusing). I'd suggest moving the template into your userspace, then dragging it into the empty edit box and filinf it out when making a new article.--Sean|Black 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't the purpose of templates. The logical alternative to such over-templating is to establish a page on a single, important cemetery and use that page as a "template" for future cemetery pages. - Cuivienen 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a misunderstanding of what templates are per User:Longhair. Templates are something to be included in an article, not a tool for creating substubs through subst:ing. - Bobet 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not what templates are for, although it is an understandable mistake. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, um, are there supposed to be two templates under consideration here, or just the same one linked twice? —Cryptic (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not really required. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and then delete. An understandable mistake. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User soup nazi and Template:User-grammar nazi

Whatever your view on userboxes, these should go. 1) Not funny. 2) Comparisons to Nazis are always in poor taste. 3) We will have users who suffered, directly or indirectly, under Hitler. 4) Godwin's law. 5) And least important - there are some issues surrounding the use of the Swastika in some European countries. --Doc ask? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hm. None of those reasons sound very convincing. We don't censor Wikipedia articles, so why should we censor Wikipedia userpages? As long as it's someone identifying himself as a soup nazi or a grammar nazi, rather than accusing anyone else of being such, it's not likely to offend, since both terms are heavily ingrained in the popular culture (though the swastika in "user soup nazi" is a bit unexpected; I'd have expected an image of a bowl of soup or something). Not being funny and not being in good taste are matters of taste, and not really grounds for deletion, even though I agree; nor do Godwin's Law or censorship laws in various European countries make any difference in this matter. And if the "I hate GWB" templates are appropriate, I don't see how this one, which doesn't even express an opinion (it's not like it says "the Holocaust wasn't real" or "I <3 Hitler" on it or anything), could be considered unacceptably inappropriate.
As for people who have suffered due to Hitler: although I think for the most part these terms are used just for shock value and humor (although they can sometimes be offensive when applied to other people rather than to oneself, e.g. calling someone a "grammar nazi" for correcting your spelling), not really anything attempted to offend anyone, if anything, I'd say that such jokes as "soup nazi" trivialize naziism, they don't trivialize the Holocaust. Mocking Hitler and demeaning and degrading the term "nazi" with silly, amusing phrases "soup nazi" and "grammar nazi" is not mocking or attacking victims of nazis, but mocking nazis themselves. The needless suffering it's caused and continues to cause is bad, but the concept of naziism itself, really, isolated from its historical context, isn't scary so much as incredibly silly. If racism and religious bigotry wasn't so dangerous, destructive, and widespread in modern society, I'd almost consider racists and bigots adorable. Like crazy people on the subway. -Silence 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't censor wikipedia, because censorship damages content. We should remove sources of offence where to do so is content-neutral (else why not have an erect penis on the Mainpage). If people want to self-describe by comparison to mass-murderers, they are free to do so. The question is whether there should be a general template to facilitate this. --Doc ask? 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we do censor wikipedia. Confer autofellatio. Silence argues at great length that people shouldn't find this offensive (by invoking highly semantic arguments like: it's not a "description" but only an "allusion"), but maybe Silence should stop and consider whether any people do find this offensive, which is the more germaine point here, according to our practices. By the way, I'm a staunch freedom of expression advocate, who thinks that takes precedent over people's sensitivities, so I vote keep, but I find Silence's counterarguments unconvincing, and expect the senstivity consideration to carry the day. -lethe talk 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is that it's not self-describing by comparison to mass-murderers, it's using a term that very vaguely alludes to a mass murderer. Is even mentioning a term that is related to someone hateful off-limits, even when the actual template is certainly not supportive of that individual or his movement, and is in fact a parody of it? I think it's a tad excessive to say that we can't even use the word "nazi" in any template on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, intent, or meaning is. And if that's not what you're saying, then read Soup Nazi and grammar nazi, as they're references, respectively, to a very popular Seinfeld episode and to a very common colloquial term for people who are overly concerned with grammar, certainly not the direct references to Hitler you seem to think they are. My recommendation: keep both templates, and replace the swastika on the "Soup Nazi" with a more topic-appropriate image (like a bowl of soup or a clipped version of Image:Sein soup nazi.jpg) so it fits the joke properly. -Silence 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting that image in such a template would go beyond fair use and violate the copyright. BDAbramson T 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - Guettarda 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all in favour of humourous templates for user pages, but this crosses the line and is merely offensive and in extremely bad taste. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both soup nazi and grammar nazi are widely recognizable terms and while I won't self-identify that way, I think deleting these amounts to taking political correctness a step too far. For what its worth, I thought the Soup Nazi character on Seinfeld was funny, and do find humor in making fun of Nazis. More than that though I think knowing that someone is a self-avowed grammar nazi would actually be useful as it describes one of the things that person cares about when editting. While some people may find these to be offensive, I believe that when it comes to userspace and things that belong in user space, we ought to favor freedom of expression over attempts to avoid all possible offense. I wouldn't object to removing the swastika however, as that is a bit over the top. Dragons flight 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I suspect that if the swastika is removed, someone else will put it back. BDAbramson T 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, especially the soup nazi one. It's in reference to "Seinfeld" (see Seinfeld#The_Soup_Nazi). The grammar nazi is a fairly well-known saying in the United States (and I suspect on the internet in general, especially on message boards, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but note that I've changed the swastika. ~~ N (t/c) 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both --Khoikhoi 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No opinion on the soup nazi one though. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, American humor being considered. Iffer 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – In poor taste, but that's not a crime. – ClockworkSoul 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Both of them. They may be funny to some Americans, but are actually very offensive towards many European users. And since I don't believe that Wikipedia should favour someone's pleasure over other people their feelings, I want them gone.SoothingR 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the swastikas are removed; these are harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hmmm. another tfd away from the official policy page on userboxes - but this one is more hidden so only you deletionist will find it and not the general populus of wikipedia that votes to keep these boxes.--God of War 06:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official policy on userboxes, but there is on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with which you might like to refamilliarise yourself! --Doc ask? 11:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They may be offensive to you, but you know what? A lot of what the rest of the world says about my president is offensive to me. Lighten up. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and it's not often that I find myself in the deletionist camp. As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of a Template: Orthographically Rigorous.... Sjc 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then make that template too, and use it instead. I too am what many could describe as a "grammar nazi", being very concerned with grammatical consistency, yet I have no plans to ever use that template on my page because it doesn't fit my style of humor. Those who prefer that particular self-depracating way to state their grammar fixation should be permitted to do so, and those who don't prefer it, like you and I, can easily make other templates with a similar meaning for our own use. Deletion due to being needlessly offensive may be a valid justification (even though it doesn't apply well enough here), but deletion just because "As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of..." is purely a matter of personal preference and taste. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe - just maybe - this bad joke was funny once. But perpetrating what is obviously offensive to many in our community is against WP:CIV. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone get those deletionists a life, so they don't have to start up discussions everywhere. Is this a tactic to make it hard to track your attacks? Larix 10:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith.
It's getting difficult to assume good faith when the minority is repeatedly nominating large numbers of userboxes for deletion and then claiming that they are the true defenders of Wikipedia. - Cuivienen 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The reasons for deleting them are too week. --Bky1701 11:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am not seeing a compelling argument for deletion - these are for use in the User: space. All in good fun. --Dschor 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think that either one is very funny or in very good taste, but so what? Since when do my prerogatives as an editor extend to verifying the humor or good taste of someone's fracking user page? Does anyone seriously think that people with these userboxes are Nazis? Benami 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for offensiveness. --Pjacobi 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Matt Crypto 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bolak77 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete grammar nazi, SS reference is highly offensive. Keep soup nazi; now that the swastika is gone it seems relatively harmless and clearly references a US TV show rather than the NSDP. Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you if it was someone calling someone else a grammar nazi. Saying "You are such a grammar nazi" is potentially (though not necessarily) offensive; saying "You are such a soup nazi" will rarely be offensive, because it's so darned silly. However, saying "I am such a grammar nazi" or "I am such a soup nazi", which is exactly what the above templates do, is more goofy and humor-at-one's-own-expense than genuinely offensive. This really isn't that big of a deal. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the Nazi bit half as much as I mind the joke about being a member of the SS, which is in the poorest possible taste. That was the basis of my vote and comment. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup but Delete (or Rewrite) Grammar. The soup reference is too common an joke reference for any claims of offensiveness, and should be kept (at least until there is a consensus general policy on all joke-boxes). As much as I champion box-rights, even I find the grammar box (in its current form) to be in poor taste (If it had been funnier, I may have voted to keep, but it is not. There is a fine line between clever and stupid --Spinal Tap.) — Eoghanacht talk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People keep claiming that 'Soup Nazi' is common cultural reference. Well, it is not one I have ever heard - and so all I saw was some poor-taste comparision between soup and Nazism. I wonder that voters may be guitly of US-popular-culture imperialism. In most of the world, when people see the word Nazi, they do not think about US sitcoms. --Doc ask? 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Soup Nazi is worse than American-pop-culture imperialism, it is New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism. However, given that it is instantly identifiable to hundreds of millions of English speakers I think it qualifies as a common knowledge joke. Everyone who does not understand the reference (even if that means most other English speakers) can simply click on the link in the userbox to read about it. — Eoghanacht talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 'New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism' = 'common knowledge'. I suddenly feel like an ignorant foreigner. --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I should have typed: "Manhattan-pop-cultural-imperialism", but one of the joys of Wikipedia is the opportunity to expand your knowledge, such as the fundamental truth: Nothing important happens east of the East River, nor west of the Hudson. I don't believe it myself, but American media and advertisers keeps trying. — Eoghanacht talk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - Stop the deletionism. Delete only the templates that are actually useless and stop wasting space on this page and the time of Wikipedia users. - Cuivienen 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only templates that are 'actually useless' - OK, what 'use' are these to the goals of wikipedia? --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless templates are redundant templates or templates not being used as templates (see Template:Cemetery for one such example). This template is for humor on userpages, a valid use. - Cuivienen 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing offensive about it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by the precedent set by all the other meaningless userboxes here that nobody minds. If I may address the points of the nominator: 1) is not a valid criterion for deletion, and it is highly objective. I think most of the userboxes advertised as funny qualify as "not funny" to a greater or lesser extent by my standards, but I wouldn't think of trying to get them deleted based on this argument. 2) is also quite objective. I for one would disagree. 3) is technically correct, but I disagree with it as an argument for deletion here. While it is an interesting topic of discussion how offensive jokes should be allowed to be, this doesn't even come close to offensive enough to warrant such discussion, I think. 4) Godwin's law cannot be taken too seriously, and certainly is not a valid criterion for deletion here. 5) is obviously moot now that there is no swastika. EldKatt (Talk) 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak I'm going to hate myself in the morning keep- Tasteless yes, but it was Seinfeld, not Wikipedia, who came up with it, the terms are recognizable. Keep both. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not funny but rather offensive. Cyberevil 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete on grounds of offence. Grammar nazi is an internal Wikipedia thing so the concept is acceptable as a box, Soup nazi obviously refers to a joke I have not yet heard, but both are expressed in terms that I think go beyond what is acceptable. David | Talk 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar nazi is not even close to being "an internal Wikipedia thing". In fact, I'd say it's just about the most common usage of the word "nazi" in the modern English-speaking world that doesn't refer to literal nazis. It's practically ubiquitous as a pejorative, amusingly over-the-top term for obsessive grammarians. And voting to delete "Soup Nazi" just because you haven't heard the joke before is rather biased. Why should the arbitrary and random number of things you've happened to run into before in your life determine how you vote? My vote would be the same whether I'd happened to hear of Soup Nazi before or not, because my personal experience in this area is not what this vote is about. If "Soup Nazi" wasn't noteworthy, it wouldn't have an article! -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the use of the word 'nazi' should not frighten people. I'm more familiar with 'spelling nazi' but 'grammar nazi' is a common term that I've heard both in Rl and on the Internet and 'soup nazi' - well, lots of people found Seinfeld funny. - Hayter 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, espousing your knowledge of languages or political beliefs or even your web browser is one thing, but this is pretty well boxcruft. Yes, we know. You like Seinfeld. You think capital letters are good. That's swell, but we don't need userboxes for everything somebody somewhere thinks is good. Especially when the templates are about as funny as a swift kick to the groin. Lord Bob 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet political beliefs or web browsers--also irrelevant to the functionality of Wikipedia, unlike Babel--are okay? Out of curiosity, where exactly do you draw the line? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see all the genuinely useless humorous templates gone, not just the ones I dislike more. EldKatt (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same place I draw the line on notability of articles: I don't, and take it on a case-by-case basis. Lord Bob 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. I might add that the "X-Nazi" form in sich versions as "Safety-Nazi", "PC_Nazi" ect, often to deride an opposing viewpoint, but soemtimes to deprecatingly describe one's own views (as apparently in this case) is considerably wider than Seinfeld, and the intended meanign should be clear to msot people. I personally wouldn't use such a designation, but if people want to so self-label, why not. I speak as a person who had relatives, albiet rather distant ones, who were Holocaust victims. DES (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. older≠wiser
  • Very Strong Keep for The Soup Nazi and Rewrite before Keeping (the wording I just saw has me iffy) for the Grammar Nazi. I'd also like to remind everone of Mel Brooks' words on why he always made fun of Nazis in his films: "When you're made a mockery of your enemy, then you've won." --CJ Marsicano 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Nazi here does not reference to national socialism, but more as a reference to the setereotype.→AzaToth 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Soup Nazi, Keep Grammar Nazi.Gateman1997 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CIVIL. FreplySpang (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup Nazi, on the grounds that it is hilarious and not really offensive. Rewrite Grammar Nazi on the grounds that it is in extremely poor taste. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - none of the nom's reasons for deletion are convincing, especially for the Soup Nazi. The grammar nazi thing is a bit wierd, but neither are offensive and both are users' choices to use or not use. No one is forcing anyone to use them, but if you want to then it is your right to do so. Deano (Talk) 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly in favour of userboxes, but delete these. Inappropriate in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Soup For You! - anon
  • Keep. No delete for you. --Stbalbach 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Offensiveness is subjective, there's no need to impose personal tastes on someone else's userpage. There are a significant number of people on this planet who find all pictures of people to be genuinely offensive (because allegedly idolatrous). We can't regulate for the vast variety of personal aversions out there. Craft your own userpage in whatever way suits yours. Babajobu 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; these don't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With or without Swastika, still bad taste. Garion1000 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think that any swastika imagery should be gotten rid of. Self-deprecating humor is acceptable in userspace. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't censor. Stop the deletion inquisition. People have different senses of humor... Get over it. Don't be humor nazis Zachomis 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and my extend the following two userboxes: {{userbox:wiki-nazi-0}} {{userbox:wiki-nazi-1}} Robert Paveza 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole userbox debate is rapidly falling into a 'let's see how much we can degenerate the level of discussion' contest. Lord Bob 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete I would have started this process if I knew how. I made comments on a couple of pages. Essentially, I particularly object to the term nazi, and pointed out how

it wouldn't be fun to have a "kkk-grammar" or substitute other hateful symbols. Dialogue is important, but comparing grammar usage to a genocidal regime is in poor taste, even if it was part of a major sitcom. Many people here claim its not offensive, but many people i know were stunned to here about it, especially after i was bragging so much about how great wikipedia is. It hurts and marginalizes some. Not allowing the use of a symbol that is oppressive is a tolerable curtail of freedom of speech, as it reminds some of hatred, murder and genocide. And we want those people contributing to wikipedia. I think the term for someone who is intense about grammar should remain, but i feel the use of the term nazi, both on wikipedia and in common day lexicon, is inappropriate.

I'll read the process here now that i found it, but for sure i am for deleting it. As a side note, as a new user to wikipedia i'm delighted by all the talk. Certainly a vibrant and interesting community, where so many users debate this issue. I'm impressed. Cool stuff! JamieJones 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have heard of Soup Nazi (even have the userbox on my userpage) and "grammar nazi", and don't consider them offensive. Dralwik 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let me start off by saying that I am very close to the Jewish community, and that I am considering the possability in becoming a Jew myself through cleansing in the mitvah. I would also like to point out that I just came home from a day at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C and that I have spent many personal hours on the study of WW2 and the Holocaust. I don't find these templates offensive, and I don't find them to be in bad taste. Even if I would find them to be offensive, or in bad taste, I would still oppose the deletion of them. It is not my job (or yours) to define what is and what is not funny. Are these templates advocating the harm of people? No, they're not. The mere mention of the word "nazi" does not make these templates the rallying cry for ignorant activity. Everyone has their little sick jokes- It is not our job to police that. Zachomis 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This userbox isn't exactly promoting racism or anything. Ashibaka tock 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - "grammar nazi" is a commonly accepted term. "nazi" is synonymous with "fascist" in this case. no offense should be taken to this. DrIdiot 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't believe in the offensive reasons myself, I don't think that "fascist" is a much nicer term than "Nazi". They're both used as fairly over-the-top insults, after all. Lord Bob 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mostly meant they were by no means references to mass murder. Or politics at all. I'd like to add (this is irrelevant to your comment) that the Japanese raped/killed thousands of Chinese in WW2, but as a Chinese I hold no grudge and I'm not offended by mentions of Tojo or Japan. And even if I was offended, I would respect freedom of speech and would live with it. DrIdiot 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Are a bit wierd but not overly offensive. If we delete everything that causes offence, then we'd have hardly any userboxes left! We got to stop being to cowardly with these sort of things, and not delete something at the first sight of offence! - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Offensive, bad taste, unhelpful. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Smells like censorship. Bastique 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Valmi ✒ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep. Something should not be deleted simply for having the word "Nazi" in it. "Nazi" has become a popular term to denote someone or something very strict. A comparison to Hitler or Nazism should not automatically make something offensive, and indeed, the world may be better if people remembered Nazism more carefully than they do now. Cookiecaper 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUgly word, ugly reality we needn't relive--MONGO 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceedingly strong keep If we're going to delete this, then we need to purge Wikipedia of all Nazi references so as not to offend any delicate sensibilities. This is a ridiculous suggestion. --BRossow 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No delete for you!. Keep, the nominator violates Godwin's Law attempting to invoke it to remove these. I would be offended by someone mislabling me as a nazi, but if they mislabled me as a soup nazi I would not be offended, it's humorous. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep' Humorous inside joke. Slightly offensive to those who don't understand it. Dustimagic 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep echoing sentiments above passim. Grounds for deletion are unconvincing. Eusebeus 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this really needs to be part of the ongoing discussion of the purpose/appropriateness of userboxes. These sentiments can be expressed without offending anyone. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – In poor taste, but that's not a crime. While they use the word nazi they do not refer directly to nazism. Thus I don't consider them an attack on anyone. -- Sneltrekker 14:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Poor taste is not a crime. helohe (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for silliness and triviality - I don't suppose they are seriously offensive, but why risk putting anyone off with something so fatuous and peripheral to what the site is actually about? Staffelde 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It has already been decided through TfD that censorship of someones view is not acceptable. Even if someone created a userbox identfying themselves as a real Nazi we should not object. That is their view and they have a right to express it on their user page, with a userbox if they wish. There's another important point here — if some user was a real Nazi i'd rather be warned about that before hand by their user page, wouldn't you? —gorgan_almighty 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 1) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else doesn't think it's funny. 2) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else doesn't think it's in good taste. 3) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else may think it's offensive. 4) Godwin's Law has nothing to do with this. 5) The swastikas are now gone. There are no viable arguments here for censoring this userbox. Elrith 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Like Dustimagic. Gflores Talk 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Elrith and others. Boddah 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely harmless. Deville 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for all (well, most) of the reasons listed above. Snurks T C 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current icon for "soup nazi" is a bowl of soup. The offensiveness problem has been solved. - Scooter 03:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No delete for you! Swamp Ig 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep soup nazi (established American cultural icon). Delete grammar nazi, or delete references to the S.S. "Grammar nazi" is a common, though crude and IMO vaguely offensive term, but S.S. references are entirely uncalled for. --Fang Aili 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievably Strong Keep That the nom is unfamiliar with a well-known cultural reference, and unfamiliar with a common colloquialism, are nowhere near being valid reasons for deletion. And if anyone is going to be offended by that, we just can't be bothered to cater to people like that who are offended by everything (especially considering that any offensiveness is founded in unfamiliarity with these terms). I hope that citing Godwin's law was a joke on the nom's part. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also am pretty amused/disgusted that deletionists chide us to assume good faith when we observe that starting all of these TFDs left and right while policy discussions are still going on seems like a diversionary tactic, but they think nothing of banning userboxes and cats just because they assume that their only use is to rig votes. But I suppose such should be expected of a loud minority arrogantly claiming to be the "true Wikipedians". Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSDAP's flag/Swastica from the user template, I did, twice. And I'll do it again. El_C 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no problem with the Soup Nazi template (clean up the soup image maybe, it looks ugly) and as long as the Swastika is removed from the Grammar Nazi template there isn't anything wrong with it, it is a commonly used phrase and Grammar Nazi has it's own WikiPage. Though, the SS-Division in bad taste, maybe that should go too. AyAn4m1 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup Nazi because it is a joke. Not everyone is supposed to get jokes, and not everyone will, but that doesn't mean we need to delete this one. I'm sure that at least a fraction of the millions (76 million Americans watched the finale, after all) of people that watched Seinfeld like me use Wikipedia and will get it. Those that don't should, IMO, go rent Seinfeld on the lovely new DVD release, read the Wikipedia blurb on the Soup Nazi or just ignore it all together. As for Grammar Nazi - a recognised and popular term, no Swastika, no reason to delete in my eyes. --Loopy e 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-5

Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-->Since this is an important policy decision, and policies are frequently not decided by TfD because that makes no sense, I have asked Cool Cat to draw up the corresponding policy proposal. --Fenice 08:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the people who made up en-5 draw up a policy proposal first? Why don't we delete this and let the policy be made?
    • Because of course this decision is final. I don't know how long you have been here, but any attempt to recreate template en-5 will be speedied within a few days. There are numerous precedents where it was decided to not delete because a proposal should be discussed first. What Cool Cat did is in bad faith and against the policy on top of this page. Obviously nobody cares. Cool Cat avoided a discussion with people who know something about the subject by bypassing the usual policy discussion and bringing it up here. It is much more likely for it to be destroyed by a bunch of regulars on TfD who enjoy destruction rather than having a serious discussion on the sensibility of this action with people who are actually using this template.--Fenice 14:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your POV judgement that you find it horrible is a fairly weak argument for starting to delete a project that is as successful as Babel. If we delete level five what argument is there for keeping level 1?? No language evaluation system in the world has only four levels. The American Standard is 5 levels ILR scale (excluding natives) the European Standard is at 6 levels (TELC). As Babel currently stands (4 levels) it is pretty useless. The language skills of people within one of these levels differ enourmously. It is hard to categorize yourself in one of only four levels. For your information, and I think you should have done some research before just suggesting a user template for deletion: we have hundreds of these templates here, which deserve deletion according to your reasoning. The template you are so keen on deleting facilitates work and life on Wikipedia for about forty users who are in that category. This deletion request is obviously in bad faith.--Fenice 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice straw man argument, there.--Srleffler 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First place, en-5 doesn't help make it any easier to categorize yourself; if en-5 is deleted, en-4 or en-N should be used. For a system that can't use testing, I found it fairly simple to categorize myself; much easier than to decide whether I speak English at a "professional" level. And whatever happened to assume good faith?--Prosfilaes 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument lacks logic: '...For a system that can't use testing...' - why shouldn't it be possible to use standard test results to categorize yourself - don't you want it to be comparable to standard tests or are you trying to claim that WP's Babel should be set in stone... or? I don't understand your argument. Or are you trying to argue that if we had levels comparable to standard test this will make people act in bad faith and make false statements about their skills. That would not be possible. Other users would notice anyway. --Fenice 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can disagree with someone without claiming their arguments is illogical, and claiming such does nothing to encourage calm discussion. We can't use test results, because serious testing is expensive and complex. I fail to see how it's relevant; en-5 has nothing to do with standardized testing anyway.--Prosfilaes 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe I did not express myself clearly: many people already have some kind of test result, and can judge their skills on the 5-part ILR-scale or the 6-step TELC scale. Some people may have taken a TOEFL (Test of English as a foreign language), which ranks participants on a scale from 330 to 660 points. These scales give a realistic possibility of categorization. en-5 does have something to do with language skills and language skills can be measured by standardized testing. The wording is another issue (it is as of yet unclear whether 'professional level' means native or not.) And the wording can easily be changed, that's no reason to delete a Babel template.--Fenice 07:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The wording is not another issue. We aren't arguing over whether we should go to a five or six step scale equivalent to a standard test. We're arguing over whether this template that refers to a professional level of knowledge should stand. Whatever it means, it doesn't have anything to do with the standard test scales. And I seriously doubt that even 25% of our non-native English speakers at Wikipedia have recently taken one of those three tests, nor do those tests extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again I have problems following your logic if there is any in what you are saying. People want this box deleted because they believe the following: this box is being used by other native speakers to claim that they are better at English than other native speakers. (Which is of course not true, the box is being used by natives and non-natives.) If what people call 'offensive' as a reason for deletion is not in the wording where then is it, do you think? Is it the concept that unfortunately "we can all calculate, but mathematicians do it better"? Sorry but this concept is undeleteable. This will remain a fact (though disputed by the no-voters here), even if you delete the template. I respect your private opinion that for a reason you cannot name even after trying several times language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing, but please, in return, accept the fact that the world sees this issue differently. And yes you are absolutely right, the tests that test English do test English language skills, and thus do not extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak, like you say.--Fenice 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I never said that language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing; I said that this template has nothing to do with the language tests. If this box is being used by non-natives to claim that they are better than natives, that's just wrong. Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. Likewise, just because you write professionally, doesn't mean you're any better at writing English than the millions of us who don't. We don't need a Babel system that is inconsistent across languages, so using tests that test English doesn't help at all.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This template evaluates language skills, which are evaluated by language tests. Also, your sentence: Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. And another example: right here on this page you are voting for it to become impossible for the Babel-level 5 to be on en-5 for the English language, Prosfilaes. At the same time you are saying here that the Babel system should not be inconsistent across languages? I don't think I am the right person for you to talk to about these psychotic statements. The discussion is also completely beside the point and will lead nowhere; this is Wikipedia and idiotic things like the deletion of this template do happen. Babel of course is not static and can adjust to this problem - we will have to have a non-standard scale for the English language, because obviously nobody seriously discusses this. I think a discussion with you about the logical breaks in your arguments makes no sense, sorry.--Fenice 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the standard for a "professional" English speaker? Little known fact, I can contribute with a double secret level of English. Should I create Template:User en-6? Rhobite 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really needed, as en-4 and en-N both cover it - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an option to do some research before a drive-by-shooting on an established project: en-4 is near-native (which of course does not imply that that person is a linguist or professional writer, don't know what could have given you that idea). En-N is only for native speakers, not for people who write professionally and have some other native language. Shouldn't the people who vote here be required to do _some_ at least basic research on exactly what they are destroying??--Fenice 10:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who write professionally and don't have English as a native language are en-4, "near native". It doesn't imply that the person is a linguist or professional writer, but the argument that there's no need to put that in the Bable template is key to the opposition against en-5. What does a linguist know about how to write, in any case? They study the theory of languages at a level not useful for actual writing.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Profilaes. Just no. Those who write professionally are in en-5, not en-4. I don't understand how you could have possibly missed that since you are actually having a discussion on this topic for days. And it illustrates the point that your and my perception of reality and logic differ too widely for us to have a productive discussion. As mentioned on your talk page, I will not discuss any further because obviously this issue is already decided, there are more votes for deletion at this point and it is unlikely that more people will vote. Babel will have to deal with not being able to use the name user xx-5 for the English language. I am not available for further discussion and explanation, because this discussion cannot fulfil the aim of saving template en-5 or of initiating a policy discussion.--Fenice 12:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No harm. --Thorri 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again not really needed, breaking the standard for no good reason I can detect. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I think a level 5 is useful, I personally have problem with defining the step from expert to native. A professional level for me indicates that the person in question have learned the language to a native level, but it's not his/her nativ language. For example a translator could use it to define it's profession is the language. →AzaToth 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all other language templates have four levels. Why break the standard for English? Not only that, this template implies that the user is somehow a better English speaker than most other people. Rhobite 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. →AzaToth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to your reasoning we would have to delete half of en.wikipedia because other languages are not as complete as this one is. --Fenice 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, AzaToth, you have just illustrated one of the problems with this template. I believe it is not intended to represent English ability equal to native English level (but without being native.) It is intended to indicate that the user's ability to write in English exceeds that of a typical native speaker. Hence, the description "professional"—this is intended for people who are professional writers, and who therefore (claim) to have better command of the English language than the rest of us. There are all kinds of problems with this, as others have pointed out. The fact that the tag is prone to misuse and misunderstanding, as you have shown, is only one of them.--Srleffler 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording can easily be changed, that is no reason to delete the template.--Fenice 07:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This would be useful if it was actually used by editors who write prose for a living, such as journalists, novelists, and certain academics and technical writers. As it is, however, I see this userbox adorning pages of 15-year old high-school boys who struggle with basic punctuation. Still, it is harmless, and no worse than putting a {{User vain}} on your user page. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't use it, but professional editors and English scholars should. These users can then be consulted about stylistic and grammatical conventions. Primetime 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2: This template really doesn't belong on the en-x scale. Here's an alternate approach: let's replace it with a new userbox called {{User pro-writer}} which would be used in addition to the standard en-N box. Such a template could say, "User writes prose for a living, and would gladly help with stylistic issues in languages listed above". The box would be placed between the boxes for the languages which the editor writes professionally, and those that he can only use at an "amateur" level. This way it's also not restricted to English. A PD version of an icon such as this would be nice for the new template. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree complete with OwenX's points. In it's current form it's useless and tries to change the Babel system. In a form of professional writer it would be useful. -- Sneltrekker 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment like any userbox this could be misused - but this has real potentional for use. Imagine writing a featured article and needing some help with the writing, as the standards have risen a bit there - you could theoretically do a lookup of people with these templates and ask for advice, etc.. OwenX has a point but I think seperating the two could be clunky as having prof. writing skills in one language doesn't neccesarily apply to another. WhiteNight T | @ | C 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What OwenX said. the wub "?!" 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as en-4/n is understood to have an average vocabulary and understanding of English. En-5 can help us track down people who can help punch-up prose for articles recently mentioned in the media. Level-5 should be implemented in all other languages as this would help Stewards find people to help with interwiki work and disputes. - RoyBoy 800 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what OwenX suggested - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's all sorts of xx-5. {{ubx-5}} is an example and is used on many pages (my own included).--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, delete en-5 but create a seperate identification for professional writers that's not part of the en-x scale. Oh, and we already have Category:Wikipedian writers. Dragons flight 22:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though I couldn't resist a look to see what experts we have among us. Mark1 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gene Nygaard 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A professional editor and English scholar, that's what I yam. I'd like to put my expertise, teaching experience, and compassion to use on Wikipedia. Halcatalyst 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this help you? It doesn't change your editing, and I, for one, am more likely to look at en-5 and think you're a twit rather than someone who actually knows something.--Prosfilaes 23:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hmmm. another tfd away from the official policy page on userboxes - but this one is more hidden so only you deletionist will find it and not the general populus of wikipedia that votes to keep these boxes.--God of War 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but create a separate template to identify professional writers, per the suggestion of User:OwenX.--Srleffler 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-standard template. — TheKMantalk 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-standard template per nomination. A template identifying professional writers, as others have mentioned, may be useful, but it should not masqueride as a Babel template. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonstandard template in the Babel-series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those who vote keep: prepare to have en-99 soon. If you need to emphasize it, an optional argument may be easily added to a template of your choice. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete and Comment As it stands, it is not well defined, and thus the reason for it is hard to tell. Is a “professional” level better or worse then native? What context is it “professional” in, translation, business, ...? --Bky1701 11:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not seeing the problem with this - it seems to be a perfectly logical extension of the Babel box. Turning it into a non-language template would be the non-standard implementation. Leave as is. --Dschor 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep np with it Larix 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't need to be sneering superiority. Create a new template that talks about being a professional in the subject of the English language - as in an English linguist or philologist. En-5 is the wrong place for this. - Cuivienen 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a limited case, but a non-English professional translator would speak English at better than an en-4 level, but not be a native speaker (en-N). The en-5 template seems to cover that circumstance. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Could someone define exactly what a native speaker is? I understand it to be ones mother tounge. For example, I'm a native speaker of Swedish, but I'm not a professional in it's grammar. →AzaToth 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per User:OwenX. Appears to be attempting a reform of the Babel system's structure in its own sneaky way. Whether more levels are needed could be discussed, but in its proper place, and if it meets acceptance by consensus, it should be implemented in a proper way. Also, in this particular case it seems to imply that a "professional" speaker (in itself an ill-defined concept) somehow differs in skill or level of authority from a native or near-native speaker, which, I would argue, is patently false. The main (and probably sufficient) argument for deletion is that it poses as a Babel template but does not follow the standard form of Babel templates. EldKatt (Talk) 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and revise as per User: OwenX. DES (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite text as the term "professional" has so many different meanings (is it someone writing or translating as a living? Is it someone holding a provincially-issued licence of some sort, in the same way "professional engineer" and "registered nurse" each have a specific legal meaning? Is it someone who knows just enough English to use it in the workplace when practicing some other unrelated profession? Or is it just a perceived level of linguistic quality somehow rated a little better than merely "unprofessional"? If the meaning is that this person's employment is that of a linguist, author or teacher of English, by all means say so. The current wording is too vague to impart any meaning beyond that of {{en-4}} and therefore useless. --carlb 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Dan | talk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Many native speakers/writers of English can and do write at a near-illiterate level. A way to distinguish the better practitioners is needed, even if English isn't their native language. However, I'd rather see the template in a less-provocative color than the shades of red that it now uses. Another color might avoid offending the tender sensibilities of certain users. --QuicksilverT @ 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a distinct difference between being native in a language and taking college classes to learn the grammar.--God of War 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Look at all those people who contribute using textspeak, slang, "it's" in the wrong place, etc.. etc... They may be native speakers, but they definitely don't deserve the en-5 label. en-5 is a way to show people that you know when to use apostrophes, that you can spell correctly, etc.... You don't have to have written books to show that. Anyway, if it is deleted, people can just create a userbox on their own page, defeating the whole point of deleting it. Just look a second at all the people who have en-5 on their user pages. They can all contribute with a high level of English and spelling correctly. At least three people on the first page of the en-N category can't spell or, even worse, don't use proper grammar. After all, what's the point of deleting a userbox, why the fuss? If people want to put en-5 on their userpage, leave them alone... Nippoo 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Nippoo. Hi-cal usage isn't common even in native speakers; the en-5 suggests encyclopedia-caliber competence, which is to be desired. Add it to other languages, too, I've no problem with that; if you're de-5 (or Klingon-5, for all that), good on ya. Trekphiler 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're a professional editor, and want people to know it, why not write it in English on your user page? Why does it need to be in a stupid box? -- SCZenz 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nonstandard (and sets a terrible precedent), pointless, arrogant (by what standard do we judge "professional", other than just how well a person thinks of his own writing?), inaccurate, misleading, wasteful, unreliable (with no consistent standard, we'll have some of our best writers and some of our worst writers listed together, making the template useless), ugly. Has nothing to do with the Babel templates, which deal with whether you're a native speaker of the language or one who's learning it at some level or another. A distinct template should be created for things like "user is a professional writer", "user has an exceptional grasp of vocabulary and grammar, "user is a copyeditor", etc., if necessary. The Babel template deal with how fluent you are in English, not how skilled you are; whether your prose is masterful or not should be an unrelated template. Also, I have to say that I couldn't agree more with SCZenz; very good point. -Silence 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-standard-issue can easily be changed - what color do you want it to be? en-4 is yellow, so that would also be non-standard, should we also delete it? Why else could this template be nonstandard? Why would this template be more misleading than other levels? I personally beleive en-2 is way more misleading. It can mean anything. To some people intermediate means advenced, to others it means beginner. According to your reasoning we should urgently delete the native template because it does not identify a person who is learning the language (?) (I think, hope, we can assume that everybody who writes for WP is trying to improve his language skills -> so lets delete all babel templates?). And could you expand on your notion that fluency has nothing to do with skill?--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-standard and unnecessary template, although, as are said often above, a seperate userbox and category to show that you're a professional writer isn't a bad idea. Lord Bob 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Escapes the purpose of the Babel project, I believe. Plus, there's a duality difficult to resolve: this "professional speaker" could be a "über-native", that is, a native who also possesses a "professional knowledge" of the language, or a "über-level 4", that is, a person who is not a native speaker but who has studied and understands the language on a "professional level", such as an English teacher/professor in a non-English speaking country. Those two should not even be mixed to begin with, since it's not quite the same thing. Since this is not essential to the project, we'd be better off leaving this alone — plus what Silence said. Redux 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...A duality difficult to resolve...says Redux. We can't list all articles for deletion that have dualities that are difficult to resolve. Doing that in this case sets an uncanny precedent.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretentious as hell, and completely misleading. I lost track of the number of grammatical mistakes and misspelled words on the user pages of people with this userbox. Yeah, I'm a copyeditor. FCYTravis 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bears some relevance in considering user:Silence's argument above, who dreams of all natives and copyeditors having no more need to learn and improve.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]
    • If someone is going to be pretentious enough to slap an "English professional" userbox on their userpage, they'd better not have a single freaking mistake on it. FCYTravis 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete levels 0 to 4 plus -N should be enough. Why break the norm for one language?. CharonX 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are breaking a norm by suggesting to delete this. 'Normally' there are more evaluation levels for language skills, as I mentioned above.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which are completley arbitrary. 4 sounds about right; I could decipher a message, I could communicate at a basic level, I'm pretty good in the language, I'm a native.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They would not have to be that arbitrary if they would correspond better to what is done in real life: have more levels. To me 'being able to decipher a message' is en-0, basic level is en-1, pretty good sounds more like advanced (en-3). The more productive users are the ones that categorize themselves as "fluent" or having "a working knowledge", both terms are often found on resumés and are non-existent in Babel as of yet -> we need more levels on Babel.--Fenice 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being able to decipher a message is not en-0; that's I don't speak English. Adding more levels is just going to make it more confusing; if you don't know what the difference between en-2 and en-3 is, then making them en-2, en-3, en-4 isn't going to help. If you're fluent in English, you should be able to tell that that's en-4. And whether or not we need more levels is orthogonal to whether or not this particular level defined roughly as it is should stay. Arguing that this should stay because the Bable system needs to be more finely tuned is like arguing that User GWB should stay because the users from Green Water Bay need a userbox.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can 'decipher a message' you won't be able to contribute much and that is the criterion for en-0 (can't contribute). If you set fluency equal to current e-4, which is near native, we will need at least en-6 to cover the full spectrum. As to the Bay Water Green analogy, I have no idea what that is or where that is, but everybody here knows what English is. The analogy is faulty.--Fenice 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're changing the meaning of the template mid-game.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretentious, unhelpful, offensive. If you're a professional who uses English, say that; there's a difference between that and "speaking English at a professional level".--Prosfilaes 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a problem with the wording, change it, be bold, click the edit button on top.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the wording I have problems with; it's the fact that the Bable tool is being abused to look down at the people who only speak the language at a "native" level. It's an elitest and linguistically absurd concept.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The user template deletion craze is really going beyond comment. --Fenice 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. --Fang Aili 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Using that reasoning, we can delete every user template because it is "arrogant" and the user must be a "twit," right? Most languages have at least 5 levels, as the first comment noted. There is absolutely no reason to delete this, as it can be extremely useful in determining people who can help significantly with grammar. The argument that people with terrible grammar will use this is irrelevant, since someone could just as easily put a level 4 when they really speak at a level 2, and this would be apparent from the user page anyways. Using that reasoning, again, we can just delete all language templates because all Wikipedia users can be arrogant twits and lie, right? Wrong.
  • Tests (not languages) may have a level 5, but that doesn't mean that we should be that granular, and it espeically does not mean that we should have level 5 mean what en-5 does. Yes, they could put a level 4 when they speak at a level 2, but it's not really being an arrogant twit to say you're as good as most speakers. en-5 is misleadingly defined, since there's no linguistically accepted level of language knowledge beyond native, and there's no evidence that it's being used in a useful way.--Prosfilaes 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a 4-level system is currently used for representing any user skill. So, an arbitrary fifth level does not fit in any way. --Angelo 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant difference between native and professional master in thr written form of a language. --Valmi ✒ 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like some of those voting keep here do so because they desire more levels in the Babel system. Consider, then, that there are babel templates currently listed here for 232 languages. Do you think an effective way of introducing a reform in this system (where the 5 levels, including native, are the currently established way of doing things) is to create an extra template for English that cannot easily be found and hoping that people will therefore adapt to some new, non-existent standard? If you really wish to change the Babel standard, raise the issue in a place where it can be discussed and, if consensus is reached, implemented properly. Please realize that, currently, this template breaks the 5-level (or 4-level, depending on how you see it) system that Babel currently follows, and keeping this can't really result in anything but confusion. EldKatt (Talk) 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how you got the idea that there are currently 4 levels (en-1 to en-4), when we are here obviously talking about deleting an existing level en-5. As you can see the link above is still blue, so 5 levels do exist. Level en-5 was created months ago and about 40 people have it on their userpages. You are twisting the facts. You are right, this is not the place to change the Babel standard, which is currently en-1 to en-5. En-5 was created the same way en-4 was finally created because there was a demand for it. --Fenice 11:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, then, do no other languages have a level 5? Why does Wikipedia:Babel explicitly list and describe the four levels at the top? Wikipedia:Babel/Levels does mention it, but it is referred to as a proposal, not yet implemented. (Incidentally, I can't find any other references to this proposal, or it being discussed anywhere, which surprises me.) Please provide evidence of your claim that "the Babel standard [...] is currently en-1 to en-5", now that I have provided some evidence to the contrary. EldKatt (Talk) 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other languages have only three levels, some only one, see [Wikipedia:Babel]]. If there is no description of the fifth level it should be added and if en-5 is seen by some as just a proposal it should be discussed and not just deleted. I am saying it is standard because en-5 exists and is in heavy use. There is nothing more formal to that. From what you say I can draw no other conclusion other than there needs to be discussion, not deletion. The demand is there for en-5 and it it will be created again in some form sooner or later anyway. But if this deletion goes through and sets a precedent we will have to resort to calling it en-4.5 or something.--Fenice 12:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 45 users—compared to 108 for en-1, 799 for en-2, 1601 for en-3, 755 for en-4 and many thousands for en-N (is there an easy way of counting pages in a category?)—qualifies as "heavy use" by your standards, then there's not a lot we can discuss. I am still of the opinion that reforms of established systems (such as Babel with four levels) should be attempted in the proper place, to enable serious discussion and successful potential implementation. I am also still of the opinion that en-5 is not standard, as you have claimed. EldKatt (Talk) 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, we have different notions of what is standard. It's nice however to see that someone sticks to the rules on top of this page and admits that this was not the right place to decide that policy.--Fenice 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now that we have the exact numbers, again the suggestion: why not sacrifice en-1 with 108 users instead?--Fenice 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it has twice as many users as en-5. And more importantly, I don't see the point of having a system where "intermediate" is the lowest level. It evidently fills a gap satisfactorily. EldKatt (Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, or was it below - the people on level en-1 will make nowhere near as many contributions as the ones that are on level 5. My rough estimate is that by deleting category en-5 you are chasing off about 100 times more edits than by deleting category en-1. Just imagine when these people discover this absurdly strange discussion here in a few weeks and find out that they are not wanted because their abilities are considered 'offensive'. Cool Cat, the user who initiated this stunt, is gonna have a good laugh. --Fenice 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're going to be driven off by a deletion of one template, they don't have what it takes to survive at Wikipedia. And no one has said their abilities are offensive; they said this way of expressing them is.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here—according to me as well as the majority of delete voters—has nothing to do with anything being offensive, as you claim. The issue is that it is non-standard. If this were named anything but "en-5", and thus made no claim of being part of the Babel system, a lot of those voting delete wouldn't mind it at all, as I interpret the discussion. (The notion that people would feel unwanted and leave Wikipedia because of a template being deleted is, to me, absurd.) EldKatt (Talk) 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are enough levels as it is and Wikipedia is not a translating agency. / Peter Isotalo 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it is. Shouldn't users who vote here have some knowledge of what they are talking about?--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it isn't. Wikipedia does not take material in for translation; we don't even straight-forwardly translate Wikipedia articles between different languages.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very funny. I was really amazed that anybody could actually be so remote from reality, judging by your statements above, and I am now kind of relieved to see you are only joking, Prosfilaes. Very funny. --Fenice 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC) - Now watch Profilaes put all the translation pages up for deletion on the grounds that he feels offended by them.--Fenice 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are you talking about? EldKatt (Talk) 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • (*Whispering at EldKatt:*)Have a look at Profilaes userpage. He knows perfectly well that there are translations. He has a link to them on his userpage. --Fenice 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete en-4 is good enough.--MONGO 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest deleting en-1 instead. Makes more sense, since people on that level won't contribute much anyway.--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a valid reason to delete en-1, and it's rather offensive. Even someone with en-1 can make suggestions and help clarify articles within their field of expertise. Making the facts right is worth a million minor grammatical fixes.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Djegan 15:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BRossow 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I recognise that there is a difference in being a native speaker of the English language and being able to write a text that is of encyclopedic quality. The problem is that it is difficult for many people to judge if their own writing style is truly "professional". Then again, the user page is there for whatever people want to say about themselves, so I can't see why this shouldn't be available to them to use. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just ran across this discussion by chance, since I'd stopped following, or caring about, the Babel template discussions some time ago. This discussion, and the mentality behind the whole notion of xx-5, xx-6, what fits here, there, etc., is the straw that breaks this camel's back. Combined with the whole proliferation of absurd, stupid, juvenile userboxes that have crawled up out of the primordial Babel ooze, the only conclusion I can come to is that far too many people are more interested in process than content here. I am going to remove my own Babel labels since their meaning and usefulness have been debased and will only become more so in the future. Good work, Wikipedians. -EDM 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What happened to Template_talk:User_en-5? There was some discussion there a few days ago.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change so it's not on the en-x scale. En-x is 1-4 and native. Let's not mess with that now that's it's nicely setup. Change to pro-writer or some of the other options above. gren グレン 13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Babel is fundamentally a 5-step system: 1, 2, 3, 4, N. Period. There is no need to bloat it with en-5, en-6, en-0, en-666, en-2.5, en-π, en-i or any such nonsense. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, even en-4 is a somewhat non-standard extension. The original Babels at commons and meta only go up to 3. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a perfectly valid suggestion, Ilmari. Changes in policy can be made. The problem is that the standard way which would correspond to the instructions on the top of this page is to suggest a policy - Wikipedia: Policy proposal Guillotine Babel with an extension by Ilmari to also cut the feet off and have it discussed by the people who are interested. (I like your suggestion to delete en-0). Taking out one single brick of the building makes no sense whatsoever. There should have been an attempt to change the concept behind Babel and ban en-5 entirely from the English wiki. Now we will forever have users putting on en-5 on their pages and finding out that on en-wiki this is a red link because here on this page people could not cope with someone outing himself as capable of anything. --Fenice 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're the one who keeps pushing these new xx-5 levels without any consensus or policy behind you. I notice you've been creating more of these and editing the Babel pages to make it look like there's been an official change to the system. It's true that Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but this is starting to cross over from "bold" to "sneaky". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for personal attacks, Ilmari. "Sneaky" is one. And yes, I am obviously pushing xx-5. I am glad someone is reading the discussion. Bravo. --Fenice 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on somebody's behaviour do not equal personal attacks. (Your sarcasm above approaches it, though, but I don't see any need to discuss that any further.) Your swiftness in jumping to the conclusion that everyone is out to get you isn't really helping anyone. EldKatt (Talk) 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the diffs you provide: I cannot see a single one that proves that the policy has been proposed and not opposed for months. You are presenting a onesided picture of the story to discredit another user. Can I call you sneaky for that one, Ilmari? --Fenice 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -->Here are the links Ilmari has omitted so gracefully: Proposal on talk page, one objection by user:EDM, others agree or don't mind:Wikipedia talk:Babel#New level descriptions. And: [diff]- this is a Proposal "Levels" with a link to it on top of the Babel page with no objections since then.--Fenice 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading that section on the talk page, I count one user besides the nominator (Ynhockey) supporting, one (EDM) opposing, one (The Dogandpony) indifferent and one (Bo Lindbergh) proposing en-∞ instead (with Cernen supporting him). This does not, in my opinion, consensus make. Besides, this TfD nomination itself shows that there in fact are multiple people who consider the new level needless. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why not create a seperate template for "professional copy editor" or some such, outside of the babel language-level heirarchy? A user could be en-N or en-4 and add the "professional English" infobox as well. Obviously some non-natives are going to be more skilled at using a "professional" register than many native speakers anyway. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, my vote for this template is Delete. And or the record, I'm against the user-4 category as well. A four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and "native or native-like" is plenty as far as i'm concerned. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now invited people on the talk page of Babel to comment here. I know that this is something that is despised by some as vote rallying and have not done it so far. However, Ilmari has written on this talk page first and placed an attack against my person on the talk page of Babel (I removed the personal attack), so I guess that gives me the right to inform those who are competent and concerned with these templates about this discussion. And: ciao. If nobody responds to this invitation, I have done my job here on this page at defending Babel. Unless someone officially allows me to do more efficient 'vote rallying' I won't discuss xx-5 here any more. I have said my share. But I will watch and remove all future personal attacks agains me on this page. --Fenice 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I'm the person who created that template. When I created it, on Wikipedia talk:Babel some people were favourable to the creation of a "professional" level template, others weren't. I created it expecting that, either consensus would be achieved that it's useful, and someone would make similar templates for other languages, or consensus would be achieved that it's useless, and it would be deleted.

The reason why I created it was, a box for writers, teachers etc. of a language to show that they can help e.g. to copyedit articles in that language. Maybe the wording isn't the best possible one, if someone has a better idea, feel free to change it. (However, I disagree with the idea of making one category for professional writers of any language, IMO it's better to make a category for each language.)

Yes, this template may be deemed 'arrogant' or 'vain', and could be used by trolls, but even xx-4 templates used by non-native speakers have the same identical problem, haven't they? That's not a good reason to delete it. If someone makes inappropriate use of it, they are to blame, not the template... --Army1987 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Changes likes these to the babel system should be discussed on meta and not on a single language version of Wikipedia. If we follow this course, the babel system would mean different things on each language version of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. --Maitch 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case you don't know, there are some Wikipedias which don't have xx-4 levels. Anyway, levels 1, 2 and 3 would stay unchanged, and only a part of the xx-4 people will go to xx-5. --Army1987 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per babel standard. It is my opinion that a fifth level does not enhance the current classification system. There is an important distinction between levels 4 and N, but the only difference between 4 and 5 or N and 5 is occupation. If a user really wants to have something on their userpage that describes their occupation, they can create their own private userbox easily enough. ~MDD4696 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rhobite --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla

(previous nomination)

Redundant to {{logo}}, used on about ten images. That Mozilla explicitly says "go ahead and use this" is irrelevant; we don't allow "by-permission" images, and they're in fact speedyable. Their license explicitly disallows commercial exploitation (see their faq), making all images with this tag speedyable for that reason also. On top of this, they don't allow derivatives of any kind, further cementing the case that this is an unfree image. The only way images currently tagged with this template can be used on Wikipedia is under a fair use claim. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because everyone and their cousin knows (or should know) that there's no harm in displaying the Mozilla logos in this context. —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, using images we have been given permission to use doesn't carry any legal risk either, but because such images are unfree (does not allow commercial re-distribition) it has been dictated from the foundation level that such images are not to be used anymore (or at least used under the fair use doctrine instead). I don't see how this should somehow not apply here. --Sherool (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use on user pages. If they were to be added to related articles, that would qualify as fair use. What's the problem? —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion's outcome has been rendered moot by Crytic, who pre-emptively nullified the template by adding {{or-fu}} to the tagged images (despite the fact that no fair use claims have been made). —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Per David →AzaToth 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per common sense. the wub "?!" 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to start coming up with exceptions to image policy. Jkelly 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry to say this, but Cryptic is correct here. I have had some limited experince with trademark law. I can say it's not very intuitive. Copyright is even more complicated. If Wikipedia has a rule for that we must follow it. I assume that rule has been reviewd by experts and they know why. I'm not enough knowledgeable in this area, an expert sure could explain us in detail why this is so. One thing I think to understand is this: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html states that if a web site uses one of their trademarks (implies also their logo) that site must write somewhere that that trademark is owned by the Mozilla Foundation. I do not know where that notice should go on Wikipedia. Fair use of the name for example "Firefox" in the text to describe it is ok without that notice. This is fishy non-intuitive ground. We should really follow the rules we have here. Adrian Buehlmann 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Neutral. Dumb me. Trademark notice is there. Problem is still with the policy. And doesn't the Mozilla License prohibit the making of a Wikipedia DVD? Adrian Buehlmann 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use in the user namespace. As Kelly and Tony have reminded us in recent days, this is not part of the encyclopedia proper. —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per above. Mozilla allows us to use these images. The reason they are under fire is because of Wikipedia's red tape, not Mozilla's. This is an example of ignoring the rules.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree woth the reasons given by User:HereToHelp. As for where the "trademark is owned by the Mozilla foundation" should go. The image description page seems sensible to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the K-Meleon logo, (which is in the same boat as Firefox's) gets its logo rightfully ripped from its template, so should the other non-free Mozilla logos as well. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this about the image or the template? --Improv 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. — Matt Crypto 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, survived previous TFD.Gateman1997 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the nomination says it well -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Comment: We may have reached a solution to this jam at Template_talk:User_browser:Firefox. Maybe it can be used here? If not, delete this (regardless of how this discussion goes, license issues are non negotiable). --Improv 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, we can't use this tag in any manner consistent with our image policies. JYolkowski // talk 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is absolutely no reason not to allow this. Except for "the rules." Some people get so caught up in the rules that they forget why the rules are in place. In this case, there's no harm in letting this exception fly. So I say, keep.
  • Keep per arguments above. And I'm sure the Mozilla folks don't care. --Fang Aili 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Last I checked we weren't commercially exploiting anything, so why do we give a damn that they don't allow allow commercial exploitation? Rogue 9 06:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because our licensing model allows our content to be reused by others for commercial purposes. If that's too complicated for you, because Jimbo said so. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, we're talking about user pages. And Jimbo also endorsed WP:IAR. —David Levy 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an ingenuous claim. Firstly, these images are being used in the main namespace. For example, the very first image listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Mozilla, Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png, is used on two articles, Mozilla Firefox and History of Mozilla Firefox. Secondly, if the images are intended for community use only why don't the pages (or the template) say so? --Nick Boalch ?!? 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You say that "these images are being used in the main namespace." In fact, only the one that you cited as your "example" was mistagged in this manner. (I corrected it.) The template was created specifically to tag images used exclusively on user pages, and this is explicitly referenced in the template: "It is believed that we have permission to use this for promotional purposes; e.g., on a user page." —David Levy 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • 'e.g., on a user page' and 'only an a user page' are, of course, very different things, as I suspect you are well aware. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is a summary of Mozilla's policy, which doesn't single out user pages. If you believe that the template's wording is ambiguous, you're welcome to modify it. (I won't bother, given the fact that this debate's outcome has been rendered moot by those who insist upon following every rule to the letter.) But again, the template was created with user pages in mind. It makes absolutely no sense to apply it to images contained within Mozilla-related articles, because that qualifies as fair use. —David Levy 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • For clarity it would need to be changed to the effect that images tagged with it could only be used on community pages. However, note the precedent of {{CommunityUseOnly}}: images tagged as non-commercial only are liable to be deleted on sight even if used only on userpages. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mozilla Foundation allows special usage and, considering the popularity and scope of their products, this will be applicable enough to be at least marginally useful. If there's a rule against this, ignore all rules. Cookiecaper 10:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, retag the images with {{logo}}. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. We may well have the right to put these images on userpages. However, we also have a policy saying that we won't. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JYolkowski. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's worth nothing that I've seldom seen such a blatant misunderstanding of ignore all rules as has been exhibited by various contributors to this debate. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By all means, please enlighten us. —David Levy 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note the first sentence of the first paragraph. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph. Note the first sentence of the third paragraph. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Encyclopedias don't write themselves. The community spirit is the glue that holds this site together, and every little bit of needless bureaucracy chips away at the community spirit. —David Levy 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I agree in general with your point about community spirit, I look at this particular instance from a rather different direction. Mistagging images in order to get round a fundamental Wikipedia policy, just in order to use them in silly userboxes, is hardly helping to get the encyclopaedia written. --Nick Boalch ?!? 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, but bureaucratically forcing people to stop displaying a harmless image on their user pages contributes to an atmosphere less conducive to productivity. Instead of arguing that userboxes are insignificant, how about explaining why we should follow a rule purely for the sake of following the rule? Or do you believe that there's another reason why the Mozilla images shouldn't be used in this context? —David Levy 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, the only reason is that as a matter of policy non-free images 'are not acceptable for Wikipedia', except under an appropriately reasoned claim of fair use [28] [29]. If you don't agree with this policy, then fine, but in that case suggest changing it and persuade the community that it's in the interests of the encyclopaedia to do so, rather than mistagging images and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Nick Boalch ?!? 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If I were to enforce the rules in question (or other rules) to the letter (in a manner defying common sense) as a means of demonstrating the inherent absurdity, that would be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I've done nothing that I did not believe to be in the best interests of community and the encyclopedia, and I resent your claim to the contrary. —David Levy 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, that was poorly phrased and wasn't intended as a personal attack: I was trying to suggest that mistagging images in this way amounts to a WP:POINT violation; I have no idea if you personally have been involved in doing that. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This "mistagging" is a policy violation committed in good faith (as an application of WP:IAR). Whether you agree or not, some of us honestly believe that this is a sensible approach. It is not an example of the misguided tactic described at WP:POINT (in which a user deliberately acts in a manner that adversely affects Wikipedia, purely for the sake of proving that it was a bad idea). —David Levy 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't consider that to be the only relevant application of WP:POINT, since both its key points 'Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point' and 'State your point, don't prove it experimentally' have much wider applications. What has this been if not an attempt to prove a point experimentally rather than debating changing the relevant policy and getting appropriate consensus? --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We aren't attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, nor is it our goal to prove a point. We believe that the logic behind our stance is self-evident, and that our actions are a simple application of common sense (and should be uncontroversial). You're entitled to disagree, but that doesn't change our motives. Are you suggesting that every application of WP:IAR (which this is, even if you feel that such a measure is inappropriate in this context) is a WP:POINT violation? —David Levy 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, I'm suggesting that disrupting the encyclopaedia (for any reason) then pretending it's justified by WP:IAR is a WP:POINT violation. I don't think we're really getting anywhere with this discussion, though, since each of us thinks our viewpoints are self-evidently correct and neither of us seems likely to persuade the other :). I should note for the avoidance of doubt that, regardless of the outcome of this TFD, I intend to speedily delete the images tagged with {{mozilla}} when this debate has concluded. --Nick Boalch ?!? 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • We've expressed an opinion contrary to yours, so the only logical explanation is that we're "pretending" to believe what we say, for the purpose of making some sort of point?! Aside from tossing the assumption of good faith out the window, you seem to be implying that no rational person could genuinely disagree with you on this issue. I find that very troubling. Also, how have we disrupted the encyclopedia? As for the images themselves, go ahead and delete them. I've long since given up hope of actually being permitted to use them. In fact, you might as well delete this template too, given the fact that it's been nullified. —David Levy 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There is no way this is an application of IAR. IAR necessitates that the good of the encyclopaedia be affected. This template doesn't fall under that criterion. [[Sam Korn]] 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I disagree. Userboxes aren't part of the encyclopedia proper, but bureaucratically taking them away from people adversely affects the editors' morale, thereby indirectly affecting the encyclopedia's quality. For the record, my user page merely contains one Babel box and an administrator box. I've never added a template containing a {{Mozilla}}-tagged image (or any other userbox). —David Levy 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • With this attitude no wonder there's such opposition to IAR in the community at present. It is abused so often. [[Sam Korn]] 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • My "attitude" is that a rule should be followed when it serves a logical purpose, but should not be followed purely for the sake of following it. I advocate ignoring rules only when the encyclopedia somehow benefits (either directly or indirectly) AND the aforementioned lack of logic exists. Please cite a logical reason (aside from "because the rules say so") why users should be prohibited from placing Mozilla images on their user pages. What harm does this cause? —David Levy 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Consistency. I am a fan of IAR, but not of it being abused, and certainly not of it being abused (or indeed used) in copyright matters. Copyright is already confusing enough to contributors without inconistencies creeping in. [[Sam Korn]] 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • By its very nature, WP:IAR necessitates inconsistency. (The only way to achieve consistency is to unconditionally enforce every rule.) As no copyright violation is occurring, I view this as a harmless (and yes, beneficial) exception. You're entitled to object to this particular application of WP:IAR (just as anyone may object to any application), but that doesn't mean that it's being "abused." —David Levy 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • The fact that there is inconsistency doesn't justify more. No copyright violation, no. But Wikipedia does have copyright policies, and those are some of the most vital. If we pick and choose when we apply them, we are inviting trouble and may soon find ourselves the targets of a lawsuit. Inconsistency about article content is vaguely acceptable, and about internal policies is also acceptable. However, this is a key, global policy, on a par with NPOV. Selective application of this policy could be disastrous. IAR is abused. It is meant to avoid rules-lawyering and slavish application of policy. It is not intended to allow us to pick and choose when we use policy. That is what you are doing. [[Sam Korn]] 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • WP:IAR is based upon the axiom that we should abide by the spirit of a rule, not by the letter. It addresses the fact that we sometimes encounter situations in which enforcing a rule doesn't make sense, typically because its author(s) didn't envision such a scenario. I believe that this is true of the Mozilla images; a rule is being applied in a manner that adversely affects Wikipedia, purely for the sake of following the rule. To what type of lawsuit are you referring? —David Levy 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because this template is analogous to a cannabis prescription in the United States. Regardless of this debate's result, a higher authority will step in and override the template's use. —David Levy 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Issues about Wikipedia infringing copyright are to be considered with utmost seriousness, but this template is not infringing copyright. If Mozilla has a problem with it (I doubt it at the moment, but they may change their mind) then they will no doubt politely ask for it to be removed. At the moment it's not doing any harm and it gives information about why we're using an image with an unorthodox copyright status. (Also, am I missing something or is the IAR debate above becoming somewhat irrelevant?) David | Talk 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FormerGA

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - wasn't this already listed and kept? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see this being used. But move it to Template:Former-GA for conventions. - Cuivienen 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to {{DelistedGA}}, which survived TfD, although I whole-heartedly endorse the GA project. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Template:DelistedGA, which should in turn have the box deleted and replaced with only a category: as long as this is only a proposed project without community consensus support, we should not be defacing the Talk pages of hundreds of articles with a big box that is totally useless by virtue of not in any way improving the editorial process. However, by keeping the template in existence, we can in the future easily re-add the box if there is ever consensus to do so, and in the meanwhile the template can consist entirely of a category that will allow easy navigation of all of these articles for those who are interested, but will be 100% non-intrusive for those who dislike or oppose the project or think there are already too many huge, cluttering, arbitrary boxes on articles and article Talk pages already (which there are). The exact same thing should be done with Template:GA: remove the box, but keep Category:Wikipedia good articles linked so anyone interested in the project can easily navigate it. Win-win situation. -Silence 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Silence, having a box for this is ridiculous. Good Articles is a fine project but we don't need to know what they didn't like, they can just drop a note on the talk page. If it does get kept, delete the box. Ashibaka tock 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the difference between, say, an unreferenced article you find by clicking the random article link, and an unreferenced article with {{FormerGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} added to its talk page? The answer is nothing. There are plenty of more specific templates available for noting flawed articles, such as {{unreferenced}} and {{reqimage}}. Noting "good" articles may be useful, noting non-"good" articles is not and if someone is seeking them, plenty can be found at Category:Wikipedia maintenance.—jiy (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It will be much more useful to make a section on the talk page saying "I removed the GA template because.." Sometimes templates just encourage laziness--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is also a template for former featured articles so why delete this one?--Fenice 08:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Silence. Fenice may not be aware that this is only a proposed project, not something which has firm guidelines and process yet. Delisting something from a non-existent process is just silly. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although my intent for this vote is to point out that (1) the nomination of this template for deletion was not announced on Wikipedia talk: Good articles where this proposed project is being discussed & would have attracted informed votes, & (2) the votes here for & against this template reflect the opinions expressed on that Talk page (that is, those for deleting have stated they are against the Good article proposal & those against deleting this template are in favor of the proposal). If the nominator did want to simplify matters, why not first announce his intent on the Talk page, where we could achive a consensus & have deleted this template very speedily? -- llywrch 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, unjustified accusations of bad faith aside (and I notice your advertisement hasn't attracted even a single additional vote so far, so really, what's the big deal...), did you even notice that this article is a lower-quality carbon-copy of Template:DelistedGA? Please read the specific comments before you assume that we're all corrupt, biased system-exploiters out to attack the GA project every chance we get; I said to (1) redirect this one to the standard ("DelistedGA") for the sake of consistency, and (2) to change the content of the templates, not to delete any of the templates used by the GA project. I don't care how many templates you use, I just care that you, like everyone else, use them efficiently and without undue clutter. -Silence 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DelistedGA seems better but we only need one of them. I choose that one. gren グレン ? 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

On request from a third party, I have also moved the discussion (which is already quite sizable) there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This debate has been closed with a result of keep and continue to disucss policy on userboxes. -- Jbamb 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood - no need to redirect as it isn't used. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?
  • Delete. Category is enough --kernoz 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doing no harm, I find both boxes like this and categories to be useful. — Wackymacs 08:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consider {{NY-bt}}. That template does much more than just list the articles in a particular category. It gives structure to them and sorts them in a meaningful way, and adds related articles not in the category which are nevertheless useful references. When there are enough articles to warrant such organization, then I think a template is warranted. With just 4 articles and no clear ordering or subcategorization, I'm in agreement with those users not seeing the need for this template, the category does just fine. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep (no consensus for delete) --Adrian Buehlmann 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren GuReN6 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ditto. This place is supposed to encourage NPOV, no? MARussellPESE 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No value in building encyclopedia, potential for vote-stacking abuse. --- Charles Stewart 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User space should be a place where wikipedians can describe themselves as they see fit. This userbox can serve that purpose. It is not harmful, and given the recent conflagration over userboxes, I would prefer to leave the user space alone. This userbox could tell editors a great deal about the motivations of an editor, and certainly falls within the freedom of expression that the user space is intended for. --Dschor 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) Ooops, i typed five tildas instead of four. Sorry. DES (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. This user box is divisive (as are all userboxes indicating a user's disapproval for some other thing) and mainly exists for linkspamming (I'm sure its presence on Wikipedia increases the pagerank of the external site linked within it). It should be shot dead now. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slash and burn external link - I've removed the external link and made it go to Operation Clambake instead - Scientology is a scary group of people: See Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person or Xenu articles. --Mistress Selina Kyle (A<=>W | =>*) 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Userboxes CAN be POV, that's what they are for, for user's to express opinions. That's why we have pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, so on user boxes. It might be wise to tone it down a notch, but POV is not valid grounds to delete a user box. -- Jbamb 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My grounds was civil. It needlessly (and directly) annoys scientologists. Whereas if a pro-lifer dislikes someone because of a pro-choice userbox it's the pro-lifer being offended by the other's ideology passively. When you use this tag it actively offends needlessly. WP:CIVIL#Why_is_it_bad.3F describes why this is not appropriate pretty well... and, this basically amounts to an attack template. gren GuReN6 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. If you want to put it on your user page, write it yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dan | talk 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Knowledge Seeker. Palmiro | Talk 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all advertisements for prejudice. Jkelly 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). I deplore the use of user pages to make general statements that go beyond the writ of Wikipedia; that's what people's personal websites and homepages are for, on websites which do not rely upon the charitable donations of those who gave to support an encyclopedia. But, as DESiegel and Jbamb point out, we don't have a policy which prohibits using user pages in this manner, and we have other userpage templates which express a user's real-world affinities, of which this is but one of the more extreme cases. I dread to think where this userbox trend will end, but the matter should be settled wholesale with an approved policy, not incrementally nibbled-at by TfD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per gren. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Userbox fans need to grow up. This isn't LiveJournal. Rhobite 01:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pending outcome of consensus process on userboxes. This box is being used as an example in that process, and I recommend people to consider participating in the process. Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not speedy delete. Totally POV --Doc ask? 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being and a Comment - is there any chance of holding back on the listing of userboxes until the issue is resolved outside of TFD, such as here, or perhaps even putting a temporary notice up here to ask people not to until general policy has been decided? Otherwise, the same argument is just going to be repeated over and over everytime someone decides they don't like a userbox (there was already posting an entire list of userboxes they believed should be deleted, before someone deleted the entry). --Loopy 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't the same issue. That's why I nominated it. This is an extraordinary userbox which goes beyond the policy argument of categorizing users by belief. This is attacking a certain segment of the wiki population's beliefs. Had this been "this user is a scientologist" it would be completely different. gren GuReN6 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what Loopy said, this is getting old.--Naha|(talk) 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, generates atmosphere of hostility. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Pepsidrinka 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, with support for continued, consensus-driven discussion of troublesome userboxes on a case-by-case basis. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:34, Jan. 4, 2006
  • Stong Keep. POV is allowed on a user page. If a user simply entered the text "I am vehemently against Scientology" no one would complain. Therefore no one should object to this userbox either. I don't think this userbox is really the issue here. This is simply yet another pointless dispute between those who like to design user pages and those who think they're a waste of resources. —gorgan_almighty 11:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all the Keeps. However, I consider it a huge victory that Ms. Martin finally considers herself under the bounds of law by voting here like the rest of us. Perhaps there is some hope for this place yet. karmafist 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbamb.
  • Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. DaGizza Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: We should be allowed to say what we want on our user pages, including POV and even divicive things. It can be argued that scientology is a cult and we should be against it, but regardless, if someone is against it he/she should be able to say so, just as someone who is for it can say so.Maprov 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved this comment here from another section, since it appears to have been misplaced there. -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Userpages are for opinion; NPOV & "This is an encyclopedia" don't apply. On that basis, ban all userboxes that aren't strictly descriptive, & maybe the Babel boxes too; tomebody might take offense you don't speak their language. It's my party & I'll whine if I want to. Trekphiler 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withold decisions until userbox issue is resolved--Urthogie
  • Keep - As I keep saying we need some community discussion without either side pulling out. Ian13ID:540053 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Ian Pitchford 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before scientology sues you for using their name! :-) Ant-boxes should only be done with humor intended. Maybe we should change this to "This user is against all brainwashing cults". TCorp 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want to, write it on your userpage. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as combative and unrelated to WP. I'm waiting for the inevitable "KEEP per WP:UB#KEEP" though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – What would happen if somebody were to create Template:User against jews or Template:User against blacks? This really isn't any different. – ClockworkSoul 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per brains. Larix 11:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Pjacobi 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. Violation of WP:CIVIL. BlankVerse 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a religion. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason that I'd keep a pro-monarchist userbox if it came up for deletion (in fact I think I did). Though I may find the idea of a monarchy offensive, others do not. The same principle applies here. - Hayter 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whatever the outcome of the userbox policy debate is, this doesn't belong so there's no need to wait on that discussion. We don't need people going out of their way to voice disapproval of other editors because of off-Wiki issues. And no, there isn't free speech here. Rx StrangeLove 19:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally agree with Neutrality. Garion1000 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This userbox is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. I'm all for the funnies and viewpoint userboxes, but being Anti-some religion is in bad taste.Gateman1997 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or subst. All Wikipedians should be permitted to state such opinions on their User pages, and if they prefer to state them in brightly-colored boxes than in prose, that's their prerogative. But it is indeed not a good idea to keep such templates in the Template namespace, where Wikipedia implicitly condones their existence. -Silence 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principal to the extent that I will now make a short speech.
It is a valid POV, even if you don't like it. By my understanding at least, as long as you discuss all the other POV's where NPOV needs to be preserved, then it's actually protected by WP:NPOV as a religion. Not that it matters much in userspace.
Wikipedia has one big thing which guarantees freedom of expression on here, which is that if it doesn't it will rapidly cease to be so good. (Rhobite, I'm talking to you here.) In userspace we don't have to have NPOV, and that is a good thing. For example, there are a small but signifigant number of wikipedians whose user pages say things like "I am a homophobe", etc, etc, etc. My user page has a series of userboxes which say things like "This user identifies as gay", "This user has a boyfriend", and so on. None of these can be mistaken for encyclopedic statements, but, when I clash with otherwise good editiors in articles about sexuality we both know where we stand, and what each others biases are. That makes wikipedia stronger I think because we can never get rid of an individuals bias, and everyone has some biases. Being aware of them is the next best thing. Tom 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Civil opinions are okay on userboxes. This opinion is not expressed in a civil way and does not deserve a cute pastel box. Ashibaka tock 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The giving of personal stances on user pages is wrong? We've got problems then.Tommstein 09:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, in spite of the fact that I cannot stand the Church of Scientology or the religion. If they oppose Scientology, that is their right to express it on their user pages. Likewise, if they want to express their support for the Church of Scientology or Scientologists in general, that is their decision. In fact, I've just created a contrary template (Template:User_scientology) to be fair. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KnowledgeSeeker. Hostility userboxes are not of any use in expressing anything except hostility, do that elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on CIVIL grounds not NPOV. Ian13ID:540053 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone should be able to express their POV on their userpage. Keith Greer 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But Scientology should link to Scientology. Keith Greer 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does no one who is voting keep understand this is saying the same thing as "I am anti-semetic" or "I am anti-Islmanic" or "I think Christians are whackos" or "I dislike athiests"? This is a personal attack on a group of people and as such is against policy.Gateman1997 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tone down. I don't see this as a personal attack, just as saying "I dislike Scientology". Should Wikipedia be a place where merely expressing a negative opinion that might offend somebody is not tolerated? ~~ N (t/c) 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as you can tell on your userpage what you like, you should be able to also say what you dislike. What if renaming it in a different way, such as Template:User dislike Scientology? --Angelo 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep - Users should have a right to express their viewpoints on their own user pages. Niffweed17 01:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep userboxes are free of NPOV requirements and users could simply make their own if so desired using existing templates. -Drdisque 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Dschor. This is getting ridiculous; if someone doesn't like scientology let him say so. Rogue 9 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look what you guys have established precedent for... Template:User against jews Ashibaka tock 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gasp! Did it ever occur to you that some people don't like Jews? A lot more people than that don't like Wiccans, but you don't see me crying. Regardless, it should be userfied. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 02:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, why keep the anti-Scientology one in Template namespace and userfy the anti-Jew one? Ashibaka tock 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible alternative. Just slapped this together; I hope those who use the anti-global racketeerin... I mean, anti-Scientology template will find this acceptable in the event of this one's deletion. Rogue 9 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. {{User against jews}} got speedied--how is this any different? -- SCZenz 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Rogue 9 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain to me how Judaism is any different then Scientology? They are both recognized and widely accepted world religions. Being anti one is identical to being anti the other. I am appalled this hasn't been deleted yet and frankly if this is the stance Wikipedia takes on religious issues then frankly it doesn't have a prayer. The ACLU will jump on this site like fly's on crap.Gateman1997 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ACLU wouldn't have a chance in Hell if it did try to jump on this. As for the differences, see above. Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Scientology is, and has been involved in many other crimes besides, including wiretapping and obstruction of justice. The Church of Scientology behaves like the Mafia a lot of the time, and as such has earned it's opposition and rightfully so. Rogue 9 08:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL, the ACLU likes free speech too, so I don't think they're gonna touch this one. And do review WP:POINT, Gateman1997. Creating an anti-semitic template was not the right way to draw attention to this TfD. -- SCZenz
        • The ACLU defends all free-speech not just the popular kind. They lost many members for defending the ku klux klan's right to protest.--God of War 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you know I'm not anti-Jewish? I am Catholic and Catholics don't have the strongest Jew loving stance historically. Also it was a valid point to make. Admins are playing favorites. If Jews are protected then so should all religions from this kind of hate bullshit.Gateman1997 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep Gateman, you want me to explain how Judaism is different from Scientology in the most blunt possible terms? It's simple. Jews were actual victims of an actual genocide, while Scientologists can only claim to be reincarnated victims of a fictional billions year old intergalactic genocide that was made up by a two-bit hack science fiction writer. The suggestion that members of this lunatic celebrity cult - and especially its paid operatives - are being lined up for gas chambers is far more offensive than the userbox is. --Daniel 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for walking right into the kind of bigotted BS I assumed someone would write.Gateman1997 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not bigoted if there are, in fact, rational reasons to dislike them. Bigotry is by definition unreasoning, but when an organization engages in money laundering, tax evasion, and domestic espionage there are most excellent reasonable causes for opposing that organization. Rogue 9 09:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've heard this before... oh wait, it was the vast jewish conspiracy. I think Hitler was the one who was most fond of it. Same thing could be said of the Catholic Church, or many Evangelical Christians religions....Gateman1997 09:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Important differences: I'm not saying to kill Scientologists, and I have evidence that this is happening. Further, I'm making these assertions against a group that people choose to join, rather than an ethnic group. Also, Murphy's Law. You lose, good day sir. Rogue 9 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Judaaism isn't an ethnic group, they're a religious group.Gateman1997 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's both; you're born a Jew. As for Scientology, it is neither. As I've said, it is a global racket and criminal organization. Unless you want to propose that Time Magazine is part of some massive defamation conspiracy, you have basically no argument otherwise. Rogue 9 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, you can delete the template but that doesn't stop people from creating an "I'm against scientology" userbox. --Thorri 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linking to anti anything is not within WP:NPOV.--MONGO 14:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Keep I will let you have your opinions and you let me have mine, deal?--God of War 15:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Djegan 15:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology is not Judaism. Judaism is a mainstream religion, thousands of years old and with a large group of adherents, whose most famous opponents are well-known for killing off lots of Jews. Scientology is a small, very recent "religion", which, if memory serves, is not recognized as a non-profit organization in very many places. It has a relatively small number of adherents, and its opponents, who are many in number, are most famous for getting sued and harrassed by Scientology a lot. Having said that, this is a fairly average userbox and what little damage it does to Wikipedia in terms of bandwidth and CPU usage is not worth trifling over. Lord Bob 21:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, free speech on User pages, but don't take it overboard. I dont think this one is going overboard. Simple as that. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as needlessly antagonistic. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially undecided, but per DESiegel, Keep pending development of a general userbox policy. Might it be that keeping this userbox is a bad idea? Yeah, it might be. You know what's a worse one? Telling some people "you have to delete that userbox; you're not allowed to say how opposed you are to Scientology!" and telling others "Oh, you want to put a userbox on your page telling what a fan you are of Scientology? Go ahead, nothing wrong with that!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to know exactly why Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) decided that the fate of this template should be decided, not at Templates for deletion, but by his own unilateral choice. That's frankly the sort of thing admins lose their adminships for, for knowing what the correct process is, but using their admin powers to circumvent it rather than to ensure it runs smoothly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not a fan of Scientology either, but this is uncivil. - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 12:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment  — "I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs..." -Grenavitar (talk · contribs) (nominee of vote) — The thing is, there's nothing to stop people putting such statements on their user page without having a "pretty coloured box" to put the point of view in. And as per WP:NPOV/WP:UP, user pages are not required to be NPOV. Deleting user boxes will not stop people from having points of view.
Important point: In most countries Scientology is not recognised as a religion nor a charitable organisation. And looking at articles like Office of Special Affairs, Rehabilitation Project Force (neo-Gulags) or Xenu you can see why. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally I love userboxes -even the POV boxes that don't attack someone-, and I dislike Scientology, but this is a personal attack on a belief. -- Sneltrekker 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology isn't a religion. 82.26.163.91 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (anons can't vote.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω</span> ¦ ⇒✉) 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
 Comment  — Scientology is NOT a religion in most countries: The governments of Germany and Belgium officially regard the Church as a totalitarian cult; in France, a parliamentary report classified Scientology as a dangerous cult; in the United Kingdom and Canada the Church is not regarded as meeting the legal standards for being considered a bona fide religion (see Church of Scientology). In America it holds "charitable organisation" status, but it's widely believed that this was obtained through blackmail too.
It's also the only "religion" to hold officially-endorsed concentration camps/Gulags ("Rehabilitation Project Force") and a branch dedicated for propaganda and silencing/defamation of critics/"Suppressive Persons" (Office of Special Affairs).. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it is not considered a religion in my own country and others, and I did not label it as a religion. I also dislike their practices and gulags. It is however, still a belief. And attacking it, is still considered personal attacks on the users that uphold this belief to me. -- Sneltrekker 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Attacking Scientology is not the same as attacking Judaism, it is the same as attacking fascism. Anyway, as I have said in the users againsts Jews section, I think all userboxes should be allowed to remain, and I will repeat, you don't combat beliefs that you depsise by preventing an individual from expressing it, you do it by arguing down the belief once it has been allowed to be expressed. --Horses In The Sky 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--Sean|Black 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't encourage members of the community to be divisive by giving them such a template to put on their user pages. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Keep as per all keeps above DaGizza Chat 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Userboxes, no problem. Attack boxes, problem. Grace Note 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep"". It's a scam. james_anatidae 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: JESUS H. CHRIST! This has to be one of the most immature and emotionally guided discussions I have ever seen on Wikipedia. We are not discussing whether Scientology is a totalitarian cult (which I think it is, and so do many) or not (which many others think is also the case). Yes, Germany regards it as a totalitarian cult. Yes, there are accusations that they bought their way to charitable status in the US. But then there are people against Jews, against Christianity, against Islam. This userbox is not being nominated on the basis of whether Scientology is a viable religion or whether expressing dislike/hatred of it is acceptable. It is being discussed on the basis of whether NPOV is valid on user pages and whether this constitutes a personal attack. This nomination has turned into an anti-userbox, anti-Scientology rant. Grow up people!. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no idea in censoring userboxes. Free expression on talk pages must be allowed. Elrith 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a user feels scientology is a hypocritical, psuedoscientific, commericial cult that they should oppose, until freedom of speech is outlawed on WP userpages, they should be allowed to say so. - Hayter 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I personally feel that anyone who uses this template is being rather crass and obvious about it (and also not focusing their opposition specifically enough; this template should say "Church of Scientology", not just "Scientology"), I must nonetheless vote Keep for one simple reason: because it says "Scientology", not "Scientologists". The reason the "user against jews" template was deleted is because it said "Jews" (a group of people) rather than "Judaism" (a loose religious ideology). The former may be unacceptable to some (though I don't see a terribly big deal with it; it's about as silly as saying "I hate people with red hair!" or "I hate people who live in the southern hemisphere!"... what's the point of getting mad about such arbitrary nonsense?), but the latter I fail to see any problems with. Would we delete a template that said "I am vehemently opposed to racism" or "I am vehemently opposed to Microsoft" or "I am vehemently opposed to the United States of America"? It's not nearly as bad as saying "I hate racists" or "I hate Bill Gates" or "I hate Americans", now is it? But whatever we decide, let's at least be consistent. -Silence 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this debate is pretty much over, but for clarification the template about Jews actually stated quote, "This users is vehemently against Judaism". Not Jews but Judaism and it was deleted.Gateman1997 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the template was named User against jews.--Prosfilaes 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An excellent point, Silence. I wonder if the people who created the "user against Jews" template to make a POINT about their opinions forgot to
  • Did I miss something? The template is suddenly gone and there is no note here of the discussion closing.--God of War 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs), who apparently decided that being an admin means you get to ignore ongoing TfD discussions and just do whatever the hell you want to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology is not a religion but a rather scary scam; many courts in many countries have decided so. Let's put it like this: anyone here will not condone murder, fraud or theft but srive to write possibly neutral articles on these crimes. The comparison with Judaism fails miserably. Pilatus 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're half-wrong there: Scientology is indeed a rather scary scam, but it's also a religion. Whoever said the two were mutually exclusive? A cult is just a type of religion too, and the only people who would argue otherwise are the ones who think that a religion is inherently "good" (and, on the other hand, there are the extremists who say "religion is inherently bad"; we have plenty of both on Wikipedia), much like someone would argue that only a nice guy can be a Christian. Whether something is a scam or not makes little difference; it's an organized spiritual belief system that plenty of people believe in. In that light, it's more of a religion than a lot of other "religions" that we have boxes for, like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism.
  • Furthermore, a lot of people seem to have rather jumped a few points in logic and made the unjustified assumption that it's somehow wrong to oppose something just because it's a religion. This makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I fail to see how it furthers Wikipedia's aims; why should religious support be treated differently than religious opposition (if you're only basing it on whether the religion's popular or not, we'll have a real problem), or from support for any other ideology (even more of a problem here; if you aren't allowed to vehemently oppose Scientology in a pastel box, are you not allowed to oppose racism, war, persecution, capitalism, grammatical prescriptionism, etc.?) for that matter? The right to be offensive in what you believe is a fundamental and sacred one, and should not be violated for people's personal userpage layout and content choices. We have userboxes for people who are members of all sorts of religions, for "this user is interested in religion", and for "this user thinks the world would be better off without religion"; why not some more specific variants when it helps people feel special about their ideological differences? Userboxes are like pogs: they're an amusing fad and should be tolerated whenever they do no real harm until people move on. And I'm ranting, so I will go now. -Silence 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have requested undeletion at WP:DRV#Template:User_against_scientology. Regardless of whether or not this template has any merit it should be undeleted for the course of this tfd. All of your opinions count for nothing if the tfd process here is ignored.--God of War 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this TfD might have run its course, though. It has been 7 days since it was nominated, right? Tony's actions may well be out of process, but perhaps less out of process than you think? (I thought the closing admin usually announced their read on the consesus, carried out the deletion if that was consensus, and archived the discussion... none of that has happened but the template apparently is deleted). So color me confused.

Or annoyed that Tony's acting out of process again. I'm just not sure which it is yet. In any case... I'm in the camp that holds that process (despite WP:IAR tradition, and despite my fear of m:instruction creep) is the way to ensure that things are done fairly and that users aren't turned off by the actions of admins. Follow process and people accept that the outcome may not have been as they like (that's what consensus is, after all... not everyone agreeing that the consensus view is RIGHT... just everyone agreeing that the consensus view is one they can go along with even if they personally don't agree with it) but that it was achieved fairly and that the future holds more fairness. Trample process and people become jaded about process, about tradition, about the project, about (perhaps worst) admins in general.... now I think being an admin is a thankless job and one I'm not sure I'd ever want, and the last thing I want to do is make it harder for those admins trying their hardest to do the right thing. So Tony, can you PLEASE follow process? It usually gets the right result, if perhaps not as fast as you like. ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, having a separate template for every article defeats the purpose of having a template in the first place. - Bobet 11:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the same effect can be made with HTML, can't it? --Liface 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character of "Sam Fisher" is significant enough to warrant his own template. -- Crevaner 13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: did you look at the template itself? Which other article could you possibly use this on? - Bobet 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't accepted practice to break out portions of an article using templates. Now this is subst:ed, it can go away as unnecessary. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused. Notability does not come into it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is not used and not needed - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Niffweed17 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Thorri 11:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 11:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it is in use. Remove use and I will reconsider my vote. Adrian Buehlmann 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep I wouldn't call it meta-templated because we have some cities with seals and others without. This particular introduction is not available on Template:Infobox U.S. City. I have no interest in modifying a template to improve it that may have seven thousand articles which need to be changed, therefore I created a template that unifies cities in one particular county. The Template:Infobox U.S. City is presently insufficient for these articles. Using the original Template:Infobox U.S. City would in fact limit our ability on these articles. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per what I just said below with the NH Infobox. karmafist 04:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment: This request for deletion does not satisfy the rational for listing for deletion as listed above. The rational put forth by the proposer pretends to address number 2: The template is redundant to another better-designed template, however, this template incorporates more than the other one. ℬ 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Redundant, footnotes on Template:Infobox City can be used to add addtional information. — Seven Days » talk 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One-size-fits-all templates don't necessarily meet all needs. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NH

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Unlike many other states, New Hampshire has a wide variety of governments both in terms of towns and cities at the municipal level under NH RSA Title III, thus giving need for the creation of this infobox. karmafist 14:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I echo the statement by karmafist, but would like to add that the Infobox U.S. City is lacking needed information which the NH Infobox has. Assawyer 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be happy to add whatever information is missing from the main infobox. Such a subtle concern is no reason to fork this template. -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and used. Adrian Buehlmann 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral pending resolution of question as to whether this functionality can be incorporated within Template:Infobox U.S. City. If so, delete. If not, keep. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like that it cannot be integrated into the generic US city box without causing problems for all the rest.  ALKIVAR™ 14:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Gateman1997 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Template:Infobox U.S. City modifications will require a substantial amount of changes before it can be adjusted to meet our areas' muncipalities unique and individual needs. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Redundant, footnotes on Template:Infobox City can be used to add addtional information. — Seven Days » talk 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One-size-fits-all templates don't necessarily meet all needs. -- Dalbury

Template:Cuisine

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No more harmful than, say Musicboxes as a topical template. Circeus 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real reason to delete as far as I can see. It's used in multiple articles and has no simple alternative. - Cuivienen 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Circeus. --Loopy 21:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a good reason to delete this template. --Terence Ong Talk 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm fed up of all these stupid nominations - It's used in several articles!!! What's wrong with it!? — Wackymacs 08:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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

Link templates

Other

  • I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

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).

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

Listings

January 11

Template:Oldvfd

Template:Oldvfd
Delete — Obsolete and now unused. —Phil | Talk 19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User allboxes

Template:User allboxes
The purpose of this template is to stack consultations against anti-userbox deletions, disciplinary actions, and changes to policy. It subverts the attempt to find reasoned positions in these processes into tug of wars, or in brief, it is disruptive. Templates expressing support for userboxes in a disruptive manner exist, for example, [Template:Userbox Love]]. The template should be deleted. --- Charles Stewart 18:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A user should be allowed to state they are in favour of userboxes. This does so. If I notice a userbox expressing an opposite viewpoint, my vote will be the same. This is a comment on a wikipedia phenomenon. As I understand it, this is not only possible, but encouraged. This is after all, a collaborative project and such projects encourage feeback, even if said feedback may be interpreted as negative in content. - Hayter 19:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hayter. —Andux 19:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. 'Nuff said. —CJ Marsicano 19:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hayter - Keith Greer 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definately that userbox love. What's disruptive about that?? I can possible see some people thinking User allboxes as disruptive, but it doesn't actually attack anyone either. -- Sneltrekker†My Talk 19:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uncyclopedia

Template:Uncyclopedia
This template is currently not used, nor should it be. It somehow survived a TfD debate here.

  • Delete. —Ruud 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, though possibly reword. I suspect this is designed to be used on the user talk pages of Uncyclopedia users who get their wires crossed. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is for the talk pages of articles like Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose humourous subject matter could tempt many to non-encyclopaedic updates. Surprised it's not more widely used. — ciphergoth 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: wangi 14:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NPOV does the job. gren グレン ? 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV covers it's use. If it had a use, it would have been used by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Stbalbach 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simon

Template:Simon
Delete — Template is overly large and somewhat unwieldy, and is mostly full of red links. Discussion on the template's talk page shows a preference for this information to be a simple category, rather than a full template. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, too unwieldy to be of any use. Since all of the articles in the template are now in the same category anyway, I don't see a point in keeping this. - Bobet 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too big (even with the font reduction), and full of red links. Also, I'm not sure if it's particularly useful or warranted. -- MisterHand 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unwieldly, no reason to know who owns all of those places, etc. gren グレン ? 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it ike9898 14:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 10

Template:Protected Area Table

Template:Protected Area Table
Delete template, subtemplates, and associated talk pages — Obsolete; this template (along with its associated subtemplates listed below) has been superceded by Template:Infobox protected area. — Eoghanacht talk 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of subtemplates:
  • Delete all these are now obsolete and I do not believe they are used anywhere in this wiki.--MONGO 03:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - let them clean after themselves ;) Renata 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:State park

Template:State park
Delete template and talk page — Obsolete template, supplanted by the more general Template:Infobox protected area. — Eoghanacht talk 18:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per above. --Kralizec! 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ditto --DaGizza Chat 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This template is now obsolete.--MONGO 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In with the new, out with the old.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete — per CSD G7 and vote of Kralizec! above. →AzaToth 14:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NihonG

Template:NihonG
Speedy delete — Unlinked template. 2 edits. Replaced by, perhaps, Template:Politics of Japan. —Philip N.✉ 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, obsolete template. - Bobet 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods

Template:List of Salt Lake City neighborhoods
Delete — This template is only in use by one article, Salt Lake City, Utah. I wish to convert the entire article to prose, but I don't want to change that part until this template is deleted. I believe I can describe it much more informatively on prose. In addition, all of these neighborhoods are already listed on Template:Salt Lake City. bob rulz 04:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom, unused. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, there will be minimal consequence from doing so as the templete is only present in one article and it can easily be copied and pasted. — Seven Days » talk 05:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after converting into article text, if needed. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Delete. Seems pretty much useless in one article.The Scurvy Eye 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 9

Template:Event y

Templates that just create categories makes that space hard to maintain... ask anyone that works WP:CFD. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Locale length

Meta-template. Uses the "P" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after manually updating any pages using it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CBD. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Converts meters to locale (feet)
eg. {{Locale length|10}} gives Template:Locale length and {{Locale length|1000}} gives Template:Locale length, useful when metric measurments (without imperial feet) are encountered in some pages. Also can be used to in sed no-line-break-space after the between number and unit. eg 1000 m, this is commonly missed and leads to messy pages. - NevilleDNZ 09:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This conversion to feet should be done by hand to ensure that the correct number of significant digits is used. Or you will get something like "approximately 1000 m (3281 feet)" instead of "approximately 1000m (3300 feet)" which is more appropriate. Kusma (討論) 13:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meta meta gren グレン ? 14:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country GB, etc.

(Template:Country GB, Template:Country PT, Template:Country NP, Template:Country NZ)

Meta-templates. Used with the "event" templates mentioned below. -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Some templates, eg Template:Infobox Country, are passed the XX country code, and, this provides enough information determin Country name: Britian, and even Nationality: British. i.e. esp useful for template. Maybe we should limit these to important tags... such as only country, nationality and type of event etc... This approach is used extensively by the Template:coor dms, Template:coor dm, Template:coor d and Template:coor etc and documented in the wiki help pages. NevilleDNZ 09:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't use other poor examples to defend this. Those templates as well are on my list. -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several meta-templates related to months

(all templates in the form of "P#", Template:CentaryN, Template:MonthN, Template:Convert month, Template:Month name, Template:Born, Template:Died, Template:Battle, Template:Disaster, Template:Event)

I stumbled onto a pretty arcane series of nested meta-templates. They seem basically devised to compose a complicated structure around converting numbers to months and back again. Template:CentaryN and Template:MonthN seems to be used only for sorting articles into strict time order within categories. This can be achieved manually without all this template-within-template structure. Born, Died, Event, Battle, Disaster, and others create four-layer-deep meta-templates that seem to be used to present dates in a non-standard format (see Edmund Hillary). -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after manually updating any pages using it. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CBD. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I checked the Edmund Hillary page and it has entries like: {{Born|1919|7|20|region=NZ}} that correctly puts Edmund into the Category:New Zealand people and Category:1919 births. And correctly formats the dates as per wiki standard. The templates Born, Died, Battle, Disastor and Event seem to categorise corectly also. NevilleDNZ 08:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You "checked" it and it "seems to"? Aren't you the one that created all this and put it there in the first place? Have you read WP:AUM? I don't blame you too much for creating this system, but it's disallowed by policy. Categorization and dates are already handled by existing mechanisms that are easier to maintain and avoid being hogs on the server. -- Netoholic @ 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • ThanX for your "friendly" feedback. NevilleDNZ 12:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these (not 'Locale length') could be converted to non-meta templates. I like the concept behind standardized data formatting, but I think these templates should then always be subst'd in once they are formatted to use widely agreed upon standards. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My wiki forensic revealed that there are 10'000 (in words: ten thousand) templates P1..P10000. Patrick created P1..P3 and NevilleDNZ continued up to astronomic 10000. I must say Neto is very friendly... --Adrian Buehlmann 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like they go up to p31 and then only hit major milestones and specific instances up to p10000. So not quite as bad, but wouldn't work properly until all of the entries were filled out. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Poor admin who has to delete them. I'm asking myself whether it makes sense to do that delete work at all. Deleted articles/templates are still around just marked as deleted, right? So we just increase the garbage by deleting them without gaining much. --Adrian Buehlmann 13:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ye gods. Give the guy a Barnstar for Excessive Cleverness or something and then delete 'em all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User-AmE-0

Template:User-AmE-0
Delete — Quite rudely claims that American English isn't English and is actually spelling and grammatical errors, in contradiction to official policies here. Serves no purpose other than nationalistic arrogance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs)

  • Keep this and all American English templates. Someone should make a policy about userboxes so these don't keep coming up. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This TFD discussion is tainted by talk page spamming by Jamal al din: e.g. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] Demi T/C 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Tainted'? Are those people's opinions unworthy of consideration because they had to be told there was a vote? Do you think they are only voting because somebody else wants them to? ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Templates like these are the reason why everyone wants to delete useful Babel templates now, without taking to drawing up a policy proposal. And cookiecaper, there is a policy discussion on userboxes: WP:UBP. This template is just for user-fun and bears no relevance to writing an encyclopedia or translating. If it has to be kept the wording needs to be changed because as accessed now it is offensive. --Fenice 09:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the grounds that it's offensive. There aren't enough offensive templates on Wikipedia right now. Templates by and large tend to be far too pleasant and civil; it's repulsive and runs contrary to our interests here, which is to create a hostile and factionalist environment for inefficient and contentious editing. However, I vote to keep this template only on the grounds that I can also make a template calling all of the Romance languages "poorly-spoken Latin" in a similar way to how American English is poorly-spoken English. Fair's fair. -Silence 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is another userbox with the same text {{Template:User AmE-0}}. In itself it is not any more offensive than {{Template:User AIM-0}}, {{Template:user gb-0}} or {{Template:user 1337-0}}. -- Sneltrekker 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm ambivalent about this style of userbox (I've removed the joke userboes I created for myself), but I think we should hold on ad-hoc deletions until there is some consensus on a coherent policy about userboxes. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and its counterpart that insults users of Commonwealth English, if it exists. Not useful for user categorization. Wikipedia itself is dialect-neutral; if its users aren't, there's no reason to allow themselves to factionalize like this. android79 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I live in America so I speak American English; saying things like color and fall. I don't find this offensive at all. I have no problems with people stating their choosen dialect.--God of War 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this applies to me as well; it's all very silly, isn't it? Like linguistic nationalism. Fact is, some Americanisms are more linguistically efficient than the Britishisms ("color" is simply faster and simpler to type than "colour"), some Britishisms are more linguistically efficient than the Americanisms ("arse" rather than "ass" makes sense as a handy way to avoid confusion with the donkey "ass"), and most variations are just too trivial for any sane person to make a fuss about. If I was the God of Language, I'd just hold a giant international superpoll and have all the neutral parties go through every spelling and meaning variance and pick the most coherent, efficient, simple, and clear form for each and forget about the rest. But since I'm not that, best to just live with it, and to let people hate on (or poke fun at hating on) whichever dialect they want. -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Silence. — BrianSmithson 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There's a whole list of American English templates, these language templates shouldnt be deleted. Plus, if something like this causes offence, then you're obviously too touchy - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Saying any language is an improper form of another is a completely false statement. In fact, by saying this, this user should also have taken into account that English is a form of Germanic and, by there way of thinking, is also just "grammatical errors". Not acknowledging this means, or atleast how I have interpreted, just a biased, rude thing to say.
  • Keep Keith Greer 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Kiand 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Offensive, useless. — Seven Days » talk 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per God of War. —Andux 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know Am English's beginnings, I know modern English's beginning and I know where old Germanic languages came from. Knowing all this, I can offer my educated opinion. This is humerous. Leave it be. Silence is right, though. - Hayter 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. —Nightstallion (?) 17:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I personally find this userbox a bit offensive, but everyone has their opinions, and they are free to express them in the user namespace. — TheKMantalk 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems fairly light hearted to me. Boddah 18:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Silence, and make some more for other ignorant deviations from proper Proto-Indo-European. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I'm talkin' about! Bring back PIE! Lazy linguistic louses, losing lingering locatives later! -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it is humorous and not offensive at all. Larix 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a joke, it's not a very funny one. So it sounds more like an attack than a joke. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, though that hasn't influenced my vote. -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The idea behind these userboxes is to entertain. While I'm no longer a member of the userboxes project (and not particularly such a large fan of userboxes anymore), let 'em have their fun. Cernen 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that said, Keep. Cernen 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete immediately - while I am a big fan of British English and sometimes make fun of American English, I do believe that this opinion espressed in such a way is far too vulgar to be accepted by anyoneMsoos
    • Comment For the record, British English is just English (its not a version of the language, it is the language) and it's not exactly immoral. People get offended by anything nowadays. Seeing as it's not hugely bad, can't you just resort to not using it? An American above said they werent offended, maybe if people were as sensible as him we wouldnt have a backlog in the deletion section - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that it isn't accepted by anyone (in which case the template won't find any use and can be deleted as an orphan (just as we do with human orphans)), or are you saying that we shouldn't let it be accepted by anyone? Both seem like strange statements to make; I can understand saying that we should make people express this opinion in customized or fully userfied templates, or simply have them express it in prose, but saying that it's too vulgar to be expressed at all seems a tad odd... What's so terrible about being vulgar every once in a while? -Silence 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - How would you non-American speakers of English feel if I created a userbox mocking Commonwealth English? --TML1988 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldnt be bothered. It wouldnt take a userbox mocking proper English for me to know that Americans dont like Brits. Plus, if u mocked English, then you would be mocking American English because it is the original version of your "language" - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, for the record American English is closer to the original version of English than British English. Studies show that people living in the Appalachia Mountains are closest to Elizabethan English... not that it is somehow better for that. You might want to go educate yourself instead of assuming that your version is somehow more correct. The point, however, is that nobody should be mocking anyone, especially ikn a way that goes against clear Wikipedia policies that American English is just as real as British English. DreamGuy 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The moon is made of cheese. See, i can do it too - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as a user of american english). This is an expression of opnion. Any edits in which such a user attempted to "correct" such "errors" would be in violation of policy, and would I trust, be promptly revted. But I see no reason why the suer should not be entitled to express such a view, at elast until there is a more comprehensive policy on user boxes. If a user had such a statement on his or her user page not in a box, how far would soemone get who wanted to remove it as a policy violation? DES (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a supporter of userboxes in general, but this one is just so silly I have to vote delete. I mean gees, all languages evolve. That doesn't make one more "right" than the other. --Fang Aili 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Written chinese doesn't evolve, not that is in any way relevant.--God of War 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a harmless userbox with a sense of fun, adds colour to this encyclopaedia. Lord Bob 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur completely with Lord Bob. All you people who are offended, every language template as a -0 version, and stop being to touchy! - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete factionalizing userbox --Wikiacc 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is undoubtedly the stupidest TfD nomination ever. Mindboggling. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Lord Bob. It's clearly very tongue-in-cheek; I don't think it warrants your evident indignation.--CapitalLetterBeginning 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I don't understand how this could be considered offensive, I know that I find other various things offensive which others don't understand and tell me I'm "being too touchy" (eg, butchers' windows, horse racing). No need for a template which offends others. --Qirex 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Violates Wikipedia's ideals about etiquette and "good faith". We are supposed to be working together here, not sniping at one another over language differences.--Srleffler 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly harmless userspace template. Gerrit CUTEDH 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, elitist and factually incorrect. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Has to be one of the most ridiculous TFD's so far.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2: My watchlist has seen at least a few of these userboxes be sent here to die. Can't Wikiproject Userboxes make their own TfD page? This is supposed to be for useful templates that might have outlived their usefulness, not usercruft. Cernen 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, offensive and insulting. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, serves no purpose but to violate WP:CIVIL.--Sean|Black 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Will this be deleted too? Just the same, but the opposing POV: Template:User AmE-5:
en-us
-5		This user can contribute at a professional level of American English.
Definite American bias here - but that's not surprising when such a large portion of editors are American..--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assume god faith, will ya? And yes, I hope that one is deleted too.--Sean|Black 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nice tough of silliness, nothing rude to be seen here. Pilatus 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Lord Bob and untill userbox poilcy is sorted out Brian | (Talk) 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, this is not the place for it. —Cryptic (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. How is this offensive? 1) He is entitled to his opinion. 2) It won't harm anyone by him always using British English instead of American English, and 3) It's not like it's going to be used outside of his user page. Saying this is biased and offensive is like saying somebody not liking a certain type of music is offensive. bob rulz 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally harmless. Adrian Buehlmann 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete. Totally useless. --Doc ask? 11:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Anyone heard of the word "humour"? That's "humour", not "humor" --Falcon9x5 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I speak enough languages to know that this is a bit of harmeless fun over some minor differences in dialect. Also second what Bob rulz said. Tom 12:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess - this looks an awful lot like irony to me, but some of the above comments show that we should at least give consideration to the idea that some find it genuinely offensive rather than funny. We have enough trouble with disputes around use of language caused by simple misunderstandings without fanning the flames. Plus, as any student of language should know, the British English spellings are often modern affectations, and the US versions are in many ways more correct (and are found in sources such as Chaucer). I'd almost make an honourable exception for aluminium (per IUPAC) but that means I'd have to accept sulfur, and I'm not going to have that. So, away with it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People should be entitled to express their opinions on their user pages, whatever those opinions may be. Especially so considering the lightheartedness of this particular template. --TheCardinal 15:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - *sigh*, some of you obviously have no sense of humour. You may think I'm being biased, not being a user of American English, but I do not find Template:User AmE-5 offensive one bit. I put the template on my user page simply for a bit of a laugh - I was only more amused to see this TfD with people calling it "factionalising" and "elitist"! I am frightened at how seriously some of you are taking a stupid little userbox. I think people should be allowed to say what they like on their user pages - it's not their fault if it's taken the completely wrong way. --Zilog Jones 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete Only because there is already a {{user AmE-0}}, and the dash after "user" in the template name is against my bias toward userbox syntax. All the AmE templates are pointless jokes, but are not quite patent nonsense, so I have no reason to ban them. An attitude about a language is not a personal attack or group hate. — Eoghanacht talk 15:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I think that it is an important template, it's lighthearted and harmless. I also feel that the nomination could be construed as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Stifle 16:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - stop being distracting. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A major vote was completed recently, reaching a concensus that POV userboxes should not be deleted. This is a POV userbox. All opinions are going to offend, you can't help or prevent that (unless you eliminate opinions, which is against freedom of speech). If you disagree with this, dont use it. I disagree with a lot of POV userboxes but i dont complain, and I certainly dont try to delete them. You call this bias, what I call bias is this being nominated and the AmE-5 template not. I call that deleting in favour of a particular language or nationality. Guess which one - American! So if this template gets deleted, and my numerous appeals dont work, I call for the AmE-5 template and any other language template with a shred of opinion in it be deleted immediately. Wikipedia userpages will be more boring places, but if you people want to make it that way, don't do it in a biased way just because there are more of you from America than Britain. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but only if it's actually made witty, like the anti-British one above. As it is, it's just mean. ~~ N (t/c) 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless userspace content. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - userboxes are free to be NPOV and act as a mechanism whereby people can express things they would be free to express anyway in a standardised format. Plus- it is true. Deano (Talk) 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I do think that American English is crap and I am rude, so having this on my user page is totally encyclopedic and NPOV. Besides, I don't feel like having the same discussion for all userboxes one by one. --Valmi ✒ 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I don't know how many people are aware of this, but this encyclopedia was founded by american english speakers, and this mess is a disgrace--Nn-user 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think you are aware that American (English) is based on English, should that make a difference? - Keith Greer 18:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And America was originally under British rule. Does it matter? No. If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt, so i think you're exagerrating a bit. Take a look at the discussion I linked to a few points up. For every person who voted delete on POV userboxes, over 6 people voted keep. O and Valmi, you sum up my opinion completely. If there is any disgrace, it's American English (which is not an official language, it's a version - look up America on this encyclopedia if you want). NPOV does not apply to user pages, which is why POV userboxes should stay. We dont need this discussion. Such a lareg amount of POV userboxes were voted on based upon the fact that they were POV, not their individual content - and the overwhelming result was Keep. I'll fight to keep as many as these POV userboxes as possible, but I'd appreciate it if you didnt nominate so many of them. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this is such a disgrace, then Jimbo Wales would be making comments. But as of yet he hasnt Actually, he -- tangentially -- has, leaving a comment at [Category:Wikipedians by politics:
'Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC) --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - more garbage templates. Djegan 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's not very professional. Thumbelina 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Provincialist attack. Inferiority-complex issues ought to be acted out elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whilst I would never advocate actually banning American English, the thought of it is quite entertaining, and people expressing that view on their talk pages is fine. --New Progressive 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm a huge USA patriot and I don't find this opinion offensive at all. Lawyer2b 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a) because it is a light hearted piece of humour and b) because we need definite Wikipedia policy on userboxes before we start culling them. --Loopy e 04:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You can mark me as another American who thinks you're all being far too touchy. Kairos 06:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly offensive. -- JJay 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly the wikipedia userspace has gone beyond the boundaries of being "encylopedic" in nature. Besides, who cares. I rest easy at night knowing that I'm heeding the advice of my mother who said, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." But if some other jag-off (there's an Americanism for you, specifically western-Pennsylvania/Pittsburgh area dialect) wants to show how much of a jerk he or she can be, who am I to stop them? Here's another thing my mom used to say, "actions speak louder then words." Lucky for us here on the WP we have both at the same time. --Easter Monkey 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To be insulted at something you have to have cared of their opinion. It shows to people that there is different types of the english language and its only a laugh. The userspace of WP is separate to rest of WP therefore IMO NPOV should not need to apply, if it does then there is no point to the userspace. --Neocal 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Harmless, amusing, etc etc. --Gary Kirk (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The general reason people are giving for deletion is the fact that is may be offensive. But you can't delete something based solely on the fact that it offends (except if it is completely immoral, which this isnt). In an ideal world, everyone would live in harmony, peace on earth, etc etc. But you have to wake up because that is never going to happen. We will never have world peace, and there will always be offense in one form or another. Its called reality. This template, as well as others, is going to offend someone somewhere. Im sorry that's true, but its not hugely contraversial. All other Babel templates have one that says This user does not like x language, but i dont see those here for deletion. Do you? What i think is happening is everyone falling into this pro-America thing going on, creating different rules for anti-AmE templates. You can deny it as much as much as you like, like all the "official" opinions that exist, there is always some fabrication in there. Once again, i call for the deletion for any babel templates with opinion in them to be deleted if this template does get deleted. If we are going to have a NPOV thing going, it must apply to deletiong similar userboxes. Pro-USA bias just wont cut it. - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find it quite useful in letting people know in a light-hearted way that I don't really want my articles "Americanising" where people change all the words/terms to American variations. Anyway it's just a bit of fun and it's an over the top reaction. I wouldn't care if it was the other way round. Rule Britainnia! Englishrose 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep seriously get over it, it's just a bloody userbox. Our userpage is a place for our own personal opinions and information, and if i prefer to use UK english over US english then so be it. If i want other people to look at my page and see that i use UK english and not US english then they can. If you really have something against it then create your own userbox saying "US english is the ultimate english and all other forms are inferior and wrong".
And if your Seriously taking offence to this, then think about this...
Every other country in the world is getting your American crap beemed onto their TV's and movie screens. So think about all those people that have to hear your bloody annoying accents and pronouciations! e.g. "Skeduel" instead of "Schedule" and "Aluminum" instead of "Aluminium".
So in conclusion i tell you... GET A LIFE! stop complaining about something that doesn't need complaining about. We put up with your crap everywhere everyday! and we don't file complaints or law suits or start bitching about it, we just sit back and say "bloody Americans". And being offended by the personal opinion of a userbox is just childish...
Frexe 19:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 8

Template:Sp-sprotected

This invents an extension to WP:SEMI by templatizing the notion of semi-permanent semi-protect. George W. Bush may be a special case, but it doesn't need a template for it, since that comes to imply that the template can be used elsewhere when there is no mandate in policy, or in the discussion surrounding that policy. Indeed, many of the supporters of WP:SEMI were clear that they did not want to see such semi-permanent protection. -Splashtalk 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I find this discreet note much less distracting and more suitable than Template:sprotected. And especially on articles expected to be semi-protected for long periods of time (like the GWB-article), this less dominating note should be more than suficcient. Shanes 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this template gives scope creep to WP:SEMI. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, encourages scope creep, should be discussed at WP:SEMI first. Kappa 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Xaosflux, Kappa Lezek 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 20:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. George W. Bush is not going to be un-semi-protected for more than a few hours at a time within the next couple years. Several other articles also face similar, albeit less extreme, long-term vandalism problems. —Guanaco 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ugly, unnecessary as there is a far better alternative, and distinctly amateurish-looking. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's meant to be small. If it's ugly or amateurish-looking, fix it. —Guanaco 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks/wangi 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until (if ever) there is a change to WP:SEMI for long-term semi-protection. Even then, this template doesn't explain the reason for the protection and is too unobtrusive. When semi-protection is used it should be clearly stated and a reason given. This is even more true for highly visible pages that new people to wikipedia may hit (lest they think that protection is the normal behavior). kenj0418 03:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.It doesn't give enough info into why the page is semi-protected.--Dakota ~ ε 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. —Guanaco 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful and less distracting. It could maybe be a bit bigger with a table box around it, but I think it's good as a smaller alternative. -Mysekurity 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Byzantine-Arab War

I've already merged it into Template:Campaignbox Muslim Conquest. Palm_Dogg 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the Battle of Syllaeum, mentioned in the "Byzantine-Arab War" template, isn't itself a "Muslim Conquest" per se, but a defeat that temporarily put a stop to further Islamic conquests in Europe. Possibly re-title "The Muslim Conquests" into something slightly different? — TheKMantalk 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I think the idea is that the series of wars as a whole is termed the "Muslim Conquests", not that each individual battle is necessarily one. —Kirill Lokshin 14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Loopy e 04:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User de-5

Template:User de-5

  • I wonder if your personal attacks are _necessary_ to put through these deletions? Much easier to try and discredit a person than discussing policies, Ilmari. --Fenice 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to WP:POINT is not a personal attack. Also, in this case I think Ilmari Karonen's suspicion is quite valid. Creating a sister template for a template that is nominated for deletion before any consensus is reached, particularly when you yourself did not intend to use it, seems to me like a good reason to bring up WP:POINT. Generally speaking, I'd like to suggest that you calm down and assume good faith. EldKatt (Talk) 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Rhobite tells me that I cannot be defended from your insults, EldKatt, because even repeated insulting comments cannot be deleted on this page. Claiming someone is trying to make a point is of course a personal attack. Have a look at WP:AGF. You know this policy. You are citing it right here. Are you never embarrassed? I have asked you and Ilmari several times to stop harrassing me. --Fenice 17:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, continuing this discussion would not lead to anything positive for either you or me. Before I take a much-needed vacation from this whole conflict, I want to point out that I have not lied about anything here or anywhere else, and I have not insulted or attacked you or anyone else. I regret to say that I lack the energy to deal with this conflict (although honestly I doubt it can be dealt with at the time of writing), and this is the last you will hear from me regarding this issue. (I'm cross-posting this to relevant pages.) EldKatt (Talk) 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-standard template, and per nominator. — TheKMantalk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-standard Babel template, for the same reasons as for {{User en-5}}. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with category outside of babel heirarchy (eg. "Professional copy-editor (German)"). Again, I'm against the user-4 category as well but it's easier to create something on wikipedia than to remove it. A four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and "native or native-like" is plenty as far as i'm concerned. ntennis 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per en-5 discussion. Rhobite 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, obviously. The proposed policy was not opposed by anyone. It should have been discussed first before putting it up on deletion.--Fenice 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Replace with professional writer category. -- Sneltrekker 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A policy does not yet exist making these professional languages illegal. I have no problems with people that want to claim this.--God of War 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to a more appropriate location, not de-5. This has the same problems as en-5 and does seem to have been made to provide an argument against deletion in the en-5 debate. - Cuivienen 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose the result of the debate for en-5 will, in a way, set a precedent for either deleting or keeping this template (although there's a lot more of a consensus here). I vote delete, though, with the reasoning I have already explained at en-5. EldKatt (Talk) 16:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5 discussion. --Fang Aili 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5 - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per en-5, and as a possible WP:POINT violation. Lord Bob 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Changes likes these to the babel system should be discussed on meta and not on a single language version of Wikipedia. If we follow this course, the babel system would mean different things on each language version of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. --Maitch 02:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it already does: the xx-4 levels are nonstandard extensions. They're not used on meta or commons, even though quite a few Wikipedias have adopted them. But I agree that we don't really need more nonstandard levels. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know and I don't agree to level 4 either, but I wasn't around at that point. If it is discussed at meta and they have found a consensus then it's fine, but I don't like you unilaterally changing things - and the fact that you didn't even have discussed a policy makes it even worse. --Maitch 17:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is not harmful to the purpose of WP. --Dschor 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is not useful to the purpose of WP. --Doc ask? 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per en-5. --Angelo 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More nonsense templates for peoples personal pets. Djegan 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Holiday

Template:Holiday
Delete — This template was only edited once, back in September 2004; I don't know if this template is even used on any pages. In addition, a better template (Template: Infobox Holiday) has been created and is being added to holiday articles (like Christmas, Yom Kippur). joturner 13:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:He

The template makes the Hebrew text look butt ugly. JB82{ * } 03:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't look "butt ugly" to me (maybe check your installed fonts?), and adding the TfD notice seems to have broken the markup for every use of this template. android79 06:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep font can be easily changed. Improve don't delete. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how "butt ugly" would be a criterion for the deletion of anything on a wiki; if it is ugly, make it look pretty. EldKatt (Talk) 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is butt ugly you say? {{sofixit}}. If "butt ugly" were a criterion for deletion in real life, I would have been deleted long ago. (sorry, no picture to prove my assertion will be provided... you'll just have to trust me!) Thank goodness it is not. It shouldn't be here, either. Keep unless technical reasons why it cannot ever be made to work (in a way that honors WP:AUM) are provided. ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The question is not whether it can be made to "work", but whether it can ever be useful for anything. Maybe this template does have a valid use, but I can't think of what it would be. Hebrew text on Wikipedia seems to work just fine without it. (By the way, What links here (which admittedly has been buggy lately) shows in being used on four pages, on three of which it is misused (missing parameter)!) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but change it to correspond to {{ar}} (minus the language link), and delete {{Ivrit}} which is then redundant. dab (ᛏ) 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-any

This image copyright tag is equivalent to {{cc-by-sa-1.0}}{{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, and apparently it isn't used anywhere. dbenbenn | talk 01:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — Whatlinkshere has been acting strange lately. I have been seeing templates on pages that were absent from the lists. — Seven Days » talk 03:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I'll renominate it when the link lists are fixed. dbenbenn | talk 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:flsr

No longer in use, as I have replaced this with the more-useful {{flsr box}} (see State Road 9336 (Florida) vs. its old state for an example). --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 7

Template:Infobox County/*

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

Template:Infobox County/No flag
Template:Infobox County/Map only

Both were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox County, i.e. some places didn't have a flag or seal. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every U.S. County can use Template:Infobox County. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. Note that the nominations do not include Template:Infobox County. See also my nomination for Template:Infobox Community below. — Seven Days » talk 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I'm concerned, anytime a sub-template is deprecated, it's a speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I fundamentally agree with this. I wonder if this should instead be rolled into recent Template:Infobox Country efforts, for which some systemic updates/changes will be made shortly ... i.e., not to the actual template, but to ensure that countries use the same one? E Pluribus Anthony 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Friendly

A noncommercial image tag. I've replaced it with a fair use tag for all the images at User Friendly characters. The only remaining image using this tag is on WP:IFD. If this template is deleted, please delete Category:User friendly Images, too. dbenbenn | talk 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Ok, rather than tweaking the template to work for all the images under a fairuse protocole, you just decide to delete it. How about you edit it, so that each image can have a uniform description. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't make image-tagging templates that will only ever be used on a dozen images. —Cryptic (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic --Wikiacc 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic. Jkelly 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-free license tags. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cryptic. kenj0418 04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qif

Template:Qif

As some people might know I am a fan of that template, but I do not need that template I need its functionality. We have been told by developer Jamesday on WP:AUM that qif harms the servers and thus we should work to reduce the harm. It has thus been identified as violating WP:AUM. I had some hope that qif could be implemented in code and that we could wait a bit before tearing down its use, but that seems not to be the case as the developers do not answer requests in that direction, which is something I do not want to complain about because this is their right. As we know Netoholic is working his way through templates to remove qif and he is backed by WP:AUM which is in turn backed by Jamesday. Netoholic tries to keep functionality as far as possible but if he does not see a way to keep it he requests to downgrade requirements, again backed by WP:AUM. I know that by nominating qif I will be accused for trying to create a MeatBall:ForestFire as some prefer to tear down qif behind the scenes by doing divide et impera, something which I think is not ok (others have qualified me for "stonewalling"). Moving qif to the holding cell until its uses have been removed would better reflect the actual situation. Please express below how we should proceed. Adrian Buehlmann 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Inclined to vote delete, but I would really appreciate it if someone showed me a vital usage of this template - it's nearly impossible to look through this (often very complex) pages that include this to find just how it is necessary. However, given that the template is effectively being orphaned at the moment, it makes sense to put it in the holding cell. Terrafire 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch. Looking at just how integrated this is into our content model, I'm going to have to vote keep until a better solution is implemented. Some sort of a notice encouraging people not to use it unless completely necessary would be good though. Terrafire 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy holding cell Phil Sandifer 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. If you want this template deleted, why don't you submit a patch to MediaWiki implementing a more efficient solution. Until then, this template really is needed. dbenbenn | talk 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that the developers owe it to you to give you the functionality you want before they're allowed to fix the database load? Phil Sandifer 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is User:Adrian Buehlmann a developer? I'm just saying that there plenty of contributors to Wikipedia who know how to code, and it should be easy enough to implement a more efficient replacement before destroying lots of work by deleting this template. dbenbenn | talk 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have a look at WP:AUM - the developers have specifically asked us to reduce usage of this template. Phil Sandifer 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Reduce" is not the same as "eliminate". Would you destroy Template:Book reference? As far as I can see, that template really does need the functionality of Qif, or some equivalent MediaWiki functionality. dbenbenn | talk 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • How about more than one template? Perhaps a tool for creating citations would be a good idea. That shouldn't be too difficult to program. Even I could probably do it. [[Sam Korn]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, please create that tool. Adrian Buehlmann 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Right, I have created a tool that generates plain wikitext. I will post it for testing as soon as I get a Toolserver account, as I don't want to use my own server. Private information could be garnered from it. It'll be up soon, hopefully. [[Sam Korn]] 21:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks to Robchurch, I have the citation tool available. [49]. Feedback welcomed. [[Sam Korn]] 22:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (blank, remove uses, delete) - I have found no template that Qif can't be completely eliminated from by using other methods. I'd have eliminated it long ago if the templates using it weren't all/mostly protected. -- Netoholic @ 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For two reasons. 1) AUM 2) Code that is excessively difficult to understand should be removed or simplified. [[Sam Korn]] 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I would propose that you switch off your computer immediately. I'm shure there is some code inside it you do not understand :-). I also suppose you know how IC design works. Adrian Buehlmann 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not supposed to write my computer code. I am supposed to write Wikipedia code. Making the code more difficult than is absolutely necessary should not happen. I don't know what IC design is. [[Sam Korn]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you do not understand template:book reference then leave it. That's what I wanted to say. There are enough people that understand how it works. The point is that you request that the requirements be lowered to make the code simpler. That's not the same. By the way nobody here objects anyone to make any code simpler if that can be done without breaking existing articles. Or do you really believe we stuff in code just for the sake of making it nedlessly complex? Adrian Buehlmann
          • I pretty strongly think people tend to overthink templates over time. Maybe I'm getting to me a wiki-fogey, but templates really should be simple constructs to help mirror text for consistency, not do complex processing. -- Netoholic @ 09:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is something in your statement. It's a slow creeping process. Somebody comes onto the talk page and asks: "I have an idea, couldn't we do feature XYZ. I need that in article OPXYVKLM". First reaction is usually "Oh, no. Not another request." Then someone comes up with an idea and demonstrates: "look, we can do it by doing trick QSW". Then the "group" around that templates sees that it works and that the "world is not tumbling down by doing it", and it gets implemented. It is damned hard to refuse such request to modify a template. And it is very hard for outstanders to understand why that template group went that way. Problem is also that everybody can finger around with templates, there is no "board" that controls it. For wiki articles, this model is fine, but on heavy use templates that wiki model just does not work. Reverting heavy use templates back and forth is the wrong way. Adrian Buehlmann 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Indeed - revert wars are the wrong way. That does not mean, however, that there is not a right side and a wrong side in a given revert war. Phil Sandifer 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete almost orphaned; other methods can be used to get the same functionality. --Wikiacc 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after orphaning is completed. Whatlinkshere shows at least 10,000 uses, so "almost orphaned" may be a little optimistic. —Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of those pages simply include a template using qif (as mentioned above, primarily the reference templates and {{language}}). --Wikiacc 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep until we have a replacement. I just talked with brion on IRC and he expressed some support for simple replacement syntax like {{ifdef:param|Whatever}}. There's also an existing feature request on Bugzilla. We just need someone to do the coding. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be a good first step. The best thing would be if someone could look at book reference and help us implement that without using qif. I believe there are some more functions needed. For example there should also be something like {{ifnotdef:param|text to display if param is not defined}}{{ifempty:param|text to display if param is empty}}. This could also be done while qif resides in the holding cell. Adrian Buehlmann 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete once orphaned as per developers. Lord Bob 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until we have a replacement that does not rely on CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't like hacks, there is an alternative... use multiple alternative templates and run bots to convert articles to the appropriate ones. Can we have your delete vote now? -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SPUI, or until my proposed renaming (see talk page at WP:AUM) occurs. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). Jamesday has requested that we "reduce" this template's use, and I applaud Netoholic's efforts. Jamesday has not, however, requested that we eliminate the template entirely. I won't support its deletion until I'm confident that all of its current uses can be replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. And no, Phil, this doesn't mean that I advocate "ignoring the devs." —David Levy 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uses can also be removed while qif is in the holding cell (provided it is not blanked during that). It can even reside there for as long as we want (of course not forever). I see no point in using qif. It is designed to be used in templates, which is banned by WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template's use should be avoided whenever possible, but it has not been "banned." Placing it in the holding cell would imply that we definitely intend to delete it (and would mandate removal from all pages). As I said, I'm not comfortable supporting such a measure until after all instances have been replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. —David Levy 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you intend for "reasonable similar" to replace book reference calls by plain old non-template media wiki source? If not, how far do you intend to go cutting off features from template book reference? The actual version of book reference cannot be implemented without using qif. BTW you can remove every template call if needed. Jamesday requested to work reduce the harm of qif. So where does qif not harm? Adrian Buehlmann 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm familiar with neither the book reference template nor the intricacies of such coding, and I'm not certain that the removal of {{qif}} is feasible. That's why I've voted to keep it for the time being. Jamesday requested that we reduce the extent to which meta-templates are used, thereby reducing the amount of strain placed on Wikipedia's servers. He did not order us to eliminate meta-templates entirely. —David Levy 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot have "a little bit of qif". Technically it would work, but you will never reach consensus where it shall be allowed and where not. And those that remove qif can always cite WP:AUM. So in the end, qif is removed anyway from every template due to WP:AUM. Adrian Buehlmann 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Just as templates themselves should be used in moderation, there's no reason why we can't do the same with meta-templates (when no suitable alternatives exist). —David Levy 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is widely used. A better testing method would be helpful, but this is working for now. xaosflux Talk/CVU 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until an alternative which actually cuts the mustard can be found. The functionality in the reference templates cannot be duplicated by using ugly CSS hacks, which in any case break on certain browsers (not that that seems to deter some people). Reverting to the previous situation where there were umpteen forks for different cases is simply not acceptable. There seems to be an anti-template mentality growing—often expressed in intemperate attacks on those who dare to use templates for performing "simple tasks"—which I find distasteful and unhelpful: I am not particularly interested in having to run to someone else, cap in hand, asking if their bot can do something I am perfectly capable of doing myself. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until orphaned by acceptable replacement templates. I have not seen a single instance where functionality provided by QIF cannot be replicated without using meta-templates. Only instances where those doing the conversion don't know how to do so, or do know how but for some reason refuse. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you make such a statement then the duty of prove is on your side. Show me how to implement the actual version of book reference without using qif and I will believe you. I bet you can't. I will test your implementation and bring up negative test cases. Adrian Buehlmann 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. Take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4. May not be 100% (I threw it together in an hour), but it exactly matches multiple test samples and I think it is certainly a 'proof of concept'. It would require '|if=' to be added to every existing book reference call. Let me know if you are interested in using it and I will iron out any bugs. --CBD ☎ ✉ 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted elsewhere, the 'Date' parameter wasn't listed as an option on the talk page for this template. That and various small spacing/punctuation details which I uncovered myself have now been corrected. There are also now two different non-meta versions of 'Book reference' at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4 and a discussion about which should be used on my talk page. Based on this and other templates I believe that everything which uses Qif can be converted to a non-meta version... and would like to take the time to do that before removing Qif. Breaking them all by removing Qif first and then cleaning up the mess seems needlessly disruptive. --CBD ☎ ✉ 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conrad, I appreciate your tireless work. It's a good idea to do two implementations on an existing template so that we can compare. Nevertheless I still have the strong feeling that some functions of qif cannot be mapped to weeble or CSS. I agree with you that first killing qif and then cleaning up the mess is not good for the articles (have thus changed my vote above). I will test your new implementations.
  • CBD has successfully converted template:book reference to the CSS hiddenStructure trick. All test cases passed. Thanks and congratulations! Prove adduced for CSS. Adrian Buehlmann 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same for weeble variant! See test cases. All tests are based on CBD's original implementations. Adrian Buehlmann 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a clarification - the 'side by side comparison' and initial CSS version were added to that page by Netoholic here. I'd suggested CSS as an alternate possibility, but hadn't written it up. Since Netoholic built the majority of the CSS version I've just adjusted it to have the URL and Title 'merged', rather than as two separate items, adjusted the minutiae of spacing and punctuation which are so convoluted on this template, and made a few other small additions. Also, there were a couple of things which I wasn't sure how to do with CSS (I don't use it as much) so I implemented them in the CSS version with a variant of 'Weeble' which doesn't require the '|if=' parameter (but is 'uglier' and more limited in scope). Netoholic or someone else might want to convert those sections to CSS if there are ways to do so. And just for the record... after working on this template I am now convinced that nested curly braces were invented for the sole purpose of driving dyslexics insane. ;} --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So then! Thanks to both of you for your joint effort in proving me wrong. Adrian Buehlmann 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (blank, remove uses, delete). Unnecessary complication and a resource hog. There really shouldn't need to be any debate on this. It should be a speedy delete. BlankVerse 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because no replacement exists right now. I don't want to go back to the days when there were several different versions of a template that took different arguments. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete once all uses have been cleaned up, although I don't imagine that's going to be anytime soon. JYolkowski // talk 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until replacement functionality is implemented (per CBD), then delete. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once orphaned - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession incumbent

Template:Succession incumbent

Delete — This template is sparsely used as it is almost identical to Template:Incumbent succession box. Philip Stevens 10:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Philip Stevens. No articles in the article namespace use the template, many use Template:Incumbent succession box, so the decision has virtually been made already. Terrafire 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See2

Template:see2

Template:See3

Template:see3

Template:See4

Template:see4

Template:See5

Template:see5

Template:See6

Template:see6


Template:Bigspace

All this template does is create a big space, as in &nbsp; &nbsp;. Silliness. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background

Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background
Delete — A template that consists solely of two other templates and a bunch of text is not partially useful. Also, people can't easily edit the text of the article without having to go through the template. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Golbez 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A number of bio articles for Big Brother contestants failed to give the most basic of explanation of what the show is. They talked of things like "HoH" and "secret partner" without explaining their meaning. This template simply repeats standard text, to give context to an article, for those less familiar with Big Brother, or who haven't watched it in a long time (or never watched regularly). The nominator has not explained any problem with it. If it needs to be improved, please do so. The inclusion of two templates is not critical, and if that's a problem, they can be taken out. --Rob 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Rob, provides valuable context to readers. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this content should be written into articles, not templates. Phil Sandifer 09:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be written in all ten (more later)? I don't understand how this is different then {{United States}} which avoids retyping stuff 50 times, and eases maintenance? For an "in body" example, look at Hamilton Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey which has {{NJ Congress 02}}, {{NJ Senate}}, {{NJ Legislative 02}}, etc... This seems like a common and efficient approach, that will help us keep information in articles up-to-date, while also providing proper context for individual sub-topic/detail articles. --Rob 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apples and oranges. One is a paragraph of text, the others are tabular information. Based on that, you think that if this template doesn't exist, no template should. There are very, very few templates that only insert text. Most are either infoboxes, navigation aids (like the example footers you gave) or procedural ones, not text. Straw man: Crumpled. --Golbez
        • What do you mean "...the others are tabular information...". Only one of the templates I used as an example uses a table. The others were in sentence form, to be blended into various article bodies. I'm not sure how many of these there are, but {{NJ Legislative 40}} makes me think there must be at least 40. --Rob 22:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, sorry, as you can see I switched midway through my comment from "tabular" to "navigational", and didn't go back to change it. And I'm guilty of my own crime, I didn't look at the NJ templates. However, the United States template has nothing to do with this. --Golbez 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are all terrible ideas, and should all be deleted. Article text should ALWAYS be in the article namespace. Phil Sandifer 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did you.. actually look at them, Snowspinner? --Golbez 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If these are *all* terrible ideas, as you say, shouldn't there be some sort of central place where we tell people of a convention against them, rather than randomly deleting selected ones. --Rob 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:BEANS - until someone was stupid enough to create them, there was no reason to ban them. Phil Sandifer 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Rob 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Were you the template creator? I hadn't checked. Regardless, my point stands - these templates are stupid, and stupid in a way that had not previously been thought of. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • It appears the entire extent of your reasoning is the word "stupid". You haven't given one reason for your opinion, other than to make a personal attack, which you have now repeated (knowing full well how it's being taken). Please consider explaining your position, and let's try to raise the standard for discussion around here. --Rob 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rob. --Thorri 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- what a badly written template, with grammar and spelling errors! I've moved the text into the article (and done some work on the badly written article as well). The correct template is {{background}}. Now orphaned. --William Allen Simpson 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When did bad spelling and grammar become deletion criteria? --Rob 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom et al, meta templates are evil and this one is not sensible - content in article is appropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why do we even have articles on seasons of a television show? --Improv 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this article was getting way to big, and needed to be broke up. I suppose it's a similiar concept to why we have articles for each sequel to a serial movie series that follows a standard format, but has variations worth noting. It's also better than the numerous cases, of individual articles for 30-minute episodes of certain shows. --Rob 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per nom. Dustimagic 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Prior to today I hadn't read Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, which says we shouldn't include templates in templates. So, I used "subst", to avoid this. Perhaps another option is to put the included templates {{background}} and {{spoiler}} in the individual bios (regardless of whether {{Big Brother USA season 6 background}} is kept). I think the issue here is only if we want to give standard background/context information, or if we want to compell all/most readers to read a separate article. --Rob 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this information is necessary in multiple articles, make a Big Brother USA season 6 background article and link to it. Or, better yet, implant this information into each article, as necessary. This is really an abuse of template system. fragmer 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Article text should always be in the article, not hidden in a template. --Bky1701 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So just copy-paste the info into each article. What's so difficult about that? Then at least the info can be customized or edited as appropriate for each individual article, allowing for much better flow and more diverse wording.
  • Delete per above (which is, incidentally, one of the best arguments I've heard in ages for merging all of these anonymous nobodies "reality" TV contestants into a single article per series. And not starting any article on a TV series until at least twelve months after it's aired, this being an encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper and all.- Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - abuse. Templates do not serve this purpose. Renata 16:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 according to AzaToth. Vít Zvánovec 19:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is simply ugly, an oversized box that adds nothing to the page. Information on name, date of birth and death is already the first pieces of information on the article itself, so it adds no useful content. Regular old photos is all that's needed. Underwent TLD in the past, survived, but many, many people were upset by the decision. Now that it's spreading to other articles it needs to be stopped. DreamGuy 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator, you didn't add the tfd notice to the template itself (step 1 of the instructions at the top of the page here). I've added it there for you. Slambo (Speak) 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Step one says to put in the template or ont he talk page. If you have a problem with that, take it up with whomever wrote the instructions and not me. DreamGuy 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like pushing things a bit. That was the argument last time. I'm transcluding this page so we don't keep rehashing the same argument each time. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The previous discussion is here. —Cryptic (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's a very nice accent to a page that gives the reader a good image of the person they're reading about in their older years or their youth. the box is also similar to something you'd see at a funeral, which is fitting. --Rsdio 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. Template is far from ugly, far from a distraction, and is already becoming a WikiStandard. --CJ Marsicano 07:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This issue has already been discussed. The template is also in heavy use: about 50 articles use it. If you find the template ugly, please be bold and improve it in any way you can. The authors of these article (not TfD) should decide themselves which templates to use.--Fenice 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, enables editors to move (generally) unimportant details like the day and month of birth out of the first sentence but still allows them to be found quickly. Especially useful for subjects who were born and died in different countries. Kappa 07:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Kappa and others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not too useful, duplicates info already in text, suggests that place of birth is more important than anything. --Golbez 07:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless decoration, duplicating what ought to be in the text, mostly in the very first sentence. Users whose attention span is too short to get through the first sentence might want to get their information elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - obviously. Possibly block the nominator for his spamming campaign. -- Netoholic @ 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per reasons given above. Needless. — TheKMantalk 08:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need infoboxes in biographies, except possibly for popes, kings and other exceptional cases (and I'm not entirely convinced about that either). u p p l a n d 09:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a useless ugly distraction from the main text. It merely duplicates what should be written in the lead, although some of these boxes lately seem to carry so much information the article become unnecessary. Get rid of the aesthetically hideous blight once and for all. I'm not here because I was spammed, its been stuck on my watch list since the last attempt to clean the place up.Giano | talk 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template is used very infrequently in comparison to the number of biographical articles, which shows that it is little valued by the community. User:Noisy | Talk 10:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To reiterate what I said last time, the result of deletion will be that biographies will use normal tools to put an image up rather than a template, and so will be encouraged to shape the article, images and so on to fit the needs of the subject rather than shoehorning it all into potentially irrelevant templates. — ciphergoth 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Unneccessary, just reproducing text that should be in the lead and a photograph that can be added normally. Totally pointless. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template spamming. / Peter Isotalo 12:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - totally redundant. Not only does it create a large, clunky, box full of information that is already contained in the first line of the biography, but it places all of this duplicated information right next to... the first line of the biography. I don't think we need to be hitting readers with information in stereo before they've even scanned past the first paragraph. It adds nothing to the article, and aesthetically it detracts a lot, particularly in articles that have a short lead section because the box overlaps into the next section (examples Buddy Holly, Helen Keller) and even two sections (example Henri Becquerel). Rossrs 12:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and enhance Just as country articles have infoboxes (rooted in a template) that summatively provide information regarding them, which are not at all obviated by any sort of lead, so should articles about notable people have bioboxes. Even fictional characters in certain genres have (different) bioboxes. A la dictionaries, (even) refine the template/infobox to include (only) top-level notions uniform amongst all Homo sapiens: dates of birth/death, places of birth/death, nationality, primary function/position/occupation. However, such a box should not contain predecessors and successors for any sort of office/position (which are often accommodated for in footer templates). And nothing more; otherwise, it would get unwieldy and redundant. And as a prior TfD occurred a scant three months ago (without consensus to delete), it's this TfD that is rather redundant. E Pluribus Anthony 12:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is redundant, and when lives become uniform, then "important features" can become uniform. Until then, boxes like this mess up existing formatting, duplicate material already present (a deletion reason), and, unfortunately, lead to edit wars, as original authors get "bold" and remove them and box fanatics get "bold" and insist that there is no option: it must be in, that it is "standard," that it makes everything look exactly the same and that's good, and that all we can do is "improve the box," but not remove the box. If box authors put this in biographies that they themselves had written, you'd never see this level of opposition, but, of course, they go to featured articles where someone else has done the research, found the pictures, and done the formatting and then destroy it all by introducing redundancy and "improving" with an infobyte. Geogre 12:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I learned about this TfD from a spam on someone's page. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 13:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but with qualifications. I don't like the template much, and in some cases (Benito Mussolini) a more specialized template would be more appropriate. I also don't appreciate having my talk page spammed; as I've never touched the template in question this falls under the category of solicitation. Ah well, such is life. So yes, keep, but try not to use it. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Keep - This template even has snap on accessory templates IIRC, and is used in a large number of articles. Deleting it will force some large amount of work on someone or another, to fix all those articles up, that could instead be spent on new articles or useful improvements to things. To the charge that it is large and ugly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It seems similar in size to other infoboxes I have used (see American Bridge Company which uses {{Infobox Company}} or Poughkeepsie Bridge which uses {{Infobox Bridge}}). To the charge that it repeats info in the lead sentence, a LOT of infoboxes do that, I don't see it as a bad thing. I am not even really sure why this was proposed for deletion actually. I watch TfD so would have seen this but I saw it sooner thanks to it being on someone else's talk page... that seems harmless. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for redundancy with the lead. It just isn't useful. Tuf-Kat 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the argument against causing people to do extra cleanup work. However, this vote is strongly premised on retaining its use as an optional feature. I have written many bios, but do not use the Box for some of the reasons above. Hal Jespersen 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless, redundant. Varizer 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Worthless. Dustimagic 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - adds nothing to articles except a sense that they've been dumbed down. Worldtraveller 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful and popular template. No reason to handcuff editors by deleting this. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - it adds NOTHING to the article. Nothing. I have always been against this template; it's useless. --Matjlav(talk) 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was nominated previously and survived then. I don't see why it should be deleted now. Slambo (Speak) 21:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and *fD is not a good place to attempt to make sweeping changes to style guidelines. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely uneeded as mentioned above. MechBrowman 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - an unwanted eyesore. Fawcett5 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Needlessly repeats information that should be included in the article's introduction. Also, ugly. android79 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my resons on the previous TfD. Unneeded, duplicates info whioch should be in the lead or in the text of an early paragraph. There is no style guideline on the use or non-use of this box -- if ther were there would be no need for this debate, at least not in this form. DES (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. needless. --Pamri • Talk 08:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasons as last time around. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for same reason as last time. JYolkowski // talk 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not further the aims of the encyclopedia known as Wikipedia. Repeats information that should already be mentioned in the intro paragraphs (i.e. a few inches to the left) if significant, and should not have to be mentioned near the top of the article at all if it's not significant (i.e. the exact place where these people were born and died). Needless consumption of space, needless overstandardization, needless overboxation. No credible encyclopedia wouldn't do anything as ridiculous as this, so why should we? This is the sort of thing you see in high school textbooks and baseball cards, not in credible academic resources. Plus it's such a fixture of attention and debate all throughout Wikipedia that it draws much-needed attention away from the article text itself; people have spent so much time arguing back and forth over this silly template over so many hundreds of articles, when all of that time could have instead been spent on improving the text of the actual articles. That's what Wikipedia's about, in the end: cold, hard, solid paragraphs of textual information, not all the bells and whistles, all the elaborate boxes and pretty designs and lists. And I love the bells and whistles!! I'm a layout nut. But this just isn't necessary, in any way, shape, or form, on any article. It's just too patronizing, too unencyclopedic, and, above all else, too redundant. -Silence 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and enhance. A variation is used on many of the biographies of philosophers - see FI David Hume. Usualy I hate unnecessary navigation tools, but this one is potentialy useful. Banno 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that variation used on the biographies of various philosophers is without a doubt the worst thing to ever happen to those articles. If that template is ever nominated for Deletion, I'll give it my biggest "DELETE" vote ever; it's even worse than this one, by far. Truly a horrible, tragic, wasteful, and ridiculous template, if there ever was one. Until the day that scourge of a template is removed from Wikipedia, I'm on strike from improving any articles that use it, even though I'm a huge fan of western philosophers. There are some things that a person simply cannot stand for lest his human dignity be forever eroded; boxes like that are among them. Whether this one is deleted or not, that one certainly needs to be. -Silence 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons give by Fenice. And, if you think it's ugly, improve it. That is what Wiki is about, not deleting things you don't like. --Falcorian | Talk 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just ugly but totally pointless. If I decided to add random circle graphics for no reason to tons of articles, would you like it if I said, "well, if you don't like a circle, make it some other geometric shape spread all over articles for no reason"? No, of course not. Wikipedia is making an encyclopedia, which means getting rid of crap like this that has no reason whatsoever to exist, other than for a few box-happy people to lie about and claim it is supported as policy and shove it in everywhere. DreamGuy 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's nice to have that information in a standard, table form instead of having to wade through text for it, especially if it has info not in the intro. It could be made more attractive, but something like it definitely has a place.--ragesoss 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary. Postdlf 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. Mrwojo 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep - It's useful for articles where the subject is deceased. I find it easier in writing header paragraphs which include info on birth and death places. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly pointless. --Saboteur 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ditto. – Ham 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the SECOND time it has been listed. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, yes it is, but so what? It did not have consensus to be kept last time. If there is no consensus it's pretty silly to try to portray that as consensus to keep, especially when the vote was as close as it was last time. The way things are set up anyone can make anything and then sneak it in on articles and try to portray it as having broad support (as someone tried to claim to me when they started inserting it across articles on my watchlist) when it has no such thing, just not quite ENOUGH support to get rid of it. That's a completely backassward way to do things, you should only do something like this if it has full consensus to actually do, not just because enough people weren't brought together to oppose it. It's horrible way to run anything. So we vote again hoping for a clear consensus. That's the only reasonable thing to do. DreamGuy 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It usefully sets up the essentials of a subject.Why is so much of wikipedia full of useles arguments anyway?.Gareth E Kegg 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I do not see any change in the situation since my previous vote and hence, I do not see any reason to change my vote. --Gurubrahma 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I can't believe a template as popular as this has been nominated for deletion - this is pathetic. It's not harming anyone, its not ugly, its not large! I'm fed up of these stupid nominations! — Wackymacs 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template is widely used and looks just fine in my opinion. Hall Monitor 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • redesign or delete Exceptionally ugly template that in its current form defaces articles. There is arguably a need for a well designed template, but this version is hideously ugly in the extreme. Given the amount of design talent on WP, is this monstrosity the best we can come up with? Surely not. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Enhance - This template is very useful as it gives a user a quick glance about the subject's birth date/city/country, death date/city/country. It works very well as a quick overview of a subject. Yes it's information that is in some bios but remember, not all Wiki bios contain everything. I've come across so many Wikipedia bio articles where the subject's death date or city or country isn't even clearly written in the article and is only available in the infobox. And some subject's birth or death dates/city/country isn't even written in the article. Believe it or not, I've seen such articles. I would suggest enhancing the biobox to include nationality, occupation, etc. If it's ugly, then someone should improve on it, not delete it. --speedoflight | talk to me 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • very strong keep, only because this has been discussed before, and the result was to keep it. Mac Domhnaill 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Rama's Arrow 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep template is concise, useful, and aesthetically pleasing. -- MisterHand 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use {{Infobox Celebrity}} instead. - David Björklund (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ditto to Golbez. RexNL 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I've edited it so perhaps it works/looks a little better now. — Seven Days » talk 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Haven't we have faced this kind of dispute before?, Come on guys, it is silly to be just foolishing around and just stating, I am going to delete this template because is ugly, What kind of statement is that? this is silly. My proposal is this template should be enhanced and improved, i find it usefull on articles.--HappyApple 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and ugly. Fredrik | tc 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Because:
    • 1) Ugliness and beauty are subjective. There is not a scientific criterion to decide if something is beautiful or not.
    • 2) 237 articles use it! If it is so useless, why are there so many artices with it???
    • 3) Many serious books use such things to give fast informationabout the biography.
    • 4) It is not at all a distraction, and is very useful to standarize the information that every biography should have.
    • 5) An article/template/etc should not be listed for deletion twice! Even if the first time there was no consensus.
    • 6) If you think this article is ugly, simply change it!
Eynar Oxartum 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. A student, for instance, would not be inconvenienced by having to look at the first sentence to find out the person's dates of birth and death (the locations are optional anyways), and would certainly not be inconvenienced by having to look in the infobox's current location to see a photo or portrait of the person. On the other hand, having an infobox for a country is much more handy, because it would take much longer to find out the country's currency, for example, in the absence of an infobox – the reader would likely have to find the Economy section and look for some mention of the currency there. If the intention is to have an infobox for every article at Wikipedia, then may I suggest Wikidata? Before deleting this template, the information given for its parameters should be moved to a more appropriate place in each article. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gives redundant information, has ruined many good articles. Quaque (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ugliness is subjective, usefulness is objective. If over 200 articles use it, it means it is actually useful. --Angelo 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that means it is used. Usefulness is also subjective. I find it useless. android79 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Subjective reasons for deletion; box could provide handy "flash card" information for younger and home-schooled Wiki users; provides handy and quick visual detailing for those who might need it. David Hoag 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP for all of the same reasons that were brought up the last time this was nominated as a TfD.--Lordkinbote 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Briefly: it's too big, it highlights trivial facts (merely because they're easy to standardize), it is inflexible. Much better to simply use the caption feature, which allows the authors to highlight truly meaningful information, which will be different for every subject. The number of times this template appears is meaningless, because this box is often simply imposed on articles by people who did no prior substantive work on a particular biography. -- PRiis 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems harmless. There's no law that says you have to use it if you don't want. Sdedeo (tips) 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More articles are currently used with this infobox. Why does it happen all the time? Adnghiem501 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm falling out of favor of infoboxes in general. --tomf688{talk} 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Cooper template adds some good info about his birth and death. It is something that deserves to be kept, maybe add some info like DreamGuy says but don't delete it. Thistheman 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too big, too useless. --Hn 07:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I love the theory of infoboxes, and think they do have a place for biographical information. Perhaps it could be expanded upon to include other information like a date of birth, nationality, and other quick information. This way people could get an overview on the individual before having to dive in to the article to find what they are looking for. I'd also cut down on the size of the photography a bit. --Toddbloom7 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it, it's great for getting the most important information at a glance, and it's nice to have a standardised form for that. Oliphaunt 12:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Do we have to have this discussion every couple months? This template should be kept until someone comes up with a new argument to delete it. The complaints ir should be redesigned should be met by redesigning it, not by this waste of time. Septentrionalis 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better yet, write a small version as an alternative. Give people a choice. If it is better, it will sweep this one out of Wikipedia. Isn't that the Wiki way? Septentrionalis 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. D. Wo. 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcar1986 (talk • contribs) Adnghiem501 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and enhance. Add a few more items to it. Its a good template and there needs to be one for non-Presidents or heads of states.--KrossTalk 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Infoboxes provide a standard template for representing important information. From the simple standpoint of usability, it is easier to draw information from an infobox than a paragraph (no matter how prominent the information may be in that paragraph). If you feel there is some extra information that could fit in the infobox that is standard to most biographies, improve the infobox. If you don't like the infobox, don't use it in your article. However it is poor form to nominate a template as popular for this (200+ articles) for deletion. Cedars 02:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, dammit. Phoenix2 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is a very useful visual aid to an article, since (like all templates) it filters relevant information out of the article into a separate box. If it's too big, then by all means resize it, but don't delete it altogether. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dammit. Ugly like Mother Love and overtemplatization. - Darwinek 14:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is just getting silly - I don't like your template so I'll recommend it for deletion. We need creativity to add to the blandness of text, we need templates to give a common look and feel to articles of similar subject matter. Ok if this is not a good style or content improv it provide or something better. Oh let's not do that when we can get the current one deleted for no good reason and we'll just get on each other nerves. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Arguments to remove entirely subjective. CaptainCarrot 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Halibutt 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--the template is already suggesting to people some form of inappropriate standardization. It's one thing to use a template for a particular field. But the information that matters most for one figure will not be the same as it will be for another. Keep specific ones, but delete the general one. Chick Bowen 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Sometimes the biobox is useful for containing other information, such as Post-Nominal honors and titles which tend to clutter up intro sentences. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you see it in an article and it bothers you, remove it. It may start an edit war, but it will make you feel better and that's what Wikipedia is all about right? Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think asthetics, superficial matters qualify as a valid reason for delteting anything.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Infobox Community

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

Template:Infobox Community
Template:Infobox Community/No seal
Template:Infobox Community/Unincorporated

All were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox City, i.e. some places didn't have a nickname or flag. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every place defined by the U.S. Census can use Template:Infobox City. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. — Seven Days » talk 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahamas TV

Template:Bahamas TV
Delete — Only linked by {{Miami TV}} as a see also, and whatlinkshere therefore shows several other "usages" of the template (really the Miami TV link) (it is also linked to by an article that I don't know how), and only serves to navigate between one redlink -- which practically eliminates the need for such templates!. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WCQuidditch --Qirex 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless improved — For the moment, it has no real purpose. However, if other links are added, this could become useful. — Seven Days » talk 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve on it: Apparently, every template i edit reverts. Every template i CREATE is nominated for deletion, or is simply deleted without notice. It's nice to see wikipedia follows its own rules. Or not.

I think i'm moving on to greener pastures from this desolate wasteland. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site where you can share information and not have to worry about cliques and abuse by senior members and Administration. I guess it's gone that way already. What a pity. Wikipedia had so much potential...

Raccoon Fox 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Template:Frown

Template:Frown

  • Delete — POV. Non-encyclopedic. Created in response to the failed AfD of Saugeen Stripper. Wrathchild 21:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uncivil. --Rob 21:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No problem with it. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sour grapes. -- nae'blis (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is no business deleting it. Niffweed17 01:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-POV Dustimagic
  • Delete — Uncivil, POV, and unencyclopedic. — Seven Days » talk 02:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid POV for a userpage Keith Greer 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just being mean, if it's userpage material move it there. Ashibaka tock 02:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Created and intended to be used as a "useful thing" (quote from creator's userpage) to be used in an uncivil manner (see Talk:Saugeen Stripper#WTF?); isn't intended for use on userpage itself. --Qirex 04:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only appropriately used in one person's userspace, no need for it to be a template. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I softned it, now it could be almost cute if used correctly.--God of War 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No civil purpose I can see. Definitely no purpose that might help the encyclopedia. -- SCZenz 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per other supporters. --CJ Marsicano 07:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV, plain stupid, waste of space, not encyclopedic. — Wackymacs 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a userbox that's fine on a user page, but not in the context that it was created for, as a commemoration of a failed AfD, and used on its talk page. — TheKMantalk 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per TheKMan. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy If someone wants it for suerpages, etc let them, but calling things stupid borders on civility so remove it from the main spaces. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you guys are no fun. It's outlived its amusingness anyway, so I've put the code my sandbox. I'll remove it from the Saugeen Stripper page. Adam Bishop 19:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to user space. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frown. This is stupid. Lord Bob 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless --Ryan Delaney talk 07:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dmoz

Do we really need that? Adrian Buehlmann 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think it's a very handy template to have around. Is there something wrong with it? - EurekaLott 15:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ummm...yeah, what's the problem? It's just as useful as Template:GameFAQs or any of the IMDb templates.Wrathchild 15:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thought it does not that much save on typing: example [51]. At least it should be subst'ed when used, but this usually gets forgotten. Adrian Buehlmann 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I can tell, it's just one of a number of handy external link templates. Handy is good. Lord Bob 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I disagree that this is particularly handy; it saves perhaps a few seconds worth of key-strokes. Like Adrian, I don't think we need this. This kind of thing just needs a quick style guideline somewhere, not a template. Having said this, I am qualifying my vote with weak since it doesn't seem harmful or much of a drain of resources; it wouldn't bother me much if it's kept. I just noticed that there is a near identical template at Template:ODP, so this is just a template fork which was made instead of just modifying the existing template --Qirex 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:ODP redirects to Template:Dmoz and isn't used in any articles. Wrathchild 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As of about 15 minutes ago. Prior to that, it was in use. - EurekaLott 16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In light of this and after having thought about it some more, I'm changing my vote to keep. --Qirex 04:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think that in general such templates are a good way of standardizing external links to large and often-linked sites like the IMDB or the ISFDB (both of which have such link templates). There is an argument not to subst such tempaltes, since if the site in question changes its location or internal format, all links can be repaired by simply editing the template. But if frequently used, perhaps such tempaltes should be protected or semi-protected to avoid possible DOS vandalism. DES (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't shure myself about nominating this here and I see now it has enough fans. I have executed the outcome of this nomination and I must say I was astonished that this over there had an outcome of "subst and delete". See for example what I had to do here to implement that consensus (the revision before my change there was clearly the better one for my taste). I feel there is something wrong with the treatment of these kind of templates. It would be much better to eventually implement something like an auto-subst in the MediaWiki software instead of this constant lookout for "subst and delete"-able templates. Adrian Buehlmann 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:afd3

This template is instruction creep. I don't know, maybe it was useful at one point, but now it just makes it harder to nominate an article for AFD. I removed reference to it from the instructions on AFD, and replaced it with the much simpler {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/whatever}}. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I personally find it easier to type {{subst:afd3|pg= then Ctrl-V (paste) the article name that I copied beforehand (I also pasted the article name into afd2). I've tried both, and using afd2 and afd3 is just a lot quicker. Both these templates were originally brought about to reduce instruction creep. It's a lot easier to remember {{subst:afd2|pg=Ctrl-V and the same with afd3. That's just me, but I just found it easier in terms of cutting and pasting. --Deathphoenix 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has been around for a long long time and most people who are familiar with the AfD process are used to using it. Removing it is just to make things more difficult. Your reason for deletion is essentially, "I don't like it." You don't have to use it, but a lot of us I think find it far more convenient. howcheng {chat} 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deathphoenix and Howcheng. FreplySpang (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persoanlly i never use this. I would support editing the instrucvtions to make it celar this is a tool, not a required step in the procedure. But It can be a suefual tool, and it does no harm that I can see. DES (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree with your suggestion to "make it clear this is a tool". Instructions are clearer and simpler (especially for newer users) if they simply prescribe a fixed set of steps that can be performed without understanding the mechanics underneath them. The first time I AfD'ed a page, I had no idea about subpages or how to transclude them. I don't think I even knew how to use templates. The instructions were straightforward, though: cut and paste this text here, that text there, the third text another place, and you're done. A simple page of instructions with templates that can be cut and pasted into place is the best way to make AfD accessible to everyone. Users who are interested in how the templates work can of course explore them on their own, but keep the details out of sight of everyone else.--Srleffler 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This template simplifies the AfD process by giving each step a similar form. The text needed is shorter and simpler with the template. I can't imagine how the nominator sees his version as simpler. --Srleffler 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I run the bot that, every day, finds all the articles that people tried to AFD, but screwed up the process. There are very, very many of them, usually between fifteen and thirty, though I've seen as many as eighty in a single day. While a lot of these don't actually make it to AFD - I speedy keep the obvious bad faith nominations and those without any rationale for deletion, move others to WP:RFD or WP:CP, and speedy others - we're still looking at between 10% and 20% of all afd nominations, every day not getting completely through the process on their own. (That's not counting the people who fail to subst afd3 on the daily afd subpages, but my bot takes care of them automatically and I don't even see them.)

    I don't know whether {{afd2}} and {{afd3}} help or hurt more here. As someone who intuitively understood what was going on when I first saw {{msg:stub}} start showing up back in - early 2004, was it? - I'm inclined to guess that they hurt more. However, I think the right way to proceed is to keep afd3 for those who are used to it, but to try deprecating it, using Phroziac's wording on the instructions, and give that a week or two to see what the real-world effect is. —Cryptic (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have seen quite a few bad AfD's, which begin with putting {{afd}} or {{vfd}} rather than {{subst:afd1}} at the top of the article. Clearly, these are people who never saw the instructions, but who got the tag from somewhere else.--Srleffler 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful to those that like it, harmless to others. Also, I like the standard of using a template, as it makes it easier in the future to change how we list stuff, without re-changing instructions, if we ever wish to. --Rob 08:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the person who originally came up with this concept, it was created to help people from screwing up nominations. We could easily go back to the 7 or 9 step process that we had prior to 12th of February of last year, if we wanted... but I don't see how that helps at all. Frankly, the idea for afd3 was to keep consistancy with the instructions. It's a lot easier to do so when all you need to remember is {{afd}}, {{afd2}}, {{afd3}}. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template --Ryan Delaney talk 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template, I've had no problems following the directions for it's use. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As I had already said on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, there is a simpler way to do it, which I described in length. It is harmless, so I wouldn't mind if it stayed, but it should definitely be deprecated. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Template:Sq 300 et al.

Delete all — This is actually a TfD for 14 incomplete, obsolete, unused and long-dormant templates on Polish squadrons. BDAbramson T 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, absolutely no reason to have a separate template (that looks just the same) for each of these. - Bobet 01:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Unfinished and unused templates, which were created by a user that has not contributed since Feb. 2005. Don't really see a future for them. — TheKMantalk 07:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Not only are they unfinished, unused, and unlikely to be finished, to the extent that they are finished they don't seem to fill a role best served by templates; it would be better to just put the code on the squadron's page itself. Lord Bob 15:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Totally unnecessary. Dustimagic 01:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV
Delete — image copyright tag that is not compatible with the GFDL as it precludes the sale of the material. Discussed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#PA-KingCountyGOV. Non-free license. Possibly WP:CSD reason I3. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, incompatible with the restriction on "no comerical use" image tags. — EagleOne\Talk 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is a non-commercial use template created after the date where new non-commercial or permission images would be speedies. To that extent, I've added {{noncommercial}} so that images tagged with this will be easy to deal with. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied at creator's request --Doc ask? 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User support Kelly Martin

I think it was pretty obvious from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin that she doesn't like boxes like these. Let's do her a favor and go through proper process to remove this insult to her beliefs from Wikipedia. karmafist 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since a user page doesn't have to be NPOV and this message of endorsement cannot be regarded as insulting. (+Comment somehow two templates got mixed up, can somebody please fix that, because I do not want to modify it). KittenKlub 16:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. David | Talk 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you please explain your reasoning? I'm just saving her the trouble of nominating this. karmafist 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this edit from Kelly Martin. She includes as an unacceptable class of box "Any userbox which tends to serve the purpose of organizing Wikipedians along political, ideological (other than Wikipedia-specific ideologies...)" (my emphasis). Support for a particular Wikipedian in an internal election is clearly a Wikipedia-specific stance. Therefore Kelly has not identified this as an unacceptable type of userbox (it was created by one who has in general supported her reasoning on the userbox issue) and you are exhibiting bad faith in suggesting that she does. David | Talk 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that the nomination could perhaps have been phrased differently, but this isn't an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources, and promotes factionalism. Jkelly 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, I think there's an encyclopedia around here somewhere, and it ain't finished yet. android79 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. DES (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does anyone realise how HARD it is not to post the photoshopped image I have of "her" with a Stalinesque moustache and eating a baby? :| I know people have no sense of humour. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be damn careful if I were you. Joke or not, such an image could lead to legal action. That's something the dear "community" can't protect you from. Rob Church Talk 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing as Ms. Martin hates these things so much, we'd probably be doing her a service. Morgan695 17:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can it get any more ironic than this? My eyes almost popped out when I saw this on my watchlist. BJAODn-fy or Delete. --Gurubrahma 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How did it get on your watchlist if you hadn't already seen it? ~Confused~ --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also saw this on my watchlist, because I have TFD on it, and the edit summary is telling enough. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a superb parody of the whole saga. Also, per all your arguments that I can do what I like with my user space. Rob Church Talk 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You forgot the "Nyaa-nyaa :P". Great, are we now down to the "lol PWNED YOURSSLF N00B" level of discussion (that goes for many people here, but I'm replying to you because I thought you'd be above this)? Oh, and keep plus stop listing stuff here just to make some point. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep - and I'm no fan of Ms. Martin's actions, either. How's that for NPOV? ;) --CJ Marsicano 17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. But I wanted to state that David hit the nail on the head. Contrary to popular belief, I have no objection to userboxes generally, and even have seven of them on my user page. Furthermore, I'm touched that there are people who feel strongly enough about my competency and committment to go so far as to create such a template. I do think that many of the people involved in this particular discussion are exhibiting a great deal of hypocrisy, however ("userboxes are fine, except when they support that woman we don't like, then they need to be deleted" is a good summary of some of the arguments for deletion above). I encourage the administrator who closes this discussion to give due weight to the arguments of editors who are recommending deletion based on personal animosity instead of reasoned principle. I'd also suggest that the people who insist that I "hate these things so much" need to (a) go back and reread my comments on the matter of userboxes and (b) go reread WP:CIVIL. I also think that nominating this template for deletion was a very poor move on the part of whoever did it (I didn't notice) since it was virtually certain to create strife in the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an eye on people using it. TCorp 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If templates that are attacking Kelly have to be deleted, then these should be deleted too. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Templates that attack Kelly go against WP policy of no personal attacks. As far as I know, there is no policy against "defending" another's actions. Pepsidrinka 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't it go against WP:NPOV, since for some reason people insist on applying that to userboxes too?Tommstein 09:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree but keep - I totally disagree with the template and its contents, but I'll defend to the death its right to exist. Deano (Talk) 19:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As above. I'm in favor of keeping userboxes I don't agree with as well. Larix 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, naturally. Hurts noone IMO. —Nightstallion (?) 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipolitical userboxes are no good. Divisive and factionalizing. (Note: my original vote here was deleted in an edit conflict. Everyone, please watch out for this.) FreplySpang (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Haha very funny. the wub "?!" 20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Kelly hates userboxes.Gateman1997 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People should be able to express their views on userpages, within reason. Templates like this are part of that process. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deano. D-Day 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per norm.--God of War 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keith Greer 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, bad faith, WP:POINT, attack. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep bad faith nom. Sarah Ewart 23:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this box as well as all others. It was created for the purposes of being nominated for deletion anyway. I think it is funny, myself - but it should be part of a set. How about this for a partner?
KM This user opposes Kelly Martin for ArbCom. Beware the cabal!
--Dschor 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect, regrettably, that there are some here that might say Keep if Kelly said Delete and Delete if Kelly said Keep... so what does her "no vote" mean under that logic? If I vote keep does that mean we are going to get 43 other boxes showing who is supporting whom? Blech. If I vote Delete do I get accused of hypocrisy because I'm a supporter of boxes, even ones that show POV? Blech again. Whoever nominated this really ought to ask him or herself why exactly they did it! So, dear readers, after reading all that, you probably are hoping I'll finally express my opinion!. Well here you go: Mu ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think I offered "no vote"? I'm not totally stupid. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm fine with people expressing support for Kelly or anyone else, but there's no need to have a template for it. This sort of thing could get silly. JYolkowski // talk 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the logic espoused by kelly martin in her recent purge on boxes, this would be a very strong contender for deletion, since its entire aim is to further factions on wiki. However, i do not see this as such a bad thing. She has become a real issue which needs to be debated and faced. Declarations of peoples positions on this should not be discouraged.
  • Strong Keep — And also any userboxes saying the opposite, for example: "this user thinks Kelly Martin should no way be an arbitrator or hold any position of power whatsoever": Both are just as much valid points of view. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • '
  • Delete. as per reasoning in TfD above. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete campaign buttons. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat same as Template:User oppose Kelly Martin. My preference would be the removal of both, but I'm ok with both being kept. I'd be concerned with the fairness of allowing support OR opposition, but not both. kenj0418 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was originally parody and humour by Rob Church, but is now being used as grounds for nastiness by Kelly's detractors. Perhaps BJAODN. --Doc ask? 15:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User allow fairuse

I don't think this needs a massive amount of explanation. Suffice it to say, that this template may be used to convey the opinion that our users don't like US copyright law. Sorry, but you can't vote that away, otherwise I'd have shot George W. Bush under WP:IAR back in 2003. Rob Church Talk 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Whoever created and whoever uses this template needs to have the difference between the law and Wikipedia policy explained to them. [[Sam Korn]] 12:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just another attempt at censorship in the user space. This template has not hurt anybody - leave it be. --Dschor 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now Fair use provision in the US copyright law does not (and will not) specifically target the use of copyrighted image within a particularly defined (in the law) namespace in a particularly defined website. The statement "it's the law" in Template talk:User allow fairuse immutable version implies such a misleading statement, that, the action of which, is explicitly and/or specifically prohibited and/or targeted by law. Keep until relevant discussions in WP:FU and Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes have reached a consensus regarding the issue. -- Carlsmith 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily as disruption. --Pjacobi 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlsmith. Larix 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for two reasons. First, that whole law thing. Second, it says "vote". Users who don't know how "voting" works on Wikipedia should not be displaying templates encouraging misuse of policy discussions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dschor. It's ironic that those who want to delete this invoke dislike of George W. Bush since they've invoked his mindset over the past week: i.e "the ends justify the means". karmafist 15:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not irony. I just dislike idiotic American Presidents who ruin the reputations of fine upstanding nations such as the United Kingdom. Rob Church Talk 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The UK ruined its reputation on its own, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Please don't act like Dubya if you dislike him, and put further comments on the talk page. karmafist 07:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth a 24 hour block just to be able to say the following. Fuck off, and get a grip. We're an encyclopedia, not a fucking LiveJournal. If you don't like it, you have the right to disappear. Rob Church Talk 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images which qualify as fair use in an article might not qualify as fair use in a userbox, and this is not the fault of any Wikipedia policy. Fair use is a complicated concept, and it's not Wikipedia's idea. To me, usage of this templates suggests misunderstanding of the concept of fair use. However, deleting the template won't do anything about that, and keeping it will not do further harm. So I lean towards weak keep. EldKatt (Talk) 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Opinions may vary but copyright law is law and no vote on Wikipedia will change it. David | Talk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the creator and users of this template obviously have a weak grasp on copyright law. The use of this template advocates actions that would be copyright infringement - illegal under U.S. Copyright law. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I understand it, the rational behind this is inspired by Wikipedia's own rules on fair use images appearing in userboxes being somewhat over-the-top, as is explored in the Firefox template discussions. A logo or such that the creator and/or company allows to be used to support that product and/or company is currently not allowed in userboxes, per WP's rules - not US copyright laws. If I misunderstand this, I'm sure someone will correct me. - Hayter 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats not my understanding. Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license (cc-by-sa, public domain, etc.). Logos and such are not licensed under the GFDL and so must be used under the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law, or not be used at all. So there are two options for image use: free content or fair use. Any use that falls outside of that is copyright or license infringement. So even if the license says that you can do X, but the image is not under a GFDL-compatible license, the only way that image is usable in Wikipedia is under fair use. Even if you are doing X, if X falls outside of fair use, you can't do it in Wikipedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's it - even when an image falls under fair use, WP does not allow it to be used in a userbox - only on a relevant article. As DES says below, this is a stricter application than US law. - Hayter 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, "fair use" is a defence for a use in a particular context. If you want to write up a detailed rationale for the use of an image in a userbox template, do so. Use {{fairusein|Template:foo}}. The generic {{logo}} fair use rationale is that the image is used for identification purposes in an article. Use of a {{logo}} image in a userbox is what is against policy. If you can write up a reasonable rationale and use {{fairusein}} that would pass {{fairusereview}}, then by all means, do so. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fuddlemark. Jkelly 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per law of the United States of America. Stupid United States of America. Why can't your copyright law allow encyclopaedias to use whatever the heck we want? Someday, we will have an encyclopaedic wikistate of our own...perhaps we should buy Sealand with that $336,539.23 we just raised. Lord Bob 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Wikipedia policy is currently significantly strictler than U.S. copyright law. Some uses of fair uses images which are pretty clearly legel, and others which are at least arguably legal, are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. This template advocates changing Wikipedia policy, not copyright law. There is at least a good argument that the changes it advocates would be legal under U.S. copyright law, at least in many specific cases. Whether this is a good idwa for Wikipedia is debatable, but this template is precisely an attempt to join that debate. There is no valid reason to delete this. DES (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep as per all other supporters, especially DESiegel. --CJ Marsicano 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyright law is complex and this just perpetuates the muddled lack of clarity regarding this. There is no such thing as a "Fair use image". There are images for which "Fair use" can be claimed. It is relatively straightforward to make a strong case for such use on articles directly pertaining to a topic. Making a case for legitimate fair use in the user namespace is much more tenuous (not impossible, but likely far less likely than many proponents seem to think). Better to err on the side of caution with this one, IMO. older≠wiser 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The people voting delete here seem to be arguing against the ideology behind this template rather than the template itself. As I have explained above, I also disagree with the view expressed by the template, but that does not provide me with a reason to vote delete for the very template, as far as I can see: if people feel a desire to say, in effect, (my free interpretation) "I don't know what fair use means and intend to vote on the basis of a misunderstanding", so be it. I'd sooner delete all the meaningless templates about what beverages you prefer, but there doesn't seem to be much consensus towards that either. EldKatt (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if your comment was directed at me, but my vote was not only about the ideology of the template. The template as written perpetuates a fundamental misunderstaning that there is a category of things such as "Fair use images". There is not. There is only specific uses of specific images that can claimed to be "fair use". Beyond that however, this template is not directly helpful in building an encyclopedia. I have no objection if people were to write the equivalent text on their User pages; but there is no need for a template. older≠wiser 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO "Fair use image" in this context meas eaither a) "An image tagfed with one of the fair use licese tags" or b) "an image not available under a free license, and so usable only under fair use if at all" or c) both of the above. Given that understanding I find the phrase useful, although some people may misunderstand it. But then some people may misunderestand almost anything to do with copyright. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bkonrad makes a case for not changing wikipedia policy on this issue -- but not a case for suippresing arguments or views on Wikipedia policy, and so no case for deleting this template. Remember that this template does not itself contain any images of any sort -- it merely advocates a change in Wikipedia policy on how and where such images are acceptable. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. My objections are twofold. First, the template perpetuates an incorrect undetanding of fair use. While you might know better, this template is simply wrong about how it characterizes fair use. Second, it serves no useful purpose for building an encylopedia. Now, people are perfectly free to display their ignorance of fair use on their user pages, but we don't need to keep a template around to make it easy to do so. older≠wiser 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dunno, a template that said "this user knows nothing of fair use, but feels free to hold forth anyway" could be useful, especially if they're about to get in trouble for uploading dodgy images. However a template that helps spread ignorance about both the law and policy is an unqualified Bad Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipolitical userboxes must go. Created to be divisive and factionalizing. (Deleteing them is also divisive and factionalizing, but seems the lesser evil.) Also, I agree with fuddlemark's second reason. FreplySpang (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I see no policy authorizing such deltions. Such deletions should wait on settling the policy issue.
      • You "see no policy authorizing such deltions"? Perhaps you should refrain from holding forth on this issue until you understand the deletion process better. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and futile. US law is miniimal to Wikipedia policy on fair use images (now a policy). Wikipedia strives to serve beyong US borders. TCorp 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but you can't vote away US copyright law. --Carnildo 18:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually you can, but not here. US Law is writtne and can be changed by US legislatiors, who are chosen by vote. however that is irrelevant, because this tempalte expresses an opnion not on US law, but on places where Wikipedia policy is at least arguably more strict than US law requires. DES (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This userbox is not about US copyright law, but about Wikipedia policy TCorp 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wasn't this up for TFD yesterday and was kept.?Gateman1997 18:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra-ultra-super-duper-hyper-strong Keep The principal that we can have a userbox saying people want fair-use images in userboxes says that we keep it. Tom 18:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, what? Seriously, that was ultra-ultra-super-duper-hyper-strong unclear. Do you mean you'd like for there to be a template that says "this user wishes fair use images were allowed in userboxen, but recognises that it's not really fair use to do so?" 'Cos that would possibly be acceptable. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no problem with people making clear their views on Wiki policy. the wub "?!" 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You want to change policy, go to the relavant policy page and discuss. Garion1000 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ian13ID:540053 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First of all, deleting policy proposals because of disagreement with them is usually considered ill-advised. Secondly, since userspace is not part of the encyclopedia proper, I see no reason why we shouldn't use a more lenient standard (like "whatever won't get Wikipedia in trouble"). I understand why we want to try to avoid fair use images in article space whenever possible, due to distributional issues and preserving the GFDL, but user space is different. Much of the concern here is an example of m:Copyright paranoia. The fact is that a corporation is not going to sue us because a user has a box on his page saying "I support X product". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Keep - I wrote this box. The law may be the law and policy may be policy- but in a free country you are allowed to dislike the law and speak out against the law so long as you follow the law. All this box is saying is that the user wishes policy to change, not that they are breaking policy.--God of War 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a free country. The userbox urges a change to policy, yes. But that change is probably stupid, and the mechanism you want to use to force that change is definitely stupid. Stupid userboxen I can live with; stupid userboxen urging stupid changes to policy I cannot. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So maybe you can use this box to find all the "stupid" users. :) --God of War 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the nom's reason for proposed deletion is not very good - damn right I don't respect US copyright law - why would I? Not everyone here is American, so why should we give a rats about US copyright law? The fact that it influences Wiki is the issue that I presume you're concerned with, but that does not stop people's right to an opinion, does it? Or does US law prohibit the right to disagree with the law? Deano (Talk) 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm fed up of seeing user boxes up for deletion! Everyone has their own point of view and their right to express this on user pages wether it be with text, images or userboxes. Why should we take that right away from our very own loyal Wikipedians!? — Wackymacs 21:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not an experiment in free speech. If you want a web page where you can express whatever you want, there's plenty of hosts out there. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. If there were any such vote it would not be binding, as we can't vote to override law. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detele, but feel free to create boxes declaring your support or otherwise of US copyright policy. Regardless of how you feel about a law, Wikipedia must obey all laws that apply to the State of Florida in the United States. Thryduulf 23:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This user wants Wikipedia to violate copyright law for the sake of his precious userboxes, and doesn't realize that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Much more of this and I'm gonna start speedy-deleting userboxes myself. -- SCZenz 23:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DES. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this userbox is clearly advocating votestacking and nothing else. It is a textbook example of the sort of box that userbox detractors drag out as an example to bring all boxes down. Further, it may (possibly) actually be advocating breaking the law, which is an advocacy I oppose. ++Lar: t/c 00:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only positive use I can imagine for this template is similar to Template:User vand, a way to identify users who need to be informed that Wikipedia policy (and indeed the law) are in conflict with their position and who need to be watched in case they violate it. Bryan 00:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, copyright laws and their interpretation in Wikipedia isn't going to change through voting (at least, not through voting in Wikipedia). And whoever is making these, please concentrate on something else. Having or not having a logo in a userbox is totally inconsequential. - Bobet 01:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Zoe. We can't disobey policy and US copyright law, which the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated and located in. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 01:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per User:Bryan Derksen and everyone else. Oh, and there are no votes on Wikipedia, so the template's creator seems to show even further unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JYolkowski // talk 02:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give him a break, that is a recent development. We had WP:VFD mere months ago.Gateman1997 03:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which was renamed for precisely that reason - "VFD" was never a vote, always a determination of community consensus. The process was misnamed from the beginning, and quite properly renamed. FCYTravis 04:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And determining community consensus involves polling the community on what to do about an issue, i.e. a vote. You might not want to call it that, but it's the textbook definition. Rogue 9 01:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and preemptively ban anyone including it for copyright violation. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're going to call for that then I DEMAND that you show how this userbox is itself a copyright violation NOW or retract your statement. Rogue 9 01:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see preemptive. —Cryptic (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware of what it means. So you admit to having absolutely no basis besides being ban-happy. Rogue 9 05:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not admitting anything, merely pointing out your strawman. —Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're admitting that you want to permanently ban people who haven't done anything wrong. Am I the only one who sees a problem with that? Rogue 9 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bratsche. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a sad state of affairs indeed when we won't even let people express an opinion. What's next? Sending out duct tape brigades to silence people you disagree with? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an encyclopedia, and there are certain views that indicate a clear desire to undermine the project, and that's bad. If people want to fully exercize their free speech rights, they can make their own website; this one is Jimbo's. -- SCZenz 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm well aware it's an encyclopedia, and I'm also aware that free speech doesn't apply here (but thanks for the strawman response). I don't consider wanting to revise Wikipedia's views on fair-use to be an attempt at undermining the project. I consider it an opinion, and as we usually encourage discussion, I don't see the harm in this template. Shutting people down because they hold a minority opinion is so anti-wiki and anti-consensus as to be reprehensible. I could see the problem if the userbox said something like "this user ignores guidelines and policy on fair-use images and uses them everywhere they want", but it doesn't say that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fuddlemark. Sarah Ewart 04:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though allowing users to advertise that they are not just willing but eager to cause Wikipedia financial harm has its uses ➥the Epopt 05:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was planning to make a donation to Wikipedia in the next few days. It was going to be a pretty good one too, but given the attitude of some people, I chose to find something else to do with the money for the time being. --CJ Marsicano 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, dearie me, I'm so upset now, I'll hasten to retract my so-thoughtless comment if you'll just please resume planning to make that imaginary donation — not. ➥the Epopt 21:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on whether I'm allowed to block anyone who displays it. If I am, keep. If not, delete. My guess is delete. Phil Sandifer 08:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to refrain from displaying the template on your user page, Phil - please leave it available for those who disagree. Your silly name change doesn't fool anyone, Snowspinner - we all recognize you. --Dschor 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on Earth? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phil Sandifer is Snowspinner?! Someone do a CheckUser, quick! Carbonite | Talk 13:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dammit, I knew I should have worn Clark Kent glasses too. Phil Sandifer 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And not have your signature link to User:Snowspinner. And not still use that account to edit. You didn't do a very good job covering your tracks—it's amazing that no one figured out you were the same user until now! — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 'this user wants Wikipedia to break laws as policy'. - ulayiti (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. This template is pretty useless considering that the ArbComm has clearly come down against the use of fair use images on talk pages. Everybody who has boted keep should read what United States copyright law says about fair use. The section isn't very long, and the criteria for fair use is very simple. BlankVerse 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could quote US copyright law, but that doesn't mean I can't express my disapproval too. Tom 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DES. I might vote delete if U.S. copyright law was clear, but the voters here certainly don't agree (and I myself cannot understand why an image that's called "fair use" can be used on one internet page and not another). Meanwhile this userbox is not hurting anything. --Fang Aili 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is a viatal aspec of "fair use" that where and how you use it matters a great deal, and so what is reasoanble fair use on one internet page may well be nothign of the sort when used for a differen purpose in a different context on a different page. That is the main reason behind the current policy, as I understand it. Most of our usuall justifications for fair use would not apply, or not nearly as strongly, on user pages, and when an image is on a temple it is all too easy for it to be added to pages where the stated rationale does not apply. There are cases, however (like the image on the SEPTA template, and other logo cases) where IMO a plausisible rationale for fair use on templates could apply, and other cases where a valid rationale could apply for user pages. But current policy seems to forbid this, even if copyright law does not. DES (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jimbo has voiced opinion on this template [52], stating "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team." Carbonite | Talk 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dan | talk 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's just stupid to think we can simply vote about this. Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get on with building the damn encyclopaedia. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo, I agree. --Wgfinley 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger than a silly diamond keep This vote is about the userbox, not the idea behind the userbox. I have seen plenty of other userboxes for people supporting proposed policies and policy changes, no reason this one has to go. Remember, we're voting on the userbox, not the idea behind it. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As said elsewhere, Wikipedia fairuse policy is more restrictive than necessary according to U.S. copyright law. If a user wishes to express their interest toward changing policy, a userbox should be allowed as one of those methods of expression. Silensor 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template is useful as a n00b marker if nothing more. In any case, free speech. ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - note that Jimbo actually deleted this template himself before someone informed him about this TfD debate. (See [53] and [54]). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This userbox shows peoples support for a change of policy. Don't delete a person's right to free speech. mdmanser 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A surprising number of people seem to think that this is America, and that we have a right to free speech on here. I am baffled as to why they think that. That being, Nickptar and Mdmanser, that I can see right now without scrolling. You two (and anyone else who might have said it) are horribly wrong - there is no such right here in Wikipedialand. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but I think free speech ought to be respected except under clearly defined circumstances (i.e. WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:NLT). ~~ N (t/c) 01:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any speech is only tolerated here in so far as it furthers the end of creating an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. --Doc ask? 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Removed misleading "vote" reference to clarify that this is about users' opinions regarding Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law, not about some fictitious "vote". -Silence 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not again. Keep, and a curse upon the head of whoever is incapable of figuring out that userpages are protected under fair use and that the only thing preventing the use of fair use images in user namespace is extralegal Wikipedia policy, not the law. Rogue 9 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this rather surprising as well. Look at any personal webpage outside of Wikipedia and you are very likely to see various fair-use images. Some Wikipedians - who I'm sure are well-meaning and sincere, but who I think are engaging in m:Copyright paranoia - think all of this is illegal. How many hundreds of New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox fan pages have team logos boosting their support for the team (and often denigrating the other one)? How many of these people have ever even been asked to take them down? What evidence do we have that the copyright holders care about such trivial and incidental uses at all? We're not talking about users hosting copyrighted MP3s on their user pages. We're talking about instances where there is a reasonable claim of fair use and where the rights holders have not even attempted to tell people that they can't use the materials in this manner. Three of the primary criteria for fair use are that the use is not for profit (and obviously this applies to user pages), that the amount used is minimal (again the case - in many cases, we are talking about single screenshots from movies or TV shows, or individual logos), and that the use does not affect the rights holder's ability to make a profit (and how are any of the uses on user pages possibly going to affect that?) In short, I think we have reasonable fair use claims for most of the instances involved here. It's fine if Wikipedia wants to adopt a more restrictive policy. In article space, I completely agree with trying to minimize fair use whenever a free alternative is possible. I see no reason to do this in userspace, but it's not really a big deal one way or the other. But these over-the-top claims that people are "breaking the law" must go - they border on violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. These individuals are acting in good faith and with reasonable claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most personal webpages on the internet do violate copyright; outside of Wikipedia, reuse of images from other websites is quite common. But without a license, that is generally illegal. The issue is not whether the copyright holders care, but what's legal, because the Wikimedia Foundation might be held responsible for deliberate misuse of copyrighted material. Your user page is not your personal page, it's part of the project, and fair use is least likely to apply there because it's not an article about something that requires a picture. Jimbo says (see above) that the current policy on fair use images was adopted on the advice of the project's lawyers—if you think they're wrong, you can copy all of Wikipedia to your own servers, start your own encyclopedia, and get your own lawyers. -- SCZenz 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • To say that "most personal webpages on the internet violate copyright" is a rather sweeping claim, with little evidence to back it up. I have pointed out how the de minimis use of copyrighted materials generally under discussion here (usually individual screenshots, or logos for the purpose of showing fan support) meet three of the legal criteria for fair use: not for profit, minimal portion of the original work, and no adverse impact on the company's business. If the Foundation wants to have more restrictive rules on fair use images than copyright law requres, that's fine; I don't really care. (I don't even have a user page of my own, just a redirect to my Talk page.) My objection is specifically to the over-the-top claims of "lawbreaking", which I think are unreasonable given that these are good-faith claims of fair use, and with the more general attitude of copyright paranoia that seems to be running rampant. This is my last comment on this particular issue, since I've wasted enough time here that I should have been using to write actual articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Keith Greer 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wishful thinking versus reality. Why does this remind me of "Loretta" from Monty Python's Life of Brian? Perhaps I can create the "User allow free beer" template, to match. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perm-ban all users with this template then Delete. Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Wikipedia is not geocities. If you want a home page, go some place else. Wikipedia is for building an encyclopedia, and you can't vote to change that. Not here, not in some silly userbox, and not anywhere else. --Gmaxwell 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with a rebuttal: Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Should we file that line under B.S. or a strawman argument? Let's be realistic: The real "fair use abuse" here is coming from those wishing to discourage policy change by consensus. You scream "Don't rock the boat!" but it's those that are being falsely accused of rocking the boat that are trying to steady the ship. Those of you who repeat the obvious "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" mantra along with "Wikipedia is not a free speech zone" seem to forget that English Wikipedia would not EXIST without free speech. We now return you to the WikiRevolution already in progress. --CJ Marsicano 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users with this template are expressing an opinion. Something we are all allowed to do on talk pages and such. They are not getting wikipedia into trouble by actually using hundreds of fair use images. All they are doing is saying what they think about things.--God of War 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copylefting our content is a foundation issue, and such cannot be changed by a vote or local consensus. This template falsely implies otherwise. Delete. —Cryptic (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who cares, it doesn't change anything. There's no reason someone can't sport this if they feel that's necessary. Cookiecaper 10:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates policy, period.--MONGO 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As free speech, and is POV so it cannot be deleted on the basis that it promoted an opinion - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template advocates that we change policy to disregard the law. Delete per Jimbo. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDustimagic 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 19:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyper-Strength Keep - Userboxes should only be deleted when they consist of personal attacks against fellow members. Promotion of a change to Wikimedia's policies is not something that makes a userbox worthy of deletion. Remember, the debate here is about the userbox, not the merits of the idea proposed by the userbox. - Cuivienen 20:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Free speech arguments are specious because people donate huge sums of money for the advancement of the encyclopedia, not of userpages. If people want an ad-supported homepage, log in to MySpace. --Interiot 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and watch the supporters. --Pjacobi 23:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the image is part of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching..., scholarship, or research" then it can be used on userspace. USA/Florida law supercedes proposed WP policy. If the law is changed, policy can reflect the changes; until then delete the template. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t00:14z
    • But a user may engage in criticism or comment on a user page, nor is the above list an exhastuive list of the legitimate purposes for which fair use images can be used. In any case, deleting this tempalte is not only saying that wikipedia policy on this issue should not be changed, it is saying that people should not be allowed to advocate making such changes. DES (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re [55]: I don't see userbox use of non-free images as covered by fair use law. We can't have a policy that supports doing something which is illegal where the servers and foundation is. -- Jeandré, 2006-01-08t10:18z
  • Strong delete, speedy even. Trödel&#149;talk 08:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In at least some cases, there is a strong case that such image use is lageal under copyright law. Curent wikipedia policy appears to prohibit such use even in such cases. Example, images intended and relased by their creators for individual identification, such as political party logos. DES (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, destructive -- advocates placing the encyclopedia into needless legal risk. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this destructive template for reasons specified above. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plain and simple... copyright law. Gflores Talk 18:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can serve no purpose except to attempt to hinder the smooth implementation of the copyright policy, which safeguards Wikipedia from liability. As long as users don't indemnify Wikipedia against third party liability, they're not entitled to use Wikipedia facilities to break the copyright law or to obstruct its application. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent keep. Next we'll be trying to delete anarchy userboxes... // paroxysm (n) 22:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the really good userboxes, we should try to get "permission on behalf of all wikipedians" for those considered fair use (eg. the Camino icon, etc). kelvSYC 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arguments for deletion seem to be based entirely on the details of U.S. copyright law, while the actual question is whether or not one should be allow to list an opinion concerning such law on a Wikipedia user page. The expression of this opinion does not open Wikipedia or any of its users to legal action - nor, of course, does the expression of this opinion render Wikipedia or its users immune from prosecution under the law. - Scooter 03:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment In that case, should the template not be protesting the law? If and until that's changed it's frankly foolhardy to advocate a change in Wikipolicy that breaks it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's harmful to encourage people to think that this is an issue on which community opinion matters. If you don't like the fair use policy, talk to the legal team, talk to the Foundation, but for the current time this is not a community issue but rather one for the Foundation and its decision to remain the free encyclopedia, and to minimize legal risk. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Measurement

Template:Measurement
Delete — This is an unfinished template that does not seem to be currently in use. The material covered is dealt with well elsewhere and I see no need for this table. Srleffler 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like it's supposed to be a template for creating articles about cemeteries. Delete, because it's pretty fairly useless.--Sean|Black 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can still transclude a template from your userspace, yes. However, the problem here is that it's not really a template- it's fine for a standardised format for cemetery articles, but the problem is that the way trancslusion works will produce just what the template says unless you include optional parameters (which is difficult and confusing). I'd suggest moving the template into your userspace, then dragging it into the empty edit box and filinf it out when making a new article.--Sean|Black 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't the purpose of templates. The logical alternative to such over-templating is to establish a page on a single, important cemetery and use that page as a "template" for future cemetery pages. - Cuivienen 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a misunderstanding of what templates are per User:Longhair. Templates are something to be included in an article, not a tool for creating substubs through subst:ing. - Bobet 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not what templates are for, although it is an understandable mistake. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, um, are there supposed to be two templates under consideration here, or just the same one linked twice? —Cryptic (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not really required. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and then delete. An understandable mistake. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User soup nazi and Template:User-grammar nazi

Whatever your view on userboxes, these should go. 1) Not funny. 2) Comparisons to Nazis are always in poor taste. 3) We will have users who suffered, directly or indirectly, under Hitler. 4) Godwin's law. 5) And least important - there are some issues surrounding the use of the Swastika in some European countries. --Doc ask? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hm. None of those reasons sound very convincing. We don't censor Wikipedia articles, so why should we censor Wikipedia userpages? As long as it's someone identifying himself as a soup nazi or a grammar nazi, rather than accusing anyone else of being such, it's not likely to offend, since both terms are heavily ingrained in the popular culture (though the swastika in "user soup nazi" is a bit unexpected; I'd have expected an image of a bowl of soup or something). Not being funny and not being in good taste are matters of taste, and not really grounds for deletion, even though I agree; nor do Godwin's Law or censorship laws in various European countries make any difference in this matter. And if the "I hate GWB" templates are appropriate, I don't see how this one, which doesn't even express an opinion (it's not like it says "the Holocaust wasn't real" or "I <3 Hitler" on it or anything), could be considered unacceptably inappropriate.
As for people who have suffered due to Hitler: although I think for the most part these terms are used just for shock value and humor (although they can sometimes be offensive when applied to other people rather than to oneself, e.g. calling someone a "grammar nazi" for correcting your spelling), not really anything attempted to offend anyone, if anything, I'd say that such jokes as "soup nazi" trivialize naziism, they don't trivialize the Holocaust. Mocking Hitler and demeaning and degrading the term "nazi" with silly, amusing phrases "soup nazi" and "grammar nazi" is not mocking or attacking victims of nazis, but mocking nazis themselves. The needless suffering it's caused and continues to cause is bad, but the concept of naziism itself, really, isolated from its historical context, isn't scary so much as incredibly silly. If racism and religious bigotry wasn't so dangerous, destructive, and widespread in modern society, I'd almost consider racists and bigots adorable. Like crazy people on the subway. -Silence 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't censor wikipedia, because censorship damages content. We should remove sources of offence where to do so is content-neutral (else why not have an erect penis on the Mainpage). If people want to self-describe by comparison to mass-murderers, they are free to do so. The question is whether there should be a general template to facilitate this. --Doc ask? 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we do censor wikipedia. Confer autofellatio. Silence argues at great length that people shouldn't find this offensive (by invoking highly semantic arguments like: it's not a "description" but only an "allusion"), but maybe Silence should stop and consider whether any people do find this offensive, which is the more germaine point here, according to our practices. By the way, I'm a staunch freedom of expression advocate, who thinks that takes precedent over people's sensitivities, so I vote keep, but I find Silence's counterarguments unconvincing, and expect the senstivity consideration to carry the day. -lethe talk 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is that it's not self-describing by comparison to mass-murderers, it's using a term that very vaguely alludes to a mass murderer. Is even mentioning a term that is related to someone hateful off-limits, even when the actual template is certainly not supportive of that individual or his movement, and is in fact a parody of it? I think it's a tad excessive to say that we can't even use the word "nazi" in any template on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, intent, or meaning is. And if that's not what you're saying, then read Soup Nazi and grammar nazi, as they're references, respectively, to a very popular Seinfeld episode and to a very common colloquial term for people who are overly concerned with grammar, certainly not the direct references to Hitler you seem to think they are. My recommendation: keep both templates, and replace the swastika on the "Soup Nazi" with a more topic-appropriate image (like a bowl of soup or a clipped version of Image:Sein soup nazi.jpg) so it fits the joke properly. -Silence 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting that image in such a template would go beyond fair use and violate the copyright. BDAbramson T 04:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - Guettarda 23:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.--Sean|Black 23:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm all in favour of humourous templates for user pages, but this crosses the line and is merely offensive and in extremely bad taste. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both soup nazi and grammar nazi are widely recognizable terms and while I won't self-identify that way, I think deleting these amounts to taking political correctness a step too far. For what its worth, I thought the Soup Nazi character on Seinfeld was funny, and do find humor in making fun of Nazis. More than that though I think knowing that someone is a self-avowed grammar nazi would actually be useful as it describes one of the things that person cares about when editting. While some people may find these to be offensive, I believe that when it comes to userspace and things that belong in user space, we ought to favor freedom of expression over attempts to avoid all possible offense. I wouldn't object to removing the swastika however, as that is a bit over the top. Dragons flight 00:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I suspect that if the swastika is removed, someone else will put it back. BDAbramson T 00:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, especially the soup nazi one. It's in reference to "Seinfeld" (see Seinfeld#The_Soup_Nazi). The grammar nazi is a fairly well-known saying in the United States (and I suspect on the internet in general, especially on message boards, etc). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, but note that I've changed the swastika. ~~ N (t/c) 01:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both --Khoikhoi 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No opinion on the soup nazi one though. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, American humor being considered. Iffer 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – In poor taste, but that's not a crime. – ClockworkSoul 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Both of them. They may be funny to some Americans, but are actually very offensive towards many European users. And since I don't believe that Wikipedia should favour someone's pleasure over other people their feelings, I want them gone.SoothingR 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the swastikas are removed; these are harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hmmm. another tfd away from the official policy page on userboxes - but this one is more hidden so only you deletionist will find it and not the general populus of wikipedia that votes to keep these boxes.--God of War 06:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official policy on userboxes, but there is on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with which you might like to refamilliarise yourself! --Doc ask? 11:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep They may be offensive to you, but you know what? A lot of what the rest of the world says about my president is offensive to me. Lighten up. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 08:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and it's not often that I find myself in the deletionist camp. As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of a Template: Orthographically Rigorous.... Sjc 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then make that template too, and use it instead. I too am what many could describe as a "grammar nazi", being very concerned with grammatical consistency, yet I have no plans to ever use that template on my page because it doesn't fit my style of humor. Those who prefer that particular self-depracating way to state their grammar fixation should be permitted to do so, and those who don't prefer it, like you and I, can easily make other templates with a similar meaning for our own use. Deletion due to being needlessly offensive may be a valid justification (even though it doesn't apply well enough here), but deletion just because "As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of..." is purely a matter of personal preference and taste. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe - just maybe - this bad joke was funny once. But perpetrating what is obviously offensive to many in our community is against WP:CIV. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone get those deletionists a life, so they don't have to start up discussions everywhere. Is this a tactic to make it hard to track your attacks? Larix 10:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith.
It's getting difficult to assume good faith when the minority is repeatedly nominating large numbers of userboxes for deletion and then claiming that they are the true defenders of Wikipedia. - Cuivienen 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The reasons for deleting them are too week. --Bky1701 11:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am not seeing a compelling argument for deletion - these are for use in the User: space. All in good fun. --Dschor 11:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think that either one is very funny or in very good taste, but so what? Since when do my prerogatives as an editor extend to verifying the humor or good taste of someone's fracking user page? Does anyone seriously think that people with these userboxes are Nazis? Benami 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for offensiveness. --Pjacobi 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Matt Crypto 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bolak77 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete grammar nazi, SS reference is highly offensive. Keep soup nazi; now that the swastika is gone it seems relatively harmless and clearly references a US TV show rather than the NSDP. Palmiro | Talk 13:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you if it was someone calling someone else a grammar nazi. Saying "You are such a grammar nazi" is potentially (though not necessarily) offensive; saying "You are such a soup nazi" will rarely be offensive, because it's so darned silly. However, saying "I am such a grammar nazi" or "I am such a soup nazi", which is exactly what the above templates do, is more goofy and humor-at-one's-own-expense than genuinely offensive. This really isn't that big of a deal. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the Nazi bit half as much as I mind the joke about being a member of the SS, which is in the poorest possible taste. That was the basis of my vote and comment. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup but Delete (or Rewrite) Grammar. The soup reference is too common an joke reference for any claims of offensiveness, and should be kept (at least until there is a consensus general policy on all joke-boxes). As much as I champion box-rights, even I find the grammar box (in its current form) to be in poor taste (If it had been funnier, I may have voted to keep, but it is not. There is a fine line between clever and stupid --Spinal Tap.) — Eoghanacht talk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People keep claiming that 'Soup Nazi' is common cultural reference. Well, it is not one I have ever heard - and so all I saw was some poor-taste comparision between soup and Nazism. I wonder that voters may be guitly of US-popular-culture imperialism. In most of the world, when people see the word Nazi, they do not think about US sitcoms. --Doc ask? 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Soup Nazi is worse than American-pop-culture imperialism, it is New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism. However, given that it is instantly identifiable to hundreds of millions of English speakers I think it qualifies as a common knowledge joke. Everyone who does not understand the reference (even if that means most other English speakers) can simply click on the link in the userbox to read about it. — Eoghanacht talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 'New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism' = 'common knowledge'. I suddenly feel like an ignorant foreigner. --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I should have typed: "Manhattan-pop-cultural-imperialism", but one of the joys of Wikipedia is the opportunity to expand your knowledge, such as the fundamental truth: Nothing important happens east of the East River, nor west of the Hudson. I don't believe it myself, but American media and advertisers keeps trying. — Eoghanacht talk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - Stop the deletionism. Delete only the templates that are actually useless and stop wasting space on this page and the time of Wikipedia users. - Cuivienen 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only templates that are 'actually useless' - OK, what 'use' are these to the goals of wikipedia? --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless templates are redundant templates or templates not being used as templates (see Template:Cemetery for one such example). This template is for humor on userpages, a valid use. - Cuivienen 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing offensive about it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by the precedent set by all the other meaningless userboxes here that nobody minds. If I may address the points of the nominator: 1) is not a valid criterion for deletion, and it is highly objective. I think most of the userboxes advertised as funny qualify as "not funny" to a greater or lesser extent by my standards, but I wouldn't think of trying to get them deleted based on this argument. 2) is also quite objective. I for one would disagree. 3) is technically correct, but I disagree with it as an argument for deletion here. While it is an interesting topic of discussion how offensive jokes should be allowed to be, this doesn't even come close to offensive enough to warrant such discussion, I think. 4) Godwin's law cannot be taken too seriously, and certainly is not a valid criterion for deletion here. 5) is obviously moot now that there is no swastika. EldKatt (Talk) 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak I'm going to hate myself in the morning keep- Tasteless yes, but it was Seinfeld, not Wikipedia, who came up with it, the terms are recognizable. Keep both. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not funny but rather offensive. Cyberevil 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete on grounds of offence. Grammar nazi is an internal Wikipedia thing so the concept is acceptable as a box, Soup nazi obviously refers to a joke I have not yet heard, but both are expressed in terms that I think go beyond what is acceptable. David | Talk 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar nazi is not even close to being "an internal Wikipedia thing". In fact, I'd say it's just about the most common usage of the word "nazi" in the modern English-speaking world that doesn't refer to literal nazis. It's practically ubiquitous as a pejorative, amusingly over-the-top term for obsessive grammarians. And voting to delete "Soup Nazi" just because you haven't heard the joke before is rather biased. Why should the arbitrary and random number of things you've happened to run into before in your life determine how you vote? My vote would be the same whether I'd happened to hear of Soup Nazi before or not, because my personal experience in this area is not what this vote is about. If "Soup Nazi" wasn't noteworthy, it wouldn't have an article! -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the use of the word 'nazi' should not frighten people. I'm more familiar with 'spelling nazi' but 'grammar nazi' is a common term that I've heard both in Rl and on the Internet and 'soup nazi' - well, lots of people found Seinfeld funny. - Hayter 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, espousing your knowledge of languages or political beliefs or even your web browser is one thing, but this is pretty well boxcruft. Yes, we know. You like Seinfeld. You think capital letters are good. That's swell, but we don't need userboxes for everything somebody somewhere thinks is good. Especially when the templates are about as funny as a swift kick to the groin. Lord Bob 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet political beliefs or web browsers--also irrelevant to the functionality of Wikipedia, unlike Babel--are okay? Out of curiosity, where exactly do you draw the line? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see all the genuinely useless humorous templates gone, not just the ones I dislike more. EldKatt (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same place I draw the line on notability of articles: I don't, and take it on a case-by-case basis. Lord Bob 18:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. I might add that the "X-Nazi" form in sich versions as "Safety-Nazi", "PC_Nazi" ect, often to deride an opposing viewpoint, but soemtimes to deprecatingly describe one's own views (as apparently in this case) is considerably wider than Seinfeld, and the intended meanign should be clear to msot people. I personally wouldn't use such a designation, but if people want to so self-label, why not. I speak as a person who had relatives, albiet rather distant ones, who were Holocaust victims. DES (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. older≠wiser
  • Very Strong Keep for The Soup Nazi and Rewrite before Keeping (the wording I just saw has me iffy) for the Grammar Nazi. I'd also like to remind everone of Mel Brooks' words on why he always made fun of Nazis in his films: "When you're made a mockery of your enemy, then you've won." --CJ Marsicano 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Nazi here does not reference to national socialism, but more as a reference to the setereotype.→AzaToth 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Soup Nazi, Keep Grammar Nazi.Gateman1997 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CIVIL. FreplySpang (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup Nazi, on the grounds that it is hilarious and not really offensive. Rewrite Grammar Nazi on the grounds that it is in extremely poor taste. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - none of the nom's reasons for deletion are convincing, especially for the Soup Nazi. The grammar nazi thing is a bit wierd, but neither are offensive and both are users' choices to use or not use. No one is forcing anyone to use them, but if you want to then it is your right to do so. Deano (Talk) 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly in favour of userboxes, but delete these. Inappropriate in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Soup For You! - anon
  • Keep. No delete for you. --Stbalbach 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Offensiveness is subjective, there's no need to impose personal tastes on someone else's userpage. There are a significant number of people on this planet who find all pictures of people to be genuinely offensive (because allegedly idolatrous). We can't regulate for the vast variety of personal aversions out there. Craft your own userpage in whatever way suits yours. Babajobu 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; these don't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With or without Swastika, still bad taste. Garion1000 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think that any swastika imagery should be gotten rid of. Self-deprecating humor is acceptable in userspace. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't censor. Stop the deletion inquisition. People have different senses of humor... Get over it. Don't be humor nazis Zachomis 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and my extend the following two userboxes: {{userbox:wiki-nazi-0}} {{userbox:wiki-nazi-1}} Robert Paveza 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This whole userbox debate is rapidly falling into a 'let's see how much we can degenerate the level of discussion' contest. Lord Bob 00:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete I would have started this process if I knew how. I made comments on a couple of pages. Essentially, I particularly object to the term nazi, and pointed out how

it wouldn't be fun to have a "kkk-grammar" or substitute other hateful symbols. Dialogue is important, but comparing grammar usage to a genocidal regime is in poor taste, even if it was part of a major sitcom. Many people here claim its not offensive, but many people i know were stunned to here about it, especially after i was bragging so much about how great wikipedia is. It hurts and marginalizes some. Not allowing the use of a symbol that is oppressive is a tolerable curtail of freedom of speech, as it reminds some of hatred, murder and genocide. And we want those people contributing to wikipedia. I think the term for someone who is intense about grammar should remain, but i feel the use of the term nazi, both on wikipedia and in common day lexicon, is inappropriate.

I'll read the process here now that i found it, but for sure i am for deleting it. As a side note, as a new user to wikipedia i'm delighted by all the talk. Certainly a vibrant and interesting community, where so many users debate this issue. I'm impressed. Cool stuff! JamieJones 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I have heard of Soup Nazi (even have the userbox on my userpage) and "grammar nazi", and don't consider them offensive. Dralwik 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let me start off by saying that I am very close to the Jewish community, and that I am considering the possability in becoming a Jew myself through cleansing in the mitvah. I would also like to point out that I just came home from a day at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C and that I have spent many personal hours on the study of WW2 and the Holocaust. I don't find these templates offensive, and I don't find them to be in bad taste. Even if I would find them to be offensive, or in bad taste, I would still oppose the deletion of them. It is not my job (or yours) to define what is and what is not funny. Are these templates advocating the harm of people? No, they're not. The mere mention of the word "nazi" does not make these templates the rallying cry for ignorant activity. Everyone has their little sick jokes- It is not our job to police that. Zachomis 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This userbox isn't exactly promoting racism or anything. Ashibaka tock 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - "grammar nazi" is a commonly accepted term. "nazi" is synonymous with "fascist" in this case. no offense should be taken to this. DrIdiot 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't believe in the offensive reasons myself, I don't think that "fascist" is a much nicer term than "Nazi". They're both used as fairly over-the-top insults, after all. Lord Bob 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mostly meant they were by no means references to mass murder. Or politics at all. I'd like to add (this is irrelevant to your comment) that the Japanese raped/killed thousands of Chinese in WW2, but as a Chinese I hold no grudge and I'm not offended by mentions of Tojo or Japan. And even if I was offended, I would respect freedom of speech and would live with it. DrIdiot 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Are a bit wierd but not overly offensive. If we delete everything that causes offence, then we'd have hardly any userboxes left! We got to stop being to cowardly with these sort of things, and not delete something at the first sight of offence! - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Offensive, bad taste, unhelpful. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Smells like censorship. Bastique 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Valmi ✒ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely strong keep. Something should not be deleted simply for having the word "Nazi" in it. "Nazi" has become a popular term to denote someone or something very strict. A comparison to Hitler or Nazism should not automatically make something offensive, and indeed, the world may be better if people remembered Nazism more carefully than they do now. Cookiecaper 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteUgly word, ugly reality we needn't relive--MONGO 14:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceedingly strong keep If we're going to delete this, then we need to purge Wikipedia of all Nazi references so as not to offend any delicate sensibilities. This is a ridiculous suggestion. --BRossow 17:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No delete for you!. Keep, the nominator violates Godwin's Law attempting to invoke it to remove these. I would be offended by someone mislabling me as a nazi, but if they mislabled me as a soup nazi I would not be offended, it's humorous. xaosflux Talk/CVU 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep' Humorous inside joke. Slightly offensive to those who don't understand it. Dustimagic 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep echoing sentiments above passim. Grounds for deletion are unconvincing. Eusebeus 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this really needs to be part of the ongoing discussion of the purpose/appropriateness of userboxes. These sentiments can be expressed without offending anyone. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – In poor taste, but that's not a crime. While they use the word nazi they do not refer directly to nazism. Thus I don't consider them an attack on anyone. -- Sneltrekker 14:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Poor taste is not a crime. helohe (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for silliness and triviality - I don't suppose they are seriously offensive, but why risk putting anyone off with something so fatuous and peripheral to what the site is actually about? Staffelde 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. It has already been decided through TfD that censorship of someones view is not acceptable. Even if someone created a userbox identfying themselves as a real Nazi we should not object. That is their view and they have a right to express it on their user page, with a userbox if they wish. There's another important point here — if some user was a real Nazi i'd rather be warned about that before hand by their user page, wouldn't you? —gorgan_almighty 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep 1) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else doesn't think it's funny. 2) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else doesn't think it's in good taste. 3) Something simply cannot be censored because someone else may think it's offensive. 4) Godwin's Law has nothing to do with this. 5) The swastikas are now gone. There are no viable arguments here for censoring this userbox. Elrith 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Like Dustimagic. Gflores Talk 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like Elrith and others. Boddah 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely harmless. Deville 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for all (well, most) of the reasons listed above. Snurks T C 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current icon for "soup nazi" is a bowl of soup. The offensiveness problem has been solved. - Scooter 03:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No delete for you! Swamp Ig 06:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep soup nazi (established American cultural icon). Delete grammar nazi, or delete references to the S.S. "Grammar nazi" is a common, though crude and IMO vaguely offensive term, but S.S. references are entirely uncalled for. --Fang Aili 15:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievably Strong Keep That the nom is unfamiliar with a well-known cultural reference, and unfamiliar with a common colloquialism, are nowhere near being valid reasons for deletion. And if anyone is going to be offended by that, we just can't be bothered to cater to people like that who are offended by everything (especially considering that any offensiveness is founded in unfamiliarity with these terms). I hope that citing Godwin's law was a joke on the nom's part. Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also am pretty amused/disgusted that deletionists chide us to assume good faith when we observe that starting all of these TFDs left and right while policy discussions are still going on seems like a diversionary tactic, but they think nothing of banning userboxes and cats just because they assume that their only use is to rig votes. But I suppose such should be expected of a loud minority arrogantly claiming to be the "true Wikipedians". Yeltensic42.618 don't panic 16:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NSDAP's flag/Swastica from the user template, I did, twice. And I'll do it again. El_C 16:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no problem with the Soup Nazi template (clean up the soup image maybe, it looks ugly) and as long as the Swastika is removed from the Grammar Nazi template there isn't anything wrong with it, it is a commonly used phrase and Grammar Nazi has it's own WikiPage. Though, the SS-Division in bad taste, maybe that should go too. AyAn4m1 22:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup Nazi because it is a joke. Not everyone is supposed to get jokes, and not everyone will, but that doesn't mean we need to delete this one. I'm sure that at least a fraction of the millions (76 million Americans watched the finale, after all) of people that watched Seinfeld like me use Wikipedia and will get it. Those that don't should, IMO, go rent Seinfeld on the lovely new DVD release, read the Wikipedia blurb on the Soup Nazi or just ignore it all together. As for Grammar Nazi - a recognised and popular term, no Swastika, no reason to delete in my eyes. --Loopy e 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-5

Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-->Since this is an important policy decision, and policies are frequently not decided by TfD because that makes no sense, I have asked Cool Cat to draw up the corresponding policy proposal. --Fenice 08:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't the people who made up en-5 draw up a policy proposal first? Why don't we delete this and let the policy be made?
    • Because of course this decision is final. I don't know how long you have been here, but any attempt to recreate template en-5 will be speedied within a few days. There are numerous precedents where it was decided to not delete because a proposal should be discussed first. What Cool Cat did is in bad faith and against the policy on top of this page. Obviously nobody cares. Cool Cat avoided a discussion with people who know something about the subject by bypassing the usual policy discussion and bringing it up here. It is much more likely for it to be destroyed by a bunch of regulars on TfD who enjoy destruction rather than having a serious discussion on the sensibility of this action with people who are actually using this template.--Fenice 14:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your POV judgement that you find it horrible is a fairly weak argument for starting to delete a project that is as successful as Babel. If we delete level five what argument is there for keeping level 1?? No language evaluation system in the world has only four levels. The American Standard is 5 levels ILR scale (excluding natives) the European Standard is at 6 levels (TELC). As Babel currently stands (4 levels) it is pretty useless. The language skills of people within one of these levels differ enourmously. It is hard to categorize yourself in one of only four levels. For your information, and I think you should have done some research before just suggesting a user template for deletion: we have hundreds of these templates here, which deserve deletion according to your reasoning. The template you are so keen on deleting facilitates work and life on Wikipedia for about forty users who are in that category. This deletion request is obviously in bad faith.--Fenice 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice straw man argument, there.--Srleffler 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First place, en-5 doesn't help make it any easier to categorize yourself; if en-5 is deleted, en-4 or en-N should be used. For a system that can't use testing, I found it fairly simple to categorize myself; much easier than to decide whether I speak English at a "professional" level. And whatever happened to assume good faith?--Prosfilaes 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument lacks logic: '...For a system that can't use testing...' - why shouldn't it be possible to use standard test results to categorize yourself - don't you want it to be comparable to standard tests or are you trying to claim that WP's Babel should be set in stone... or? I don't understand your argument. Or are you trying to argue that if we had levels comparable to standard test this will make people act in bad faith and make false statements about their skills. That would not be possible. Other users would notice anyway. --Fenice 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can disagree with someone without claiming their arguments is illogical, and claiming such does nothing to encourage calm discussion. We can't use test results, because serious testing is expensive and complex. I fail to see how it's relevant; en-5 has nothing to do with standardized testing anyway.--Prosfilaes 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe I did not express myself clearly: many people already have some kind of test result, and can judge their skills on the 5-part ILR-scale or the 6-step TELC scale. Some people may have taken a TOEFL (Test of English as a foreign language), which ranks participants on a scale from 330 to 660 points. These scales give a realistic possibility of categorization. en-5 does have something to do with language skills and language skills can be measured by standardized testing. The wording is another issue (it is as of yet unclear whether 'professional level' means native or not.) And the wording can easily be changed, that's no reason to delete a Babel template.--Fenice 07:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The wording is not another issue. We aren't arguing over whether we should go to a five or six step scale equivalent to a standard test. We're arguing over whether this template that refers to a professional level of knowledge should stand. Whatever it means, it doesn't have anything to do with the standard test scales. And I seriously doubt that even 25% of our non-native English speakers at Wikipedia have recently taken one of those three tests, nor do those tests extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Again I have problems following your logic if there is any in what you are saying. People want this box deleted because they believe the following: this box is being used by other native speakers to claim that they are better at English than other native speakers. (Which is of course not true, the box is being used by natives and non-natives.) If what people call 'offensive' as a reason for deletion is not in the wording where then is it, do you think? Is it the concept that unfortunately "we can all calculate, but mathematicians do it better"? Sorry but this concept is undeleteable. This will remain a fact (though disputed by the no-voters here), even if you delete the template. I respect your private opinion that for a reason you cannot name even after trying several times language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing, but please, in return, accept the fact that the world sees this issue differently. And yes you are absolutely right, the tests that test English do test English language skills, and thus do not extend across anywhere near all the languages Wikipedians speak, like you say.--Fenice 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I never said that language skill evaluation has nothing to do with testing; I said that this template has nothing to do with the language tests. If this box is being used by non-natives to claim that they are better than natives, that's just wrong. Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. Likewise, just because you write professionally, doesn't mean you're any better at writing English than the millions of us who don't. We don't need a Babel system that is inconsistent across languages, so using tests that test English doesn't help at all.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This template evaluates language skills, which are evaluated by language tests. Also, your sentence: Mathematicians don't calculate better; they are notorious for calulating worse. And another example: right here on this page you are voting for it to become impossible for the Babel-level 5 to be on en-5 for the English language, Prosfilaes. At the same time you are saying here that the Babel system should not be inconsistent across languages? I don't think I am the right person for you to talk to about these psychotic statements. The discussion is also completely beside the point and will lead nowhere; this is Wikipedia and idiotic things like the deletion of this template do happen. Babel of course is not static and can adjust to this problem - we will have to have a non-standard scale for the English language, because obviously nobody seriously discusses this. I think a discussion with you about the logical breaks in your arguments makes no sense, sorry.--Fenice 10:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the standard for a "professional" English speaker? Little known fact, I can contribute with a double secret level of English. Should I create Template:User en-6? Rhobite 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really needed, as en-4 and en-N both cover it - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an option to do some research before a drive-by-shooting on an established project: en-4 is near-native (which of course does not imply that that person is a linguist or professional writer, don't know what could have given you that idea). En-N is only for native speakers, not for people who write professionally and have some other native language. Shouldn't the people who vote here be required to do _some_ at least basic research on exactly what they are destroying??--Fenice 10:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who write professionally and don't have English as a native language are en-4, "near native". It doesn't imply that the person is a linguist or professional writer, but the argument that there's no need to put that in the Bable template is key to the opposition against en-5. What does a linguist know about how to write, in any case? They study the theory of languages at a level not useful for actual writing.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Profilaes. Just no. Those who write professionally are in en-5, not en-4. I don't understand how you could have possibly missed that since you are actually having a discussion on this topic for days. And it illustrates the point that your and my perception of reality and logic differ too widely for us to have a productive discussion. As mentioned on your talk page, I will not discuss any further because obviously this issue is already decided, there are more votes for deletion at this point and it is unlikely that more people will vote. Babel will have to deal with not being able to use the name user xx-5 for the English language. I am not available for further discussion and explanation, because this discussion cannot fulfil the aim of saving template en-5 or of initiating a policy discussion.--Fenice 12:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No harm. --Thorri 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again not really needed, breaking the standard for no good reason I can detect. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I think a level 5 is useful, I personally have problem with defining the step from expert to native. A professional level for me indicates that the person in question have learned the language to a native level, but it's not his/her nativ language. For example a translator could use it to define it's profession is the language. →AzaToth 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all other language templates have four levels. Why break the standard for English? Not only that, this template implies that the user is somehow a better English speaker than most other people. Rhobite 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. →AzaToth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to your reasoning we would have to delete half of en.wikipedia because other languages are not as complete as this one is. --Fenice 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, AzaToth, you have just illustrated one of the problems with this template. I believe it is not intended to represent English ability equal to native English level (but without being native.) It is intended to indicate that the user's ability to write in English exceeds that of a typical native speaker. Hence, the description "professional"—this is intended for people who are professional writers, and who therefore (claim) to have better command of the English language than the rest of us. There are all kinds of problems with this, as others have pointed out. The fact that the tag is prone to misuse and misunderstanding, as you have shown, is only one of them.--Srleffler 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording can easily be changed, that is no reason to delete the template.--Fenice 07:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This would be useful if it was actually used by editors who write prose for a living, such as journalists, novelists, and certain academics and technical writers. As it is, however, I see this userbox adorning pages of 15-year old high-school boys who struggle with basic punctuation. Still, it is harmless, and no worse than putting a {{User vain}} on your user page. Owen× ☎ 18:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't use it, but professional editors and English scholars should. These users can then be consulted about stylistic and grammatical conventions. Primetime 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2: This template really doesn't belong on the en-x scale. Here's an alternate approach: let's replace it with a new userbox called {{User pro-writer}} which would be used in addition to the standard en-N box. Such a template could say, "User writes prose for a living, and would gladly help with stylistic issues in languages listed above". The box would be placed between the boxes for the languages which the editor writes professionally, and those that he can only use at an "amateur" level. This way it's also not restricted to English. A PD version of an icon such as this would be nice for the new template. Owen× ☎ 19:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree complete with OwenX's points. In it's current form it's useless and tries to change the Babel system. In a form of professional writer it would be useful. -- Sneltrekker 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment like any userbox this could be misused - but this has real potentional for use. Imagine writing a featured article and needing some help with the writing, as the standards have risen a bit there - you could theoretically do a lookup of people with these templates and ask for advice, etc.. OwenX has a point but I think seperating the two could be clunky as having prof. writing skills in one language doesn't neccesarily apply to another. WhiteNight T | @ | C 19:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What OwenX said. the wub "?!" 19:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as en-4/n is understood to have an average vocabulary and understanding of English. En-5 can help us track down people who can help punch-up prose for articles recently mentioned in the media. Level-5 should be implemented in all other languages as this would help Stewards find people to help with interwiki work and disputes. - RoyBoy 800 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do what OwenX suggested - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's all sorts of xx-5. {{ubx-5}} is an example and is used on many pages (my own included).--HereToHelp (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, delete en-5 but create a seperate identification for professional writers that's not part of the en-x scale. Oh, and we already have Category:Wikipedian writers. Dragons flight 22:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Though I couldn't resist a look to see what experts we have among us. Mark1 01:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gene Nygaard 04:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Khoikhoi 04:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A professional editor and English scholar, that's what I yam. I'd like to put my expertise, teaching experience, and compassion to use on Wikipedia. Halcatalyst 05:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does this help you? It doesn't change your editing, and I, for one, am more likely to look at en-5 and think you're a twit rather than someone who actually knows something.--Prosfilaes 23:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Hmmm. another tfd away from the official policy page on userboxes - but this one is more hidden so only you deletionist will find it and not the general populus of wikipedia that votes to keep these boxes.--God of War 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but create a separate template to identify professional writers, per the suggestion of User:OwenX.--Srleffler 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-standard template. — TheKMantalk 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-standard template per nomination. A template identifying professional writers, as others have mentioned, may be useful, but it should not masqueride as a Babel template. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonstandard template in the Babel-series. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those who vote keep: prepare to have en-99 soon. If you need to emphasize it, an optional argument may be easily added to a template of your choice. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Delete and Comment As it stands, it is not well defined, and thus the reason for it is hard to tell. Is a “professional” level better or worse then native? What context is it “professional” in, translation, business, ...? --Bky1701 11:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not seeing the problem with this - it seems to be a perfectly logical extension of the Babel box. Turning it into a non-language template would be the non-standard implementation. Leave as is. --Dschor 11:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep np with it Larix 13:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesn't need to be sneering superiority. Create a new template that talks about being a professional in the subject of the English language - as in an English linguist or philologist. En-5 is the wrong place for this. - Cuivienen 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is a limited case, but a non-English professional translator would speak English at better than an en-4 level, but not be a native speaker (en-N). The en-5 template seems to cover that circumstance. --CBD ☎ ✉ 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Could someone define exactly what a native speaker is? I understand it to be ones mother tounge. For example, I'm a native speaker of Swedish, but I'm not a professional in it's grammar. →AzaToth 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per User:OwenX. Appears to be attempting a reform of the Babel system's structure in its own sneaky way. Whether more levels are needed could be discussed, but in its proper place, and if it meets acceptance by consensus, it should be implemented in a proper way. Also, in this particular case it seems to imply that a "professional" speaker (in itself an ill-defined concept) somehow differs in skill or level of authority from a native or near-native speaker, which, I would argue, is patently false. The main (and probably sufficient) argument for deletion is that it poses as a Babel template but does not follow the standard form of Babel templates. EldKatt (Talk) 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and revise as per User: OwenX. DES (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite text as the term "professional" has so many different meanings (is it someone writing or translating as a living? Is it someone holding a provincially-issued licence of some sort, in the same way "professional engineer" and "registered nurse" each have a specific legal meaning? Is it someone who knows just enough English to use it in the workplace when practicing some other unrelated profession? Or is it just a perceived level of linguistic quality somehow rated a little better than merely "unprofessional"? If the meaning is that this person's employment is that of a linguist, author or teacher of English, by all means say so. The current wording is too vague to impart any meaning beyond that of {{en-4}} and therefore useless. --carlb 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Dan | talk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Many native speakers/writers of English can and do write at a near-illiterate level. A way to distinguish the better practitioners is needed, even if English isn't their native language. However, I'd rather see the template in a less-provocative color than the shades of red that it now uses. Another color might avoid offending the tender sensibilities of certain users. --QuicksilverT @ 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a distinct difference between being native in a language and taking college classes to learn the grammar.--God of War 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Look at all those people who contribute using textspeak, slang, "it's" in the wrong place, etc.. etc... They may be native speakers, but they definitely don't deserve the en-5 label. en-5 is a way to show people that you know when to use apostrophes, that you can spell correctly, etc.... You don't have to have written books to show that. Anyway, if it is deleted, people can just create a userbox on their own page, defeating the whole point of deleting it. Just look a second at all the people who have en-5 on their user pages. They can all contribute with a high level of English and spelling correctly. At least three people on the first page of the en-N category can't spell or, even worse, don't use proper grammar. After all, what's the point of deleting a userbox, why the fuss? If people want to put en-5 on their userpage, leave them alone... Nippoo 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Nippoo. Hi-cal usage isn't common even in native speakers; the en-5 suggests encyclopedia-caliber competence, which is to be desired. Add it to other languages, too, I've no problem with that; if you're de-5 (or Klingon-5, for all that), good on ya. Trekphiler 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're a professional editor, and want people to know it, why not write it in English on your user page? Why does it need to be in a stupid box? -- SCZenz 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nonstandard (and sets a terrible precedent), pointless, arrogant (by what standard do we judge "professional", other than just how well a person thinks of his own writing?), inaccurate, misleading, wasteful, unreliable (with no consistent standard, we'll have some of our best writers and some of our worst writers listed together, making the template useless), ugly. Has nothing to do with the Babel templates, which deal with whether you're a native speaker of the language or one who's learning it at some level or another. A distinct template should be created for things like "user is a professional writer", "user has an exceptional grasp of vocabulary and grammar, "user is a copyeditor", etc., if necessary. The Babel template deal with how fluent you are in English, not how skilled you are; whether your prose is masterful or not should be an unrelated template. Also, I have to say that I couldn't agree more with SCZenz; very good point. -Silence 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-standard-issue can easily be changed - what color do you want it to be? en-4 is yellow, so that would also be non-standard, should we also delete it? Why else could this template be nonstandard? Why would this template be more misleading than other levels? I personally beleive en-2 is way more misleading. It can mean anything. To some people intermediate means advenced, to others it means beginner. According to your reasoning we should urgently delete the native template because it does not identify a person who is learning the language (?) (I think, hope, we can assume that everybody who writes for WP is trying to improve his language skills -> so lets delete all babel templates?). And could you expand on your notion that fluency has nothing to do with skill?--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-standard and unnecessary template, although, as are said often above, a seperate userbox and category to show that you're a professional writer isn't a bad idea. Lord Bob 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Escapes the purpose of the Babel project, I believe. Plus, there's a duality difficult to resolve: this "professional speaker" could be a "über-native", that is, a native who also possesses a "professional knowledge" of the language, or a "über-level 4", that is, a person who is not a native speaker but who has studied and understands the language on a "professional level", such as an English teacher/professor in a non-English speaking country. Those two should not even be mixed to begin with, since it's not quite the same thing. Since this is not essential to the project, we'd be better off leaving this alone — plus what Silence said. Redux 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...A duality difficult to resolve...says Redux. We can't list all articles for deletion that have dualities that are difficult to resolve. Doing that in this case sets an uncanny precedent.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretentious as hell, and completely misleading. I lost track of the number of grammatical mistakes and misspelled words on the user pages of people with this userbox. Yeah, I'm a copyeditor. FCYTravis 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bears some relevance in considering user:Silence's argument above, who dreams of all natives and copyeditors having no more need to learn and improve.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]
    • If someone is going to be pretentious enough to slap an "English professional" userbox on their userpage, they'd better not have a single freaking mistake on it. FCYTravis 05:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete levels 0 to 4 plus -N should be enough. Why break the norm for one language?. CharonX 20:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are breaking a norm by suggesting to delete this. 'Normally' there are more evaluation levels for language skills, as I mentioned above.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which are completley arbitrary. 4 sounds about right; I could decipher a message, I could communicate at a basic level, I'm pretty good in the language, I'm a native.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They would not have to be that arbitrary if they would correspond better to what is done in real life: have more levels. To me 'being able to decipher a message' is en-0, basic level is en-1, pretty good sounds more like advanced (en-3). The more productive users are the ones that categorize themselves as "fluent" or having "a working knowledge", both terms are often found on resumés and are non-existent in Babel as of yet -> we need more levels on Babel.--Fenice 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being able to decipher a message is not en-0; that's I don't speak English. Adding more levels is just going to make it more confusing; if you don't know what the difference between en-2 and en-3 is, then making them en-2, en-3, en-4 isn't going to help. If you're fluent in English, you should be able to tell that that's en-4. And whether or not we need more levels is orthogonal to whether or not this particular level defined roughly as it is should stay. Arguing that this should stay because the Bable system needs to be more finely tuned is like arguing that User GWB should stay because the users from Green Water Bay need a userbox.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can 'decipher a message' you won't be able to contribute much and that is the criterion for en-0 (can't contribute). If you set fluency equal to current e-4, which is near native, we will need at least en-6 to cover the full spectrum. As to the Bay Water Green analogy, I have no idea what that is or where that is, but everybody here knows what English is. The analogy is faulty.--Fenice 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're changing the meaning of the template mid-game.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretentious, unhelpful, offensive. If you're a professional who uses English, say that; there's a difference between that and "speaking English at a professional level".--Prosfilaes 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have a problem with the wording, change it, be bold, click the edit button on top.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the wording I have problems with; it's the fact that the Bable tool is being abused to look down at the people who only speak the language at a "native" level. It's an elitest and linguistically absurd concept.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The user template deletion craze is really going beyond comment. --Fenice 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. --Fang Aili 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Using that reasoning, we can delete every user template because it is "arrogant" and the user must be a "twit," right? Most languages have at least 5 levels, as the first comment noted. There is absolutely no reason to delete this, as it can be extremely useful in determining people who can help significantly with grammar. The argument that people with terrible grammar will use this is irrelevant, since someone could just as easily put a level 4 when they really speak at a level 2, and this would be apparent from the user page anyways. Using that reasoning, again, we can just delete all language templates because all Wikipedia users can be arrogant twits and lie, right? Wrong.
  • Tests (not languages) may have a level 5, but that doesn't mean that we should be that granular, and it espeically does not mean that we should have level 5 mean what en-5 does. Yes, they could put a level 4 when they speak at a level 2, but it's not really being an arrogant twit to say you're as good as most speakers. en-5 is misleadingly defined, since there's no linguistically accepted level of language knowledge beyond native, and there's no evidence that it's being used in a useful way.--Prosfilaes 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a 4-level system is currently used for representing any user skill. So, an arbitrary fifth level does not fit in any way. --Angelo 23:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant difference between native and professional master in thr written form of a language. --Valmi ✒ 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like some of those voting keep here do so because they desire more levels in the Babel system. Consider, then, that there are babel templates currently listed here for 232 languages. Do you think an effective way of introducing a reform in this system (where the 5 levels, including native, are the currently established way of doing things) is to create an extra template for English that cannot easily be found and hoping that people will therefore adapt to some new, non-existent standard? If you really wish to change the Babel standard, raise the issue in a place where it can be discussed and, if consensus is reached, implemented properly. Please realize that, currently, this template breaks the 5-level (or 4-level, depending on how you see it) system that Babel currently follows, and keeping this can't really result in anything but confusion. EldKatt (Talk) 10:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how you got the idea that there are currently 4 levels (en-1 to en-4), when we are here obviously talking about deleting an existing level en-5. As you can see the link above is still blue, so 5 levels do exist. Level en-5 was created months ago and about 40 people have it on their userpages. You are twisting the facts. You are right, this is not the place to change the Babel standard, which is currently en-1 to en-5. En-5 was created the same way en-4 was finally created because there was a demand for it. --Fenice 11:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, then, do no other languages have a level 5? Why does Wikipedia:Babel explicitly list and describe the four levels at the top? Wikipedia:Babel/Levels does mention it, but it is referred to as a proposal, not yet implemented. (Incidentally, I can't find any other references to this proposal, or it being discussed anywhere, which surprises me.) Please provide evidence of your claim that "the Babel standard [...] is currently en-1 to en-5", now that I have provided some evidence to the contrary. EldKatt (Talk) 12:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some other languages have only three levels, some only one, see [Wikipedia:Babel]]. If there is no description of the fifth level it should be added and if en-5 is seen by some as just a proposal it should be discussed and not just deleted. I am saying it is standard because en-5 exists and is in heavy use. There is nothing more formal to that. From what you say I can draw no other conclusion other than there needs to be discussion, not deletion. The demand is there for en-5 and it it will be created again in some form sooner or later anyway. But if this deletion goes through and sets a precedent we will have to resort to calling it en-4.5 or something.--Fenice 12:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 45 users—compared to 108 for en-1, 799 for en-2, 1601 for en-3, 755 for en-4 and many thousands for en-N (is there an easy way of counting pages in a category?)—qualifies as "heavy use" by your standards, then there's not a lot we can discuss. I am still of the opinion that reforms of established systems (such as Babel with four levels) should be attempted in the proper place, to enable serious discussion and successful potential implementation. I am also still of the opinion that en-5 is not standard, as you have claimed. EldKatt (Talk) 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, we have different notions of what is standard. It's nice however to see that someone sticks to the rules on top of this page and admits that this was not the right place to decide that policy.--Fenice 15:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, now that we have the exact numbers, again the suggestion: why not sacrifice en-1 with 108 users instead?--Fenice 15:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it has twice as many users as en-5. And more importantly, I don't see the point of having a system where "intermediate" is the lowest level. It evidently fills a gap satisfactorily. EldKatt (Talk) 20:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above, or was it below - the people on level en-1 will make nowhere near as many contributions as the ones that are on level 5. My rough estimate is that by deleting category en-5 you are chasing off about 100 times more edits than by deleting category en-1. Just imagine when these people discover this absurdly strange discussion here in a few weeks and find out that they are not wanted because their abilities are considered 'offensive'. Cool Cat, the user who initiated this stunt, is gonna have a good laugh. --Fenice 21:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're going to be driven off by a deletion of one template, they don't have what it takes to survive at Wikipedia. And no one has said their abilities are offensive; they said this way of expressing them is.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here—according to me as well as the majority of delete voters—has nothing to do with anything being offensive, as you claim. The issue is that it is non-standard. If this were named anything but "en-5", and thus made no claim of being part of the Babel system, a lot of those voting delete wouldn't mind it at all, as I interpret the discussion. (The notion that people would feel unwanted and leave Wikipedia because of a template being deleted is, to me, absurd.) EldKatt (Talk) 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are enough levels as it is and Wikipedia is not a translating agency. / Peter Isotalo 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it is. Shouldn't users who vote here have some knowledge of what they are talking about?--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it isn't. Wikipedia does not take material in for translation; we don't even straight-forwardly translate Wikipedia articles between different languages.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very funny. I was really amazed that anybody could actually be so remote from reality, judging by your statements above, and I am now kind of relieved to see you are only joking, Prosfilaes. Very funny. --Fenice 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC) - Now watch Profilaes put all the translation pages up for deletion on the grounds that he feels offended by them.--Fenice 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • What are you talking about? EldKatt (Talk) 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • (*Whispering at EldKatt:*)Have a look at Profilaes userpage. He knows perfectly well that there are translations. He has a link to them on his userpage. --Fenice 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete en-4 is good enough.--MONGO 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest deleting en-1 instead. Makes more sense, since people on that level won't contribute much anyway.--Fenice 14:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a valid reason to delete en-1, and it's rather offensive. Even someone with en-1 can make suggestions and help clarify articles within their field of expertise. Making the facts right is worth a million minor grammatical fixes.--Prosfilaes 10:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Djegan 15:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BRossow 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I recognise that there is a difference in being a native speaker of the English language and being able to write a text that is of encyclopedic quality. The problem is that it is difficult for many people to judge if their own writing style is truly "professional". Then again, the user page is there for whatever people want to say about themselves, so I can't see why this shouldn't be available to them to use. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 17:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just ran across this discussion by chance, since I'd stopped following, or caring about, the Babel template discussions some time ago. This discussion, and the mentality behind the whole notion of xx-5, xx-6, what fits here, there, etc., is the straw that breaks this camel's back. Combined with the whole proliferation of absurd, stupid, juvenile userboxes that have crawled up out of the primordial Babel ooze, the only conclusion I can come to is that far too many people are more interested in process than content here. I am going to remove my own Babel labels since their meaning and usefulness have been debased and will only become more so in the future. Good work, Wikipedians. -EDM 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What happened to Template_talk:User_en-5? There was some discussion there a few days ago.--Prosfilaes 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change so it's not on the en-x scale. En-x is 1-4 and native. Let's not mess with that now that's it's nicely setup. Change to pro-writer or some of the other options above. gren グレン 13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Babel is fundamentally a 5-step system: 1, 2, 3, 4, N. Period. There is no need to bloat it with en-5, en-6, en-0, en-666, en-2.5, en-π, en-i or any such nonsense. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, even en-4 is a somewhat non-standard extension. The original Babels at commons and meta only go up to 3. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a perfectly valid suggestion, Ilmari. Changes in policy can be made. The problem is that the standard way which would correspond to the instructions on the top of this page is to suggest a policy - Wikipedia: Policy proposal Guillotine Babel with an extension by Ilmari to also cut the feet off and have it discussed by the people who are interested. (I like your suggestion to delete en-0). Taking out one single brick of the building makes no sense whatsoever. There should have been an attempt to change the concept behind Babel and ban en-5 entirely from the English wiki. Now we will forever have users putting on en-5 on their pages and finding out that on en-wiki this is a red link because here on this page people could not cope with someone outing himself as capable of anything. --Fenice 22:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're the one who keeps pushing these new xx-5 levels without any consensus or policy behind you. I notice you've been creating more of these and editing the Babel pages to make it look like there's been an official change to the system. It's true that Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but this is starting to cross over from "bold" to "sneaky". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for personal attacks, Ilmari. "Sneaky" is one. And yes, I am obviously pushing xx-5. I am glad someone is reading the discussion. Bravo. --Fenice 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on somebody's behaviour do not equal personal attacks. (Your sarcasm above approaches it, though, but I don't see any need to discuss that any further.) Your swiftness in jumping to the conclusion that everyone is out to get you isn't really helping anyone. EldKatt (Talk) 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the diffs you provide: I cannot see a single one that proves that the policy has been proposed and not opposed for months. You are presenting a onesided picture of the story to discredit another user. Can I call you sneaky for that one, Ilmari? --Fenice 06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -->Here are the links Ilmari has omitted so gracefully: Proposal on talk page, one objection by user:EDM, others agree or don't mind:Wikipedia talk:Babel#New level descriptions. And: [diff]- this is a Proposal "Levels" with a link to it on top of the Babel page with no objections since then.--Fenice 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading that section on the talk page, I count one user besides the nominator (Ynhockey) supporting, one (EDM) opposing, one (The Dogandpony) indifferent and one (Bo Lindbergh) proposing en-∞ instead (with Cernen supporting him). This does not, in my opinion, consensus make. Besides, this TfD nomination itself shows that there in fact are multiple people who consider the new level needless. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why not create a seperate template for "professional copy editor" or some such, outside of the babel language-level heirarchy? A user could be en-N or en-4 and add the "professional English" infobox as well. Obviously some non-natives are going to be more skilled at using a "professional" register than many native speakers anyway. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, my vote for this template is Delete. And or the record, I'm against the user-4 category as well. A four-level system of beginner, intermediate, advanced, and "native or native-like" is plenty as far as i'm concerned. ntennis 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now invited people on the talk page of Babel to comment here. I know that this is something that is despised by some as vote rallying and have not done it so far. However, Ilmari has written on this talk page first and placed an attack against my person on the talk page of Babel (I removed the personal attack), so I guess that gives me the right to inform those who are competent and concerned with these templates about this discussion. And: ciao. If nobody responds to this invitation, I have done my job here on this page at defending Babel. Unless someone officially allows me to do more efficient 'vote rallying' I won't discuss xx-5 here any more. I have said my share. But I will watch and remove all future personal attacks agains me on this page. --Fenice 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. I'm the person who created that template. When I created it, on Wikipedia talk:Babel some people were favourable to the creation of a "professional" level template, others weren't. I created it expecting that, either consensus would be achieved that it's useful, and someone would make similar templates for other languages, or consensus would be achieved that it's useless, and it would be deleted.

The reason why I created it was, a box for writers, teachers etc. of a language to show that they can help e.g. to copyedit articles in that language. Maybe the wording isn't the best possible one, if someone has a better idea, feel free to change it. (However, I disagree with the idea of making one category for professional writers of any language, IMO it's better to make a category for each language.)

Yes, this template may be deemed 'arrogant' or 'vain', and could be used by trolls, but even xx-4 templates used by non-native speakers have the same identical problem, haven't they? That's not a good reason to delete it. If someone makes inappropriate use of it, they are to blame, not the template... --Army1987 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. Changes likes these to the babel system should be discussed on meta and not on a single language version of Wikipedia. If we follow this course, the babel system would mean different things on each language version of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. --Maitch 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case you don't know, there are some Wikipedias which don't have xx-4 levels. Anyway, levels 1, 2 and 3 would stay unchanged, and only a part of the xx-4 people will go to xx-5. --Army1987 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per babel standard. It is my opinion that a fifth level does not enhance the current classification system. There is an important distinction between levels 4 and N, but the only difference between 4 and 5 or N and 5 is occupation. If a user really wants to have something on their userpage that describes their occupation, they can create their own private userbox easily enough. ~MDD4696 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rhobite --- Charles Stewart 15:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla

(previous nomination)

Redundant to {{logo}}, used on about ten images. That Mozilla explicitly says "go ahead and use this" is irrelevant; we don't allow "by-permission" images, and they're in fact speedyable. Their license explicitly disallows commercial exploitation (see their faq), making all images with this tag speedyable for that reason also. On top of this, they don't allow derivatives of any kind, further cementing the case that this is an unfree image. The only way images currently tagged with this template can be used on Wikipedia is under a fair use claim. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because everyone and their cousin knows (or should know) that there's no harm in displaying the Mozilla logos in this context. —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, using images we have been given permission to use doesn't carry any legal risk either, but because such images are unfree (does not allow commercial re-distribition) it has been dictated from the foundation level that such images are not to be used anymore (or at least used under the fair use doctrine instead). I don't see how this should somehow not apply here. --Sherool (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use on user pages. If they were to be added to related articles, that would qualify as fair use. What's the problem? —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This discussion's outcome has been rendered moot by Crytic, who pre-emptively nullified the template by adding {{or-fu}} to the tagged images (despite the fact that no fair use claims have been made). —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Per David →AzaToth 17:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per common sense. the wub "?!" 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to start coming up with exceptions to image policy. Jkelly 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry to say this, but Cryptic is correct here. I have had some limited experince with trademark law. I can say it's not very intuitive. Copyright is even more complicated. If Wikipedia has a rule for that we must follow it. I assume that rule has been reviewd by experts and they know why. I'm not enough knowledgeable in this area, an expert sure could explain us in detail why this is so. One thing I think to understand is this: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html states that if a web site uses one of their trademarks (implies also their logo) that site must write somewhere that that trademark is owned by the Mozilla Foundation. I do not know where that notice should go on Wikipedia. Fair use of the name for example "Firefox" in the text to describe it is ok without that notice. This is fishy non-intuitive ground. We should really follow the rules we have here. Adrian Buehlmann 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Neutral. Dumb me. Trademark notice is there. Problem is still with the policy. And doesn't the Mozilla License prohibit the making of a Wikipedia DVD? Adrian Buehlmann 23:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use in the user namespace. As Kelly and Tony have reminded us in recent days, this is not part of the encyclopedia proper. —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per above. Mozilla allows us to use these images. The reason they are under fire is because of Wikipedia's red tape, not Mozilla's. This is an example of ignoring the rules.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree woth the reasons given by User:HereToHelp. As for where the "trademark is owned by the Mozilla foundation" should go. The image description page seems sensible to me. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If the K-Meleon logo, (which is in the same boat as Firefox's) gets its logo rightfully ripped from its template, so should the other non-free Mozilla logos as well. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this about the image or the template? --Improv 15:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. — Matt Crypto 16:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, survived previous TFD.Gateman1997 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the nomination says it well -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Comment: We may have reached a solution to this jam at Template_talk:User_browser:Firefox. Maybe it can be used here? If not, delete this (regardless of how this discussion goes, license issues are non negotiable). --Improv 21:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, we can't use this tag in any manner consistent with our image policies. JYolkowski // talk 02:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is absolutely no reason not to allow this. Except for "the rules." Some people get so caught up in the rules that they forget why the rules are in place. In this case, there's no harm in letting this exception fly. So I say, keep.
  • Keep per arguments above. And I'm sure the Mozilla folks don't care. --Fang Aili 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Last I checked we weren't commercially exploiting anything, so why do we give a damn that they don't allow allow commercial exploitation? Rogue 9 06:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because our licensing model allows our content to be reused by others for commercial purposes. If that's too complicated for you, because Jimbo said so. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, we're talking about user pages. And Jimbo also endorsed WP:IAR. —David Levy 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an ingenuous claim. Firstly, these images are being used in the main namespace. For example, the very first image listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Mozilla, Image:Firefox logo 305x150.png, is used on two articles, Mozilla Firefox and History of Mozilla Firefox. Secondly, if the images are intended for community use only why don't the pages (or the template) say so? --Nick Boalch ?!? 18:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You say that "these images are being used in the main namespace." In fact, only the one that you cited as your "example" was mistagged in this manner. (I corrected it.) The template was created specifically to tag images used exclusively on user pages, and this is explicitly referenced in the template: "It is believed that we have permission to use this for promotional purposes; e.g., on a user page." —David Levy 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • 'e.g., on a user page' and 'only an a user page' are, of course, very different things, as I suspect you are well aware. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is a summary of Mozilla's policy, which doesn't single out user pages. If you believe that the template's wording is ambiguous, you're welcome to modify it. (I won't bother, given the fact that this debate's outcome has been rendered moot by those who insist upon following every rule to the letter.) But again, the template was created with user pages in mind. It makes absolutely no sense to apply it to images contained within Mozilla-related articles, because that qualifies as fair use. —David Levy 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • For clarity it would need to be changed to the effect that images tagged with it could only be used on community pages. However, note the precedent of {{CommunityUseOnly}}: images tagged as non-commercial only are liable to be deleted on sight even if used only on userpages. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mozilla Foundation allows special usage and, considering the popularity and scope of their products, this will be applicable enough to be at least marginally useful. If there's a rule against this, ignore all rules. Cookiecaper 10:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, retag the images with {{logo}}. --Nick Boalch ?!? 10:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless. We may well have the right to put these images on userpages. However, we also have a policy saying that we won't. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per JYolkowski. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 22:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's worth nothing that I've seldom seen such a blatant misunderstanding of ignore all rules as has been exhibited by various contributors to this debate. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By all means, please enlighten us. —David Levy 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note the first sentence of the first paragraph. Note the first sentence of the second paragraph. Note the first sentence of the third paragraph. --Nick Boalch ?!? 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Encyclopedias don't write themselves. The community spirit is the glue that holds this site together, and every little bit of needless bureaucracy chips away at the community spirit. —David Levy 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I agree in general with your point about community spirit, I look at this particular instance from a rather different direction. Mistagging images in order to get round a fundamental Wikipedia policy, just in order to use them in silly userboxes, is hardly helping to get the encyclopaedia written. --Nick Boalch ?!? 23:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, but bureaucratically forcing people to stop displaying a harmless image on their user pages contributes to an atmosphere less conducive to productivity. Instead of arguing that userboxes are insignificant, how about explaining why we should follow a rule purely for the sake of following the rule? Or do you believe that there's another reason why the Mozilla images shouldn't be used in this context? —David Levy 00:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, the only reason is that as a matter of policy non-free images 'are not acceptable for Wikipedia', except under an appropriately reasoned claim of fair use [57] [58]. If you don't agree with this policy, then fine, but in that case suggest changing it and persuade the community that it's in the interests of the encyclopaedia to do so, rather than mistagging images and disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Nick Boalch ?!? 12:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If I were to enforce the rules in question (or other rules) to the letter (in a manner defying common sense) as a means of demonstrating the inherent absurdity, that would be an example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. I've done nothing that I did not believe to be in the best interests of community and the encyclopedia, and I resent your claim to the contrary. —David Levy 17:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, that was poorly phrased and wasn't intended as a personal attack: I was trying to suggest that mistagging images in this way amounts to a WP:POINT violation; I have no idea if you personally have been involved in doing that. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This "mistagging" is a policy violation committed in good faith (as an application of WP:IAR). Whether you agree or not, some of us honestly believe that this is a sensible approach. It is not an example of the misguided tactic described at WP:POINT (in which a user deliberately acts in a manner that adversely affects Wikipedia, purely for the sake of proving that it was a bad idea). —David Levy 20:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I don't consider that to be the only relevant application of WP:POINT, since both its key points 'Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point' and 'State your point, don't prove it experimentally' have much wider applications. What has this been if not an attempt to prove a point experimentally rather than debating changing the relevant policy and getting appropriate consensus? --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • We aren't attempting to disrupt Wikipedia, nor is it our goal to prove a point. We believe that the logic behind our stance is self-evident, and that our actions are a simple application of common sense (and should be uncontroversial). You're entitled to disagree, but that doesn't change our motives. Are you suggesting that every application of WP:IAR (which this is, even if you feel that such a measure is inappropriate in this context) is a WP:POINT violation? —David Levy 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • No, I'm suggesting that disrupting the encyclopaedia (for any reason) then pretending it's justified by WP:IAR is a WP:POINT violation. I don't think we're really getting anywhere with this discussion, though, since each of us thinks our viewpoints are self-evidently correct and neither of us seems likely to persuade the other :). I should note for the avoidance of doubt that, regardless of the outcome of this TFD, I intend to speedily delete the images tagged with {{mozilla}} when this debate has concluded. --Nick Boalch ?!? 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • We've expressed an opinion contrary to yours, so the only logical explanation is that we're "pretending" to believe what we say, for the purpose of making some sort of point?! Aside from tossing the assumption of good faith out the window, you seem to be implying that no rational person could genuinely disagree with you on this issue. I find that very troubling. Also, how have we disrupted the encyclopedia? As for the images themselves, go ahead and delete them. I've long since given up hope of actually being permitted to use them. In fact, you might as well delete this template too, given the fact that it's been nullified. —David Levy 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There is no way this is an application of IAR. IAR necessitates that the good of the encyclopaedia be affected. This template doesn't fall under that criterion. [[Sam Korn]] 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I disagree. Userboxes aren't part of the encyclopedia proper, but bureaucratically taking them away from people adversely affects the editors' morale, thereby indirectly affecting the encyclopedia's quality. For the record, my user page merely contains one Babel box and an administrator box. I've never added a template containing a {{Mozilla}}-tagged image (or any other userbox). —David Levy 21:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • With this attitude no wonder there's such opposition to IAR in the community at present. It is abused so often. [[Sam Korn]] 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • My "attitude" is that a rule should be followed when it serves a logical purpose, but should not be followed purely for the sake of following it. I advocate ignoring rules only when the encyclopedia somehow benefits (either directly or indirectly) AND the aforementioned lack of logic exists. Please cite a logical reason (aside from "because the rules say so") why users should be prohibited from placing Mozilla images on their user pages. What harm does this cause? —David Levy 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Consistency. I am a fan of IAR, but not of it being abused, and certainly not of it being abused (or indeed used) in copyright matters. Copyright is already confusing enough to contributors without inconistencies creeping in. [[Sam Korn]] 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • By its very nature, WP:IAR necessitates inconsistency. (The only way to achieve consistency is to unconditionally enforce every rule.) As no copyright violation is occurring, I view this as a harmless (and yes, beneficial) exception. You're entitled to object to this particular application of WP:IAR (just as anyone may object to any application), but that doesn't mean that it's being "abused." —David Levy 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • The fact that there is inconsistency doesn't justify more. No copyright violation, no. But Wikipedia does have copyright policies, and those are some of the most vital. If we pick and choose when we apply them, we are inviting trouble and may soon find ourselves the targets of a lawsuit. Inconsistency about article content is vaguely acceptable, and about internal policies is also acceptable. However, this is a key, global policy, on a par with NPOV. Selective application of this policy could be disastrous. IAR is abused. It is meant to avoid rules-lawyering and slavish application of policy. It is not intended to allow us to pick and choose when we use policy. That is what you are doing. [[Sam Korn]] 21:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • WP:IAR is based upon the axiom that we should abide by the spirit of a rule, not by the letter. It addresses the fact that we sometimes encounter situations in which enforcing a rule doesn't make sense, typically because its author(s) didn't envision such a scenario. I believe that this is true of the Mozilla images; a rule is being applied in a manner that adversely affects Wikipedia, purely for the sake of following the rule. To what type of lawsuit are you referring? —David Levy 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because this template is analogous to a cannabis prescription in the United States. Regardless of this debate's result, a higher authority will step in and override the template's use. —David Levy 17:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Issues about Wikipedia infringing copyright are to be considered with utmost seriousness, but this template is not infringing copyright. If Mozilla has a problem with it (I doubt it at the moment, but they may change their mind) then they will no doubt politely ask for it to be removed. At the moment it's not doing any harm and it gives information about why we're using an image with an unorthodox copyright status. (Also, am I missing something or is the IAR debate above becoming somewhat irrelevant?) David | Talk 18:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FormerGA

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - wasn't this already listed and kept? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see this being used. But move it to Template:Former-GA for conventions. - Cuivienen 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to {{DelistedGA}}, which survived TfD, although I whole-heartedly endorse the GA project. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Template:DelistedGA, which should in turn have the box deleted and replaced with only a category: as long as this is only a proposed project without community consensus support, we should not be defacing the Talk pages of hundreds of articles with a big box that is totally useless by virtue of not in any way improving the editorial process. However, by keeping the template in existence, we can in the future easily re-add the box if there is ever consensus to do so, and in the meanwhile the template can consist entirely of a category that will allow easy navigation of all of these articles for those who are interested, but will be 100% non-intrusive for those who dislike or oppose the project or think there are already too many huge, cluttering, arbitrary boxes on articles and article Talk pages already (which there are). The exact same thing should be done with Template:GA: remove the box, but keep Category:Wikipedia good articles linked so anyone interested in the project can easily navigate it. Win-win situation. -Silence 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Silence, having a box for this is ridiculous. Good Articles is a fine project but we don't need to know what they didn't like, they can just drop a note on the talk page. If it does get kept, delete the box. Ashibaka tock 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the difference between, say, an unreferenced article you find by clicking the random article link, and an unreferenced article with {{FormerGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} added to its talk page? The answer is nothing. There are plenty of more specific templates available for noting flawed articles, such as {{unreferenced}} and {{reqimage}}. Noting "good" articles may be useful, noting non-"good" articles is not and if someone is seeking them, plenty can be found at Category:Wikipedia maintenance.—jiy (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It will be much more useful to make a section on the talk page saying "I removed the GA template because.." Sometimes templates just encourage laziness--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is also a template for former featured articles so why delete this one?--Fenice 08:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Silence. Fenice may not be aware that this is only a proposed project, not something which has firm guidelines and process yet. Delisting something from a non-existent process is just silly. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although my intent for this vote is to point out that (1) the nomination of this template for deletion was not announced on Wikipedia talk: Good articles where this proposed project is being discussed & would have attracted informed votes, & (2) the votes here for & against this template reflect the opinions expressed on that Talk page (that is, those for deleting have stated they are against the Good article proposal & those against deleting this template are in favor of the proposal). If the nominator did want to simplify matters, why not first announce his intent on the Talk page, where we could achive a consensus & have deleted this template very speedily? -- llywrch 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, unjustified accusations of bad faith aside (and I notice your advertisement hasn't attracted even a single additional vote so far, so really, what's the big deal...), did you even notice that this article is a lower-quality carbon-copy of Template:DelistedGA? Please read the specific comments before you assume that we're all corrupt, biased system-exploiters out to attack the GA project every chance we get; I said to (1) redirect this one to the standard ("DelistedGA") for the sake of consistency, and (2) to change the content of the templates, not to delete any of the templates used by the GA project. I don't care how many templates you use, I just care that you, like everyone else, use them efficiently and without undue clutter. -Silence 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. DelistedGA seems better but we only need one of them. I choose that one. gren グレン ? 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

On request from a third party, I have also moved the discussion (which is already quite sizable) there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This debate has been closed with a result of keep and continue to disucss policy on userboxes. -- Jbamb 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood - no need to redirect as it isn't used. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?
  • Delete. Category is enough --kernoz 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doing no harm, I find both boxes like this and categories to be useful. — Wackymacs 08:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consider {{NY-bt}}. That template does much more than just list the articles in a particular category. It gives structure to them and sorts them in a meaningful way, and adds related articles not in the category which are nevertheless useful references. When there are enough articles to warrant such organization, then I think a template is warranted. With just 4 articles and no clear ordering or subcategorization, I'm in agreement with those users not seeing the need for this template, the category does just fine. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep (no consensus for delete) --Adrian Buehlmann 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren GuReN6 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Ditto. This place is supposed to encourage NPOV, no? MARussellPESE 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No value in building encyclopedia, potential for vote-stacking abuse. --- Charles Stewart 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - User space should be a place where wikipedians can describe themselves as they see fit. This userbox can serve that purpose. It is not harmful, and given the recent conflagration over userboxes, I would prefer to leave the user space alone. This userbox could tell editors a great deal about the motivations of an editor, and certainly falls within the freedom of expression that the user space is intended for. --Dschor 23:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) Ooops, i typed five tildas instead of four. Sorry. DES (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete. This user box is divisive (as are all userboxes indicating a user's disapproval for some other thing) and mainly exists for linkspamming (I'm sure its presence on Wikipedia increases the pagerank of the external site linked within it). It should be shot dead now. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, slash and burn external link - I've removed the external link and made it go to Operation Clambake instead - Scientology is a scary group of people: See Office of Special Affairs, Suppressive Person or Xenu articles. --Mistress Selina Kyle (A<=>W | =>*) 23:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Userboxes CAN be POV, that's what they are for, for user's to express opinions. That's why we have pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, Christian, Jew, Muslim, so on user boxes. It might be wise to tone it down a notch, but POV is not valid grounds to delete a user box. -- Jbamb 00:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My grounds was civil. It needlessly (and directly) annoys scientologists. Whereas if a pro-lifer dislikes someone because of a pro-choice userbox it's the pro-lifer being offended by the other's ideology passively. When you use this tag it actively offends needlessly. WP:CIVIL#Why_is_it_bad.3F describes why this is not appropriate pretty well... and, this basically amounts to an attack template. gren GuReN6 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. If you want to put it on your user page, write it yourself. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dan | talk 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and Knowledge Seeker. Palmiro | Talk 00:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all advertisements for prejudice. Jkelly 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now). I deplore the use of user pages to make general statements that go beyond the writ of Wikipedia; that's what people's personal websites and homepages are for, on websites which do not rely upon the charitable donations of those who gave to support an encyclopedia. But, as DESiegel and Jbamb point out, we don't have a policy which prohibits using user pages in this manner, and we have other userpage templates which express a user's real-world affinities, of which this is but one of the more extreme cases. I dread to think where this userbox trend will end, but the matter should be settled wholesale with an approved policy, not incrementally nibbled-at by TfD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per gren. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Userbox fans need to grow up. This isn't LiveJournal. Rhobite 01:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pending outcome of consensus process on userboxes. This box is being used as an example in that process, and I recommend people to consider participating in the process. Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not speedy delete. Totally POV --Doc ask? 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being and a Comment - is there any chance of holding back on the listing of userboxes until the issue is resolved outside of TFD, such as here, or perhaps even putting a temporary notice up here to ask people not to until general policy has been decided? Otherwise, the same argument is just going to be repeated over and over everytime someone decides they don't like a userbox (there was already posting an entire list of userboxes they believed should be deleted, before someone deleted the entry). --Loopy 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't the same issue. That's why I nominated it. This is an extraordinary userbox which goes beyond the policy argument of categorizing users by belief. This is attacking a certain segment of the wiki population's beliefs. Had this been "this user is a scientologist" it would be completely different. gren GuReN6 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - what Loopy said, this is getting old.--Naha|(talk) 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, generates atmosphere of hostility. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Pepsidrinka 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, with support for continued, consensus-driven discussion of troublesome userboxes on a case-by-case basis. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:34, Jan. 4, 2006
  • Stong Keep. POV is allowed on a user page. If a user simply entered the text "I am vehemently against Scientology" no one would complain. Therefore no one should object to this userbox either. I don't think this userbox is really the issue here. This is simply yet another pointless dispute between those who like to design user pages and those who think they're a waste of resources. —gorgan_almighty 11:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per all the Keeps. However, I consider it a huge victory that Ms. Martin finally considers herself under the bounds of law by voting here like the rest of us. Perhaps there is some hope for this place yet. karmafist 12:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbamb.
  • Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. DaGizza Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: We should be allowed to say what we want on our user pages, including POV and even divicive things. It can be argued that scientology is a cult and we should be against it, but regardless, if someone is against it he/she should be able to say so, just as someone who is for it can say so.Maprov 04:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have moved this comment here from another section, since it appears to have been misplaced there. -Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Userpages are for opinion; NPOV & "This is an encyclopedia" don't apply. On that basis, ban all userboxes that aren't strictly descriptive, & maybe the Babel boxes too; tomebody might take offense you don't speak their language. It's my party & I'll whine if I want to. Trekphiler 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withold decisions until userbox issue is resolved--Urthogie
  • Keep - As I keep saying we need some community discussion without either side pulling out. Ian13ID:540053 16:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Ian Pitchford 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete before scientology sues you for using their name! :-) Ant-boxes should only be done with humor intended. Maybe we should change this to "This user is against all brainwashing cults". TCorp 22:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you want to, write it on your userpage. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as combative and unrelated to WP. I'm waiting for the inevitable "KEEP per WP:UB#KEEP" though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – What would happen if somebody were to create Template:User against jews or Template:User against blacks? This really isn't any different. – ClockworkSoul 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per brains. Larix 11:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Pjacobi 13:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. Violation of WP:CIVIL. BlankVerse 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a religion. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason that I'd keep a pro-monarchist userbox if it came up for deletion (in fact I think I did). Though I may find the idea of a monarchy offensive, others do not. The same principle applies here. - Hayter 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whatever the outcome of the userbox policy debate is, this doesn't belong so there's no need to wait on that discussion. We don't need people going out of their way to voice disapproval of other editors because of off-Wiki issues. And no, there isn't free speech here. Rx StrangeLove 19:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally agree with Neutrality. Garion1000 (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This userbox is a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIV. I'm all for the funnies and viewpoint userboxes, but being Anti-some religion is in bad taste.Gateman1997 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or subst. All Wikipedians should be permitted to state such opinions on their User pages, and if they prefer to state them in brightly-colored boxes than in prose, that's their prerogative. But it is indeed not a good idea to keep such templates in the Template namespace, where Wikipedia implicitly condones their existence. -Silence 22:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principal to the extent that I will now make a short speech.
It is a valid POV, even if you don't like it. By my understanding at least, as long as you discuss all the other POV's where NPOV needs to be preserved, then it's actually protected by WP:NPOV as a religion. Not that it matters much in userspace.
Wikipedia has one big thing which guarantees freedom of expression on here, which is that if it doesn't it will rapidly cease to be so good. (Rhobite, I'm talking to you here.) In userspace we don't have to have NPOV, and that is a good thing. For example, there are a small but signifigant number of wikipedians whose user pages say things like "I am a homophobe", etc, etc, etc. My user page has a series of userboxes which say things like "This user identifies as gay", "This user has a boyfriend", and so on. None of these can be mistaken for encyclopedic statements, but, when I clash with otherwise good editiors in articles about sexuality we both know where we stand, and what each others biases are. That makes wikipedia stronger I think because we can never get rid of an individuals bias, and everyone has some biases. Being aware of them is the next best thing. Tom 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Civil opinions are okay on userboxes. This opinion is not expressed in a civil way and does not deserve a cute pastel box. Ashibaka tock 02:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The giving of personal stances on user pages is wrong? We've got problems then.Tommstein 09:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, in spite of the fact that I cannot stand the Church of Scientology or the religion. If they oppose Scientology, that is their right to express it on their user pages. Likewise, if they want to express their support for the Church of Scientology or Scientologists in general, that is their decision. In fact, I've just created a contrary template (Template:User_scientology) to be fair. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KnowledgeSeeker. Hostility userboxes are not of any use in expressing anything except hostility, do that elsewhere. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on CIVIL grounds not NPOV. Ian13ID:540053 17:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone should be able to express their POV on their userpage. Keith Greer 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But Scientology should link to Scientology. Keith Greer 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does no one who is voting keep understand this is saying the same thing as "I am anti-semetic" or "I am anti-Islmanic" or "I think Christians are whackos" or "I dislike athiests"? This is a personal attack on a group of people and as such is against policy.Gateman1997 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tone down. I don't see this as a personal attack, just as saying "I dislike Scientology". Should Wikipedia be a place where merely expressing a negative opinion that might offend somebody is not tolerated? ~~ N (t/c) 22:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well as you can tell on your userpage what you like, you should be able to also say what you dislike. What if renaming it in a different way, such as Template:User dislike Scientology? --Angelo 23:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep - Users should have a right to express their viewpoints on their own user pages. Niffweed17 01:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep userboxes are free of NPOV requirements and users could simply make their own if so desired using existing templates. -Drdisque 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Dschor. This is getting ridiculous; if someone doesn't like scientology let him say so. Rogue 9 02:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look what you guys have established precedent for... Template:User against jews Ashibaka tock 02:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Gasp! Did it ever occur to you that some people don't like Jews? A lot more people than that don't like Wiccans, but you don't see me crying. Regardless, it should be userfied. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 02:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, why keep the anti-Scientology one in Template namespace and userfy the anti-Jew one? Ashibaka tock 05:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible alternative. Just slapped this together; I hope those who use the anti-global racketeerin... I mean, anti-Scientology template will find this acceptable in the event of this one's deletion. Rogue 9 06:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. {{User against jews}} got speedied--how is this any different? -- SCZenz 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Rogue 9 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain to me how Judaism is any different then Scientology? They are both recognized and widely accepted world religions. Being anti one is identical to being anti the other. I am appalled this hasn't been deleted yet and frankly if this is the stance Wikipedia takes on religious issues then frankly it doesn't have a prayer. The ACLU will jump on this site like fly's on crap.Gateman1997 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ACLU wouldn't have a chance in Hell if it did try to jump on this. As for the differences, see above. Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Scientology is, and has been involved in many other crimes besides, including wiretapping and obstruction of justice. The Church of Scientology behaves like the Mafia a lot of the time, and as such has earned it's opposition and rightfully so. Rogue 9 08:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL, the ACLU likes free speech too, so I don't think they're gonna touch this one. And do review WP:POINT, Gateman1997. Creating an anti-semitic template was not the right way to draw attention to this TfD. -- SCZenz
        • The ACLU defends all free-speech not just the popular kind. They lost many members for defending the ku klux klan's right to protest.--God of War 15:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How do you know I'm not anti-Jewish? I am Catholic and Catholics don't have the strongest Jew loving stance historically. Also it was a valid point to make. Admins are playing favorites. If Jews are protected then so should all religions from this kind of hate bullshit.Gateman1997 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep Gateman, you want me to explain how Judaism is different from Scientology in the most blunt possible terms? It's simple. Jews were actual victims of an actual genocide, while Scientologists can only claim to be reincarnated victims of a fictional billions year old intergalactic genocide that was made up by a two-bit hack science fiction writer. The suggestion that members of this lunatic celebrity cult - and especially its paid operatives - are being lined up for gas chambers is far more offensive than the userbox is. --Daniel 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for walking right into the kind of bigotted BS I assumed someone would write.Gateman1997 08:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not bigoted if there are, in fact, rational reasons to dislike them. Bigotry is by definition unreasoning, but when an organization engages in money laundering, tax evasion, and domestic espionage there are most excellent reasonable causes for opposing that organization. Rogue 9 09:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I've heard this before... oh wait, it was the vast jewish conspiracy. I think Hitler was the one who was most fond of it. Same thing could be said of the Catholic Church, or many Evangelical Christians religions....Gateman1997 09:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Important differences: I'm not saying to kill Scientologists, and I have evidence that this is happening. Further, I'm making these assertions against a group that people choose to join, rather than an ethnic group. Also, Murphy's Law. You lose, good day sir. Rogue 9 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Judaaism isn't an ethnic group, they're a religious group.Gateman1997 01:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's both; you're born a Jew. As for Scientology, it is neither. As I've said, it is a global racket and criminal organization. Unless you want to propose that Time Magazine is part of some massive defamation conspiracy, you have basically no argument otherwise. Rogue 9 01:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, you can delete the template but that doesn't stop people from creating an "I'm against scientology" userbox. --Thorri 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete linking to anti anything is not within WP:NPOV.--MONGO 14:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Keep I will let you have your opinions and you let me have mine, deal?--God of War 15:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Djegan 15:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology is not Judaism. Judaism is a mainstream religion, thousands of years old and with a large group of adherents, whose most famous opponents are well-known for killing off lots of Jews. Scientology is a small, very recent "religion", which, if memory serves, is not recognized as a non-profit organization in very many places. It has a relatively small number of adherents, and its opponents, who are many in number, are most famous for getting sued and harrassed by Scientology a lot. Having said that, this is a fairly average userbox and what little damage it does to Wikipedia in terms of bandwidth and CPU usage is not worth trifling over. Lord Bob 21:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, free speech on User pages, but don't take it overboard. I dont think this one is going overboard. Simple as that. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as needlessly antagonistic. -- nae'blis (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Initially undecided, but per DESiegel, Keep pending development of a general userbox policy. Might it be that keeping this userbox is a bad idea? Yeah, it might be. You know what's a worse one? Telling some people "you have to delete that userbox; you're not allowed to say how opposed you are to Scientology!" and telling others "Oh, you want to put a userbox on your page telling what a fan you are of Scientology? Go ahead, nothing wrong with that!" -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to know exactly why Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) decided that the fate of this template should be decided, not at Templates for deletion, but by his own unilateral choice. That's frankly the sort of thing admins lose their adminships for, for knowing what the correct process is, but using their admin powers to circumvent it rather than to ensure it runs smoothly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm not a fan of Scientology either, but this is uncivil. - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 12:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment  — "I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs..." -Grenavitar (talk · contribs) (nominee of vote) — The thing is, there's nothing to stop people putting such statements on their user page without having a "pretty coloured box" to put the point of view in. And as per WP:NPOV/WP:UP, user pages are not required to be NPOV. Deleting user boxes will not stop people from having points of view.
Important point: In most countries Scientology is not recognised as a religion nor a charitable organisation. And looking at articles like Office of Special Affairs, Rehabilitation Project Force (neo-Gulags) or Xenu you can see why. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Personally I love userboxes -even the POV boxes that don't attack someone-, and I dislike Scientology, but this is a personal attack on a belief. -- Sneltrekker 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology isn't a religion. 82.26.163.91 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (anons can't vote.. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω</span> ¦ ⇒✉) 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
 Comment  — Scientology is NOT a religion in most countries: The governments of Germany and Belgium officially regard the Church as a totalitarian cult; in France, a parliamentary report classified Scientology as a dangerous cult; in the United Kingdom and Canada the Church is not regarded as meeting the legal standards for being considered a bona fide religion (see Church of Scientology). In America it holds "charitable organisation" status, but it's widely believed that this was obtained through blackmail too.
It's also the only "religion" to hold officially-endorsed concentration camps/Gulags ("Rehabilitation Project Force") and a branch dedicated for propaganda and silencing/defamation of critics/"Suppressive Persons" (Office of Special Affairs).. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it is not considered a religion in my own country and others, and I did not label it as a religion. I also dislike their practices and gulags. It is however, still a belief. And attacking it, is still considered personal attacks on the users that uphold this belief to me. -- Sneltrekker 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Attacking Scientology is not the same as attacking Judaism, it is the same as attacking fascism. Anyway, as I have said in the users againsts Jews section, I think all userboxes should be allowed to remain, and I will repeat, you don't combat beliefs that you depsise by preventing an individual from expressing it, you do it by arguing down the belief once it has been allowed to be expressed. --Horses In The Sky 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--Sean|Black 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we shouldn't encourage members of the community to be divisive by giving them such a template to put on their user pages. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Keep as per all keeps above DaGizza Chat 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Userboxes, no problem. Attack boxes, problem. Grace Note 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep"". It's a scam. james_anatidae 08:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: JESUS H. CHRIST! This has to be one of the most immature and emotionally guided discussions I have ever seen on Wikipedia. We are not discussing whether Scientology is a totalitarian cult (which I think it is, and so do many) or not (which many others think is also the case). Yes, Germany regards it as a totalitarian cult. Yes, there are accusations that they bought their way to charitable status in the US. But then there are people against Jews, against Christianity, against Islam. This userbox is not being nominated on the basis of whether Scientology is a viable religion or whether expressing dislike/hatred of it is acceptable. It is being discussed on the basis of whether NPOV is valid on user pages and whether this constitutes a personal attack. This nomination has turned into an anti-userbox, anti-Scientology rant. Grow up people!. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is no idea in censoring userboxes. Free expression on talk pages must be allowed. Elrith 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a user feels scientology is a hypocritical, psuedoscientific, commericial cult that they should oppose, until freedom of speech is outlawed on WP userpages, they should be allowed to say so. - Hayter 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I personally feel that anyone who uses this template is being rather crass and obvious about it (and also not focusing their opposition specifically enough; this template should say "Church of Scientology", not just "Scientology"), I must nonetheless vote Keep for one simple reason: because it says "Scientology", not "Scientologists". The reason the "user against jews" template was deleted is because it said "Jews" (a group of people) rather than "Judaism" (a loose religious ideology). The former may be unacceptable to some (though I don't see a terribly big deal with it; it's about as silly as saying "I hate people with red hair!" or "I hate people who live in the southern hemisphere!"... what's the point of getting mad about such arbitrary nonsense?), but the latter I fail to see any problems with. Would we delete a template that said "I am vehemently opposed to racism" or "I am vehemently opposed to Microsoft" or "I am vehemently opposed to the United States of America"? It's not nearly as bad as saying "I hate racists" or "I hate Bill Gates" or "I hate Americans", now is it? But whatever we decide, let's at least be consistent. -Silence 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this debate is pretty much over, but for clarification the template about Jews actually stated quote, "This users is vehemently against Judaism". Not Jews but Judaism and it was deleted.Gateman1997 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the template was named User against jews.--Prosfilaes 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An excellent point, Silence. I wonder if the people who created the "user against Jews" template to make a POINT about their opinions forgot to
  • Did I miss something? The template is suddenly gone and there is no note here of the discussion closing.--God of War 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs), who apparently decided that being an admin means you get to ignore ongoing TfD discussions and just do whatever the hell you want to do. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scientology is not a religion but a rather scary scam; many courts in many countries have decided so. Let's put it like this: anyone here will not condone murder, fraud or theft but srive to write possibly neutral articles on these crimes. The comparison with Judaism fails miserably. Pilatus 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're half-wrong there: Scientology is indeed a rather scary scam, but it's also a religion. Whoever said the two were mutually exclusive? A cult is just a type of religion too, and the only people who would argue otherwise are the ones who think that a religion is inherently "good" (and, on the other hand, there are the extremists who say "religion is inherently bad"; we have plenty of both on Wikipedia), much like someone would argue that only a nice guy can be a Christian. Whether something is a scam or not makes little difference; it's an organized spiritual belief system that plenty of people believe in. In that light, it's more of a religion than a lot of other "religions" that we have boxes for, like Flying Spaghetti Monsterism and Discordianism.
  • Furthermore, a lot of people seem to have rather jumped a few points in logic and made the unjustified assumption that it's somehow wrong to oppose something just because it's a religion. This makes no sense whatsoever to me, and I fail to see how it furthers Wikipedia's aims; why should religious support be treated differently than religious opposition (if you're only basing it on whether the religion's popular or not, we'll have a real problem), or from support for any other ideology (even more of a problem here; if you aren't allowed to vehemently oppose Scientology in a pastel box, are you not allowed to oppose racism, war, persecution, capitalism, grammatical prescriptionism, etc.?) for that matter? The right to be offensive in what you believe is a fundamental and sacred one, and should not be violated for people's personal userpage layout and content choices. We have userboxes for people who are members of all sorts of religions, for "this user is interested in religion", and for "this user thinks the world would be better off without religion"; why not some more specific variants when it helps people feel special about their ideological differences? Userboxes are like pogs: they're an amusing fad and should be tolerated whenever they do no real harm until people move on. And I'm ranting, so I will go now. -Silence 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have requested undeletion at WP:DRV#Template:User_against_scientology. Regardless of whether or not this template has any merit it should be undeleted for the course of this tfd. All of your opinions count for nothing if the tfd process here is ignored.--God of War 05:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this TfD might have run its course, though. It has been 7 days since it was nominated, right? Tony's actions may well be out of process, but perhaps less out of process than you think? (I thought the closing admin usually announced their read on the consesus, carried out the deletion if that was consensus, and archived the discussion... none of that has happened but the template apparently is deleted). So color me confused.

Or annoyed that Tony's acting out of process again. I'm just not sure which it is yet. In any case... I'm in the camp that holds that process (despite WP:IAR tradition, and despite my fear of m:instruction creep) is the way to ensure that things are done fairly and that users aren't turned off by the actions of admins. Follow process and people accept that the outcome may not have been as they like (that's what consensus is, after all... not everyone agreeing that the consensus view is RIGHT... just everyone agreeing that the consensus view is one they can go along with even if they personally don't agree with it) but that it was achieved fairly and that the future holds more fairness. Trample process and people become jaded about process, about tradition, about the project, about (perhaps worst) admins in general.... now I think being an admin is a thankless job and one I'm not sure I'd ever want, and the last thing I want to do is make it harder for those admins trying their hardest to do the right thing. So Tony, can you PLEASE follow process? It usually gets the right result, if perhaps not as fast as you like. ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

This discussion is closed. Result is Delete --Adrian Buehlmann 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, having a separate template for every article defeats the purpose of having a template in the first place. - Bobet 11:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the same effect can be made with HTML, can't it? --Liface 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The character of "Sam Fisher" is significant enough to warrant his own template. -- Crevaner 13:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: did you look at the template itself? Which other article could you possibly use this on? - Bobet 16:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't accepted practice to break out portions of an article using templates. Now this is subst:ed, it can go away as unnecessary. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unused. Notability does not come into it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is not used and not needed - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Niffweed17 01:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Thorri 11:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bobet. - Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 11:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it is in use. Remove use and I will reconsider my vote. Adrian Buehlmann 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep I wouldn't call it meta-templated because we have some cities with seals and others without. This particular introduction is not available on Template:Infobox U.S. City. I have no interest in modifying a template to improve it that may have seven thousand articles which need to be changed, therefore I created a template that unifies cities in one particular county. The Template:Infobox U.S. City is presently insufficient for these articles. Using the original Template:Infobox U.S. City would in fact limit our ability on these articles. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per what I just said below with the NH Infobox. karmafist 04:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment: This request for deletion does not satisfy the rational for listing for deletion as listed above. The rational put forth by the proposer pretends to address number 2: The template is redundant to another better-designed template, however, this template incorporates more than the other one. ℬ 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Redundant, footnotes on Template:Infobox City can be used to add addtional information. — Seven Days » talk 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One-size-fits-all templates don't necessarily meet all needs. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NH

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Unlike many other states, New Hampshire has a wide variety of governments both in terms of towns and cities at the municipal level under NH RSA Title III, thus giving need for the creation of this infobox. karmafist 14:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I echo the statement by karmafist, but would like to add that the Infobox U.S. City is lacking needed information which the NH Infobox has. Assawyer 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll be happy to add whatever information is missing from the main infobox. Such a subtle concern is no reason to fork this template. -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and used. Adrian Buehlmann 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral pending resolution of question as to whether this functionality can be incorporated within Template:Infobox U.S. City. If so, delete. If not, keep. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like that it cannot be integrated into the generic US city box without causing problems for all the rest.  ALKIVAR™ 14:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Gateman1997 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The Template:Infobox U.S. City modifications will require a substantial amount of changes before it can be adjusted to meet our areas' muncipalities unique and individual needs. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Redundant, footnotes on Template:Infobox City can be used to add addtional information. — Seven Days » talk 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One-size-fits-all templates don't necessarily meet all needs. -- Dalbury

Template:Cuisine

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No more harmful than, say Musicboxes as a topical template. Circeus 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No real reason to delete as far as I can see. It's used in multiple articles and has no simple alternative. - Cuivienen 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Circeus. --Loopy 21:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a good reason to delete this template. --Terence Ong Talk 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'm fed up of all these stupid nominations - It's used in several articles!!! What's wrong with it!? — Wackymacs 08:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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

Link templates

Other

  • I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

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).

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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=34790720"