Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates/Archived

-

Userboxes are sometimes deleted by administrators if there are thought to be valid reasons for their removal from Wikipedia. However, some userboxes may be inappropriately deleted. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates considers appeals to restore userboxes that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora. Before using the Review, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Undeletion policy.

Category:User undeletion lists a number of administrators who are prepared to honour good faith requests for the restoration of deleted content to your user space, for example if you want to work up a more encyclopaedic article. This does not require deletion review, you can ask one of them directly (or post a request at the administrators' noticeboard).

Purpose

Userbox debates Deletion Review is the process to be used by all editors, including administrators, who wish to challenge the outcome of any deletion debate or a speedy deletion unless: They are able to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question (this should be attempted first - courteously invite the deleting admin to take a second look); In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be. An administrator (or other editor) is correcting a mistake of their own, or has agreed to amend their decision after the kind of discussion mentioned above. Deletion Review is also to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article. This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's reasoning — but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time). This page is about process, not about content, although in some cases it may involve reviewing content.

This process is about userboxes, not about people. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting userboxes prematurely, or otherwise abusing their powers, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Wikipedia talk:Administrators.

If you nominate a page here, be sure to make a note on the administrator's user talk page regarding your nomination. A template is available to make this easier:

{{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~

Similarly, if you are a administrator and a page you deleted is subsequently undeleted, please don't take it as an attack.

Please take general discussion to the talk page.

Speedy deletions of templates can be done by administrators under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion if the template falls into this category (often referred to as T1): Templates that are divisive and inflammatory. The following is a proposed T2, but has not become stable: Templates designed for user pages that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. (as of 15:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

May 15, 2006

Template:User iamafish-en, Template:User iamalemming-en, Template:User iamamonarch-en and Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

File:CohoSalmon.jpeg

This user is a fish, or at least thinks so.

This user is a lemming, or at least thinks so.

File:British Royal Family.jpg

This user is a monarch, or a megalomaniac.

File:FA-22 Raptor.jpg

This user is an aeroplane, and can be annoying. No offence to pilots.

All were deleted just 2 days and 4 hours after the nom by the nominator. I suggest relisting. --Rory096 21:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Utter crap - keep deleting - and if anyone really want the code we can put it on their page. --Doc ^ask? 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if it should be deleted, we should be going through process to do it (and it probably would have been deleted if it had). --Rory096 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Take some time to read WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Along the same lines, it would be good to read Process is important and Reduce confusion by following policy, as they share some wisdom on the value of policy & process, especially in areas of controversy.--Ssbohio 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per compromise above. Let me remind everyone that the templates themselves were only deleted after they were substituted onto all userpages that had included them. These templates are now a non-issue, as even if they are undeleted, they will just simply be orphaned unencyclopedic templates. --Cyde Weys 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So if templates are substed before being deleted out of process it's fine? That seems silly to me. --Rory096 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I suggested, take some time to read WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • WP:POINT? Like TfDing dozens of userboxen with the same nom and then closing the debates yourself? --Rory096 22:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Please read WP:POINT again. What you are describing is NOT WP:POINT. --Cyde Weys 22:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, then I'm not sure what he's referring to. --Rory096 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Subst and delete worked well for MarkSweep. Kotepho 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Deleted and Subst'd so users can continue to use them in User space. Nhprman 23:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment -- can we see what the templates being discused are? --T-rex 14:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I thought a policy had been put in place to prevent new user templates from being created (in which case keep deleted), if however I am mistaken and that is not policy then undelete and relist --T-rex 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete -- utterly stupid, but not meriting a speedy. And certainly NOT meriting a deletion by the nominator--absolutely unacceptable. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at TfD Do not merit criteria for speedy deletion. JoshuaZ 00:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete, return to TFD - they are stupid, but stupid isn't a speedyable offense. BigDT 03:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, clearly patent nonsense and meaningless. Doesn't pass Wikipedia:Userbox policy. D. G. 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The userbox policy is only proposed, and isn't a CSD either. --Rory096 21:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Patent nonsense is a general site-wide Wikipedia deletion policy. --Cyde↔Weys 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Patent nonsense refers to jibbererish like "489hhfb8+jc8.9ejr$1" or "Ikki-ikki-ikki PaTanG!", not<s\> or 'confused content' that 'can't be made sense of' I.e. "2+2=11". Not so much things that may or may not be funny Mike McGregor (Can) 12:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• undelete improper deletion. these never met T1 or the T2 under discussion. Mike McGregor (Can) 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per Matt. TheJabberwʘck 17:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Seems that they don't meet speedy criteria :/. Homestarmy 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have replaced this discussion per Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, which clearly says "A page listed for undeletion should remain on DRV for at least five days." As this was listed on the 15th, and today is the 18th, that period has not yet expired. --Rory096 22:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and let the TFD run its course. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per the others - deletion by nominator is not appropriate IMHO, although the nominator seems to think everyone does it. Which, as of late might have some truth to it... *sigh* Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete тəzєті 13:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• No harm either way - userboxen seem a little pointless but not an insult or an attack on anything -- Tawker 14:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, Cyde not to have a cookie tonight.. The Land 13:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted How can a person become an inanimate thing? :) Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 19:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Total nonsense. WarpstarRider 21:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. All or nothing policy is needed or this one by one battle will go on forever. --StuffOfInterest 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as unencyclopedic foolishness, with no prejudice against users putting the code on their pages, if they're so inclined, since it's neither divisive nor inflammatory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. There was no consensus to delete these. Lemmings and fish must not have been as scary to Cyde as pirates and ninjas, but that doesn't mean they should have been deleted. -MrFizyx 21:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Newsflash: we're here to write an encyclopedia. Garrett^Talk 22:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Newsflash: so are people who disagree with you. -MrFizyx 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• Undelete Once again, it's personal space and there's nothing wrong with a bit of unoffensive Monty Python style humour. Are we going to start having daily votes to delete templates just because a certain individual doesn't find them funny?--Folksong 23:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Undelete. Let's not try to apply policy you think should be there but have been unable to pass. Obviously neither of these can fit either T1 or T2, unencyclopedic is not a valid speedy criteria for templates. Speedy undelete is necessary, put it through TfD if you want and try to get a real consensus instead of underhanded back-stabbing. Someone needs to do something about the admins who are harming the project by using their privilages to carry out personal crusades. Loom91 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Undelete same as Loom91. It seems a ton of admins have no respect for process from what little I've seen around here. CelestialRender 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete Process is important and reduce confusion by following policy. Respect the process by letting it run its course, and respect that consensus on userboxes has not emerged.--Ssbohio 02:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User sumofpi and Template:User Sumofpi2

I apologize if I did not do this correctly - this is my first time raising a deletion review.

I refer to Wp:tfd#Template:User_sumofpi and [[1]].

For reference, here is the closing administrator's summary:

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD.

In the case of the former, there were 24 keep votes and a whopping FOUR delete votes. Most people who expressed any other meaningful sentiments at all clearly understood that they were voting to keep the template itself, not just the content. In the case of the latter, 21 people voted to keep it. Six voted to userfy or delete it. Again, those who expressed an opinion from which an understanding can be derived seemed to understand that they were voting to keep the template itself, not just the content.

I would ask that the anti-Userbox administrators respect the TFD process and delete or keep according to consensus, not according to their personal views on userboxes BigDT 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• And the template is being kept on the user's pages where they wanted it. No content is being deleted. I observed the avalanche of keeps and acted appropriately. Process has been followed throughout. Mackensen (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In point of fact, the template is being deleted, with only the code being kept, copied however many times to users' pages. The nom was in templates for deletion, and the consensus was to keep. Bare logic would dictate that consensus was to keep the template.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow, are we just totally ignoring votes now? It's getting harder and harder to assume good faith the more I read this page. CelestialRender 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - This isn't a vote. If those 24 people saying keep didn't address any actual issues of why this needs to remain a userbox, and they didn't, then the template is substituted and deleted. --Cyde Weys 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Excellent job. endorse close. --Tony Sidaway 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• People get to keep their decorations - but we get them out of the template space - excellent compromise endorse --Doc ^ask? 20:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you guys consider that to be a "compromise", why are we wasting our time on TFD discussing them? Whether the consensus is delete or keep, you will do the same thing. BigDT 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  It's hardly a waste. We went to TfD to see what people wanted. It's clear they want these boxes on their pages. So they have boxes on their pages, and we've followed process to the letter. No more quiet deletions. No more boxes strangled in the dark. Now everyone's userpages can look just as they did before, with no objection from any administrator because the boxes are no longer in the template namespace. Mackensen (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • From the TfD debate & the summary posted here, the clear consensus, to the point of supermajority, was to keep the template. The template was deleted. Arguing that the code was kept, so the deletion of the template was ok, is arguing a side issue. The template itself garnered a sizable majority to keep.
• Undelete I have to say that since the decision was to keep the template, it should have been kept. If people wanted it to be subst'ed and deleted, they would have voted that way. —MiraLuka 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Isn't the net result the same? Mackensen (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  No, it is not the same. In one scenario, the one chosen by the people at TfD, the template stays. What actually happened was that the template was deleted. —MiraLuka 20:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Please step outside this narrowness for a second. The template is on people's pages. It has stayed there. The instance in the Template space is gone. What's wrong with this outcome? Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  What's wrong with the outcome is that it doesn't respect the consensus developed in TfD. Having a userbox template & having raw code on each user's page may make no difference to you, but, to quote Wordsworth, "but oh, the difference to me." If the consensus was to subst & delete, then subst & delete would have been the right thing to do. That wasn't the consensus, and deletion wasn't the right thing to do, on that basis.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I offer as evidence of the actual consensus, the vote counts themselves:
  • • Subst and Delete (2) - Doc, Nhprman
    • Delete (3) - Steinbach, ShiningEyes, Cyde (inferred as nominator)
    • Keep, unambiguously meaning keep the template itself (12) - BigDT, Kris18, Wandering Star, Anonymous_Anonymous, Oni Ookami Alfador, Harvestdancer, Grafikim, Hezzy, NetStormer, Ibaranoff24, The Giant Puffin
    • Keep, not spelling out what they mean (11) - Homestarmy, Thistheman, Paragon12321, getcrunkjuice, Korean alpha for knowledge, Friendly Neighbor, ILovePlankton, T-rex, Edgi, Will, MrFizyx
    • Keep, unambiguously meaning keep the content, but NOT the template (1) - Septentrionalis

  Adding up those who clearly wanted to wipe out the template, that's 6. 12 people unambiguously wanted to keep the template itself. That's 12-6 in favor of keeping the template. Even if you assume that every single one of the people who didn't explicitly state what they meant by keep really meant delete (which would be a horrible assumption to make, but I mention it only for completeness), that's 12-17, which falls short of a 60% consensus. In short, I can see no justification whatsoever based on that TFD for substituting and deleting the template. BigDT 20:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  And my voice is miscounted here; see below. Septentrionalis 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• TFD is not a Vote. Now, stop counting and think a second at the current situation. Everyone has their box. No one's expression has been hindered. The box is not in template space anymore, which means I and all the other evil sysops no longer care whatsoever about it, and will fight to the death to keep that code on that user's page. We've got user pages too, after all. This is a clearly a good result. Mackensen (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Good result or not, this is not the result chosen at TfD. —MiraLuka 20:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  If a good result occurs then we should keep it. I interpreted the TfD this way. Now, stepping outside process-boundness for a moment, is this in any way a bad result? Mackensen (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I subst'ed my userboxes a long time ago. So, no, in my personal opinion, this is not a bad result. However, and I don't know how many ways I can say this, this is not the result chosen at TfD, and the opinions expressed there are the ones that matter in this instance. What's the point of putting template up at TfD if the decisions made there are going to be ignored anyway? —MiraLuka 21:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I could ask why bother bringing it to TfD when the users ignore the voting criteria and policy, but that would be impolite. Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Mackensen, there is one big difference once all userboxes are substed - they are no longer on the list of userboxes for those of us who enjoy having userboxes on our pages to look through. There are possible compromises. For example, I have taken all of the non-controversial religion userboxes and placed them along with their {{userbox}} code on a subpage in my userspace - User:BigDT/Religious_User_Boxes. I would have no problem whatsoever with doing this with every single userbox (not on my own userpage, obviously, but the current userbox menu at wp:userboxes could be changed). We could completely do away with individual userbox templates and instead of offering templates like {{user methodist}}, we'd offer a big userbox codeblock that you could copy and paste on your page. I don't have a real problem with that at all. I also wouldn't have a problem with making substing mandatory. Just like some of the user warning templates include a message forcing you to subst them, that could be done with userboxes. There are only two concerns I have: (1) that a global menu of userboxes continue to be available somewhere and (2) that administrators enforce, not impose policy - if the consensus is against your personal views, push for the policy to be changed, but don't ignore the consensus. BigDT 21:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • My view on the matter is that it needs to be settled in a way that both "factions" can accept. My own personal views don't enter into this. I believe the code was subst'd into the lists as well; if it wasn't, please show me where and I'll address that. Mackensen (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Please see Wikipedia:Userboxes/Humor and scroll down to the "Mathematics and Science" area. The sums of pi boxes were the fourth and fifth in that section. The code section could have something like I have in User:BigDT/Religious_User_Boxes. This would probably be a compromise that everyone could live with. The code is still there for anyone who wants it and there are no templates, except for the generic userbox template itself. BigDT 21:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Done. Mackensen (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Mackensen, I have added the code for those userboxes to the page in code boxes. It doesn't look spectacular, but something for users to easily copy/paste needs to be there, otherwise, they would have to edit the page and sort through table code to figure out what exactly they need to copy/paste. If there are other ways to do it (like a textarea or something), I'm open to that - I'm simply doing this as a suggested method ... there just needs to be some equivalent of the old template code there. BigDT 21:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete and Slap Mackensen with a trout, regarding my undelete vote, whoever closed those was obviously ignoring both the Majority (correction Supermajority) vote, and the consensus of the community, sometimes its OK to ignore one or thye other, but never both. As for slapping Mackensen with a trout well, I just think he needs to be slapped with a trout. -- Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem y}_{o I'll solve it} 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. These were not "votes". Wikipedia is not a Democracy, nor an experiment in anarchy. The comments for these discussions went about like this (actual comments): "Strong Keep per above "keep" votes. Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. Keep since it's an absolutely neutral userbox. Strong Keep and change to Pi to being equal to exactlly 3. Keep. Stop deleting userboxes." Sorry, but these comments did not address deletion criteria. Mackensen is right about the discretion of admins. Deleting these out of Template space and Subst'ing them does NOT destroy them or eliminate them from User pages where they are currently. I don't see a problem with what was done. Deleting these from Template space and preserving them in User space means they will never be up for deletion again. It's too bad people don't realize the positives here. I see no reason why a list of Subst'd Userboxes can't be listed somewhere. But it should not be used as a back door to social networking.- Nhprman 22:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I listed 12 votes above that were unambiguously some form of "don't delete the template itself". Picking out a few silly ones doesn't invalidate the serious ones. The "compromise" (above) may wind up being a reasonable one, but that's beside the point. Pages/templates/whatever should not be deleted when they are not somewhere in the CSD and their deletion goes against a clear consensus on *fd. For this "compromise" to be implemented, there should be a consensus. It is not up to a small group of administrators to enforce their views against established policy and the consensus. BigDT 22:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete because the consensus was obviously keep the template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. If people want the templates substed and deleted, they can say that, but there seems to be a consensus to keep here. Should not have been deleted, definitely should not have been speedy deleted. Clarinetplayer 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Mackensen's point about the general thrust of the keep side's comments (being towards keeping the content, but not apparently caring about whether it remains in the Template: namespace) is a good one, and borne out by my own reading of the TfD. Remember, people, TfD is not a vote. A whole bunch of people showed up and decided they didn't need to provide any sort of reasoning for their "votes", because all they need to do is cast a ballot, right? Mackensen, if anything, showed excellent judgment in deciding to go with a compromise that he thought would satisfy all participants, rather than the other alternative open to him — which was discounting the views of everyone who showed up only to say "you can't tell us what to do, Cyde, you dick!". Everyone complaining about the tally needs to learn what the *fD pages are for. And then to go away, and not approach those pages again until they can prove they've been subject to several intensive sessions with a cluebat. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: My voice on this was not to "keep the content and delete the template"; if I had meant that, I would have said subst as I did elsewhere. There is an unusually strong case to keep the template; and I voted accordingly. The argument that this could be used for socialization is unusually weak (the history of Pi and Talk:Pi should provide the same social group); the argument that it adds no value to the encyclopedia is false. Septentrionalis 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. This is what I'm talking about: if you believe Mackensen misread the TfD discussion, that's one thing, and completely separate to how many "votes" were cast (as a frequent xfD closer, I make a point of never knowing how the tally stacks up). I'm a bit confused about this bit, though: you think this template adds value to the encyclopaedia? Do you mind elaborating, at all? Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Not much value; but one of the purposes of userpages is to hold odd facts, like multiple digits of pi. Septentrionalis 03:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed? I suspect we can delete at least a couple of paragraphs from Pi then. I can see it now ... Main article: {{User Pi}}. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • No, at most half a line, and I do not propose that :-> Septentrionalis 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete A supermajority vote to keep and it STILL gets deleted. Is that what Wikipedia is really about. A few people get there way and those who wanted to keep the template have there voices ingored. Sorry but I feel that is just wrong Aeon 03:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • TfD is not a vote. If you think a "supermajority" matters a damn on xfD, you are not qualified to express an opinion on DRV. You can "feel" whatever you like on this issue, but your recommendations are ill-informed at best. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you contend that there was a consensus to delete, then? Septentrionalis 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Go read what I wrote. You probably won't have to scroll very far, it's only a few lines up; I read your view before commenting, after all. It begins "Mackensen's point about the general thrust ...", and continues on for a short but rather wordy paragraph. You're free to draw your own conclusions from reading the discussion (evidently, you already have), but the raw tally is irrelevant. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I won't join in criticizing your prose style; but I did read your comment, and none of those words answer "Was there a consensus to delete?" The raw tally should be adjusted in various ways (and more such adjustment is probably the real solution to votestacking); but the job of the closer is to justify such adjustments. Septentrionalis 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok explain then why there was a vote in the first place? Why then have a Vote for Deletion if it is not a vote? Aeon 06:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Uhh, we don't. There was no vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
    • fuddlemark's comment above about some editors being "not qualified to express an opinion" strikes me as the problem in an nutshell. SOme people here have the view that the TfD debate creates the consensus for what to do with a nominated template & the admins carry that consensus out, while the other group sees the TfD process as calling for deletion unless there's a good reason not to. In a larger sense, we have to decide which of these views is the intended purpose of TfD. I favor the first view, but the second view has merit as well.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete it is a pity. Based off of some of the admin explanations above I was expecting a really sharp admin descision based upon some flaky votes where people wanted to keep the content instead of the template itself. Sadly, this is not the case and nearly everyone in the debate expressed a strong desire to keep the content in the template namespace and it winds up appearing to be wikipedia politics. sigh. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 04:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn While it is true that TfD is not a vote, there is no reason to discount opinions because "comments...addressed the content...rather the (Template namespace) status which it occupies", especially since such comments seem to imply that those people do not distinguish between Template-space text meant for userspace and text on userspace itself. In other words, such opinons don't agree with with the sentiment that similar userboxes don't belong in Template space, as they obviously don't make the distinction. --AySz88^-^ 04:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn. I had hoped that I had found consensus. It seems not. No reason for others to suffer from my judgement on this one. Mackensen (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is a useful and interesting idea; but it is a policy suggestion, or a contribution to the TfD discussion, not a closure. Septentrionalis 21:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Sorry, Mackensen, I have to disagree...you did the right thing the first time around. :) --InkSplotch^(talk) 12:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete the templates were fine the first time :/. Homestarmy 12:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete -- to support the TFD decision --T-rex 14:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted Closure made perfect sense given that we had two groups talking past each other and this was a reasonable way of making both groups happy. Please remember that TfD, AfD, etc. are not votes. JoshuaZ 00:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • However, TfD is about consensus. Since the nomination was to delete a template & the consensus was to keep that template, then the consensus to keep the template should have been respected. Process is important. --Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn - Deletion review discussions are supposed to focus on whether the action taken was consistent with deletion policy. Deleting a template following a supermajority consensus to keep is obviously not consistent with deletion policy. When someone nominates 'Infobox platypuses' for deletion and there is a clear consensus to keep we don't subst all uses of the template and then delete it anyway. To do so here is improper. Further, we haven't instituted a policy of restoring complicated wiki-markup to all pages... because that would be ugly and confusing - yet here it is suggested that 'ugly and confusing' is 'good'. Why? Because it annoys and confuses people? Obviously that'd be a bad reason. Because it 'removes the content from Template space'? An equally bad reason... the content belongs in Template space. Relocating complicated markup off the page was the primary reason the Template: namespace was created. If you wish to redefine the template namespace such that it is meant for 'material to be displayed on multiple pages except in the User: namespace' then I'd suggest working on such a proposal. However, that is currently not the case and making copies of the wiki-markup on each page by substitution is not the same as keeping the template. TFD discussions have always been held over whether to keep the templates. Not the contents of the templates. Try applying this 'Delete the template as a foregone conclusion but maybe subst the content' principle to other templates which achieve a 'keep' consensus to see just how utterly unjustified it is. --CBDunkerson 12:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep<s\> err... Undelete: Consensus was to keep the template, (as the keep consensus came at "templates for deletion")Mike McGregor (Can) 15:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per process and consensus. TheJabberwʘck 18:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete There is NO valid reason to ignore consensus in this one. If anything, this userbox is educational. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 16:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. PerD-dayHezzy 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. All or nothing policy is needed or this one by one battle will go on forever. --StuffOfInterest 12:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Hear, hear! The disagreement over the future of userboxes looks set to become a war of attrition over in TfD The same general set of opinions on each side are marshalling up for each TfD nom. Why do hundreds of times what we should do once?--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/Undelete. I really don't like the fact that a handful or users have decided that my keep vote was made in ignorance. Nor do I like the apparent assumption that I don't understand the real issues. Building consensus must be done by showing respect for and being willing to learn from and educate those with opposing views. It is not done by throwing away the results when you disagree with the outcome. -MrFizyx 23:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete. An administrator is a janitor whose sole purpose is to see that the community's will get carried out, not replace consensus with his personal views. Loom91 15:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete per consensus reached in TfD. Further, the mass nomination of userboxes in TfD seems to me to be worse for the project than their continued existence. Last night, I edited articles, for the first time in a few days. It felt good to do something positive rather than trying to stop or reverse deletion/destruction elsewhere in the project. These interminable debates over individual userboxes sap energy from what we're here for. THat, I think, all sides can agree on. I wish I could just go down tools on the userbox TfD's, but I feel compelled to stand up for process as long as there is deletionist sentiment to continue bringing userboxes to TfD that otherwise meet policy. I can understand T1 noms, possibly even T2 (though it's hardly settled policy according to WP:CSD), but we've got userboxes (which only ever are seen in user space) being nominated because they aren't encyclopedic, for example. Excepting deletions that are clearly within policy, like copyvio's and T1's, my strong suspicion is that until userbox policy achieves consensus, "userboxes should neither be created nor destroyed." I call this the Law of Conservation of Boxes.--Ssbohio 02:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete When people say KEEP they don't mean DELETE. Yes, that is what happened. They were deleted. Look Mr Adams, I killed your daughter, but I made a clone of her without legs so it's all well and good! Jesus --mboverload@ 00:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussions

See /Archive, /Archive 2, /Archive 3

• Template:User atheist (result undelete)
• Template:User scientology (result kd)
• Template:User liberal (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW, massive endorsement)
• Template:User Hell, Template:User Ideal Dictator, and Template:User Elitist Consensus was to keep User Hell (which has already survived TfD), and undelete and TfD the others. 15:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User liberty (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User chav & Template:User notchav (result kd, unanimous, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User Christian restored by 27-36 majority, will be relisted at TfD in pre-edit war form. 17:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Review
• Template:User hate (result kept deleted. WP:SNOW. Only nominator for review wanted it undeleted).
• Template:User Wikicheese-ologist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User ProIsrael: (result keep deleted, WP:SNOW)
• Template:User varied sex: (result kept deleted, closed as frivolous challenge)
• Template:User Triceratops Accident (result kept deleted)
• Template:User antiuserboxdeletion (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Darwinist(result kept deleted)
• Template:User Communist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User No Marxism (result kept deleted)
• Template:User infidel undeleted.
• Template:User Sock Puppet and Template:User Puppet Master ... it's complicated discussion
• Template:User against Saud (result almost unanimous keep deleted)
• Template:User_Unamerican and others (result nomination delisted early; template kept deleted)
• Template:User transhumanist and Template:User anti-transhumanist (result kept deleted)
• Template:User boylover and Template:User girllover (result kept deleted).
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Userboxes/Alerts (result kept deleted)
• Template:User admins ignoring policy (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Unamerican and others (result kept deleted)
• Template:User vomit (result kept deleted)
• Template:User Objectivism / Template:User No Objectivism (result: both kept deleted)
• Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker (Archive#Template:User_Thermostat_Bicker: undeleted and relisted on TfD)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Same Sex Marriage (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User independent Iraq (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User antiparty (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User review (result: kept deleted)
• Template:User Copyright Nazi (result: kept deleted)
• User:nathanrdotcom/Userboxes/ABF (result: undeleted)
• Template: User evol-X (result: kept deleted)
• Template: User feminist (result: undeleted)
• Template:User userbox insurgent (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User userbox revolution (result: nomination delisted early without explanation; template kept deleted)
• Template:User marriage man-woman (result: no majority to endorse deletion, no supermajority to overturn; I'm re-creating and taking it to TFD)
• Template:User opposes ubx screwing (result: kept deleted as protected page)
• Template:User USA Police State (result)
• Template:User No Meat (result: recreated as redirect)
• George W. Bush templates
• Pseudo-templates Userbox:Anti ACLU, Userbox:Anti UN (result)