Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wikibook

Template:Wikibook (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This template is not used and appears to have been created accidentally, and then made to redirect to Template:wikibooksBovineone 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• So redirect it to Template:Wikibooks. No need to TfD. Redirects are cheap, even if unused. However, I'll vote delete for simple process if a redirect isn't necessary. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, orphaned. --Cyde Weys 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Wikibooks --T-rex 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{Wikibooks}}; unfortunately, there is not today a redirect template {{R from singular}} which would mirror {{R from plural}} and would be appropriate to add to the redirect. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Wikibooks -- no need to delete wholesale when a less disruptive option is available.--Ssbohio 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MLB infobox Braves

Template:MLB infobox Braves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
{{MLB infobox Braves}} is a single-article infobox. It recalls {{MLB infobox}}, which is just another template. This is a single-article infobox which recalls another template, so delete. — Brendenhull 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Per nom. Lincher 22:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, ditto. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 00:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: Similar single-article infoboxes exist for basically every other MLB team: {{MLB infobox Cardinals}}, {{MLB infobox Astros}}, etc. It looks like either these exist for a reason or the editor who created these doesn't know how to use infoboxes. --All in 02:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Then delete them, too, especially if they're unused or can be replaced. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the individual infoboxes were needed I believe. Plus it's not doing any harm and enhances the Braves article. How about you fix it before deleting if you have a problem. JohnnyBGood t c 17:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 08:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USCongressSessions

This template was just a redirect to {{USCongressTerms}}. I see no reason to keep it now that I have fixed all pages that used this redirect to just use the real template name (USCongressTerms). --CapitalR 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - G6 BigDT 19:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. (not used) now useless.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Slut

Template:User Slut
Template:User Slut (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This userbox is neither funny nor relevant in any way to contributions on Wikipedia. It has the potential to be divisive or inflammatory. BigDT 19:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Though helpful if you're in the real world, it does little good on the net. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful with finding editors with... err... specific expertise. Friendly Neighbour 20:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  No, it's not. Have you ever met a userbox you didn't like? Mackensen (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, funny but not really suitable for a "family" site DannyM 20:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  WP:NOT censored. —Cuiviénen^T|C, Sunday, 14 May 2006 @ 22:10 UTC

• Weak delete however, the above reasoning is flawed, as Wikipedia is not censored. Mopper ^Speak! 21:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. DannyM's point is moot, as Wikipedia is not a "family" site. Also, plenty of people use the word 'slut' in a positive manner. grendel|

khan 21:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment, suppose it's about the way you use it, but in my books it's offensive, sorry if you don't agree DannyM 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not censored! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - divisive/inflammatory (but perhaps not so clearly so as to be a T1). There's no reason I could possibly imagine going through editing and wonder "gee, where can I find a slut to make this article better?" (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a prostitution house, users don'T really need to identify as such. Lincher 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Slut is not the same asprostitute. For that matter, neither is yiff (below). If someone was offering sexual services for compensation via a userbox, then I could see your point. As it stands, I see little chance that this will lead to the birth of Wikipedia: The Bordello.--Ssbohio 23:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pointless and tacky--Doc ^ask? 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, needlessly vulgar, should not be used anywhere. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Incredibly Strong Keep. Censorship is wrong, you freedom-haters.Hezzy 00:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What right have we to delete it? Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  By that same logic you've no right to edit. Please cease editing or I'm afraid I'll have to block you indefinitely. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep WP:NOT censorded! The Gerg 01:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I really think most user boxes should be kept, but this on is worthy of deletion. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lincher. Homestarmy 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Lincher. ShizuokaSensei 01:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - could be used to vandalise other user's pages--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 02:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I beg you, do not deny me the right to tell others about my fanciful promiscuity, my poor humor depends on it! --Dan Asad 04:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per my opposition to T1 and related worldviews. Loom91 07:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ah finally a userbox debate at the correct TFD forum rather than the wrong DRVU forum. Ũserbox is offensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all userboxes. Larix 14:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Inappropriate way to use userboxes. A userbox saying, "this user has an unhealthy interest in Wikipedia's sexual articles," would accomplish the same thing as this box, but it would be useful.--M@rēino 14:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, treasure, and love forever. Where would we be if there was no way to know who among us is a slut? And why is it offensive? There's nothing offensive on being slutty. Besides Wikipedia, not censored, WP: not censored for minors, freedom of speech, why do you hate America, long live the queen, blahblahblah, you know the drill. --many Revolutions 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Obviously. Mackensen (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Not harmful. Aeon 23:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep when will the war on common sense end? Let people have their god damn fun. Jesus christ. --mboverload@ 06:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please be civil. - Nhprman 15:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Starla Dear 15:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The line has to be drawn somewhere. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 01:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Why not keep it? // Liftarn 14:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per its being an expression of a characteristic of a user within userspace. Further, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 23:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the userbox templates. Stop crusading. -MrFizyx 05:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. Watch the use of this UBX; like all such it should never be put on others' user pages. John Reid 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Come on, people. Really... --Joseph 02:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: ..."Really" what? --many Revolutions 08:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Useful for identifying people who are likely to have more knowledge about sexual subjects, and more willingness to contribute that knowlege to articles, than the average person. So long as it's self-applied by people who do not consider the word to be an insult, there's no problem. --Icarus 10:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Icarus3. --AySz88^-^ 18:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, please. --Terence Ong 12:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User yiff

Template:User yiff
Template:User yiff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This userbox is neither funny nor relevant in any way to contributions on Wikipedia. BigDT 18:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if it has to do with animals, then why....well...I won't go there. Homestarmy
• Keep because I'd be willing to bet there's one out there for regular porn. – Someguy0830
  • Comment There is one: Template:User Slut, which is above this one, and also being deleted, along with every other userbox on wikipedia.... User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 18:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

(Talk | contribs) 19:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Very useful in finding editors with a specific field of expertise. Friendly Neighbour 20:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a prostitution house, users don't really need to show their sexual tendencies other than being homo or heterosexual IMHO. Lincher 22:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What makes homo/heterosexuality different from other forms of sexual expression? As I see it, treatment of persons' sexual orientation should be consistent across the board.--Ssbohio 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conrad Devonshire (talk • contribs) .
• Keep. As per my opposition to T1 and related worldviews. Loom91 07:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Userbox has sexual connotions which make it offensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Userbox has sexual connotions which make it offensive. HOWEVER, a userbox saying "this user is a furry" should not be deleted. Those people are harmless.--Mareino 14:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No vote here, but keep in mind Wikipedia is uncensored and contains no disclaimers other than whats on the disclaimer page. So, therefore, votes for it being offensive due to sexual connotations will probably be considered null and void, as I can think up of quite a few articles that would have to be deleted under those reasons. -TwilightPhoenix 21:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia ARTICLES are not censored, because they deal with adult themes. It's a misstatement of fact to imply there is unregulated free speech on Wikipedia. Policy says otherwise. See WP:NOT. Nhprman 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep. There seems to be a huge group of people trying to delete massive numbers of articles, categories, and templates, saying they're "unencyclopedic". Do i have to re-create the articles if they're deleted? becuase, i will do so. First off, LAY OFF THE NOMINATIONS. Ther are TOO many articles you people are trying to delete, most of them are USEFUL. if you don't like them, they're off wikipedia? What's even worse is that it's the ADMINS doing this! --User:Raccoon Fox 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• First, these aren't "articles" they are Templated Userboxes. Second, Userboxes are ONLY "unencyclopedic" if they reside in the Template space, where tools for creating articles are kept (that's the major reason people want them moved, not content.) If they are deleted from there, "substituted," and moved to userspace ("Delete and Subst"), they 1) remain on your user page - they don't disappear, 2) can NEVER be deleted through this process again and 3) will be available in a central location for EVERYONE to use however they see fit. This is the solution being offered at WP:MACK and it is better than the mass deletions we have now, which you and I both don't care for. Thanks. - Nhprman 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per my vote and comment(s) below. Yes, as others are saying, I recommend that care be taken that this is not discrimination. ---Bersl2 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm not hearing any relevant argument for deletion other than some people are uncomfortable with this harmless fetish. This userbox represents a sizable population of people who have no less of a right of self-identification than any other. Moreover, it does not violate any policy that insists on good faith relations between Wikipedians (i.e. it doesn't exemplify hatred, discrimination, or abuse). –Frater5 (talk/con) 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per Frater5, disliking someone's orientation/fetish/lifestyle/perversion (the term depends on your feelings about it) doesn't mean it gets to be unilaterally wiped off the face of Wikipedia. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the userbox templates. Stop crusading. -MrFizyx 05:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Icarus3's reasoning for {{User Slut}}. --AySz88^-^ 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We don't delete other templates with sexual connotations because they're "offensive", besides WP:NOT Wikipedia is NOT censored, so it can contain offensive and objectional material. It seems to me that whoever nominated the template is just uncomfortable with people who have a fetish for yiff, yeah, and I'm uncomfortable with pedophiles and they are a lot more offensive as far as most people are concerned, we still have articles on pedophilia, and saying that you want to get rid of it because it is offensive is POV, which as far as I can recall is against WP policy. Beno1000 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've just noticed that the nominator has left Wikipedia and cited the Userbox wars as part of his reason for doing so, so I'm calling this as a possible WP:POINT issue. Beno1000 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Since the nominator has left wikipedia, does that mean this nomination for deletion is null and void? (My vote is still Keep on this one.) User:Raccoon Fox - Talk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moo?. What a load of mess. - Mailer Diablo 12:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All userboxes below

If there's going to be another massive round of nominations, there might as well be a blanket vote option available. Stick all new userboxes nomination below this to make it easier to vote on. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all except Template:User all your base. In this case, most do seem fairly useless. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/Suggestion While normally I would agree with that, I would suggest that in this case, there are differences in the userboxes. For example, some are harmless humor. Others are mean-spirited. Others describe users' sexual practices. I would suggest that if you want to vote en masse to keep, you look at each of the userboxes and make sure that there aren't some you believe should be destroyed. For example, Template:user hate is overtly inflammatory and ought to be speedied. I would imagine that even most ardent userbox supporters, myself included, would not want to vote to keep that one. Thus, I would suggest one thing: if you want to vote en masse, perhaps it would be a good idea to list with your vote the userboxes you are actually voting in favor of or against, eg, "delete everything but xxx" or "keep everything but xxx", etc. BigDT 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and userfy or moved to a separate namespace. Can someone stop listing the boxen? We've got close to 100 undergoing TfD right now...they're choking TfD.--Toffile 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all if the alternative is a kangaroo trial. Userboxes' fate should be discussed on merit, case by case. Friendly Neighbour 20:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy/subst and delete. However, there's 2 new ones above. In future it is IMO a better idea to create the batch voting place once the day is over. Perhaps we could also create a special subpage of TfD especially for userboxes (like they did on WP:DRV->WP:UBD)? There's still hundreds to delete - this place can't handle it. Misza13 ^{T C} 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Too inflammatory userboxes, will create reverse and warring conflicts in the future for sure. Lincher 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all above and below - no reason to delete these. Please subst and userfy all deleted boxes. Thanks. --67.168.249.84 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Subst, and stop nominating userboxes for deletion. Userboxes don't divide us. Mass deleting them does, as it drives an unnecessary wedge into our Wikipedian lives. Crazyswordsman 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Stop nominating userboxes for deletion. See above.Hezzy 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Most emphatically keep all. They do no harm and their removal would serve only to gratify a handful of killjoys. Would the serial nominator kindly stop it; it comes to a pretty pass when one has occasion to ask an administrator not to attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Ou tis 00:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Keep all except for a few exceptions. Read Wp:Ubx. Only to be used in the User namespace, never articles. Also don't disrupt Wikipedia, which Cyde seems to be doing. The Gerg 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  Comment link is WP:UBX. ;-) --DavidHOzAu 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a complete mess. It seems as though each interested user and admin has his head up his backside, regardless of his stance on the issues. Wikipedians are writing text, but no communication is happening. No understanding anywhere. Anyway, I think that it is more prudent to keep userboxes as-is for the time being, since (as I see it) immediately deleting userboxes will cause significantly more long-term harm to Wikipedia than would keeping userboxes in the short term. Continuing to threaten the creations of those supporting userboxes---and thus the creators themselves---does not help resolve the problem in a way that I believe is very Wikipedian, but rather authoritarian. Is this really what any of us want? Do we really believe that use of power is the only or best way to resolve this? ---Bersl2 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep (except for the 3 closed discussions below as of this posting) (not withstanding any specific entries below) these nominations have become a WP:POINT issue, I'm trying to be on wikibreak, or I'd start up an RFC; additionally there is nothing wrong with any of these templates. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and Keep Rename all userboxes to UserBox:XYZ or {{UserBox:XYZ}}, and only allow their non-subst inclusion on userpages. I'm all for deletion of abused userboxes that target articles for malicious edits, but there are ongoing polls/discussion on this.^{1 2 3} I however find it amusing that the deletion criteria "Unencylopedic" doesn't apply to user pages and yet still applies to user boxes that only appear on said user pages. Yes, templates should be encyclopedic, but the convention of {{User put-userbox-name-here}} suggests that all userboxes are (unofficially) not in "enyclopedia template space" to begin with, but are in "userbox template space". Perhaps this should be made official as per my suggestion in italics. With this in mind, the criteria of deletion most commonly cited at the moment appears to stem from a pedantic use of semantics. --DavidHOzAu 03:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep. Stop nominating/speedying userboxes. Keep even divisive and inflammatory ones. Loom91 07:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Please don't tell us what we should be doing and instead act more like an administratior. Thanks. --71.50.118.70 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Deleting these Userboxes and moving them to User space ensures that they will NOT be nominated for deletion again, and in fact SAVES them for users to enjoy as code. If users all support "Keep" - based on the mistaken notion taht they are supporting "their" favorite boxes - they will be subject to more and more deletion attempts, some of which will be successful. By moving them NOW, they will be available for people to use, and those who oppose them as templates (because they are not tools used for editing the Ency.) will be satisfied. - Nhprman 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: Comment: There are likely a certain amount of infrastructural details that need to be discussed before a transition into userspace can happen; however, if userboxes continue to be threatened with deletion in the short term, how can this happen properly? Stop deleting, return to discussion, and work for a proper solution to the problem, for taking short-sighted action like this here solves nothing; the demand for userboxes is not going to magically disappear by deleting them. ---Bersl2 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is the discussion. And actually, Subst'ing them onto User pages - which preserves them in the form they currenty exist - is instantaneous and requires no long discussions over technical issues. If they are Subst'd at the same time they are deleted from Template space, then your concerns are unwarranted, and the nominators have already said they will Subst them if the consensus is to delete them from Template space. The demand for userboxes is not the issue. They will be SAVED if they go into User space. They are subject to these subjective deletion attempts over and over again if they remain here. The choice seems pretty clear. Nhprman 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Subst them where? How will we find them all again? You do realize that we want to be able to continue to list them as we do now. Just subst-ing them onto our user pages doesn't help us to do that. Also, when I said "discussion", I meant discussion about all userboxes, not individual ones. ---Bersl2 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• There is currently a place where all users got their user boxes. That seems a logical central location for them, and it's been suggested that the code be placed there. (someone on WP:MACK has a suggestion on how they can be displayed.) Nhprman 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete them all. I'll remind users that this isn't a free speech issue; even if it was, there's no right to free speech on Wikipedia. Persistent refusal to grasp this will only make things worse. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. (If deleted Subst, which the nominations do not envisage.) This is a proposal for petty officiousness, which is contrary to Jimbo's advice to relax a little; and is undesirable for any project relying upon volunteer labor. This is not a free speech issue, but how exactly do any of these deletions help to build the encyclopedia? Septentrionalis 00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Okkay, so I'm new around here, but I completely fail to see what these hurt. There have to be much bigger problems with Wikipedia than letting users decorate their pages with snippets of code. Further, keeping them all in one place and allowing them to be easily reused is probably a bigger savings than having them in N users' pages as the actual code they represent. Jay Maynard 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Welcome! There's a long history of abuse with these boxes, only because of where they reside on the server (a place called "Template space".) Suffice it to say that by deleting them from the Template space, and "Substituting" the text, they remain on your User page, they can no longer be challenged for deletion like this, and they will be available for others to use. Please see WP:MACK for the full proposal, and consider changing your support to "Delete and Subst". Thanks! - Nhprman 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep As Jmaynard said, there are much bigger problems on WP than this. Theres hundred of different categories with back logs, thousands of stubs that need both extending and categorising, and general vandalism that is always a problem. Maybe admins should put their effort into sorting out those problems? Also, most of these templates are not offensive, are not inflamatory and are not devisive. If you see a little rectangled box saying a quote from Men In Black or "this user is awesome" or "this user is a n00b" and are offended, you seriously need help. How can people be offended by this sort of thing? Many of these userboxes are ones that say "this user is..." and yet, somehow, people are offended even though the only criticism is towards the user displaying the userbox! This sort of thing really makes me wonder - if people are like this, does humanity really have a chance? I know people say "you can never rely on the public", but this takes it to a new level - • The Giant Puffin • 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'Wait for WP:MACK, User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll, or Wikipedia:Userbox policy to be accepted as policy. That's a keep all for now. There's no hurry, and it's a lot easier to delete than to undelete. Also, I doubt anybody is seriously alienated by leaving the boxes for a while, but many are alienated by deleting them. TheJabberwʘck 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Stop the unnecessary crusade against userboxes. Yes, I'm talking to you. — Nathan ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Random Comment (Not in response to anyone's posting) I don't think Userboxes "hurt" anyone. Most are harmless. That's not the point, though perhaps putting them up for deletion by the dozen skews that point, or at least obscures it. Fact is, if they remain in the Template space, some people are going to continue deleting them - fairly or unfairly - and some users will continue to stubbornly defend them from deletion - even the ones that should be deleted under current or future Template space deletion criteria (T1/T2, etc.) Wikipedia is supposed to be something MORE than this idiotic battling. The best solution is to find a home for the code in the User space (or some other non-template space, whatever) and have users cut/paste that code onto their pages, edit them as they wish, and enjoy them to their hearts' content - without fear of having them deleted. What's wrong with that? I think some users just like to argue about things and LOVE this "process" debate, while some others are willfully twisting the facts or ignoring the simple solution in front of us (WP:MACK) because they enjoy conflict. Whatever the case, it's VERY tiresome, and not worth our time here. - Nhprman 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Super Strong Speedy Keep And enough of the POV pushing. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per obvious reasons. And whoever keeps abusing their admin powers and deleting my comments, knock it off. --Pilot|guy 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here. Until we reach COnsensus on userboxes, I'm asking those who are proposing these deletions wholesale to please hang back, take a break, and respect the process in its ability to bring us to consensus.--Ssbohio 23:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• I should probably remind everyone that WP:NOT a Jimbocracy, and even if it was, he said he does not want to use mass deletion to bring about the changes he so desires. He says he wants to do this using positive reinforcement (ie preaching the gospel rather than shoving it down our throats). Crazyswordsman 03:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the userbox templates. Stop crusading. -MrFizyx 05:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Ssbohio. Bastun 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep per landslide consensus below, this templte is also useful for expanding AYBABTU related articles by using "What links here" to find others interested in the subject. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:user all your base

All your base are belong to Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 14.

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a widely used template that is not overtly objectionable. Until the entire userbox question as a whole is settled, IMO, userboxes should not be deleted if the only problem is that they are not encyclopedic. BigDT 18:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because this is one of the most popular phrases on the internet. The fact that it has its own article makes it worthy enough. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it really is quite notable :/. Homestarmy 19:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Extremely funny and shows the user has a very specific knowledge and character traits. I had this template myself until I userspaced it expecting it to be deleted as "not funny" enough for some users. Friendly Neighbour 20:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Though no serious use, is quite funny DannyM 20:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Incredibly Strong Keep. Oh, but it's funny. Hezzy 21:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Why is this even considered being deleted? -EdGl 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all but nom.
• Keep Will (^E_@) T 05:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for great justice.--M@rēino 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep' - As I can see, the community approves of most userboxes - it is just a select few who don't. Why have userpages then? Shall me delete User:* as unencyclopedic? Ian13/talk 16:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep is there no room for sense of humor in wikipedia? Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• YES! There is room - in the User space. All Delete does is delete it from the Template space to the User space, where this box can thrive and survive. If "Keep" is the consensus, then they are kept in Template space, where they will be subject to deletion over and over again. I hope people reconsider their positions here. Nhprman 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think it fair to interpret these "keep" votes as "subst" votes, as they're all voting on the content and not the namespace. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - as I said on the DRV for the sums of PI userboxes, I, unambiguously, mean keep as in keep the template itself. Considering that Cyde said, "Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage" at the very top of this TFD, I would assume that many or most of the other people voting Keep meant that as well. BigDT 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, again, it's not a vote. Just saying "Keep as a template" doesn't mean anything. Do you have any legitimate reasons why this unencyclopedic box of words needs to be a template? --Cyde Weys 21:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Infamous line and has its own article. May indicate the user is familiar with Zero Wings and therefore can be relied upon to aid with Zero Wing related articles. Also, templates make life easier for everyone. -TwilightPhoenix 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Massivly strong keep its notable, funny, and useful. absolutly no reason to delete

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User toothpaste

Template:User toothpaste
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as patent nonsense BigDT 18:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and give a prize to author. Extremely funny. Friendly Neighbour 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no point in this ChaosAkita 20:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Harmless.Hezzy 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - really--Doc ^ask? 23:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC) useless.
• Strong Keep. It's funny to those who actually get it (unlike the people who voted delete). Just because you don't get the joke doesn't mean you have to try and get it deleted. Seriously. It's harmless, Wikipedia is not paper, quite a few people are actually using this userbox even though it was recently made, etc. Keep keep keep. By the way, I'm its creator :-) -EdGl 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • When I say Keep, I mean keep the template. After all, what if something needs to be done to the toothpaste for dinner article, or the Drew (webcomic artist) article, or the Married to the Sea article, or the Natalie Dee article? It would be convenient to have a nice template so we can use the "what links here" feature to get those who are willing and able to further improve these Wikipedia articles. -EdGl 00:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per EdGl ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hezzy. --Rory096 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Userfy to EdGl's userspace. Not an offensive userbox, but hardly useful. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move/Userfy to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Completely harmless. SleepyWeasel
• keep does noharm,if you dont like it dont use it!mrs.sauron 14:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep fairly popular webcomic, and harmless Ryan 17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep My opinion exists without regard to the boundaries Cyde tries to place on it. This userbox serves its purpose, in Userspace, where it's used. It's encyclopaedic nature doesn't seem relevant. However, even if it is, the fact that the userbox tags a person's interest demonstrates some usefulness to the project. I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:user untrustworthy

Template:User untrustworthy
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - though not overtly "divisive and inflammatory", this userbox has the obvious potential to be such. BigDT 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. One of the most informative userboxes. Very useful when in doubd about editor's good faith. Friendly Neighbour 20:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete useless--Doc ^ask? 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. harmlessHezzy 00:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Signed, Freddie 01:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is actually useful, as some people have mood disorders and such that would make this true. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. it's harmless and fun --Dolichocephalus 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep on the condition that people only put it on their own userpage. Self-deprecation like this is hardly offensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. 400+ users and a legit Wikipedia article on Blogger, there's no basis for deletion! Sohailstyle 13:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A handy way to know what the editor you're about to write to is like. --M@rēino 14:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is ment to be for the humor of the users. Aeon 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• The deletion is not an attack on its content, it's a proposal to move it to user space, where it can be safe from further attempts to delete it from Wikipedia. Please see WP:MACK for the full proposal. Thanks! Nhprman 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep -- it tells me which users to not trust --T-rex 05:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and protect from re-creation - though used for humor between users, it's too easily abused in a vindictive act against a user. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Useful, it helps indentify bad jokes on articles GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Showing a sense of humour can help to make a person more approachable, and approachability is relevant to collaboration over encyclopedia articles. Zerrakhi 14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:UBX, Wikipedia:Userbox policy and T1. T2 is not valid at this time. JohnnyBGood t c 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 22:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It may be redundant since no user should be trusted, but it's harmless enough (but those 40+ userboxes for Christianity on the other hand needs to be merged). // Liftarn

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User n00b

Template:User n00b
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - though not overtly "divisive and inflammatory", this userbox has the potential to be such. BigDT 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly much less divisive than for example "This user is an admin". Friendly Neighbour 20:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Offensive, feel free to use the code though DannyM 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. harmless. Hezzy 21:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete offensive/inflammatory, I'm never ever looking for a "n00b" to help me improve Wikipedia... (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fast - t1--Doc ^ask? 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a horrible nom. It is harmless. It also funny to here someone call themselves. Keep! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• As Cyde noted, this isn't about taking them off user pages. If you want it KEPT, support DELETE and delete this from the Template space, while KEEPING it as code in the User space. Nhprman 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete from the Template space and keep this on user pages as code. This is not useful to editing, and should not be a template. Nhprman 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per basically everyone. And ironically, it is the n00bs themselves, who have pasted this little template into their userpages innocently, who will be least able to move their userboxes easily to userspace. UnDeadGoat 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep How can you offend yourself? Thats the most obsurd thing I have ever heard! If someone is offended by someone else being a n00b, then they need some cotton wool round them...fast! - • The Giant Puffin • 19:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- for those of you who think I am to dumb to know what I am voting for Keep the template --T-rex 05:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--But perhaps make it wikipedia-specific.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 18:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is humorus should be kept. Vcelloho 22:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• keep Totally voluntary and harmless. GSPbeetle ^{complains Vandalisms} 09:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I second John Reid's comments. The quantity of userbox TfD's is fast looking like an attempted end-run around the consensus-building going on elsewhere. Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, harmless. --Terence Ong 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepMay be unencyclopedic, but let's look at your page and see how much of it is unencyclopedic.-President GangstaEB

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User MiB

The person is smart; people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it!

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as divisive and inflammatory BigDT 18:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This one is an example of an actually divisive userbox. Friendly Neighbour 20:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete I agree with the top two posters ChaosAkita 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, could potentiallybe funny but at the moment offensive. DannyM 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as T1 divisive/inflammatory. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per DannyM. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Possible reword into another MiB quote, otherwise, delete Will (^E_@) T 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  I can't find any suitable quotes. Subst and Delete Will (^E_@) T 17:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Hopeless and offensive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Who are you people that think that this is offensive? It's a freaking movie quote about how people would react poorly if everyone learned about aliens all at once! Are you aliens, and that's why you're offended? --M@rēino 14:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Saying that this sort of thing is offensive makes me worry - are people really that stupid, vulnreable and touchy? If so, shall we delete the film as well? And Wikipedia because it is not censored and may cause not only offense but, judging by how offended these people are, a heart attack? The amount of times the "offensive and inflamatory" argument is being used is getting out of control! If you are offended by this, you are probably offended by the coulour of my signiture - • The Giant Puffin • 19:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep If you are offended by this, you're probably too sensitive. Harmless.ProfessorFokker 00:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Clever and funny.--The ikiroid (talk)^{(Help Me Improve)} 19:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep an excelent quote from men in black that really can be applied to real life and is definetly a valid opinion. (It is also funny) Vcelloho 22:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't really see anything offensive about it, but I wouldn't be opposed to seeing another quote on it, either. « Amina . skywalker (¿Hábleme?) 14:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 22:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - How many are offended? None? // Liftarn
• Delete Fancruft is fine in the user namespace, not in the template namespace. --Icarus 09:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Sarcasm

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this is a widely used template that is not overtly objectionable. Until the entire userbox question as a whole is settled, IMO, userboxes should not be deleted if the only problem is that they are not encyclopedic. BigDT 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Warns other users that the user may be very sarcrastin in any and all comments and therefore might prevent some pointless fighting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TwilightPhoenix (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Funny and not harmful if taken in reasonable doses. Friendly Neighbour 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Funny in a non-offensive way, and is widely used DannyM 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Harmless.Hezzy 21:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd like to know in what way this is more of an unencyclopedic template than any other. I see no problem with it, I really do think that sarcasm is the highest form of wit. Sergeant Snopake 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. It's a disclaimer for myself and my sarcastic ways; I cite it when clarifying a sarcastic comment. Teke 23:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Created by myself and used by scores of users. Boddah 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Serg. Snopake. Could be useful for a game of Zork on Uncyclopedia. Signed, Freddie 01:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep so people are interested in sarcasm, is that a problem? Homestarmy 01:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Homestarmy ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Acceptable and inoffensive opinion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep not controversial (general public) and not "meaningless". --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. - Nhprman 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• 'KEEP What is with this anti userbox thing lately? Aeon 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I see no real reason to delete it, and TwilightPhoenix has a point, methinks.ProfessorFokker 00:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Another voice pro-userbox. We might not have free speech here on Wikipedia according to some users, but if we can't keep at least some form of expression, then there are going to be editors leaving in droves. Coyote42 07:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep This is clearly a valid opinion and should be allowed to exist in the user boxes Vcelloho 22:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep why delete this? sarcasm is important! Michaelritchie200 11:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted as T1. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:user hate

Template:User hate
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as divisive and inflammatory BigDT 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This one is actually divisive, unlike 90% of userboxes have been are accused of this T1/T2 tresspass. Friendly Neighbour 20:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as T1. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete --Doc ^ask? 23:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a T1, unlike most userboxes listed here. The Gerg 01:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral It is really out of humor... ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User ego

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - though not overtly "divisive and inflammatory", this userbox has the obvious potential to be such. BigDT 18:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Self-deprecation is a form of humour, not aggression. Friendly Neighbour 20:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete horrid --Doc ^ask? 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless.Hezzy 00:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or move it to a Userbox space (which even I think is a bad idea). --Rory096 03:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is very useful for knowing about a user's personality before leaving a message with that user.--M@rēino 14:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Please read WP:NOT. Nhprman 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Nothing T1 or divisive about self-deprication. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 22:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason to delete. JohnnyBGood t c 17:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not the best userbox I've seen, but there is no reason to delete it. // Liftarn

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:user cool

This user is cooler than you.

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as inflammatory and divisive BigDT 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't like the overgrown format but the userbox is not divisive. At least no more than your average funny userbox. Oh, I forgot... Friendly Neighbour 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but Reformat, reduce the size, inoffensive fun. DannyM 21:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that this format prevents the ugly distortion of userboxes perpetrated by TFD code. --70.218.110.128 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless. Hezzy 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I'M COOL. But could change the size. Justinemery 23:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I like the picture myself. Anyhow, it is harmless. I see no reason for deletion. (A joke!) ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but change the link from cool to Raynaud's phenomenon.--M@rēino 15:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to the User space, where this cute Userbox can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Eyesore.
• Keep Harmless Fun, this is starting to get annoying. Aeon 23:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepJorcoga 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Showing a sense of humour can help to make a person more approachable, and approachability is relevant to collaboration over encyclopedia articles. I almost categorically disbelieve in the existence of users who would use this userbox for purposes other than irony. As irony, the very fact that a person uses this userbox is itself evidence that they do not consider themselves cooler than other people. Zerrakhi 14:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:UBX, Wikipedia:Userbox policy and T1. T2 is not valid at this time. JohnnyBGood t c 21:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Zero encyclopedic value. Go stroke your ego in user space, not template space. --Icarus 09:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User awesome

Template:User awesome
Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - though not overtly "divisive and inflammatory", this userbox has the obvious potential to be such. BigDT 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - light humour is neither divisive nor inflammatory. Friendly Neighbour 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That'd be nice if this was DRVU, but it isn't. We aren't talking about speedy deletion here, we're talking about regular deletion, and divisive and inflammatory aren't necessary criteria. --Cyde Weys 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not too bad. Friendly humour DannyM 21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely harmless.Hezzy 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep ~Linuxerist E/L/T 01:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep. When I see all those userboxes that say "this user speaks X foreign language," I mentally rewrite them to say exactly what this box says. --M@rēino 14:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, just a bit of harmless inoffensive fun DannyM 17:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move this harmless inoffensive box to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. - Nhprman 17:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Seems harmless enough. Aeon 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Stop trying to delete humourous userboxes or else my page will be bare & full of red links. Delete ones that are unused &/or unpopular. Jorcoga 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• If this and other Userboxes are kept in Template space, they risk permanent deletion. If they are deleted from Template space and moved to User space, then they CANNOT be deleted, and will remain available for others to use (whether they are popular or not.) I understand this is a technical change, and confusing. Please read the proposal here: WP:MACK and re-consider your support. Thanks - Nhprman 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep "this userbox has the obvious potential to be such" - huh? Obvious potential? How did you reach the conclusion? Saying you are awesome can offend someone else? How? They get jealous? Come on! Oh sorry, I might have offended someone by using that exclamation mark! Oops, there it is again... - • The Giant Puffin • 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep "i dont see the reason why this funny template should be deleted.Felisberto18May2006(UTC)
• Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Zero encyclopedic value. Go stroke your ego in user space, not template space. --Icarus 10:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User drag queen

Template:User drag queen
Template:User drag queen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
This template is used on only one user's page. It is neither funny nor relevant in any way to contributions on Wikipedia. BigDT 17:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Unencyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful in finding editors with a specific expertise. Friendly Neighbour 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Umm, it's only used on one userpage. How many users does it help you find? BigDT 21:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It's only used on one page, but may be added to more later. So in other words, it ha potential. The Gerg 01:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful, and on the side of healty self-indentification as opposed to some boxes that try to turn Wiki into a meat market. --M@rēino 14:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, inoffensive, shows people's pride in their inclination DannyM 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Starla Dear 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I plan on cross-dressing a few times in my life, and doggone it, I can display it on my user page if I want to! --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is really harmless and heck if people want to anounce that they chose to where clothing of the oposite gender there's no harm in letting them have a template to do anounce with. Vcelloho 22:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very potentialy useful in the future. Mnerd 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as I see no reason to delete it. // Liftarn 11:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful for finding people knowledgeable about the drag scene. --Icarus 10:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted and protected by User:Tony Sidaway

[edit] Template:Skeep

Template:Skeep (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template for voting "keep"; see for instance its use at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Belgian "dry up" law (now removed). Not useful. cesarb 00:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Was about to vote delete as nonsense.. then reverted the vandalism and am instead now voting delete. -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was vandalism, so much as it was a test/misplaced comment from a new user. --W.marsh 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• I created this version of it. From what I could see, there had been a different version out there earlier, with an icon, like this: Keep.
  A bunch of people used it in AfD discussions, and then it got removed, leaving a whole bunch of votes that now showed redlinked as Template:Skeep. I thought it would be useful to at least have something in that template, so I filled it with Keep. I figured it would be easier than going through a whole lot of AfDs and cleaning out the uses of it. I did the same thing for templates Scomment, Smerge and Sdelete, so if you want to remove this one, bundle in the rest. - Fan1967 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Note Here's where the earlier versions came from, though I don't know who deleted them [1]. Fan1967 01:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted --Cyde Weys 03:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User nohumor

Template:User nohumor
Template:User nohumor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Was created by Russoc4 for the sole purpose of vandalising my userpage.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, really not helping the userbox debate. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - per nom, it sounds divisive and inflammatory BigDT 03:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.