- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep. harej 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Transferring nomination incorrectly placed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 24#Template:User cobol-0. Userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MFD. Comments already made in the TFD discussion, including the original nomination statement by Koavf ( talk · contribs), are reproduced below. RL0919 ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Template:User cobol-0 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Meaningless and unnecessary — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is meaningless and unnecessary about having a little dose of fun in the user pages? Thirteen Wikipedia users disagrees. --
Egil (
talk)
14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is for user pages, after all, and it really should be all right to express an agreement with Edsger Dijkstra on the computer language COBOL. Egil ( talk) 06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no COBOL skills and can admit to it.
Dread Lord CyberSkull
✎☠
16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Several [language]-0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No requirement that userboxes be meaningful nor necessary. Most aren't. Collect ( talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - it is not useful to know that an editor has no COBOL skills. Userboxes need not be very useful, but they also should not be completely useless. I don't believe that any of the users who use this template will be made unhappy (or even care or notice) if the template is deleted or removed. – Black Falcon ( talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - RECORD. avoid disruption. END.
Racepacket (
talk)
15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Who or what is disrupted by this nomination or would be disrupted by deleting the template? Thanks, – Black Falcon ( talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (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 page'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 miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was keep. harej 00:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Transferring nomination incorrectly placed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 24#Template:User cobol-0. Userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MFD. Comments already made in the TFD discussion, including the original nomination statement by Koavf ( talk · contribs), are reproduced below. RL0919 ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Template:User cobol-0 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Meaningless and unnecessary — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- What is meaningless and unnecessary about having a little dose of fun in the user pages? Thirteen Wikipedia users disagrees. --
Egil (
talk)
14:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep -- This is for user pages, after all, and it really should be all right to express an agreement with Edsger Dijkstra on the computer language COBOL. Egil ( talk) 06:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The meaning is quite clear: The user understands that they have no COBOL skills and can admit to it.
Dread Lord CyberSkull
✎☠
16:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Several [language]-0 templates have been deleted for being unencyclopedic. What is the purpose of knowing all of the skills other editors don't have? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep No requirement that userboxes be meaningful nor necessary. Most aren't. Collect ( talk) 13:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - it is not useful to know that an editor has no COBOL skills. Userboxes need not be very useful, but they also should not be completely useless. I don't believe that any of the users who use this template will be made unhappy (or even care or notice) if the template is deleted or removed. – Black Falcon ( talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - RECORD. avoid disruption. END.
Racepacket (
talk)
15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Who or what is disrupted by this nomination or would be disrupted by deleting the template? Thanks, – Black Falcon ( talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.