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 deletion, as redundant and untranscluded. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 01:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Template:User fanofhp ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This userbox has a FU image, whereas the other two that already exist do not. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 22:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep First of all I would like to ask if using a FU image satisfies the criteria for deletion of an userbox?

As per guidelines set [1], the reasons for which the templates or userboxes can be deleted are

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks)
4. The template isn't a Neutral Point of View (NPOV)

To best of my belief the userbox in question do not fall under any of the categories, hence it should be removed from the list of proposed Templates for deletion. Legaleagle86 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I will further request that the userbox be reverted back to [2] from present [3] Legaleagle86 16:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete. This is most certainly redundant to another better designed template, once you discount the fair use image. - Amark moo! 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment I suppose I did not word it very well, but what I was trying to say was what Amarkov said: there are other templates, without FU images, thus making this one superfluous. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Userfy Well, there are already several "I'm a Harry Potter Fan" userboxes, so this is slightly redundant, but if the author feels this version is better than any others, why not let him keep it in userspace. In any case the Fair Use image has to go (see fair use guidelines). Charon X/ talk 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment As indicated by Fbv in his earlier post, there are two userboxes on HP(none with an image), I personally feel that they are the most bland userboxes I ever saw, thus I too side with Amarkov to the extent that the best design should prevail. And in my opinion the best userbox is Template:User fanofhp ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and not other two. However I concede the point raised by CharonX and validated by use policy that FU images cannot be used in Templates or navigational boxes Legaleagle86 14:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• I have removed the fair use image from the userbox per WP:FUC #9. Anyways, Delete or Userfy as it is utterly redundnt to either User:NickW557/HPUserbox or even the one I userfied months ago at User:Royalguard11/userboxes/HarryPotter. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 17:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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: speedily deleted as a re-creation of deleted content — David Levy 16:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Template:Smiley ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Graphical smileys are great in social networking sites. Wikipedia is not a social networking site. A quick look at what links here shows that it has been transcluded in many article talk pages, which is a bad sign. Technically, server load and image transclusion makes it undesirable; philosophically, graphical smileys that make the servers groan have no obvious encyclopaedic purpose. Guy ( Help!) 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep— I think it is very useful in helping to keep discussions on talk pages civil. A joke or wry comment can be completely misunderstood without some sort of indicator that it was meant as humor. While typographical smileys (e.g. :-)) are okay, my personal experience has show that the graphical variety has less chance of being misunderstood. If this indeed causing a load on the servers, then the instructions on the template page should be updated to mandate that it be substituted for text (i.e. use "subst:")-- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 23:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Revising my vote to Strong Keep; though I often do wish to be twenty or so years younger, the bored teenager label doesn't really apply to me.<this would be a good place for a graphical smiley to show that I'm amused, not annoyed>-- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 00:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No obvious use that :o) or other ASCII cannot be used for. 〈 RED VEЯS〉 23:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Talk pages are for communications among editors. Graphic smileys facilitate expressing the tone of those communications. This is a valid consideration when coveying and interpreting a message. Claiming such communications do not support the process of building the encyclopedia reflects a biased POV against visually-oriented editors, such as myself. Deleting communication tools based on such a POV is unjustified. Rfrisbie ^talk 23:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • STRONG KEEP. As a fifty-something editor with thousands of contributions, including on a number of featured and high-level pages, it's crap like this that encourages me to periodically reconsider how seriously I should support Wikipedia. Rfrisbie ^talk 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Can you please elaborate on how a policy of "don't include image smilies on talk pages" constitutes a POV bias? — Dgies ^{t  c} 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete per nom. Wikipedia is a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia, not a chat room for bored teenagers. Addhoc 23:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment: These three templates are in use to promote Wikilove. {{ smile}}, {{ smile2}} or {{ smile3}} A comment placed using the smileys has a greater effect on the intended party since it helps a greater deal than the Wikilove smile templates. I am a person who have engaged in many arguments and I would like to point out here that these smileys have played a major role in expressing ideas not only for me but also for many other users. It is very well clear to me that Wikipedia is a serious attempt to write an encyclopedia. But how can we achieve that target unless we resolve the problems here? -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment I believe these are all going to be CSD G4 by David Levy (per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/August 2005#Template:Sad), once betacommand's bot orphans them. Another TfD appears unnecessary (or if it is, it should be expanded to include them all). -- Quiddity 23:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Can someone please translate the above into English? - Thanks! — Sebastian 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • He means Criteria for speedy deletion general reason number 4— "Recreation of deleted material". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elipongo ( talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC). reply
      • Ouch! That's hilarious - given that I was the one who started the G-something nomenclature! [4] — Sebastian 02:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Delete Unprofessional, unnecessary, and visually-distracting. As annoying as flag icons in signatures. -- Quiddity 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Elipongo. I'm aware that it's about 1 KB per smiley and was really considering delete for that reason, until Addhoc's "Strong Delete" challenged me - I'm anything but a bored teenager! Compared to that, Elipongo's argument has to prevail. — Sebastian 00:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Quite a lot of server load, for no important reason. - Amark moo! 01:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment— Per WP:PERF, server load isn't a reason to delete per se.; unless anybody has heard that too many smileys are crashing the servers. The problem becomes zero anyway if you simply subst: the template.-- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
    • It's somewhat annoying too. I don't have a strong opinion either way, though. - Amark moo! 23:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: unnecessary, distracting, and a small server load. This is not a networking site, and this is not what the Template namespace is for. Prodego ^talk 02:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Savidan 03:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per Elipongo. These serve an invaluable role in keeping otherwise heated discussion on the cool side. Wikipedia would be worse off without these images, so while if there is a technically compelling reason to delete I would have to support that, no other reason would suffice. Tewfik ^Talk 03:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Some editors like using them, and per Tewfik, if there are no techinical reasons to delete them why do so? If transclusion is a problem have them required to be substituted (or make a bot (ie a slave :) to do it) Yes, they don't have any enclyclopedic value, but then neither do userpages, and they use loads of transcluded userboxes. They all just help make what we call the Wikipedia community what it is. -- snowolfD4^{( talk / @ )} 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment:Hmmm, yes they why don't we start removing all user pages, userboxes and other templates like this one? If anybody wants to start another project for Userpage Deletion as UfD please start by deleting my userpage ;-) -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 04:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep: I have personally experienced difficulties when perform the substitution of this template. But for that, simply says Delete is not the option. This template serve an invaluable role in keeping otherwise heated discussion on the cool side. So lets keep and change this template as WP:SUBST friendly mechanism. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 09:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Even if we were to ignore Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance (which I presume we shouldn't...), communication is a good thing. (mumbles something about a picture is worth a thousand words...) - jc37 11:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, WP:NOT myspace, and per precedent on deleting other text-icons such as voting templates. >Radiant< 12:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Radient! :) -- Doc^g 15:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep per User:Lahiru_k RaveenS 17:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strongest Keep The smileys help to clarify the mood, the specific intent of the language that the user is typing. Will help to avoid future conflict, due to smileys helping clarify tone of voice. Real96 19:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  Text emoticons are fine, and don't cause outrage :-) -- Quiddity 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment & question— Last night all the smileys had a link to this debate, now that link is no longer there. What's up with that? Is this standard procedure or is somebody trying to limit participation in the debate here? -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 21:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  The TfD template was made "noinclude" to stop the layout disruption it caused. Standard procedure.

  As noted above, these templates are likely/allowed to be speedily deleted per CSD general rule 4 "Recreation of deleted material" per the last TfD. -- Quiddity 21:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

The TfD template should not be noinclude— this template is only on talk pages anyway, it's not like your messing up articles. By taking away the link to this debate participation is being stifled. Also it has been a year and a half since the other TfD you mention, I think it's time for a re-evaluation.-- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 22:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. A lot of people would be disappointed with the project to see this go. It's a nice little community-building thing that makes people happy... leave it alone. -/- Warren 03:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Well it clearly makes some people unhappy. — Dgies ^{t  c} 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - JzG nailed it on the head. "Smilies" don't do anything to further WP as an encyclopedia, and leaving this opens the door for all sorts of social networking images and templates that don't belong here. I don't find any of the arguments for keep particularly compelling; if you're not able to communicate your feelings without using a graphic, perhaps some brushing up on vocabulary is in order. We don't keep things here just because they're "nice"... and erasing said things doesn't make anyone "mean", by the way, it's just part of keeping this project as academically legitimate as possible. Think of how silly Britannica would look if the public found notes between its editors were covered with little yellow happy faces. Tijuana Brass 10:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I can't see a real need to delete this, perfectly legitimate template that only promotes friendliness. thanks/ Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 15:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 to keep, let the rewording begin. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Template:Repeat vandal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IP addresses should always be warned. If it's definitely not a shared address, it can be indef blocked, if it's a school, it can be AO blocked. Any other case deserves at least a {{ bv}} warning before being blocked. This template should be deleted and substed versions removed from IP pages. -- Tango 16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - agree with nom this template has caused unnecessary confusion... Addhoc 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - It is bad if this is a dynamic IP and a new user gets the smackdown for making a single bad edit. Because of the prevalence of always-on broadband connections I think it is much more common though for even a "dynamic" IP to be leased to the same user week over week. So when you have the same person at the same IP come back off a block and immediately start vandalizing, why do we need to warn them again, since it was obviously not a deterrent before? — Dgies ^{t  c} 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  If it's someone that's just come of a block, then can be immediately reblocked without needing a template at the top saying so. This template is placed on user talk pages permanently, not just for a couple of days following a block. -- Tango 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

  Yeah but it's a handy "heads-up" to vandalism fighters to take them to WP:AIV right away. — Dgies ^{t  c} 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep This template gives users a quick and short notice about vandalism, definitely a template to keep. Telly addict 16:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This template is in use as a transclusion over 200 times. It's in use as a substituted template many many times more than that. The frequency of its use is strong evidence that this is a widely used and successfully used tool in the fight against vandalism.
  This template is an essential alert to editors that the user in question has been repeatedly blocked for cause. It triggers admins to scrutinize the block log carefully to determine whether an escalation in block length or severity is appropriate.
  To the specific recommendations in the nomination: 1) When used on a non-shared ID, an indef block can be excessive. Sometimes, the repeatvandal tag is all that's needed to bring a user in line. 2) Some anon IPs are not shared. Telling which are shared and which are used by only one person is actually a very difficult task unless you have a very long userhistory to analyze. The repeatvandal tag bridges the gap. 3) To the best of my understanding, the schoolblock tag and the repeatvandal tag are complementary, not mutually exclusive. The repeatvandal tag can be added during the investigation to determine if a schoolblock is appropriate (and if so, for how long).
  I will even disagree with the assertion that this template is being inappropriately used on anon IP addresses. On the contrary, the presence of this template on the anon page can help to explain to the good-faith users of that address why their account is being shut down so aggressively. It prompts the user to evaluate the contribution history of the IP and sometimes even sparks the good-faith anon users to better police their peers.
  The template should not be added to a page lightly but when it is, it is usually very well-deserved. Rossami (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

It's placed on lots of pages, certainly, but is it actually used? How often are vandals blocked without warning when, had this template not been on their talk page, they would have been warned first? Very rarely, I would guess. I don't think many admins on AIV block unwarned IP addresses just because the template says they can. I'm not proposing a change in policy, I'm proposing we stop putting a template on talk pages that doesn't accurately reflect what happens. -- Tango 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete or modify the wording to not say that the IP can be blocked without warning. I have no doubt of how prolific this template is, and before the days of the AO-flag, I would gladly use this template myself. However, now that the AO-flag is around, this template doesn't really need to be used anymore, or at least it doesn't need to say that this IP can be blocked without warning. It's because of this message that we get so many WP:AIV reports for templates without adequate warning (ie, a recent "final warning" with vandals having edited after that final warning). Sometimes people just send a final warning and post on AIV at the same time because they believe the IP can be blocked without warning or extra vandalism. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Here's a copy & paste (from WT:AIV) of my opinion on this template:

Yes, I really don't like that template. I've been thinking of removing it outright from IP talk pages because it gives vandal reporters the wrong impression (and might be the reason for the whole slate of immediate AIV reports I've been seeing lately). It was likely created back when we didn't really have a way of dealing with IPs with a long history of vandalism. Now that we have the AO-only flag, there's no real need for a template advocating a block without warning. For example, I simply AO-block school IPs for a very long time if they have a long history of vandalism. -- Deathphoenix ʕ 14:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Deathphoenix. I don't follow you. You are saying that now we have AO-block, you do block school IPs on sight, but you don't think its appropriate to have a tag that says you will? It seems to me that AO makes it more reasonable to AO-block without warning, so the repeatvandal tag is more appropriate than before. I think I've misunderstood what you said? Gwernol 20:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep but perhaps alter the wording As it so happens, I was recently bitten pretty hard by an oh-so friendly admin who accused me of breaking policy by reporting a vandal with that template to AIV. So I also suggest that if the template is kept, admins should be made aware that it exists. Pascal.Tesson 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and edit so that it says IP addresses that have been warned and/or blocked repeatedly, not just blocked repeatedly, as it might make admins less timid about blocking repeat offenders, non-admins less timid about reporting them to AIV, and would allow the periodic blanking of the page, as some of the pages have gotten very long and they will get huge if Wikipedia survives even just five or ten years longer. I often find that an IP's edits consist of nothing but blatant vandalism (non-test type edits like profanity and repeatedly replacing text with gibberish) and that it has gotten many warnings (half a dozen to dozens), but has never been blocked. If the IP is making absolutely no useful edits day after day despite warnings, this template should be slapped on the talk page and the IP should be blocked for a few days to a week. If they continue to vandalize after the block runs out, they should be blocked for a month. If they still won't stop, the IP should be blocked from six months to a year at a time. If they still won't stop, they should be hunted for sport and meat (animal feed only to prevent the transmission of disease). I am uncomfortable with indefinite blocks, even with the anonymous users only option, since the IP might be reassigned or might actually be dynamic but not appear to be because the user has an always-on cable/DSL modem, which can be on for weeks or months without being disconnected, if they have a reliable ISP and electric company. -- Kjkolb 10:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete or reword The wording has caused problems for me in the past, as I have understood it to mean that due to a very long history of vandalism, if a user has returned from a block and started vandalising again, there is no need for me to start issuing new warnings, but instead i can go straight to AIV. Apparrrently this is inocorrect, and is a misunderstanding that has been shared by others. I would assume that a small but significant porportion of rejected AIV requests could be a result of confusion generated by this template. •CHILLDOUBT• 11:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Particularly useful in the case of IP addresses which have been blocked over and over and over again and just haven't got the message. -- Yamla 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep. For those of us without admin powers who do RCP, this is very informative when the time comes to issue a warning. When I see this on a talk page, I don't start with {{ test1}}.

  What it does need are some clearer guidelines for its use ("repeat" means at least three blocks in most cases, IMO) and some active effort to tag multiply-blocked IPs' talk pages (many of which I have often found lack this) with this. Daniel Case 17:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep pretty much per Daniel Case who I think lays out the issues clearly. I vividly remember the days when I was on RC patrol without the admin bit and this was indeed a very useful tag to have on IP addresses that were home to repeat offenders. Its just as useful for me now I'm an admin because it alerts me to check the block log and contribution history of IPs I am engaging with to see when its time for more aggressive action. As I noted above, the fact we can now implement soft blocks makes the tag more useful, not less, IMHO. Gwernol 20:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sometimes persistent abuse comes from a static IP, and shouldn't get the same leeway that a dynamic IP should get. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Useful. (I'm biased, I invented it.) -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

  COI! COI! :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Kjkolb. TheQuandry 21:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep...Modify? Very useful as a quick way to know if an IP has been blocked 54 times previously. I'd be ok with removing the "blocked without warning" though. Kaisershatner 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Упражнение В!) 01:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Template:Rival Schools series ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless. This navbox links two articles, which can easily be linked directly to each other without this template. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Definitely Delete unless it is expanded. Should include at least four or five. Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C} 05:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Delete per above. Jorcoga ^{( Hi!/ Review)}05:34, Wednesday, January 31 '07

• Delete Only contains a small amount of information. Telly addict 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete due to lack of information. It can be recreated when their is atleast 8 pages to link to.  Iced Kola ^(Mmm...) 22:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep but merge Template:Rival Schools characters into it.-- SeizureDog 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC) reply

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