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 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:Eastern Countries ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Needs deletion as the reflection of the respective article's original research/patent non-sense content (AfD already discussed). AlexPU 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. -- Guinnog 18:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedify the deletion. Already being voted at AfD btw. -- Irpen 18:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Yakudza 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete heqs 21:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Khoikhoi 23:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • ( yo?); 23:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. What's this? Pavel Vozenilek 02:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or Speedy delete, but I can't decide because I don't know what a speedy delete is... Random the Scrambled 11:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Check out this article. -- Coredesat 00:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:Infobox U.S. City ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Via discussion here and a subsequent informal vote the WP:CITY community has decided to merge this template into Template:Infobox City. The necessary modifications have been made and the affected articles have been tagged for new infoboxes. harpchad 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per norm. Hunter 16:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. howch e ng { chat} 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, but do something about the empty syntax at Template:Infobox City first. Random the Scrambled 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

—retracted, per disscussion at User talk:Mr. Random

• Delete per nom. — MJCdetroit 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - Quiddity 17:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - Nick C 18:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, oh well expect a long term revert war, it a shame the porr quailty template are considered replacments. It should also be noted that the tag was also improperly placed on the templte so that other users could not see, the temple was removed as an noting but an attempt to speed up the deletion, which is the primay tatic in deprecheating a templet, to subrvert process. the decdion on a replacement was on made 3 days after it was noted on the the so called replaced template. All i can say is revert war. I would hve no problem in working with user to creat a btter infobox for use in city article on the uintes states, which the so called "replacemet" baox id for, but since the involed user seeom to have no intrest in improving the infobox, as their so caled replaxement is hardly an improvment over what the city box was, is bascly a broken car with a new paint job, or the obx what they seek to replace, which works better and is far easier to use and takes up less coding space. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Wikipedia needs one standard template for all cities. There was considerable discussion of merging Template:Infobox U.S. City and Template:Infobox City prior to this vote for deletion (see discussion). Dr. Cash 06:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Template is at the moment used, discussion here is not completed. -- Yakudza 06:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Both templates seem to have positive features, and I'd suggest incorporating the additional information of the new one with the old one so that the best possible--and most informative--template exists. PAWiki 07:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, although whatever positive features of the US template should be incorporated into the new. It is only natural that Wiki would eventually adopt a unique infobox suitable for use for cities worldwide. If there is a problem with this I would suggest, instead of forwarding vague arguments of a propriatory nature, listing all 'problems' and what to preserve point by point. THEPROMENADER 07:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Although I've always been partial to the U.S. City template, that look and most of its features have already been adopted into the generic city infobox. Any remaining positive aspects need to completely assimilated into the generic template. -- Mad Max 16:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Nightst a llion (?) 15:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment How far along is the conversion process? If this is deleted, will we be left with numerous articles with unsightly dead templates? I'm all for the conversion, but not if it damages article quality. youngamerican ( talk) 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment If the closing administrator determines that the outcome of this discussion is delete, the template should be listed in the holding cell under the to orphan section (at the bottom of this page). The template won't actually be deleted until the conversion/orphaning is complete. As of right now there are still about 101 pages left to convert. (When this template was nominated just three days ago there were closer to 160.) — Jnk^{[ talk} 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for the reply. Delete. youngamerican ( talk) 12:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Ter e nc e Ong 16:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I like the current look of this template, but it presents a nearly identical data set as Infobox City, which is in use in a far larger number of pages and is more flexible. I think it's more important that the infobox for towns and cities is consistent across the encyclopedia. — Jnk^{[ talk} 19:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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. IceKarma ॐ 23:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:Vandal-exterm ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unencyclopedic, and goes against WP:AGF. Vandals can be rehabilitated, and we definitely should not discourage that. Rory096 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete This delete vote should not be interpreted as a pro-vandal vote. It's not. Neutral arbiter 04:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. -- GeorgeMoney  ^{T· C} 05:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per above. -- Coredesat 05:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• The userbox seems to have originally been intended as humorous (as evidenced by the mentioning of nuclear bombing vandals), though delete it anyways as it does violate WP:AGF-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment If this is kept (although it doesn't seem like it will be), it should be moved to Template:User Vandal-exterm. — Mira Luka 05:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

*Keep If we assume too much good faith, we let Willy lose. Besides it's just humorus.-- Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• • To be blunt, that's crap. Assuming good faith means that we try to help vandals become active contributors, and only block them if it's absolutely necessary. "Exterminating" them all would stop us from getting many good contributors, including some of our best that we have today. -- Rory096 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and re-incorporate into Uncyclopedia. Random the Scrambled 13:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not useful to the project. Zocky | picture popups 14:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as unencyclopedic -- Guinnog 19:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Since it's not in an article, it needn't be encyclopedic. That said, delete as against WP:AGF.-- Ssbohio 21:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Rory. Kusma (討論) 02:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Userfy and delete Really too stupid to be in template space.- User:Gangsta-Easter-Bunny/Sig-14:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It does not violate WP:AGF. If someone's a vandal, they're no longer acting in good faith. An WP:AGF violation would be a box that says, "middle school students should be banned." We all know that 90% of them are vandals, but it's very important that we assume good faith because the other 10% are worth nurturing and training to be good editors. -- M @ r ē ino 21:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Vandals cause more problems than a userbox ever could. Sophy's Duckling 02:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as incompatible, and exterminate (ok too much Doctor Who), but really delete. — Natha n ^{( talk)} 06:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep - A rehabilitated vandal is no longer a vandal, so it doesn't go against AGF. --GW_Simulations _{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 13:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Nearly Headless Nick 10:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. It isn't accusing any specific users or kinds of users of being incorrigible vandals, so it's not assuming bad faith. We all know that there are some users who sign on just to %$& around and annoy serious wikipedians; acknowledging that is a simple statement of fact. More importantly, this userbox is clearly a joke. No one would seriously advocate using nuclear weapons against immature little jackasses. Other far less relevent joke userboxes have been kept; if we're going to start deleting non-serious userboxes, start with the totally purposeless ones like the gangster and fictional disease ones above. If nothing else, this one lets a user blow off a little steam on their user page so they can return to the recent pages patrol (or wherever it was they found the vandalism that pissed them off) with a cool head. -- Icarus 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, hostile and divisive. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 11:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This is not a general-purpose template; it's a UBX. Users are entitled to their opinions and entitled to air them; and this is good for the community and good for the project. Please don't nominate in-policy UBX. John  Reid 21:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

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

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 Userfied and deleted by Xaosflux ( talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) -- Rory096 05:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:Practical Joke ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - waste of template space, unhelpful, and only transculded on subpages of the user who created it. This is also a case of WP:BEANS. Delete. -- GeorgeMoney  ^{T· C} 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Wikipedia is serious. Can't we have a little fun every now and then?-- Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  Wikipedia is a project. If you want to have fun, go to Uncyclopedia. -- GeorgeMoney  ^{T· C} 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Please see WP:BJAODN for more details that Wikipedia does in fact have fun. Hbdragon88 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  I agree with fun on WP, fun is always good. I even have a "Joke New Messages" on my userpage. I also have User:GeorgeMoney/tricktemplates. But, even though fun is good, it is not good in the template namespace. You can have all the fun you want in your own userspace. Also, when I was new, I too made that same template in the template namespace. Look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_16#Template:Joke_new_messages. -- GeorgeMoney  ^{T· C} 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  In that case, speedy delete, {{ db-repost}}. -- Rory096 04:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I agree with fun, and this thing is creative, but it can get really, really annoying at times. Master of Puppets ^{FREE BIRD!} 03:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Kill it with fire. If people want this they can create it manually or steal it from someone else's userpage like everybody did already. No need to waste space with a template. -- Rory096 04:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Neutral arbiter 04:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete But first inform people who use it that is not indeed a continuation of the practical joke (referring to the message above it that says the template is up for deletion). Ch u ck ^(척뉴넘) 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply

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