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.
Delete per nom. Note our
policy on external links, which states that links should not be included if they (2) contain only information which should be in the article anyway, and (5) contain objectionable amounts of advertising. On one sample spoiler page, I counted 15 distinct ads. That's objectionable in my book. (
ESkog)(
Talk)23:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. These webpages are very informative about the plot of a film, they tend to be accurate and are usually much more detailed than the plot sections in the articles. The link is also useful for checking the content of the plot section, and for expanding it (though for this purpose it is preferable to also see the movie, of course). See also
Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.The advertisements do not make reading the text inconvenient: they are not blinking or overlapping the text, or anything like that.--
Patrick23:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete See policy on external links as per ESkog. I expect Patrick has popup blocking software, because it's unreadable under the popups. ... Had these links not been added by an obviously well intentioned editor (Patrick), they would have gone into the SBL when I first saw the template. I'm confused that anyone would argue to keep this site. Most of the plot summaries are horribly written. I was reading the mi3 article, hit the link... groaned out "spam" ... and was in the process of scanning the external links table in the database to find out where else it was spammed when I noticed it was being added by a template. --
Gmaxwell00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, garbage. Not informative—it only includes stuff which should be in the article anyway—not to mention that the summaries themselves are horribly written—Linking to them will only encourage people to not write decent ones. That combined with the insane ammount of advertising it has, means it should never, ever be linked from any article, and especially not via a template.--
Sean Black(talk)00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete A user at one of the film articles I work on recently found it to be covered in ads, along with a heap of mistakes (characters names wrong etc) - apparently they are not peer reviewed. Anyway, the point is, it is not needed.
Cvene6404:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The encyclopedia is worse off for the availability of this template. And, for the record, except for userboxes, Cyde makes a lot of sense from my perspective. I
assume good faith in Nathan's comment. No telling what surprises people these days.--
Ssbohio02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete -- editors can use this site to make a better plot summary in the article, but it doesn't retain any relevance as an external link—i.e. it doesnt add anything that can't be done in a Wikipedia article. Of course, this begs the question of if the site has more thourogh plot summaries that we generally reach by consensus, but to me this is outweighed by the massive amount of advertising on the site and the fact that their summaries are often of a low quality, often even wrong.
savidan(talk)(e@)04:11, 18 May 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.
Delete Userboxes like this interfere with Wikipedia's purpose, which is to create an encyclopedia, not a social networking page
Fnarf99914:57, 16 May 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.
Delete. There is already a userbox that notifies people of the fact that you are an administrator. No need to keep this poorly formatted one.
Jorcoga02:05, 16 May 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 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 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 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.
Though I don't really see it as necessary for two single-image templates that aren't being used, I don't mind this. Delete. As I understand it, it goes beyond fair use when the image appears in places where it's not being used for critical commentary or as a visual aid. On top of that, they weren't in use when I prodded them and the only places where they were included were in now-useless rating fields in {{Infobox Television}} templates. –
Someguy0830 (
Talk |
contribs)
05:37, 15 May 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 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.
Comment Where in the userspace should it be moved to and why? Nobody is using it. I am 100% opposed to mass deletion of userboxes, but in the case of ones that are completely useless (as evidenced by nobody using them), I see no harm in giving them a peaceful death.
BigDT18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
After deletion and Subst'ing, they will reside on User pages, where, if people want to cut/paste the code to their User pages, that's up to them. As for useless/not useless, that's fine with boxes like these that are obvious, but will be fought tooth and nail for "useful" boxes. Few user boxes are useful enough to be editing tools, and that's what template space is for. -
Nhprman18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio01:52, 20 May 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.
Strong keep, not hurting anyone (and this one isn't even an orphan). I've heard of it, too, actually, and I'm not sure why we don't have an article on it, considering
its Alexa ranking. --
Rory09618:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid13:56, 19 May 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.
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. In Template space, it's subject to community judgment (and thus, it is dumb.)
Nhprman18:04, 15 May 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 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.
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.--
Ssbohio02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep; there may be valid use for saying that one was impersonated by a vandal (i.e. to distinguish oneself from that vandal). --
AySz88^-^18:52, 21 May 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.
Delete - as far as I can tell, it is used by a single person to make a table. Why do you need a template to do that?
BigDT15:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
With apologies, accidental duplication... There are so many of these userbox deletions going around, I completely overlooked having already commented here. Thanks for the help.--
Ssbohio18:55, 21 May 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.
Delete Since nobody seems to be using it and the count has to be manually updated, which nobody is doing any more, delete it.
BigDT15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, or if no choice subst. Also, this should become an actual userbox, instead of a taxbox (I think). Isn't there a tag like {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}? Because I know there is one for the number of users. FreddieAgainst Userbox Deletion?01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. I see no reason to delete this. It's like the angel template, and wikipedia would be a better place if more admins used this template.
Loom9106:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep Not obviously divisive or inflammatory. Also, I recoded it to actually look like a legitimate userbox. Lastly, 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.--
Ssbohio02:13, 20 May 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.
Comment. I created
Template:User adminstandardsb the other day. I guess that people interested in deleting this adminstandards template might be interested in also looking at the template I created and deciding if that one should be nominated for deletion too.
DarthVader14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - I was about to click "save page" on a "strong keep", but then I thought about something. This box could be seen as divisive. A better version might read, "this user thinks administrator standards could be improved". As it stands, it is rather confrontational and thus, even though it does directly relate to WP, I think it should be reexamined. Even if it does survive the TFD, the text probably should be changed to make it non-confrontational.
BigDT15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
If campaigning for a change of a WP policy were declared divisive, we could not have any policy debate. I assume that change of policy is what the author meant (according to our "please assume good faith" mantra).
Friendly Neighbour16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
You're right, of course ... HOWEVER ... it is one thing to write an essay on a policy debate about improving standards for administrators, making it easier to deop someone, etc. It's another thing to have a one-liner. By itself, the one-liner is barely above the level of an insult.
BigDT16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep- Its ok to think the standards are too low, and it is ridiculous that admins are trying to get this deleted. We will not be scilenced! Down with the admins! Down with the admins! No but seriously, this should be kept. --
GorillazFanAdam23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep per Mike and Friendly (although I disagree with Friendly w/r/to the template's being possibly true; I think standards for adminship are, in general, too high).
Joe04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep it has to do with someone's opinion on Wiki policy, what's the problem with that? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia after all.
Homestarmy13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This speaks directly to the administration of this encyclopedia, and by virtue of not being used in article space, complaints of being unencyclopedic don't seem well-founded. 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.--
Ssbohio02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle.
Mnerd05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep With lots of admins nominating userboxes for deletion, or deleting them before the discussion is over, I cant help beleive that this userbox is true. Either the standards are too low, or people become less law-abiding once they are admins -
• The Giant Puffin •13:17, 22 May 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 speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD.
Mackensen(talk)19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment The Template is used by almost 400 Wikipedians, including myself and I didn't find anything wrong with it or broken, until the message "The template User blogger has been proposed for deletion here" showed up screwed up the look of the box. --
roy<sac>
Talk! .oOo.
10:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
IMO 400 Wikipedians promote their blogs on their User Pages. It is not Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia promoting them. Almost all Wikipedians are people with a whole life outside Wikipedia and some like to share that part with their fellow Wikipedians. --
roy<sac>
Talk! .oOo.
10:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep for the same reason that we keep the userboxes that advertise the various for-profit web browsers that we use.--
M@rēino14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep indicative of skill type, skill level and intentions relative to interacting in an open community environment to inform the public. Editing, readibility, accountability, recognizing appropriate content, dealing with vandals, encouraging comments, understanding the relevance of subject matter, learning the value of providing verifiable sources, ... --
Paleorthid17:28, 15 May 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.
Umm... RE: above. This isn't a content for deletion page, its a template for deletion page. the consensus was to keep the template... that being said, this was only listed for about 10 hrs. and should not have been closed yet. I'd like the closing admin to relist and let TFD run its course, then not ignore the consensus.
Mike McGregor (Can)11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Agreed I've had the same concern with other userbox TfD's being closed out very rapidly, primarily involving one admin who has made fast work of his own & others' TfDs.--
Ssbohio02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
keep Seems to refer to the ability to understand the jargon associated with harldry. I fail to see how thats not relivent to an encylopedia. (which raises concerns about cyde's votes. It seemes he's just voting "Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template." to every userbox on this page without bothering to evaluate them... perhaps his votes on this page should be discounted by the closing admin...)
Mike McGregor (Can)12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy? Delete - please note that the picture of the box above is NOT what it actually looks like - that was the original box, which was quickly blanked. For most of the box's life, it has been blanked and really could probably be speedied as housekeeping or something with little effort to do anything else with it.
BigDT15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts, and is not in Template space.
Nhprman18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Heraldry, as a concept, is important to diverse areas of study such as
genealogy,
history,
political science, &
vexillology. This userbox is encyclopedic on its face. It would be up to those arguing against it to make the case that despite its bearing on the creation of this encyclopedia, it should still be removed. 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.--
Ssbohio02:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. I will put it on my page now, if it's a little inaccurate (I'd say I'm more like blz-3), but that's not important. And it IS encyclopedic; it could, theoretically at the very least, help find people who understand the complex jargon of heraldry.
Lockesdonkey20:43, 19 May 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.
keep Seems to refer to the ability to understand the jargon associated with harldry. I fail to see how thats not relivent to an encylopedia. (which raises concerns about cyde's votes. It seemes he's just voting "Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template." to every userbox on this page without bothering to evaluate them... perhaps his votes on this page should be discounted by the closing admin...)
Mike McGregor (Can)12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - just as the above box, this one was blanked not long after being created. Nobody uses it and it has been blank for most of its life with only one attempt to unblank. Speedy as housekeeping or something.
BigDT15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep In addition to the general grounds why this sort of thing should be discouraged (above), this a claim of special knowledge, the primary purpose of userpages. It should be kept as a transclusion; it is useful to know who has it, and it is not the mark of a faction (both sides in the Style Wars will claim it.)
Septentrionalis00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Merge - one userbox for the blazon ability should be enough. But it's handy to have someone who can decode heraldic descriptions. Just think of all the coat of arms and such. //
Liftarn13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Heraldry, as a concept, is important to diverse areas of study such as
genealogy,
history,
political science, &
vexillology. This userbox is encyclopedic on its face. It would be up to those arguing against it to make the case that despite its bearing on the creation of this encyclopedia, it should still be removed. 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.--
Ssbohio03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:06, 19 May 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.
Comment: As the creator of the template, I will not vote on this, but I will say that, although I don't particularly mind if it's deleted, it also doesn't seem to cause any harm by being there (granted, it's unused). Also, it is as [un]encyclopedic as any other template that ids a user by nationality ("this user if from country"). About any particular problem with size, colors, etc, anyone can
be bold and fix it, I believe.
Redux15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - if it isn't being used and the creator doesn't mind its deletion, speedy delete it. Redux, thank you for your contribution and please don't be scared off by the user box wars - you are, of course, always welcome to display this logo on your own page or to create an actual userbox (similar to
Template:User_Brazil, but with the colors and text you are looking for). The only reason it is (probably) going to be deleted is that it isn't particularly useful as a template.
BigDT15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep In this case, it's hard to see harm in a Wikipedian's country of origin. THat said, the userbox is a mess & should be cleaned up. Overall, 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.--
Ssbohio03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep and <div style="float: left; border: solid #6ef7a7 1px; margin: 1px;">{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #c5fcdc;"| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #6ef7a7; text-align: center; font-size:14pt;"| [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|45 px]]="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a [[Wikipedia|Wikipedian]] in [[Brazil]]! (And loving it!|}</div>reformat. Now, now, FakeUser, it may not be a violation of NPOV, but just because you don't like it isn't a very valid reason for deletion!
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.
Keep This userbox may or may not be funny. Userspace is (mostly) in the eye of the user, and funny vs. unfunny isn't directly related to keep vs. delete. 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.--
Ssbohio03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:09, 19 May 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.
Keep, as these Syraic userboxes are very useful to protect the Syraic-themed articles, which are constantly at risk for POV edits. --
M@rēino14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep As has been said before, we are born into this world naked, screaming, & wet... & (I assert) having a POV. If a controversial political stance were all it took, then the article on
Taiwan could fall in the same category, as its existence as a seperate entity is a controversial issue. Having an identified POV can only help the editing process when compared with a hidden POV. 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.--
Ssbohio03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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. What? Are only noncontroversial political stances acceptable? Pfooie.
John Reid14:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This is useful as showing where an editor stands; it is not likely to be controversial among most editors.--
Runcorn18:22, 27 May 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.
Wait. This could be useful as a way of saying "This user likes to edit these types of articles", so let's hold off for a month or so to see if people actually use this box.--
M@rēino14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - if nobody has started using it in the first three months of its existence, I see no reason to believe that will change.
BigDT16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep No harm, used or not, and more useful if left in & available. Also, 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.--
Ssbohio03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:11, 19 May 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.
Unless they are tools for helping us edit the encyclopedia, these templates ARE guilty of being in the wrong place. Moving it to user space saves them from deletions. Let's do it and move on.
Nhprman18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - I see no reason to believe the user is a troll, but if it isn't being used at all, it doesn't need to be there.
BigDT16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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. Cleanup per Mareino would be appropriate.
John Reid14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, unused and pointless. If this must be kept, at least change it to be more automated, e.g. "This user has failed RFA {{{number}}} times".
GarrettTalk00:07, 23 May 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.
Delete - I see no reason to believe the user is a troll, but if it isn't being used at all, it doesn't need to be there.
BigDT16:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:24, 20 May 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.
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. I get the joke if you don't.
John Reid14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:24, 20 May 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.
Pretty obvious really - just click on "links" above - or just go
here. Looks like a good 40 or so at first glance... including mine.
DJR (
Talk)
17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep and Reformat - it is widely used, so rather than delete it, just redesign it to conform with the generic standard.
DJR (
Talk)
17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi, David. The problem with a "keep" here is that most template may be deleted soon. By "Substituting" the text (ref. to by "Subst") and moving it to User space, you get to keep the box, and ensure that no one can ever delete it again. Consider supporting "Delete and Move" to user space, or "Delete and Subst" and see
WP:MACK for the proposal to save Userboxes from future deletions. Thanks!
Nhprman15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment If this is the prevailing sentiment, I would suggest merging the two templates and redirecting one to the other. User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep It most certainly is used. If it doesn't fit the pattern perameters that can be adjusted easily. I was only a newbie when i made this template!
Pydos09:36, 23 May 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.
You know for a fact that this is a joke? I was just trying to assume good faith on what actually looks like a mistake of some kind.
Fake User17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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. BTW Aquarius is an astrological sign, not a programming language.
John Reid14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:27, 20 May 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.
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. "Keep" keeps it as a template, and it will simply come up again for deletion. -
Nhprman18:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:28, 20 May 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.
Delete per nom. Note our
policy on external links, which states that links should not be included if they (2) contain only information which should be in the article anyway, and (5) contain objectionable amounts of advertising. On one sample spoiler page, I counted 15 distinct ads. That's objectionable in my book. (
ESkog)(
Talk)23:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. These webpages are very informative about the plot of a film, they tend to be accurate and are usually much more detailed than the plot sections in the articles. The link is also useful for checking the content of the plot section, and for expanding it (though for this purpose it is preferable to also see the movie, of course). See also
Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.The advertisements do not make reading the text inconvenient: they are not blinking or overlapping the text, or anything like that.--
Patrick23:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete See policy on external links as per ESkog. I expect Patrick has popup blocking software, because it's unreadable under the popups. ... Had these links not been added by an obviously well intentioned editor (Patrick), they would have gone into the SBL when I first saw the template. I'm confused that anyone would argue to keep this site. Most of the plot summaries are horribly written. I was reading the mi3 article, hit the link... groaned out "spam" ... and was in the process of scanning the external links table in the database to find out where else it was spammed when I noticed it was being added by a template. --
Gmaxwell00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, garbage. Not informative—it only includes stuff which should be in the article anyway—not to mention that the summaries themselves are horribly written—Linking to them will only encourage people to not write decent ones. That combined with the insane ammount of advertising it has, means it should never, ever be linked from any article, and especially not via a template.--
Sean Black(talk)00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete A user at one of the film articles I work on recently found it to be covered in ads, along with a heap of mistakes (characters names wrong etc) - apparently they are not peer reviewed. Anyway, the point is, it is not needed.
Cvene6404:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The encyclopedia is worse off for the availability of this template. And, for the record, except for userboxes, Cyde makes a lot of sense from my perspective. I
assume good faith in Nathan's comment. No telling what surprises people these days.--
Ssbohio02:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete -- editors can use this site to make a better plot summary in the article, but it doesn't retain any relevance as an external link—i.e. it doesnt add anything that can't be done in a Wikipedia article. Of course, this begs the question of if the site has more thourogh plot summaries that we generally reach by consensus, but to me this is outweighed by the massive amount of advertising on the site and the fact that their summaries are often of a low quality, often even wrong.
savidan(talk)(e@)04:11, 18 May 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.
Delete Userboxes like this interfere with Wikipedia's purpose, which is to create an encyclopedia, not a social networking page
Fnarf99914:57, 16 May 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.
Delete. There is already a userbox that notifies people of the fact that you are an administrator. No need to keep this poorly formatted one.
Jorcoga02:05, 16 May 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 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 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 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.
Though I don't really see it as necessary for two single-image templates that aren't being used, I don't mind this. Delete. As I understand it, it goes beyond fair use when the image appears in places where it's not being used for critical commentary or as a visual aid. On top of that, they weren't in use when I prodded them and the only places where they were included were in now-useless rating fields in {{Infobox Television}} templates. –
Someguy0830 (
Talk |
contribs)
05:37, 15 May 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 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.
Comment Where in the userspace should it be moved to and why? Nobody is using it. I am 100% opposed to mass deletion of userboxes, but in the case of ones that are completely useless (as evidenced by nobody using them), I see no harm in giving them a peaceful death.
BigDT18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
After deletion and Subst'ing, they will reside on User pages, where, if people want to cut/paste the code to their User pages, that's up to them. As for useless/not useless, that's fine with boxes like these that are obvious, but will be fought tooth and nail for "useful" boxes. Few user boxes are useful enough to be editing tools, and that's what template space is for. -
Nhprman18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio01:52, 20 May 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.
Strong keep, not hurting anyone (and this one isn't even an orphan). I've heard of it, too, actually, and I'm not sure why we don't have an article on it, considering
its Alexa ranking. --
Rory09618:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid13:56, 19 May 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.
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. In Template space, it's subject to community judgment (and thus, it is dumb.)
Nhprman18:04, 15 May 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 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.
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.--
Ssbohio02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep; there may be valid use for saying that one was impersonated by a vandal (i.e. to distinguish oneself from that vandal). --
AySz88^-^18:52, 21 May 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.
Delete - as far as I can tell, it is used by a single person to make a table. Why do you need a template to do that?
BigDT15:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
With apologies, accidental duplication... There are so many of these userbox deletions going around, I completely overlooked having already commented here. Thanks for the help.--
Ssbohio18:55, 21 May 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.
Delete Since nobody seems to be using it and the count has to be manually updated, which nobody is doing any more, delete it.
BigDT15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep, or if no choice subst. Also, this should become an actual userbox, instead of a taxbox (I think). Isn't there a tag like {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}? Because I know there is one for the number of users. FreddieAgainst Userbox Deletion?01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. I see no reason to delete this. It's like the angel template, and wikipedia would be a better place if more admins used this template.
Loom9106:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep Not obviously divisive or inflammatory. Also, I recoded it to actually look like a legitimate userbox. Lastly, 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.--
Ssbohio02:13, 20 May 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.
Comment. I created
Template:User adminstandardsb the other day. I guess that people interested in deleting this adminstandards template might be interested in also looking at the template I created and deciding if that one should be nominated for deletion too.
DarthVader14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - I was about to click "save page" on a "strong keep", but then I thought about something. This box could be seen as divisive. A better version might read, "this user thinks administrator standards could be improved". As it stands, it is rather confrontational and thus, even though it does directly relate to WP, I think it should be reexamined. Even if it does survive the TFD, the text probably should be changed to make it non-confrontational.
BigDT15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
If campaigning for a change of a WP policy were declared divisive, we could not have any policy debate. I assume that change of policy is what the author meant (according to our "please assume good faith" mantra).
Friendly Neighbour16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
You're right, of course ... HOWEVER ... it is one thing to write an essay on a policy debate about improving standards for administrators, making it easier to deop someone, etc. It's another thing to have a one-liner. By itself, the one-liner is barely above the level of an insult.
BigDT16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep- Its ok to think the standards are too low, and it is ridiculous that admins are trying to get this deleted. We will not be scilenced! Down with the admins! Down with the admins! No but seriously, this should be kept. --
GorillazFanAdam23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep per Mike and Friendly (although I disagree with Friendly w/r/to the template's being possibly true; I think standards for adminship are, in general, too high).
Joe04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep it has to do with someone's opinion on Wiki policy, what's the problem with that? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia after all.
Homestarmy13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This speaks directly to the administration of this encyclopedia, and by virtue of not being used in article space, complaints of being unencyclopedic don't seem well-founded. 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.--
Ssbohio02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle.
Mnerd05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep With lots of admins nominating userboxes for deletion, or deleting them before the discussion is over, I cant help beleive that this userbox is true. Either the standards are too low, or people become less law-abiding once they are admins -
• The Giant Puffin •13:17, 22 May 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 speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD.
Mackensen(talk)19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment The Template is used by almost 400 Wikipedians, including myself and I didn't find anything wrong with it or broken, until the message "The template User blogger has been proposed for deletion here" showed up screwed up the look of the box. --
roy<sac>
Talk! .oOo.
10:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
IMO 400 Wikipedians promote their blogs on their User Pages. It is not Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia promoting them. Almost all Wikipedians are people with a whole life outside Wikipedia and some like to share that part with their fellow Wikipedians. --
roy<sac>
Talk! .oOo.
10:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep for the same reason that we keep the userboxes that advertise the various for-profit web browsers that we use.--
M@rēino14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep indicative of skill type, skill level and intentions relative to interacting in an open community environment to inform the public. Editing, readibility, accountability, recognizing appropriate content, dealing with vandals, encouraging comments, understanding the relevance of subject matter, learning the value of providing verifiable sources, ... --
Paleorthid17:28, 15 May 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.
Umm... RE: above. This isn't a content for deletion page, its a template for deletion page. the consensus was to keep the template... that being said, this was only listed for about 10 hrs. and should not have been closed yet. I'd like the closing admin to relist and let TFD run its course, then not ignore the consensus.
Mike McGregor (Can)11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Agreed I've had the same concern with other userbox TfD's being closed out very rapidly, primarily involving one admin who has made fast work of his own & others' TfDs.--
Ssbohio02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
keep Seems to refer to the ability to understand the jargon associated with harldry. I fail to see how thats not relivent to an encylopedia. (which raises concerns about cyde's votes. It seemes he's just voting "Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template." to every userbox on this page without bothering to evaluate them... perhaps his votes on this page should be discounted by the closing admin...)
Mike McGregor (Can)12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy? Delete - please note that the picture of the box above is NOT what it actually looks like - that was the original box, which was quickly blanked. For most of the box's life, it has been blanked and really could probably be speedied as housekeeping or something with little effort to do anything else with it.
BigDT15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts, and is not in Template space.
Nhprman18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Heraldry, as a concept, is important to diverse areas of study such as
genealogy,
history,
political science, &
vexillology. This userbox is encyclopedic on its face. It would be up to those arguing against it to make the case that despite its bearing on the creation of this encyclopedia, it should still be removed. 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.--
Ssbohio02:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. I will put it on my page now, if it's a little inaccurate (I'd say I'm more like blz-3), but that's not important. And it IS encyclopedic; it could, theoretically at the very least, help find people who understand the complex jargon of heraldry.
Lockesdonkey20:43, 19 May 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.
keep Seems to refer to the ability to understand the jargon associated with harldry. I fail to see how thats not relivent to an encylopedia. (which raises concerns about cyde's votes. It seemes he's just voting "Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template." to every userbox on this page without bothering to evaluate them... perhaps his votes on this page should be discounted by the closing admin...)
Mike McGregor (Can)12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - just as the above box, this one was blanked not long after being created. Nobody uses it and it has been blank for most of its life with only one attempt to unblank. Speedy as housekeeping or something.
BigDT15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep In addition to the general grounds why this sort of thing should be discouraged (above), this a claim of special knowledge, the primary purpose of userpages. It should be kept as a transclusion; it is useful to know who has it, and it is not the mark of a faction (both sides in the Style Wars will claim it.)
Septentrionalis00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Merge - one userbox for the blazon ability should be enough. But it's handy to have someone who can decode heraldic descriptions. Just think of all the coat of arms and such. //
Liftarn13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Heraldry, as a concept, is important to diverse areas of study such as
genealogy,
history,
political science, &
vexillology. This userbox is encyclopedic on its face. It would be up to those arguing against it to make the case that despite its bearing on the creation of this encyclopedia, it should still be removed. 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.--
Ssbohio03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:06, 19 May 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.
Comment: As the creator of the template, I will not vote on this, but I will say that, although I don't particularly mind if it's deleted, it also doesn't seem to cause any harm by being there (granted, it's unused). Also, it is as [un]encyclopedic as any other template that ids a user by nationality ("this user if from country"). About any particular problem with size, colors, etc, anyone can
be bold and fix it, I believe.
Redux15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete - if it isn't being used and the creator doesn't mind its deletion, speedy delete it. Redux, thank you for your contribution and please don't be scared off by the user box wars - you are, of course, always welcome to display this logo on your own page or to create an actual userbox (similar to
Template:User_Brazil, but with the colors and text you are looking for). The only reason it is (probably) going to be deleted is that it isn't particularly useful as a template.
BigDT15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep In this case, it's hard to see harm in a Wikipedian's country of origin. THat said, the userbox is a mess & should be cleaned up. Overall, 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.--
Ssbohio03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep and <div style="float: left; border: solid #6ef7a7 1px; margin: 1px;">{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #c5fcdc;"| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #6ef7a7; text-align: center; font-size:14pt;"| [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|45 px]]="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a [[Wikipedia|Wikipedian]] in [[Brazil]]! (And loving it!|}</div>reformat. Now, now, FakeUser, it may not be a violation of NPOV, but just because you don't like it isn't a very valid reason for deletion!
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.
Keep This userbox may or may not be funny. Userspace is (mostly) in the eye of the user, and funny vs. unfunny isn't directly related to keep vs. delete. 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.--
Ssbohio03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:09, 19 May 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.
Keep, as these Syraic userboxes are very useful to protect the Syraic-themed articles, which are constantly at risk for POV edits. --
M@rēino14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep As has been said before, we are born into this world naked, screaming, & wet... & (I assert) having a POV. If a controversial political stance were all it took, then the article on
Taiwan could fall in the same category, as its existence as a seperate entity is a controversial issue. Having an identified POV can only help the editing process when compared with a hidden POV. 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.--
Ssbohio03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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. What? Are only noncontroversial political stances acceptable? Pfooie.
John Reid14:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep This is useful as showing where an editor stands; it is not likely to be controversial among most editors.--
Runcorn18:22, 27 May 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.
Wait. This could be useful as a way of saying "This user likes to edit these types of articles", so let's hold off for a month or so to see if people actually use this box.--
M@rēino14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - if nobody has started using it in the first three months of its existence, I see no reason to believe that will change.
BigDT16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep No harm, used or not, and more useful if left in & available. Also, 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.--
Ssbohio03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:11, 19 May 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.
Unless they are tools for helping us edit the encyclopedia, these templates ARE guilty of being in the wrong place. Moving it to user space saves them from deletions. Let's do it and move on.
Nhprman18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete - I see no reason to believe the user is a troll, but if it isn't being used at all, it doesn't need to be there.
BigDT16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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. Cleanup per Mareino would be appropriate.
John Reid14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete, unused and pointless. If this must be kept, at least change it to be more automated, e.g. "This user has failed RFA {{{number}}} times".
GarrettTalk00:07, 23 May 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.
Delete - I see no reason to believe the user is a troll, but if it isn't being used at all, it doesn't need to be there.
BigDT16:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:24, 20 May 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.
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. I get the joke if you don't.
John Reid14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:24, 20 May 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.
Pretty obvious really - just click on "links" above - or just go
here. Looks like a good 40 or so at first glance... including mine.
DJR (
Talk)
17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep and Reformat - it is widely used, so rather than delete it, just redesign it to conform with the generic standard.
DJR (
Talk)
17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Hi, David. The problem with a "keep" here is that most template may be deleted soon. By "Substituting" the text (ref. to by "Subst") and moving it to User space, you get to keep the box, and ensure that no one can ever delete it again. Consider supporting "Delete and Move" to user space, or "Delete and Subst" and see
WP:MACK for the proposal to save Userboxes from future deletions. Thanks!
Nhprman15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment If this is the prevailing sentiment, I would suggest merging the two templates and redirecting one to the other. User:Ceyockey (talk to me)
22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep It most certainly is used. If it doesn't fit the pattern perameters that can be adjusted easily. I was only a newbie when i made this template!
Pydos09:36, 23 May 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.
You know for a fact that this is a joke? I was just trying to assume good faith on what actually looks like a mistake of some kind.
Fake User17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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. BTW Aquarius is an astrological sign, not a programming language.
John Reid14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:27, 20 May 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.
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. "Keep" keeps it as a template, and it will simply come up again for deletion. -
Nhprman18:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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 Reid14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)reply
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.--
Ssbohio02:28, 20 May 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.