Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 13 May 15 >

May 14, 2006

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

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

Template:Wikibook

[edit]

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

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

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

Template:MLB infobox Braves

[edit]

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

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

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

Template:USCongressSessions

[edit]

This template was just a redirect to {{USCongressTerms}}. I see no reason to keep it now that I have fixed all pages that used this redirect to just use the real template name (USCongressTerms). --CapitalR 19:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Slut

[edit]
This user is a slut.

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

khan 21:56, 14 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User yiff

[edit]
This user loves yiff, and is probably a furry.

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

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

No vote here, but keep in mind Wikipedia is uncensored and contains no disclaimers other than whats on the disclaimer page. So, therefore, votes for it being offensive due to sexual connotations will probably be considered null and void, as I can think up of quite a few articles that would have to be deleted under those reasons. -TwilightPhoenix 21:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia ARTICLES are not censored, because they deal with adult themes. It's a misstatement of fact to imply there is unregulated free speech on Wikipedia. Policy says otherwise. See WP:NOT. Nhprman 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There seems to be a huge group of people trying to delete massive numbers of articles, categories, and templates, saying they're "unencyclopedic". Do i have to re-create the articles if they're deleted? becuase, i will do so. First off, LAY OFF THE NOMINATIONS. Ther are TOO many articles you people are trying to delete, most of them are USEFUL. if you don't like them, they're off wikipedia? What's even worse is that it's the ADMINS doing this! --User:Raccoon Fox 18:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, these aren't "articles" they are Templated Userboxes. Second, Userboxes are ONLY "unencyclopedic" if they reside in the Template space, where tools for creating articles are kept (that's the major reason people want them moved, not content.) If they are deleted from there, "substituted," and moved to userspace ("Delete and Subst"), they 1) remain on your user page - they don't disappear, 2) can NEVER be deleted through this process again and 3) will be available in a central location for EVERYONE to use however they see fit. This is the solution being offered at WP:MACK and it is better than the mass deletions we have now, which you and I both don't care for. Thanks. - Nhprman 15:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my vote and comment(s) below. Yes, as others are saying, I recommend that care be taken that this is not discrimination. ---Bersl2 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not hearing any relevant argument for deletion other than some people are uncomfortable with this harmless fetish. This userbox represents a sizable population of people who have no less of a right of self-identification than any other. Moreover, it does not violate any policy that insists on good faith relations between Wikipedians (i.e. it doesn't exemplify hatred, discrimination, or abuse). –Frater5 (talk/con) 17:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Frater5, disliking someone's orientation/fetish/lifestyle/perversion (the term depends on your feelings about it) doesn't mean it gets to be unilaterally wiped off the face of Wikipedia. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 23:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the userbox templates. Stop crusading. -MrFizyx 05:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 06:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[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 Reid 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Icarus3's reasoning for {{User Slut}}. --AySz88^-^ 18:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't delete other templates with sexual connotations because they're "offensive", besides WP:NOT Wikipedia is NOT censored, so it can contain offensive and objectional material. It seems to me that whoever nominated the template is just uncomfortable with people who have a fetish for yiff, yeah, and I'm uncomfortable with pedophiles and they are a lot more offensive as far as most people are concerned, we still have articles on pedophilia, and saying that you want to get rid of it because it is offensive is POV, which as far as I can recall is against WP policy. Beno1000 20:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the nominator has left wikipedia, does that mean this nomination for deletion is null and void? (My vote is still Keep on this one.) User:Raccoon Fox - Talk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

All userboxes below

[edit]

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

  • Delete all except Template:User all your base. In this case, most do seem fairly useless. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 18:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Suggestion While normally I would agree with that, I would suggest that in this case, there are differences in the userboxes. For example, some are harmless humor. Others are mean-spirited. Others describe users' sexual practices. I would suggest that if you want to vote en masse to keep, you look at each of the userboxes and make sure that there aren't some you believe should be destroyed. For example, Template:user hate is overtly inflammatory and ought to be speedied. I would imagine that even most ardent userbox supporters, myself included, would not want to vote to keep that one. Thus, I would suggest one thing: if you want to vote en masse, perhaps it would be a good idea to list with your vote the userboxes you are actually voting in favor of or against, eg, "delete everything but xxx" or "keep everything but xxx", etc. BigDT 18:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and userfy or moved to a separate namespace. Can someone stop listing the boxen? We've got close to 100 undergoing TfD right now...they're choking TfD.--Toffile 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all if the alternative is a kangaroo trial. Userboxes' fate should be discussed on merit, case by case. Friendly Neighbour 20:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/subst and delete. However, there's 2 new ones above. In future it is IMO a better idea to create the batch voting place once the day is over. Perhaps we could also create a special subpage of TfD especially for userboxes (like they did on WP:DRV->WP:UBD)? There's still hundreds to delete - this place can't handle it. Misza13 T C 21:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Too inflammatory userboxes, will create reverse and warring conflicts in the future for sure. Lincher 22:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all above and below - no reason to delete these. Please subst and userfy all deleted boxes. Thanks. --67.168.249.84 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst, and stop nominating userboxes for deletion. Userboxes don't divide us. Mass deleting them does, as it drives an unnecessary wedge into our Wikipedian lives. Crazyswordsman 00:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop nominating userboxes for deletion. See above.Hezzy 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most emphatically keep all. They do no harm and their removal would serve only to gratify a handful of killjoys. Would the serial nominator kindly stop it; it comes to a pretty pass when one has occasion to ask an administrator not to attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Ou tis 00:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep all except for a few exceptions. Read Wp:Ubx. Only to be used in the User namespace, never articles. Also don't disrupt Wikipedia, which Cyde seems to be doing. The Gerg 01:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment link is WP:UBX. ;-) --DavidHOzAu 03:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a complete mess. It seems as though each interested user and admin has his head up his backside, regardless of his stance on the issues. Wikipedians are writing text, but no communication is happening. No understanding anywhere. Anyway, I think that it is more prudent to keep userboxes as-is for the time being, since (as I see it) immediately deleting userboxes will cause significantly more long-term harm to Wikipedia than would keeping userboxes in the short term. Continuing to threaten the creations of those supporting userboxes---and thus the creators themselves---does not help resolve the problem in a way that I believe is very Wikipedian, but rather authoritarian. Is this really what any of us want? Do we really believe that use of power is the only or best way to resolve this? ---Bersl2 02:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep (except for the 3 closed discussions below as of this posting) (not withstanding any specific entries below) these nominations have become a WP:POINT issue, I'm trying to be on wikibreak, or I'd start up an RFC; additionally there is nothing wrong with any of these templates. — xaosflux Talk 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Keep Rename all userboxes to UserBox:XYZ or {{UserBox:XYZ}}, and only allow their non-subst inclusion on userpages. I'm all for deletion of abused userboxes that target articles for malicious edits, but there are ongoing polls/discussion on this.1 2 3 I however find it amusing that the deletion criteria "Unencylopedic" doesn't apply to user pages and yet still applies to user boxes that only appear on said user pages. Yes, templates should be encyclopedic, but the convention of {{User put-userbox-name-here}} suggests that all userboxes are (unofficially) not in "enyclopedia template space" to begin with, but are in "userbox template space". Perhaps this should be made official as per my suggestion in italics. With this in mind, the criteria of deletion most commonly cited at the moment appears to stem from a pedantic use of semantics. --DavidHOzAu 03:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep. Stop nominating/speedying userboxes. Keep even divisive and inflammatory ones. Loom91 07:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Please don't tell us what we should be doing and instead act more like an administratior. Thanks. --71.50.118.70 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Deleting these Userboxes and moving them to User space ensures that they will NOT be nominated for deletion again, and in fact SAVES them for users to enjoy as code. If users all support "Keep" - based on the mistaken notion taht they are supporting "their" favorite boxes - they will be subject to more and more deletion attempts, some of which will be successful. By moving them NOW, they will be available for people to use, and those who oppose them as templates (because they are not tools used for editing the Ency.) will be satisfied. - Nhprman 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re: Comment: There are likely a certain amount of infrastructural details that need to be discussed before a transition into userspace can happen; however, if userboxes continue to be threatened with deletion in the short term, how can this happen properly? Stop deleting, return to discussion, and work for a proper solution to the problem, for taking short-sighted action like this here solves nothing; the demand for userboxes is not going to magically disappear by deleting them. ---Bersl2 20:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the discussion. And actually, Subst'ing them onto User pages - which preserves them in the form they currenty exist - is instantaneous and requires no long discussions over technical issues. If they are Subst'd at the same time they are deleted from Template space, then your concerns are unwarranted, and the nominators have already said they will Subst them if the consensus is to delete them from Template space. The demand for userboxes is not the issue. They will be SAVED if they go into User space. They are subject to these subjective deletion attempts over and over again if they remain here. The choice seems pretty clear. Nhprman 15:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst them where? How will we find them all again? You do realize that we want to be able to continue to list them as we do now. Just subst-ing them onto our user pages doesn't help us to do that. Also, when I said "discussion", I meant discussion about all userboxes, not individual ones. ---Bersl2 21:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is currently a place where all users got their user boxes. That seems a logical central location for them, and it's been suggested that the code be placed there. (someone on WP:MACK has a suggestion on how they can be displayed.) Nhprman 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. I'll remind users that this isn't a free speech issue; even if it was, there's no right to free speech on Wikipedia. Persistent refusal to grasp this will only make things worse. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (If deleted Subst, which the nominations do not envisage.) This is a proposal for petty officiousness, which is contrary to Jimbo's advice to relax a little; and is undesirable for any project relying upon volunteer labor. This is not a free speech issue, but how exactly do any of these deletions help to build the encyclopedia? Septentrionalis 00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okkay, so I'm new around here, but I completely fail to see what these hurt. There have to be much bigger problems with Wikipedia than letting users decorate their pages with snippets of code. Further, keeping them all in one place and allowing them to be easily reused is probably a bigger savings than having them in N users' pages as the actual code they represent. Jay Maynard 01:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Welcome! There's a long history of abuse with these boxes, only because of where they reside on the server (a place called "Template space".) Suffice it to say that by deleting them from the Template space, and "Substituting" the text, they remain on your User page, they can no longer be challenged for deletion like this, and they will be available for others to use. Please see WP:MACK for the full proposal, and consider changing your support to "Delete and Subst". Thanks! - Nhprman 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Jmaynard said, there are much bigger problems on WP than this. Theres hundred of different categories with back logs, thousands of stubs that need both extending and categorising, and general vandalism that is always a problem. Maybe admins should put their effort into sorting out those problems? Also, most of these templates are not offensive, are not inflamatory and are not devisive. If you see a little rectangled box saying a quote from Men In Black or "this user is awesome" or "this user is a n00b" and are offended, you seriously need help. How can people be offended by this sort of thing? Many of these userboxes are ones that say "this user is..." and yet, somehow, people are offended even though the only criticism is towards the user displaying the userbox! This sort of thing really makes me wonder - if people are like this, does humanity really have a chance? I know people say "you can never rely on the public", but this takes it to a new level - • The Giant Puffin • 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Wait for WP:MACK, User:Misza13/Userbox Gallery Poll, or Wikipedia:Userbox policy to be accepted as policy. That's a keep all for now. There's no hurry, and it's a lot easier to delete than to undelete. Also, I doubt anybody is seriously alienated by leaving the boxes for a while, but many are alienated by deleting them. TheJabberwʘck 20:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stop the unnecessary crusade against userboxes. Yes, I'm talking to you. — Nathan (Got something to say? Say it.) 01:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random Comment (Not in response to anyone's posting) I don't think Userboxes "hurt" anyone. Most are harmless. That's not the point, though perhaps putting them up for deletion by the dozen skews that point, or at least obscures it. Fact is, if they remain in the Template space, some people are going to continue deleting them - fairly or unfairly - and some users will continue to stubbornly defend them from deletion - even the ones that should be deleted under current or future Template space deletion criteria (T1/T2, etc.) Wikipedia is supposed to be something MORE than this idiotic battling. The best solution is to find a home for the code in the User space (or some other non-template space, whatever) and have users cut/paste that code onto their pages, edit them as they wish, and enjoy them to their hearts' content - without fear of having them deleted. What's wrong with that? I think some users just like to argue about things and LOVE this "process" debate, while some others are willfully twisting the facts or ignoring the simple solution in front of us (WP:MACK) because they enjoy conflict. Whatever the case, it's VERY tiresome, and not worth our time here. - Nhprman 04:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Strong Speedy Keep And enough of the POV pushing. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 11:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per obvious reasons. And whoever keeps abusing their admin powers and deleting my comments, knock it off. --Pilot|guy 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[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. Until we reach COnsensus on userboxes, I'm asking those who are proposing these deletions wholesale to please hang back, take a break, and respect the process in its ability to bring us to consensus.--Ssbohio 23:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[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 Keep per landslide consensus below, this templte is also useful for expanding AYBABTU related articles by using "What links here" to find others interested in the subject. — xaosflux Talk 22:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user all your base

[edit]
All your base are belong to this user.

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

  • YES! There is room - in the User space. All Delete does is delete it from the Template space to the User space, where this box can thrive and survive. If "Keep" is the consensus, then they are kept in Template space, where they will be subject to deletion over and over again. I hope people reconsider their positions here. Nhprman 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it fair to interpret these "keep" votes as "subst" votes, as they're all voting on the content and not the namespace. Mackensen (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - as I said on the DRV for the sums of PI userboxes, I, unambiguously, mean keep as in keep the template itself. Considering that Cyde said, "Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage" at the very top of this TFD, I would assume that many or most of the other people voting Keep meant that as well. BigDT 21:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, again, it's not a vote. Just saying "Keep as a template" doesn't mean anything. Do you have any legitimate reasons why this unencyclopedic box of words needs to be a template? --Cyde Weys 21:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Infamous line and has its own article. May indicate the user is familiar with Zero Wings and therefore can be relied upon to aid with Zero Wing related articles. Also, templates make life easier for everyone. -TwilightPhoenix 21:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massivly strong keep its notable, funny, and useful. absolutly no reason to delete
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Template:User toothpaste

[edit]
' .
-		This user is too tired to go to the grocery
(looks like toothpaste for dinner again...)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user untrustworthy

[edit]
Template:User untrustworthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

  • The deletion is not an attack on its content, it's a proposal to move it to user space, where it can be safe from further attempts to delete it from Wikipedia. Please see WP:MACK for the full proposal. Thanks! Nhprman 15:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User n00b

[edit]
n00bThis user is a n00b.
Template:User n00b (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

  • As Cyde noted, this isn't about taking them off user pages. If you want it KEPT, support DELETE and delete this from the Template space, while KEEPING it as code in the User space. Nhprman 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 17:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MiB

[edit]
A person is smart; people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it!

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Sarcasm

[edit]
SARCThis user believes sarcasm is the highest form of wit.

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 Deleted as T1. --Cyde Weys 02:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user hate

[edit]
{{user hate}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ego

[edit]
egoThis user is a deluded egomaniac.

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user cool

[edit]
This user is cooler than you.

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Remember, you are voicing your opinion on whether this needs to be a template rather than code on a userpage. --Cyde Weys 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User awesome

[edit]
awesomeThis user is totally awesome!
Template:User awesome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

  • If this and other Userboxes are kept in Template space, they risk permanent deletion. If they are deleted from Template space and moved to User space, then they CANNOT be deleted, and will remain available for others to use (whether they are popular or not.) I understand this is a technical change, and confusing. Please read the proposal here: WP:MACK and re-consider your support. Thanks - Nhprman 15:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep "this userbox has the obvious potential to be such" - huh? Obvious potential? How did you reach the conclusion? Saying you are awesome can offend someone else? How? They get jealous? Come on! Oh sorry, I might have offended someone by using that exclamation mark! Oops, there it is again... - • The Giant Puffin • 19:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User drag queen

[edit]
This user identifies as a drag queen.

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

Template:Skeep

[edit]

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

I don't think that was vandalism, so much as it was a test/misplaced comment from a new user. --W.marsh 01:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this version of it. From what I could see, there had been a different version out there earlier, with an icon, like this: Keep.
    A bunch of people used it in AfD discussions, and then it got removed, leaving a whole bunch of votes that now showed redlinked as Template:Skeep. I thought it would be useful to at least have something in that template, so I filled it with Keep. I figured it would be easier than going through a whole lot of AfDs and cleaning out the uses of it. I did the same thing for templates Scomment, Smerge and Sdelete, so if you want to remove this one, bundle in the rest. - Fan1967 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Here's where the earlier versions came from, though I don't know who deleted them [1]. Fan1967 01:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[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 deleted --Cyde Weys 03:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nohumor

[edit]
{{User nohumor}}

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

Was created by Russoc4 for the sole purpose of vandalising my userpage.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_14&oldid=1084290664"