Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 25

< April 24	April 26 >

April 25, 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 delete Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dual image edit

Used on two pages - very specific, no need to be a template. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ed g2s • talk 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SCHZMO ✍ 12:19, 29 April 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 Circeus 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UC taxobox edit

Delete as Nom. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My thanks to whomever fixed the nomination. I don't do much TFD/AFD work. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listed (university undergraduate was listed twice) --William Allen Simpson 22:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Colon el Tom 22:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Ahasuerus 22:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Andy123(talk) 10:54, 27 April 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 I know I'm getting in sticky there, but look at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics. I don't see a reason to single these two. Feel free the nominate the whole batch,though. Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User N-K edit

Template:User N-K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
template should be deleted due to conflict tension between Azeri and Armenians. If Chechnya deletion is applicable, then to avoid bias, Karabakh should be removed. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Delete as Nom. Noxchi Borz 20:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I should stress it is currentely used by nobody as all of the Armenian users who put that userbox use code. So real reason is we have wasted template that is not linked to anything. That I think should not even be considered vote and be listed as a speedy deletion candidate, but if you insist so shall I. --Kuban Cossack 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please dont use that game here. That user box is in section of Separatists templates in the regions section of user boxes. It has similar make up as Chechnya. Thats what i mean about your bias POV. Chechnya does not suit you due to your nationality. But karabakh is a different case? Please have some dignity. Noxchi Borz 20:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have dignity, unlike some of the comments you have put on the talk page of the template below. --Kuban Cossack

21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

like which ones mr Kazak? Noxchi Borz 21:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist:

When I told about previous votes I got:Which vote? vote among the Russian nationalists?
Then comes even more cunning comment:No Russian admins or people of Russian background voting will count as valid.
Russian POV will not be tolorated! But it seems yours shall be.
Need I go continue? --Kuban Cossack 21:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated that many things might not suit you but they should exist on Wiki. I guess a person who has participate din this shameful war can not understand that. Many innocent people were killed and mostly due to Russian imperialist policy. You found easy way out from this conflict. To kill every Chechen. In your case, i cant even talk about dignity. Its something else. Farewell Mr Kazak.Noxchi Borz 21:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I was told not to feed the trolls, I will say I take no shame in Restoring Russian territorial integrity and avenging 250,000 Russians that were forced to leave, beaten or killed by the terrorists. I pride in that. --Kuban Cossack

21:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete -- recent creation, probably speedy delete T1 --William Allen Simpson 21:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Domthedude001 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except you are not the nom, unless there is sockpuppetry going on. And why in that case do you show a double standard for Chehcnya.--Kuban Cossack 21:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"as per" means "for the same reasons as" in this context. ed g2s • talk 00:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. TheJabberwʘck 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don’t think Wikipedia should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No divisive and hate templates. --Tabib 11:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (My reasons for supporting this deletion nomination are adequately expressed by the nominator.) Colon el Tom 14:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is inflammatory stuff... abdulnr 15:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]
Delete. I totally agree with the nominator. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 09:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No separatist, division and hate templates Karabakh 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Karabakh[reply]
Keep You get rid of it, you keep it, either way it will come up in one form or another. I don't have much time right now, but soon I will be back, and a lot of this crap that I'm seeing will have to fight for its life.--Moosh88 00:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And you will only succeed in getting yourself blocked. Save yourself the trouble. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 03:28 UTC
Speedy Keep. Nope, nothing wrong with this. Find something more productive to do. --Dragon695 21:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am disturbed to see that most of the delete votes are coming from Russians and Azeris. Please do not turn TfD into an ethnic feud. —Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 30 April 2006 @ 03:28 UTC
Keep What's amusing is that most of the people who voted for "Delete" would go nuts if the "Turkish Cypriot independence/recognition" userbox was nominated for deletion. Ah well. Hakob 11:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have much of an opinion on this specific userbox, so I won't vote, but I think the whole removal of userboxes is stupid. It just makes it more cumbersome for people, as they will have to manually show their opinion instead. --DarkPhoenix 13:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - If this is deleted then perhaps the Template:User independent Kurdistan should also be deleted?! -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 13:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put it forward then, I believe that all separatist hate provoking templates should go.--Kuban Cossack 13:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete along with all separatist Userboxes, whether their cause is right or wrong (which, of course, is not relevent to creating an encyclopedia.) Wikipedia is not the place for political, ethnic or national feuds. The fact that anti-separatists may be 'voting' against this template is irrelevant, but it does illustrate that this template does encourages social networking, which is not the role of Wikipedia, according to its policies. Nhprman 17:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. See my comments on User Independent Chechnya. (the following quoted from what i said on user independent chechnya debate below, then reworded to N-K) This isn't for articles. mabye you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent Nagorno-Karabakh" userbox if you feel so inclined.--preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 06:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are being stored in the Template space, making them a community issue. If they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we will know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. But if you want to give people an excuse to not trust you, or to second-guess your edits, by all means, tell people to question your judgement. I would simply suggest that it's not a good idea - Nhprman 17:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Karabakh", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Azerbaijanis should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to opinion, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "divisive & inflammatory". MaxSem 15:02, 2 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 I know I'm getting in sticky there, but look at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Regional Politics. I don't see a reason to single these two. Feel free the nominate the whole batch, though. Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User independent Chechnya edit

Delete as Nom. --Kuban Cossack 19:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please maintain the NOPV. There are great amount of people who support Chechen independence. So far, the deletion was made by Russians, therefore pro Russian POV. Please respect the guidelines of Wiki on NPOV. The independence issue of Chechnya is relevant in separatist section. If there are template on Karabakh independence than dont be biased on Chechnya. --Noxchi Borz

19:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which "Russians" deleted the page in the past? User:Kelly Martin? Please have decency not to mislead others, if you are unable to prove your allegations. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 05:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh is irrelevant, but if it comes up I will support its deletion. Make a personalised user box if you have to. As for all Russians being nationalists, watch WP:NPA. --Kuban Cossack

19:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why will you support deletion of karabakh? dont you find it biased due to your Russian origins and that you have participate din war in Chechnya? How about creation of Abkhazia box will you support its deletion? Noxchi Borz 19:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will never create Abkhazia box nor South Osetia, nor Transdniester, nor Crimea, nor Kosovo, nor Palestine nor any other POV box because that is a pure source of conflict. On the contrary I will support their deletion if they are created. I do not like this double standard of NPOV you trying to pursue. I mean you might as well create a UserNazi template in that case.--Kuban Cossack

19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are correct about double standard for NPOV in Wiki. Whast your stand on Abkhazia, S Ossetia Kosovo? Ill tell you after why i ask you this. Noxchi Borz 19:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal thoughts that I keep for myself, that are not part of my wikipedian status in any shape or form. I'll just say that I have not created any templates that have those places and do not intend and will not create them, for reasons explained above, and will support their deletion should the question arise. --Kuban Cossack

19:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noxchi Borz 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete --Eupator 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eupator, Karabakh is next Noxchi Borz 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen, i'm using code on my page and not a template :) --Eupator 20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are the best Armenian, well thats what you think. Noxchi Borz 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the one hand, the primary purpose of userboxes is to "alert other Wikipedians to ways you might aid them in editing" as per WP:Userboxes. Userboxes that state that "this user supports XYZ" do not help with editing, but rather serve as soapboxes, something that WP policies explicitly forbid. To quote Jimbo Wales, "userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian". On the other hand, there is a ton of "regional politics" userboxes at [1] and almost all of them go against these guidelines. If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future. Ahasuerus 19:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support your proposal, and this template is good place to start it off with. --Kuban Cossack 20:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. And not because I am Russian. I'd vote the same way if I saw "This user supports independent Texas". KNewman 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newman. There are tons of user boxes which claim the support for Karabakh independence, basque, catalonian, tibetan. Why dont you delete them? So you are biased in Chechnya case? Noxchi Borz 20:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just show me where to vote. KNewman 06:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when Chinese or Spanish colleagues will put up the notices here, I will support them. As per Ahasuerus's comment above. --Kuban Cossack

20:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mr Kazak, than first vote and delete those "politically incorect" user bosex before Chechnya. You case is obvious, you are Russian and biased in the terms of Chechnya. Mr Ahasuerus should start deliting Karabakh, Tibet, Basque, etc. Lets see how active you will be. Im sure you are only active in Chwechnya case. Noxchi Borz 20:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an author of several artciles I find much more time well spent writing new articles rather than voting for deletions, and purifying wikipedia from POV from articles that are not related to me or the ones I write is not my priority. That I leave to the administrators, which I am not and do not intend to become. Should a colleague notify me and ask for my opinion on the matter I shall certainly participate and support the deletion of the template in question, and if the case of templates like the ones you named above arises, I will certainly support their deletion. --Kuban Cossack

20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p.s Chechnya is not Texas Numan. US did not wage genocide of local population and bombed Huston to the ground (looking like berlin of 1945). Noxchi Borz 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only Genocide in Southern Russian state of Chechnya was committed against the local Russian and Cossack population by savage Chechen beasts.--Eupator 20:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that IS a POV. --Kuban Cossack

20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes its typical POV. As defender of genocide victims, maybe you should mention Khojaly massacre eh Armenian? I think you will find true beast and savage animals there.Noxchi Borz 20:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I condone the slaughter of Azeri civillians by Azeri soldiers. --Eupator 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ldingley, or Borz whoever you are, this is your job, that is EXACTLY why such templates and images like these are a timebomb for conflicts (now that you got yourself into one, enjoy it, it was what you wanted to have respectible wikipedians loose their temper, I am not going to pacify you), which is EXACTLY why I think Ahasuerus is right about their total purge from wikipedia. --Kuban Cossack

20:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for loosing temper mr kazak or whoever you are. If you condemn one template this must apply for all. You have typical POV which is against Chechnya and her independence. I do agree with Mr Ahasuerus but you are only demanding the deletion of one particular template which does not suit you. This is not what Wiki is about. This site was not created to suit you or Russian imperialism. Im Sorry. Noxchi Borz 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah nice joke. But i dont think its funny. Armenian. Noxchi Borz 20:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not because I support Chechnya's independence, but for the sake of compromise. A simple concept of freedom of expresion of thought, no? Kober 20:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case why not create This user is a nazi or white-power templates? Seriously a line has to be drawn what can go into wiki or not. Like I said above we either allow xenophobic templates like this user is a russophobe/anti-semite etc.etc. or we do not allow any. I personally do care about the quality of wikipedia as a reference source and would hate to think what would happen if such templates originate.--Kuban Cossack

20:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

belive it or not i agree with you Kazak :) Hey can i vote twice ? :) Joke. I will nominate karabakh next. Noxchi Borz 20:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Eupator stated, the userbox for Karabakh is code and not a template. Of course, you'd love it if the Karabakh independence userboxes were removed from every user's page, but it's not going to happen. Hakob 23:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The desire for independence does not have anything with hate or xenophobia. Of course there might be xenophobic Chechens like xenophobic Russians/Poles/Americans etc., but independence is not xenophobic per se like Romanov's Flag is not xenophobic per se. It is not neutral allowing symbols of independence for some unrecognized entities and denying for others. Jasra 20:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Noxchi Borz 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and this flag was official and RECOGNISED in its history. Moreover I coded all of my userboxes and did not use tempaltes. So your analogy is totaly wrong. Although I understand the angle you are coming from and is so far has been the most sensible I have heard during this campaign. --Kuban Cossack

21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Russian nationalist POV. From what i have seen in your user box, there are tons of indications of this.

Keep as per above. --Domthedude001 21:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do expain why you voted against for Nagorno-Karabakh.--Kuban Cossack

21:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- has been speedy deleted several times in the past two months, good thing to have the debate recorded here. --William Allen Simpson 21:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete T1. ed g2s • talk 00:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have Tibet, Kurdistan, and Assyria independence templates, what's wrong with Chechnya? —Khoikhoi 01:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry to have to vote this way, since I think it's unduly stifling free speech, but this does violate T1. Noxchi Borz, I sympathize with you, but there's not much you or I can do. TheJabberwʘck 04:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This divisive and useless template has generated tons of hate talk already and was deleted twice. How does it help one to improve the quality of Wikipedia, I'd like to know. This voting is a waste of time. With or without the vote, it will be deleted as per Jimbo's ruling on divisive hate-templates. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 05:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or replace with "User supports partitioning of Russia", but seriously, I don't mind if it stays. Speaks much of users, who post such divisive stuff at their talk. The easier it would be for others to make up their minds about such fellows. See [2] and [3] for more. --Irpen 05:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don’t think Wikipedia should endorse a support of separatist movements. Grandmaster 10:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't support dismemberment or partitioning of Russia yet I do not support occupation of Chechnya either. //Halibu tt 11:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case I can make templates Free Bialystok, Free eastern Pomerania whose occupation I do not support. --Kuban Cossack

12:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template neither promotes cooperative editing, nor assists the community-building. Fully agree with Ahasuerus on this. I would vote to delete any similar template.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahasuerus and Ezhiki, if we have a policy against divisive templates, then we should follow it abakharev 13:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as divisive and non-productive. Ëzhiki summed it up well. Colon el Tom
Delete per nom. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 14:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete abdulnr 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is a encycolpedia and should not endorse separatist movements. Baku87 17:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Baku87[reply]
Slippery slope Keep I dont have an opinon about this issue, but its a major slipperly slope between endorising whether the XBOX is better htan the gamecube, and this issue. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question to those who want to delete and give the arguments about the lack of encyclopedic values or causing division? Would you like to delete all the unity/separatist movements templates or just this one or a few selected. If just this one - give the argument why this one promotes more hate than for example the one advocating for Srpska Krajina or N-K? If all the category - you should propose voting for the deletion of all the category and not just this template. Removing a selected template from the category violates the policy of NPoV. Jasra 20:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. If Chechnya is deleted, the whole section of separatist templates should be removed. N-K is headed for deletion, Srpska Krajina and the rest will follow if NPOV is respected. Noxchi Borz 20:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's why I wrote:

If we start tackling these userboxes one at a time, the process will likely deteriorate into an endless flamewar. It would be better by far to delete the whole category and put a policy in place to govern POV userboxes in the future.

above. Regional politics in particular is full of advocacy userboxes, but other types of userboxes can easily get out of hand as well. At some point there will have to be a single policy in place or else there will be no end to "my advocacy is more valid than your advocacy" disputes like this one. There are also technical problems with userboxes vs. "code" vs. Transclusion. The last straw poll on the subject was inconclusive, so all we have to fall back on is Jimbo's quote above and the statement that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for political campaigning, and userboxes created or used for this purpose may be deleted. For the sake of consistency, I would recommend deleting all "This user supports political campaign" userboxes at the same time as opposed to spending hundreds of manhours on debating them on a case by case basis. Ahasuerus 21:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly endorse this sensible, reasonable approach. Unfortunately, Jimbo himself refuses to take the action necessary to give some substance to his nice words and make this happen, and several thousand users endlessly debating this will never find true consensus on this issue. I don't know the solution to this problem other than action by Jimbo. Nhprman 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Yakudza 21:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per users Kuban Cossack and Ahasuerus. --Illythr 22:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, other secessionist movement boxes also exist. --James 05:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete of this quite bothersome and nationalist userbox. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 09:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete divisive -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 01:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No separatist, division and hate templates Karabakh 08:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Karabakh[reply]
Very Strong Delete - Delete all separatist, political and divisive templates like this one. The Wikipedia project is not meant to be a political or social soapbox, and this is not the place to argue the pro or con of every nationalist/separatist cause. Nhprman 13:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: CSD T1. If we keep it, that would mean that other userboxes such as {{User IRA}}, {{User ETA}} & {{User Al-Quaeda}} have a right to exist. MaxSem 11:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per James. --Dragon695 21:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, this is not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 02:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. it's a userbox. if we want NPOV on articles, POV being stated on userpages of involved editors is a useful thing. besides, userboxes are for User Pages, not articles. if people use them, ther existence is not negative. if you don't like what a userbox says, Don't put it on your userpage. it's not right that anyone with any conterversial belief or belief that isn't accepted by everyone can't have a userbox. if we let this go, we might as well delete every userbox that shows any sign of being a unique individual? why don't we just abolish userpages all together? why don't we replace our usernames with randomly assigned numbers? Viva La Userboxen! --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 04:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above if we have one template, we have many other hate-provoking ones. Although this is a free encyclopedia, it should also be a credible one, not a mess. Do you forcast wiki's reputation when swastikas begin appearing on user pages? Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. --Kuban Cossack

10:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only hate promotion on Wiki is your Russian fascist flag which you have besides your name. Maybe you can fool some people here but not me. Don’t be hypocrite and blame others for things which apply to you. Russian fascism is one of the most dangerous ideologies for civilized world. Pay attention to recent events and systematic murder of non-Russian people in Moscow. Today Russian Neo-nazis (in these days a very popular movement in Russia) rallied again and actually waved those flags which you use here. I guess some users like you can also use flag of the Third Reich (it was also an official flag of Germany in 1940s). This whole situation is a shame and complete waste of time. There should no compromise what so ever for fascism and ultra-nationalism anywhere. Russo Fascisto No Pasaran! Noxchi Borz 14:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are reminded not to feed the trolls.

--Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw all of my familly fought against the Nazi invaders (and their Chechen collaborators) so I shall not even comment on that trollish bulls..t. As for the flag that was the historical flag of the Russian Empire. --Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Even if people are nazis, even if they are fascist, if this is what people believe than they have a right to put them on thier userboxes. that's what free speech is. in democratic society people have a right to be racist and to resort to bigotry. that doesn't mean that they are right, but free speech is what makes freedom freedom! that you can say anything you want and not be subject to a McCarthyist intimidation. that'ss what tolerance is! that people can have different beliefs, even if they're wrong, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others, have a right to have a unique opinion. i'm not promoting hate, i'm promoting free speech. and "seperatist" does not mean hate. even if it sometimes leads to that, they are not synonomous. it is not ethically wrong, you are not committing thoughtcrime to think that the chechyens can have thier own country. whether they ever do, that's not the point.--preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free speech is allowed, but think of the quality of wikipedia as a good reference source when people begin using templates such as those above. --Kuban Cossack

22:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't for articles. maybe you don't understand. any template that begins with "User" is a userbox. it will go on user pages and userpage subdomains, not articles and article talk pages, and they're useful for letting people get to know each other and to make public any bias that an editor may have. if an editor puts this on thier userpage because they really support chechnya, it is a good thing that it is there because we know thier bias. this template should be kept, because it helps editing and NPOV, not that simply having it here is an official stance of wikipedia. feel free to make a "does not support an independent chechnya" userbox if you feel so inclined. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are being stored in the Template space, even if the templates are displayed on user pages. They are therefore a community issue. However, if they were purely text (or "Subst'ed") on Userpages, then they would not be an issue for the community. As for the "known biases" argument, we know biases from a users' edits. Announcing them on a userpage is not necessary. As for your call to create opposing Userboxes, you illustrate the reason why these boxes are divisive and inflammatory. Wikipedia is not the place for political debates and ethnic feuds. - Nhprman 17:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any userbox can be divisive. We can either accept this fact and agree that not everyone will be happy or remove all the userboxes (at least all the political ones). Kuban Kazak said: Swastika you say might be over the top, but who decides what is over the top and what is not? I say draw a full line under all of the templates. - in this case your Tsarist flag can also be divisive and you keep it. I received no answer why THIS PARTICULAR template is more devisive than any other of a political character. Quite a few people voted for deletion admitting that they are any templates showing political stands. However if just this one template is removed and the other will stay - this will cause the situation when one PoV is put above the other. I would suggest these people reconsider their vote, unless they have some arguments that this particular template is worse than any other of political orientation (so far I didn't see any arguments given). Proposal for deleting the whole "political" category is more rational, and I can see arguments both for and against, but it should be a separate voting. Jasra 19:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if an editor is acting NPOV, then you shouldn't be able to tell by thier edits. and honestly, if this is a legitimate stance that someone has, i'm not seeing how they can be labeled as "racist" or "hate groups" because of the desire for independence for a group or reigion. yes, it's a cntreversial issue, but that doesn't mean we can't have userboxes that go one way or the other on these. if someone says that they "support an independent Chechnya", that's a valid opinion; right, wrong or otherwise. if it's more of a "the Russians should be killed because of this", that's when it becomes hate, but that's not what is happening here. just because a lot of people disagree with a contreversial viewpoint does not mean that it should be axed. Stating Opinion does not equal hate. people have a right to free speech, on both sides, and there is no reson why this should be deleted. if people are offended by this userbox, don't put it on your userpage. there is nothing wrong with adressing a contreversial opinion as long as it is done in a tolerant way, and the way this userbox is worded is not a means of provoking anyone, it is a mere stating of opinion. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Cossack, if your entire family did help fight against the nazis and chechyns, respectable as that may be, i'm not seeing how there's any way you can remain neutral about this and wanting to see it deleted for reasons other than your own opinion. you have a right to stating your opinion, and so do they. the point of userbox deletion is to get rid of unapplicable and unneecessesary ones, and ones that specifically refer to hate, not to find more people who have one opinion than the other and delete userboxes solely on the fact that it's a contreversial topic that has a clear minority that doesn't have the numbers to defend itself. you say that "wikipedia is not a soapbox" but the very reason you are trying to delete it is because of your own POV on the topic. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a minority group. Chechnya is an integral part of Russia which is recognised by all governments and the United Nations. Those who support its independence thus support the breakup of Russia with no respect for its territorial integrity or the international community. Btw the Beslan and Moscow Theatre terrorists came under that flag that the template uses. Finally there not all Chechens are anti-Russian, quite the opposite Ramzan Kadyrov for instance, and how many Chechens right now are living in Moscow and making excellent careers there? The template is also insulting to Chechens as well due to naive users who choose to put it. The reason for its deletion is that it has no use. Finally I shall repeat myself that wikipedia is a reference source and I do not want its credibility doubted because some editors choose to show off themselves as such. Finally if a template User supports al-queda arises or independence of Afghanistan with the Taliban flag. How do you expect people, particualary relatives of those that the Chechen and Al-queda terrorists killed will value wikipedia? Free speach is not an alibi to degenerate wikipedia into a nationalist propaganda machine. --Kuban Cossack

20:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, that is your opinion. you are entitled to your opinion. it is completly fine for you to have that opinion, and you can support it all you want, you are entitleed to free speech. but other people have other opinions and they are also entitled to free speech. if someone has a significant opinion it is not beyond thier rights to have a userbox. A userbox does not represent the views of wikipedia as a whole. a usserbox represents the views of anyone who uses the userbox, and if other people decide to use it that is thier right. having a userbox does not support division and conteversy. it is merely an act of free speech. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 21:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this free speach not only goes against wikiettiquette but is extreamely offensive for some. That is the issue. Should wiki be allowed to have such anger generating images. Userpages or articles is irrelevant as user pages are still part of wikipedia. User pages are subject to fairuse image restrictions, so they should be equally censored from hate provoking templates. --Kuban Cossack

23:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, essentially what you are saying is "Free speech only applies if you agree with me, because we're right and they're wrong." that's not the point! they may very well be wrong, but they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way. and this is not. the mere stating for a desire of independence is simply stating belief, not an attempt to offend. also, if it's the flag you're trying to remove, then that doesn't involve deletion of the entire userbox, just a substitution of the flag, and this isn't the place for that debate. as it has already been said before, the flag on your sig offends some, but you don't seem compelled to remove it to make sure nobody gets offended. --preschooler @heart my talk - contribs 00:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they have every right to state what they believe in a non-provoking way And this template does exactly that. It provokes users towards immediate disrespect. When a user states Free Palestine on his box how do you think a Jewish person (particulary someone who lost a relative from a suicide bomb attack) would react to an article seeing written by that person. Of course he will think it is biased, and already a little template provokes hate and anger. That is the issue here. Wikipedia is not for political debates. Templates that spark friction should not exist. The user can code the template if he wants to, but doing that he is saying that I am not using wikipedian tools and doing so on my free accord. And yes free speach is a important provided its not abused. This template is insulting in its manner and nothing more. I find it offensive, and what you are saying just because some people find it offensive and others don't its alright. So since when have everybody who voted against become second sort users, where wikipedia sanctions others to use such offensive templates by providing them. That way you are saying its alright for someone to feel offended and nothing should be done about it. That is the issue. And I will, if need to, take this to the arbitration committee. --Kuban Cossack

00:28, 3 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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Weasel-inline edit

Template:Weasel-inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
An inline template for what one user defines as weasel words is inherently disruptive. This was not requested, there was non consensus to add, and there is no need for it. Irishpunktom\^talk 14:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as nom - Irishpunktom\^talk 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This tag has been introduced in order to signal weasel wording without disrupting the article layout, of which imho there certainly is a need. An additional advantage is that the tag points directly to the problem phrase. --Unweasel 14:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But, disrupting the article layout is exactly what it does! --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As do all tags. Please compare: Template:Weasel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Weal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Now, which is the most disruptive? I think, it is the WEASEL tag. I will shorten the tag in order to address some of your concerns. --Unweasel 14:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The top one does not go after every instance of what an editor decides is a "weasel word", rather it flags that they exist and suggests that the problem be dealt with on the talk page--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if something has weasel words it should just be removed. But the reasons for delete are flawed, see {{citeneeded}}, one of my favorite templates to use! -- Ned Scott 14:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this will be useful for helping improve articles by pinpointing what weasel words are. It will hopefully also lead to people noticing what they are and using them less. -- Jeff3000 14:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I disagree with the nominator about there not being a need for this one. Instead of the other template, which generally points out that an article contains weasel words, this template can be used to point out the exact location of these words. So, I'd say it's a good compliment to the weasel template. --DarkPhoenix 15:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful, beneficial, and i think more poeople need ot use this --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very handy tool, as it allows you to more specifically mark which statement is being referred to as having weasel language in it, rather than disrupting the page (and putting off the reader) with the whole Weasel banner and template for a problem with only one or two statements. --Jibran1 20:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, delete {{weasel}} -- and change to "weasel word" instead of "weasel lng." to match prior discussion about Template:Weasel words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) --William Allen Simpson 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the template {{weasel}} does this template's job, and does it better. --Domthedude001 21:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this template is bad because it isn't very apparent that there might be a problem there - weasel is much better. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 00:31, 1 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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect5p edit

Template:Redirect5p (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
~~Unused~~, redundant to {{Redirect}}, and harmful as links like this should always use the entire title of the article. When a link like this gets put into print, it needs to use the correct article name - "see foo" pointing at "bar" is misleading. Hairy Dude 11:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful for pointing to specific sections, such as the usage at Multitrack recording. Keep ··gracefool |☺ 13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the only intended usage, it should just be the same as {{Redirect}} but with an extra parameter to specify an anchor. As it is, it's too flexible. Hairy Dude 13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, why do we want to hide the fact that the link points to an anchor at all? I can't see a good reason for wanting to. Hairy Dude 13:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There were until just now only three uses in article namespace. One used link text that was to a nonexistent article, and the others used ambiguous text to a disambiguated title, both of which should just use the full title, so I changed them to use {{redirect}}. So Multitrack recording is now the only instance of this usage. Hairy Dude 13:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- superfluous, confusing, should not hide (pipe) target link. Indeed, according to the current Wikipedia:Disambiguation, the target link should have the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. --William Allen Simpson 20:37, 25 April 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 delete under G7. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Stargate race/Instructions edit

Template:Stargate race/Instructions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was PRODded with the reasoning "Purely esoteric and created for maintenance work to templates; work complete, page unneeded", but PROD is for articles only, not templates, so I'm bringing it here. No vote from me since I have no earthly idea what this template is used for. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only author (other than fixing the prod template and changing it to TfD) asked for its deletion, so speedy delete. TimBentley (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha. Done. Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 25 April 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 Circeus 01:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics edit

Template:NOCattheSummerOlympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete The vast majority of the links in this template are red. Even if those articles exist, they're probably by another name than "at the Summer Olympics". This template is insane, it's huge, and it's not helpful for navigating to other articles Ned Scott 06:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is an aim to have "X at the Summer Olympics" for every national olympic committee (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics/Articles). (And also a "X at the Winter Olympics" for every NOC) Andjam 07:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was created September 2004, and this is as far as it's gotten? -- Ned Scott 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9 of the top 10 medal-winning NOCs have articles (the exception, East Germany, no longer exists). Andjam 08:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this was a template featuring just those 10 I wouldn't have a problem with this. But it's not... At best I can see this template being used once more articles have been created, as well as being reformatted to not just look like a huge blob (maybe some sort of grouping by continent or something). But right now it's just... not useful, at all. -- Ned Scott 08:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep will be useful eventually. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 17:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. --Domthedude001 21:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is eventually? Like I said, the template was created in September 2004. This is the kind of template you make AFTER you've done most of the articles, not before. And, again, I'd like to point out that it's a huge ugly blob. Even if all those articles were there, it's painful to use it for navigation. Maybe the template could be changed to have the articles that you currently have, then a link via the WikiProject to a list of articles that need creation? -- Ned Scott 21:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ned Scott's arguments, not others, so far. Colon el Tom 14:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suspect any of these articles would be kept by AFD, so redlinks are justified. the wub "?!" 22:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too huge. MaxSem 02:49, 30 April 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.