Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 22

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 February 22)
< February 21 February 23 >

February 22, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template: User feminist-alt edit

Template:User feminist-alt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The submitter initially typoed this as "feminist-alt" instead of "User feminist-alt".

  • Keep Hey, why not? Mego'brien
  • Comment Who speedied this? I can really make an informed opinion when the template is a red link and can't be seen by a non-admin like me. - Hbdragon88 23:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No-one speedied it, it was just that the nominator misspelled the name of the template. JYolkowski // talk 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I have struck out my comment. - Hbdragon88 00:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I can't seem to make the link work. Mego'brien
  • Keep All userboxes should be kept. helohe (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, redundant and not needed in the template namespace. JYolkowski // talk 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and Delete - Could potentially contribute to factionalization. (Contemplate if someone had a box declaring them not to be a feminist.) Michael Ralston 01:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And it's not redundant, because it attracts a certain type of feminist. Which is why quite a few people are using it instead. Sarge Baldy 04:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above MiraLuka 05:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an important part of cultural identity that should not be censored.    Ronline ✉ 07:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep builds community.Dark jedi requiem 09:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ditto on comments of Sarge Baldy. Kukini 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • subst and maybe tell the creator to just change the pink userbox to green or somthing... Mike McGregor (Can) 18:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's better to have our biases out in the open as editors than to pretend we don't have them (even if the latter strategy seems like a better public relations move for Wikipedia). Catamorphism 22:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --CFIF (talk to me) 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Catamorphism. Chairman S. | Talk 07:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To think that deleting POV userboxes will make bias go away is fool-hardy. It is better to deal with it out in the open than be afraid of opinions.--God of War 21:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending any agreement on a policy to cover this sort of thing. Metamagician3000 02:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 03:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. What's with the wholesale deletion of userboxes lately? Hbackman 05:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the world is already biased and there's a bias toward the party that's already biased against, doesn't that just make it even anyway? Sonny Jim news/poll 04:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sonny Jim news/poll 04:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia. Personal POVs can be described in prose or with self-made boxes. Zocky | picture popups 10:02, 27 February 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 to delete. Angr/talk 16:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gameinfo edit

Template:Gameinfo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
For reasons stated at Template talk:Wikicities. Only siste projects are given box treatment, not any wiki, not even Wikicities. Hbdragon88 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. - Brian Kendig 02:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Neutral now that it's text and not a box. I don't believe there are enough pages to link to that justify having this as a template, but I see no specific reason to oppose it. - Brian Kendig 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This belongs as an external link, if anything. Pagrashtak 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • Delete as per others. An ugly box if I may add... --Jared [T]/[+] 15:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to a single line as had been done with Template:Wikicities. A template would be useful since links will eventually need to be added to a large number of articles, but I agree an infobox is inappropriate. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Further voting should be done on the new version. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the modified version by Furrykef. — Instantnood 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had a look at the modified version - it's less ugly, but it's still unnecessary. Look at the articles which use it, then look at the pages they link to on the gameinfo wiki - the pages over there are practically stubs, with much less info than the Wikipedia articles. - Brian Kendig 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of them are, yes. I didn't make those links and I wouldn't have added them myself. A few pages on gameinfo do have extensive guides, such as Karateka (which doesn't use the gameinfo template currently, but there's no reason it couldn't), and I think a link could belong in that case. Moreover, just because there's not a lot of info there now doesn't mean there won't be later. Perhaps a link would encourage people to add information in the first place. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia's purpose is to contain information, not to point people to external information. The only justification for an external link is when there's more information there than is in Wikipedia, and no one's yet made the effort to copy (with permission) or paraphrase (without permission) that info into Wikipedia. I really don't see a reason why we would want to encourage people to submit to some other project instead of Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 06:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see no reason why Wikipedia's purpose can't be to contain and point to information. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a big catch-all repository of knowledge. A game walkthrough would be entirely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, but perfectly appropriate for gameinfo. (Indeed, gameinfo's primary purpose is as a place to hold such walkthroughs.) The same goes for reviews or casual discussion. The gameinfo wiki is not meant to replace Wikipedia game entries, but to supplement them. If you think gameinfo is not mature enough, that is a valid argument, but your argument that people should submit to Wikipedia instead strikes me as silly. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. If there's a page out there which contains a game walkthrough, then sure, link to it from a Wikipedia article. But if there's a page out there which is merely a subset of what Wikipedia already contains, then what's the point of linking to it? - Brian Kendig 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree, but the template can be kept for the pages that are not merely a subset of the Wikipedia information. We have a fair number of such games in the gameinfo wiki now (see the front page: any game listed there has a walkthrough at least started for it), and that list will continue to grow. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Agreed. I only hope that people don't feel that since this template exists it should be used to link to pages which don't contain anything that's not already in Wikipedia. - Brian Kendig 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think people should also improve the gameinfo wikicity. The template is useful for that, so keep. --Nintendude 18:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Game walkthroughs etc are not considered appropriate wikipedia content, gameinfo is the 'best' place for them, I don't think abuse of the template is a good reason to delete it. Fuzzie 22:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, as there aren't enough pages to justify the existence of the template. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:56, 2 March 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 moot - nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk edit

Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Was intended for the purpose of linking to the same eight fan sites from every Ah My Goddess article (72 in all). I removed the fan site links; now the only link left is to the Ah My Goddess official web site, and a template isn't needed for that. - Brian Kendig 20:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: A few of the fan site links have been restored to the template, pending discussion. - Brian Kendig 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. The content and purpose of the template have changed significantly since I filed the TfD request. It began as a way to put the same eight static fansite home page links into every article in the fandom; now it's a variable template, linking to fan pages which are specific to the articles from which they're linked. While I still have some issues with the content and implementation of the template, I believe these can be addressed and that the template is useful in its current form. - Brian Kendig 17:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nom vote. - Brian Kendig 23:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SushiGeek 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as not needed.--Dakota ~ ° 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fan sites are good referance, I have reverted you, the template is necesarry. I do not like making 72+ edits every time I need to addremove sites. Template saves time, It has a usage. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but keep to one fansite per WP:EL. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats possible. I can live with having the oldes fansite although others are quite extensive as well.. Fan sites are imperative because the offcial site is in japanese. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But why does every article need to link to the same set of pages, anyway? Surely it would be more useful to link to pages that are actually relevant to the subject of the article. Flowerparty■ 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not need 72 different articles all linking to the same exact fansite home pages. - Brian Kendig 02:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, serves its purpose, and I have previously removed some sites. An delete sits fine as well, we can always insert the section in manually. -ZeroTalk 22:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears proper discussion wasn't even attempted before the proposed deletion of this template. While Brian has good points agaisnt its exsistance, I disagree it's unwarrented entirely. I've left an note concerning this on the template's talkpage. -ZeroTalk 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, it seems that the content of the external links section is an editorial decision that would be best done on an article-by-article basis, not on a centralised template. JYolkowski // talk 22:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no use of having so many fansite links at every OMG page. Many of those pages could be merged anyway. --Tone 15:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Templates should not dictate what external links are in an article; each link should be judged by contributors on an article-by-article basis. Postdlf 23:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Each link should be on an article-by-article basis. Besides, why should every article on a subject link to specific external links? Don't they really just belong at the main article page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? simple once the official website stabilises template can be passed pagename and link to the approporate site. Saves time. --Cool CatTalk|@ 23:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template has been completely redone it now links to individual webpages based on passed values. --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that is pointless. If the template is now different depending on what page it is on, why not just subst the lot of them and do the external links normally? This is only useful if the links are the same? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not subst all infoboxes and every template? It saves time to make it a template... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:30, 27 February 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. I don't know what Furrykef was talking about; this template was not modified after being nominated for deletion. Angr/talk 16:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gameinfo2 edit

Template:Gameinfo2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a sister project. Fredrik Johansson 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons stated above. I don't believe it should encompass other Wikicities wikis. They can be put in external links if need be but not as a template. - Hbdragon88 22:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Brian Kendig 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This belongs as an external link, if anything. Pagrashtak 03:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to single line as had been done with Template:Wikicities. - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not our project. SchmuckyTheCat 21:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, the template was changed. Further voting should be on the new version. - furrykef (Talk at me) 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the modified version by Furrykef. — Instantnood 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the code? It calls {{Gameinfo}} with a PAGENAME parameter — that's it. Pagrashtak 05:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but that one's also listed for deletion... whether or not this one gets deleted will depend on whether or not the other one gets deleted... perhaps this should be condensed to a single TfD entry? - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean is that even if the gameinfo template stays, gameinfo2 should still go, because it's identical to writing {{gameinfo|{{PAGENAME}}}}. Pagrashtak 00:58, 28 February 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 08:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User queer-4 edit

  • Keep I see no reason to delete this template and want to keep it as a way of expressing my support for this community. Mego'brien
  • keep the same reasons I usually vote... builds a stronger community on the 'pedia. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does this build a stronger community? I want to see your logic! Эйрон Кинни (t) 05:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep can you at least explain why you want it deleted? --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a good template and I see no good reason to delete it. Dark jedi requiem
    • Why was this deleted when no one voted against it?
  • Keep. Another example of someone trying to take Jimbo's comments and divine policy without explict command or concensus. --StuffOfInterest 17:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What's the problem here? - • The Giant Puffin • 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As per above. Chairman S. | Talk 19:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I see the sense in Jimbo's reasoning. [1] I am glad that there are Wikipedia editors from all stripes of life, but the existence of these sorts of official-looking userboxes makes Wikipedia look like it is edited by activists. I won't vote against this one because it's no worse than others, but I personally would like to see the userbox fad go away. - Brian Kendig 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. helohe (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can easily allow pov-pushing and/or ballot-stuffing. Likewise, the opposite of that template would seem to be pretty divisive. Michael Ralston 23:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SushiGeek 02:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For all the reasons listed above. Sarge Baldy 04:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's other, similar userboxes that accomplish the same purpose without being a flak magnet. --InShaneee 04:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above MiraLuka 04:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - an important part of cultural identity at Wikipedia, and forms a stronger community, which directly contributes to the encyclopedia-building process.    Ronline ✉ 07:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:T1. Stifle 11:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, would lead to other unneeded deletions -- Natalya 13:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, the fact that this was nominated for deletion demonstrates the need for it to exist in the first place. Userboxes demonstrate that we are comprised of people with diverse views. Kukini 14:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question... Why is this still up here for votes so many days later??? How many keep votes do we need?Kukini 05:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 14:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this even an issue?The-dissonance-reports 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I, too, understand the reasoning given ([2]), and would love to see these kinds of things moved to the User namespace. However, on the matter of "devisive" and "controversial" userboxes in general, this is a publicly edited knowledge-base, and I think it's valid to be interested in the plotical/social/etc. standings of a poster--just as you may any other author--in order to obtain a frame of reference for the materials posted. In a perfect world, perhaps a frame of reference wouldn't be neccessary, but let's be honest, it couldn't hurt, and if a user wants to provide such insights, I say all the better for the community.Bmearns 17:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coolgamer 18:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - both this userbox and the one supporting the Human Rights Campaign have been proposed for deletion, and it kinda smells like gay-bashing. The reason this userbox is valid is that it states support for use and reappropriation of the word queer, which in the GLBT community is a matter of debate. It states a point of view that may differ from other boxes that show the same icon. The denotation is the same, the connotation is different. Iamvered 19:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is a supportive template, not a divisive or polemical one. In addition, it's better to have our biases out in the open as editors than to pretend we don't have them (even if the latter strategy seems like a better public relations move for Wikipedia). Catamorphism 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dankru 23:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --CFIF (talk to me) 00:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- No problem here -- --Xtreambar 00:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Don't see anything wrong with this one. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 01:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I don't ride that way, but it's okay if other people do. No problem with this.--God of War 20:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending policy resolution. Metamagician3000 02:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 03:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep userboxes don't promote POV pushing, in fact, userboxes are an up front and honest declaration of one's biases, allowing other users to see where they are coming from and genuinely know when a person is POV pushing, although I find more POV pushing tending to come from those sectors that aren't up front about what their preconceived biases are. In other words, POV pushing is a result of an individual's character, not of their userboxes! bcatt 01:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thethinredline 07:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evolauxia 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia. Personal POVs and preferences can be described in prose or with self-made boxes. Zocky | picture popups 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. PC ALERT, WE HAVE PC HERE! Delete unless a userbox is made for those that don't feel the same way. And we all know, that kind of pov is not allowed! It also uses a term commonly associated with "faggot," "fruit," among others, so it may not automatically serve its intended purpose, either. Эйрон Кинни (t) 05:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the problem with this. - File:Ottawa flag.png     nathanrdotcom (Talk • Contribs) 06:47, 2 March 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. Seriously, even riding a bike is divisive? - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User bicycling edit

Template:User bicycling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Clearly CSD T1, because I do not know how to bike and I feel that other editors are taunting me and dividing the Wiki community by using this userbox. I decided to TFD instead of speedy-delete, though, b/c I respect process. --M@rēino 05:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete userbox because it is in template space and delete user for WP:POINT violation and bad faith nomination. --Cyde Weys 05:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for supporting my deletion nomination, but please don't delete me. I really do loathe bicycles. If I really wanted to violate WP:POINT, I'd nominate template:user ubx-N--M@rēino 05:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this deletion is unnecessary. (Bias warning: I created this template.) jareha 06:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but the template is unnecesary as well -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 06:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Folks, pick your battles. How is this inflammatory? How is it polemic? How is it divisive? It isn't. It's just a statement of a user liking a common activity. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Titoxd, we can't delete it just because it tells the user's likes. If we do so, we have to delete most of the other userboxes because they tell i use firefox, or i believe in aliens, etc. Moonkey 06:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this userbox is not an attack or political. --Terence Ong 07:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems perfectly harmless, as userboxes go. Flowerparty■ 09:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user: space. It is not a TEMPLATE FOR USE IN AN ARTICLE, which is what the Template: namespace is for. Sorry to shout, but people just aren't getting this. Proto||type 11:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not ? I like it. No harm done. Malbano 11:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Stating that I enjoy biking is in no way a personal attack. Is my user box stating that I enjoy knitting a taunt?? Or that a user was fluent in german..etc. etc., I do not understand why this template would be up for deletion. Rachel Ayres 11:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not appear "divisive or inflammatory" to me to say "this user enjoys bicycling". Slambo (Speak) 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. T1 needs better definition to make it objective. Getting userboxes out of template space needs to be set in official policy rather than derived intention. Mass nomination and speedy deleletion has gone well past WP:POINT. --StuffOfInterest 12:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, hold all your actions (i.e. both creation and deletion) and instead of wasting your precious time on DRV's/TfD's start working on a solution (or write an encyclopedia instead - it's not done the last time I've checked). Hint: there is a solution being worked out - why don't you join? Misza13 (Talk) 14:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and listen to what Misza13 has to say. The war is just about over. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this a joke? You nominated it because you dont like the subject of cycling?!? This is got to be one of, if not the, most stupid and unnesecary TfD nomination I have seen - • The Giant Puffin • 17:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I hope the guys @ WP:BJAODN have a lot new titles ready, 'cause once it's all over, new stuff (like this discussion or under {{user nocol}} from Feb 21) is gonna flow in there like a river... Misza13 (Talk) 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. SushiGeek 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per above. helohe (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Pilotguy (talk ¦ ✉) 23:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to User Space - Doesn't belong in template space, but doesn't seem as if it could be used for POV Pushing or ballot stuffing. Michael Ralston 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above.    Ronline ✉ 07:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does'nt anyone see the nom is taking the piss! Speedy keep, and put the nom out of his misery. Nobody has been ROTFLing. --Bduke 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -It is a sad thing to disparage others for what they enjoy doing. I think we should delete this type of TfD nominations. Kukini 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For all of the above Keep reasons combined and delete nominator for WP:POINT violation. richardc020 16:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - harmless. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Am I really taunting you by saying I enjoy bicycling? OneGyT/T|C 18:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to User Space. It is not political or has personal attacks. Its not pushy and as general as saying This user enjoys writing for Wikipedia. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination appears to violate WP:POINT. Catamorphism 22:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --CFIF (talk to me) 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laugh and keep - You have got to be kidding me. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 01:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Onceler 01:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL Way to spoof the Userbox wars ;) RadioKirk talk to me 03:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPER DUPER KE-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-P! I agree that this tfd is funny and that it spoofs the ubx wars. Have there ever been even more ridiculous TFDs than this one? --Shultz III 05:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's all go biking as we keep this template. Great Spoof--God of War 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thistheman 21:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 03:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Come on...--Tone 15:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In my opinion, cycling is a very healthy ride. You can enjoy nature while exercising. ‎Sports bikes have made things easier and more controllable. I had a really hard time in ‎learning it. Now I can bike without touching the handle for hours. Take a bike on the top ‎of a downhill road. Get on. Push the bike by walking on the road. Lift your feet while ‎keeping yourself on the seat. Don't put your feet on peddles, keep them lifted above ‎ground. Just control the handle and direction. This is how I learned.‎ Szhaider 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no point deleting it, as this userbox is not an attack or political. Ray Leung 18:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nick C 20:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a blatant attack on antibicyclism. — Ливай   11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user pages as per others. --Jared [T]/[+] 15:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You risk breaking many links, and many bicyclists don't want the template removed from their user page. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. this is ridiculous. Bob A 00:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. --Tamas 20:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I make the counter-proposal that all users who create obviously spurious, time-wasting entries in Requests for deletion have their accounts deleted.ObjectiveReader 00:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Appears to me to be a case of WP:POINT. Hynca-Hooley 01:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand why you guys are deleting it in the first place. JaredW! 12:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we deleted this, half the other user boxes would need to be deleted. Besides, what's the difference between this and Template:user Bicyclist and Template:user cyclist.
  • Keep. Just keep it it does no harm and It may help wikipedia at some point. --195.188.173.98 09:42, 1 March 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 08:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulgaria infobox edit

Template:Bulgaria infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused Bulgarian template that is largely superseded by the template currently on Bulgaria. Apologies if I missed anything while trying to list this up for deletion (it's my first time). Delete. Bash 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 07:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 09:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Perhaps CSD-T2 needs to be "template unlinked more than 14 days since last edit" to speed up housekeeping deletions. --StuffOfInterest 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CG 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one should be only used on Bulgaria's page and for that there's no need for a template. --Tone 15:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Nick C 20:43, 25 February 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 08:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulgaria edit

Template:Bulgaria
Same as above. Delete. Bash 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Perhaps CSD-T2 needs to be "template unlinked more than 14 days since last edit" to speed up housekeeping deletions. --StuffOfInterest 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CG 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Nick C 20:47, 25 February 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 08:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bulgaria Infobox edit

Template:Bulgaria Infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Same as above. Delete. Bash 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 09:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Perhaps CSD-T2 needs to be "template unlinked more than 14 days since last edit" to speed up housekeeping deletions. --StuffOfInterest 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CG 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - Nick C 20:44, 25 February 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 to delete. Angr/talk 15:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Olympic Summer Games Host Cities edit

Template:Olympic Summer Games Host Cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Same reasons as at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16#Template:Eurovision Song Contest host cities, this information is too trivial to warrant a big box at the end of every major city's article. If people are looking for it they'll find the Summer Olympic Games page and a perfectly useful list there. Delete Flowerparty■ 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree. I've found this box quite useful in the past, and it is no more trivial than any other template of this kind. Chairman S. | Talk 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful template. --Terence Ong 07:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I didn't mean to suggest that the template was useless - I'm sure some people will find it very useful. But I can't think a significant proportion of the visitors to the Montreal page, say, will be there seeking information on the Olympics that were held there in 1976 - certainly not enough to justify adding another navigation template to an already cluttered foot of the page. The point is that articles about cities are of largely geographical interest, and any navigation box at the bottom really ought to link to other cities on the basis of some shared geographical status, not because thay've all hosted a sports event which lasted two weeks and took place maybe several decades ago. Otherwise why not create templates for the IAAF World Championships in Athletics or the Commonwealth or Pan American Games? Flowerparty■ 09:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I question if this could be better accomplished with a list page or/and category rather than including so much info on the city page unrelated to a city. --StuffOfInterest 12:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is the point of this template? They don't point to an actual page about that year's olympics, just a link to the generic city where it aas hosted at. Do we have inidvidual pages on each olympics? If so, they should be added in there and the template would be a much better navigation aid. - Hbdragon88 22:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful enough, not purely "trivial". SushiGeek 23:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't say it was purely "trivial", but "too trivial to warrant a big box at the end of every major city's article". Flowerparty■ 23:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, {{Olympic Games}} is more effective at accomplishing the purpose of this template, in my opinion. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The same arguments could be made to Template:Olympic Winter Games Host Cities as well. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with Category or List, then Delete - Doesn't make sense as a template, when it would serve better as one of the other two. Michael Ralston 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful.    Ronline ✉ 07:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make category and delete. Again, it's too big and is not relevant to anybody looking at the article on the city. Having a Category:Summer Olympic Games Host Cities or the like would be more than enough. Stifle 11:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make category and delete. Info is better suited to a category. Having it listed as such at the end of each host city's article as a category jumper would allow users to quickly get all the information in one place (the category page). Iamvered 19:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easy to see the host cities on any Olympic Page where the template is placed, without having to look at the main Summer Olympic Page. - Nick C 20:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and fix {{Olympic_Games}}. I suggest that we definitely delete this template and the other one as mentioned in the deletion summary, as they are redundant to the other template. I do suggest, however, that if it is possible, that we make it so that whenever someone mouses over a date on the {{Olympic Games}} template, it displays the name of the city and the year in that little yellow box that comes up. (i.e. If date is 2004, box will say Athens 2004. I think this will really work. --Jared [T]/[+] 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but place only on host cities pages. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:45, 27 February 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_22&oldid=1149976349"