Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 15

< May 14	May 16 >

May 15, 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 00:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Msp edit

Template:Msp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only purpose is to provide an external link to a site that is so utterly and profoundly advertising-heavy as to make one want to scream "PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY MAKE THE GOOGLE ADS STOP." FCYTravis 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note our policy on external links, which states that links should not be included if they (2) contain only information which should be in the article anyway, and (5) contain objectionable amounts of advertising. On one sample spoiler page, I counted 15 distinct ads. That's objectionable in my book. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These webpages are very informative about the plot of a film, they tend to be accurate and are usually much more detailed than the plot sections in the articles. The link is also useful for checking the content of the plot section, and for expanding it (though for this purpose it is preferable to also see the movie, of course). See also Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.The advertisements do not make reading the text inconvenient: they are not blinking or overlapping the text, or anything like that.--Patrick 23:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See policy on external links as per ESkog. I expect Patrick has popup blocking software, because it's unreadable under the popups. ... Had these links not been added by an obviously well intentioned editor (Patrick), they would have gone into the SBL when I first saw the template. I'm confused that anyone would argue to keep this site. Most of the plot summaries are horribly written. I was reading the mi3 article, hit the link... groaned out "spam" ... and was in the process of scanning the external links table in the database to find out where else it was spammed when I noticed it was being added by a template. --Gmaxwell 00:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gmaxwell. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolute rubbish site. Linking to this is doing a disservice to our readers. --Cyde Weys 00:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, kill it with fire. The only external link we need on film pages is to imdb, and possibly the official site. - FrancisTyers 00:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, garbage. Not informative—it only includes stuff which should be in the article anyway—not to mention that the summaries themselves are horribly written—Linking to them will only encourage people to not write decent ones. That combined with the insane ammount of advertising it has, means it should never, ever be linked from any article, and especially not via a template.--Sean Black (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary advertising template. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A user at one of the film articles I work on recently found it to be covered in ads, along with a heap of mistakes (characters names wrong etc) - apparently they are not peer reviewed. Anyway, the point is, it is not needed. Cvene64 04:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template that produces inappropriate external links is twice as inappropriate Fnarf999 14:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though I never thought I'd agree with Cyde. — Natha n ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 00:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments like that really aren't productive. --Cyde Weys 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel your interpretation of my comment wasn't constructive. It wasn't meant in a negative way. -- Nathan 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting userboxes isn't particularly productive either. Signed, Fr e dd</>ie 01:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this isn't who external links should be done --T-rex 05:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- editors can use this site to make a better plot summary in the article, but it doesn't retain any relevance as an external link—i.e. it doesnt add anything that can't be done in a Wikipedia article. Of course, this begs the question of if the site has more thourogh plot summaries that we generally reach by consensus, but to me this is outweighed by the massive amount of advertising on the site and the fact that their summaries are often of a low quality, often even wrong. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User RSN edit

Delete or simply redirect to template mentioned above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replace with the MLB one American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. Assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 05:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Subst - Save this from future deletions by moving it to User space as per WP:MACK. (go Sox) - Nhprman 14:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Userboxes like this interfere with Wikipedia's purpose, which is to create an encyclopedia, not a social networking page Fnarf999 14:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, redundant. --18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Delete as redundant. DCB4W 00:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the Department of Redundancy Department asked me to. — Natha n ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --StuffOfInterest 18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Fairsing 18:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only because it is redundent - • The Giant Puffin • 13:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Can school edit

Template:Infobox Can school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created in February, 2006, this template has never been edited and does not have a non-"subst" link to it. Two alternate templates that are currently used are {{Infobox Canadian School}} and {{Infobox Education in Canada}} Usgnus 20:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is already a userbox that notifies people of the fact that you are an administrator. No need to keep this poorly formatted one.Jorcoga 02:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant, pointless Fnarf999 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied - linkspam. --Doc ^ask? 20:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User RebelForums edit

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 speedily deleted by Petros471. — TKD::Talk 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comic Book Issue edit

Speedy Delete - You can put the {{db-author}} template in there to request a speedy delete. BigDT 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shinty-stub edit

Template:Shinty-stub (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created by an unregistered user. Appeared in article Ardnamurchan Camanachd to replace Template:Gaelic-sport-stub. Not needed and nowhere near Wikipedia's standards Saga City 11:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as patent nonsense BigDT 15:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsence (CSD G1). SCHZMO ✍ 19:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. AnnH ♫ 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense. —MiraLuka 20:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:14+ & Template:Canada-PG edit

I found this on PROD, and I thought it could use a debate, so I changed the process. PROD reason was "Unused and uses fair use image" by User:Someguy0830 today May 15. 70.51.10.35 05:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral 70.51.10.35 05:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I don't really see it as necessary for two single-image templates that aren't being used, I don't mind this. Delete. As I understand it, it goes beyond fair use when the image appears in places where it's not being used for critical commentary or as a visual aid. On top of that, they weren't in use when I prodded them and the only places where they were included were in now-useless rating fields in {{Infobox Television}} templates. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still unused, and still has a fair-use image, then Delete – Gurch 09:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gurch American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not add value to the basic information on the rating status Fnarf999 15:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 3e edit

Template:User 3e (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The complete text of this template is "This user has had 3 edits". It's not even in a userbox - it's just plain text. It would seem to be of rather limited use. BigDT 00:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, I agree. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 00:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Homestarmy 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Gerg 02:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, duh. --Cyde Weys 02:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto. Where's the sense of style? – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, plain simple text, unwieldy name. (if only it would have had a pastel box :p )— xaosflux ^Talk 03:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not going to argue this one. ---Bersl2 04:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus but it is kind of moot as it was deleted by Tony Sidaway. Kotepho 10:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User AAK edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't think a red link is a reason to delete. Mike McGregor (Can) 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This may be divisibe but still not enough to vote "delete". I assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 13:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as referring to a nn subject.--M @r ē ino 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This userbox is not used anywhere - the only references are to lists of userboxes. BigDT 15:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where in the userspace should it be moved to and why? Nobody is using it. I am 100% opposed to mass deletion of userboxes, but in the case of ones that are completely useless (as evidenced by nobody using them), I see no harm in giving them a peaceful death. BigDT 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After deletion and Subst'ing, they will reside on User pages, where, if people want to cut/paste the code to their User pages, that's up to them. As for useless/not useless, that's fine with boxes like these that are obvious, but will be fought tooth and nail for "useful" boxes. Few user boxes are useful enough to be editing tools, and that's what template space is for. - Nhprman 18:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox is not used anywhere. Where should it be substed to? BigDT 18:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, /dev/null, of course. --Cyde Weys 22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & Delete per nom American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and post code on referencing page. No users are including the template so it won't be missed. --StuffOfInterest 18:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One user (JDoorjam) is using the template as far as I can tell. Loom91 06:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 01:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no onsensus, default to keep Circeus 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User College Confidential edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete as referring to a nn subject.--M @r ē ino 14:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redlink userboxes aren't very useful BigDT 15:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. AnnH ♫ 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst & delete per nom American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since when has starting groups been a bad thing?QuizQuick 15:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, not hurting anyone (and this one isn't even an orphan). I've heard of it, too, actually, and I'm not sure why we don't have an article on it, considering its Alexa ranking. --Rory096 18:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per Mareino. Conscious 12:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing wrong wiht it --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The link is no longer red. --Rory096 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until a concensus policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 18:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 05:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a redlink anymore and quite a few users are using it. Loom91 06:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 13:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User KingKong edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete after informing the ONE user who uses this box. --M @r ē ino 14:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per Mareino BigDT 15:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete this one's dumbMike McGregor (Can) 12:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. In Template space, it's subject to community judgment (and thus, it is dumb.) Nhprman 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. AnnH ♫ 21:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Only one user with this box. --StuffOfInterest 18:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't bother to subst. It's broken. John Reid 13:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom & John Reid... Broken & ignored... Needs to go to the dustbin. --Ssbohio 01:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many things are unencyclopedic, so who cares?QuizQuick 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Deleted --Cyde Weys 09:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Tony Sidaway/User edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default to keep Circeus 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Wic edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, encourages vandal notoriety. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 10:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pathoschild.--M @r ē ino 14:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - divisive and inflammatory BigDT 15:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space. Nhprman 18:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AnnH ♫ 21:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete outragious American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:DENY. --Ter e nc e Ong 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pathoschild, WP:DENY. --Rory096 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A userbox that I see no problem with; though not particular useful. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 00:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until a concensus policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 18:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Terence Ong. -- Nathan 22:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You see, my friend, WP:DENY is a proposal. Fr e dd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could possibly be useful to share a shard of information about vandalism. Fr e dd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reid. --*Kat* 07:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there may be valid use for saying that one was impersonated by a vandal (i.e. to distinguish oneself from that vandal). --AySz88 ^-^ 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of people use this userbox, and it isnearly as famous as willy on wheels. Helps distinguish user from the vandal - • The Giant Puffin • 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst, delete, per WP:DENY Will (^E_@) T 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User activity edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not in use, can't see what the use would be.--M @r ē ino 14:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as far as I can tell, it is used by a single person to make a table. Why do you need a template to do that? BigDT 15:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space. Nhprman 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just plain old delete I have no clue what it's for American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 04:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- less useful then the blink tag --T-rex 05:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Barely qualifies as a template, doesn't seem useful, no reason to prolong the agony.--Ssbohio 02:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one user. --StuffOfInterest 18:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nathan 22:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Conflicts with UBX naming conventions; also appears useless. John Reid 14:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Per nom & John Reid... No reason for it to be. --Ssbohio 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out bold because this is a duplicate entry. --AySz88 ^-^ 18:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
With apologies, accidental duplication... There are so many of these userbox deletions going around, I completely overlooked having already commented here. Thanks for the help.--Ssbohio 18:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was uncertain consensus, being WP:BOLD and deleting this unused box Circeus 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User admin2 edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful. Keep. Funny, not harmful and possibly true. Friendly Neighbour 11:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC). Not linking to the templaes creates errors like this; I intended the vote for another template. Friendly Neighbour 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is encyclopedic, but dangerously duplicative of the real admin userbox.--M @r ē ino 14:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since nobody seems to be using it and the count has to be manually updated, which nobody is doing any more, delete it. BigDT 15:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space. Nhprman 18:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful. Nom assumes bad faith; this was actually just created two years ago, by an admin no less. --Rory096 19:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody references so nobody to miss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StuffOfInterest (talk • contribs) .
Keep, or if no choice subst. Also, this should become an actual userbox, instead of a taxbox (I think). Isn't there a tag like {{NUMBEROFADMINS}}? Because I know there is one for the number of users. Fr e dd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no reason to delete this. It's like the angel template, and wikipedia would be a better place if more admins used this template. Loom91 06:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not conform to UBX policy. John Reid 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- UBX policy isn't actually policy yet... Is there a way this box could be improved, or a particular aspect of it that's nonconforming?--Ssbohio 02:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not obviously divisive or inflammatory. Also, I recoded it to actually look like a legitimate userbox. Lastly, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep should be standard issue box for admin user pages. --70.218.30.181 04:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 01:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User adminstandards edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Funny, not harmful and possibly true. Friendly Neighbour 11:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep speaks directaly to the state of the encylopedia. Mike McGregor (Can) 12:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I created Template:User adminstandardsb the other day. I guess that people interested in deleting this adminstandards template might be interested in also looking at the template I created and deciding if that one should be nominated for deletion too. DarthVad e r 14:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Friendly Neighbour.--M @r ē ino 14:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I was about to click "save page" on a "strong keep", but then I thought about something. This box could be seen as divisive. A better version might read, "this user thinks administrator standards could be improved". As it stands, it is rather confrontational and thus, even though it does directly relate to WP, I think it should be reexamined. Even if it does survive the TFD, the text probably should be changed to make it non-confrontational. BigDT 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If campaigning for a change of a WP policy were declared divisive, we could not have any policy debate. I assume that change of policy is what the author meant (according to our "please assume good faith" mantra). Friendly Neighbour 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, of course ... HOWEVER ... it is one thing to write an essay on a policy debate about improving standards for administrators, making it easier to deop someone, etc. It's another thing to have a one-liner. By itself, the one-liner is barely above the level of an insult. BigDT 16:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Its ok to think the standards are too low, and it is ridiculous that admins are trying to get this deleted. We will not be scilenced! Down with the admins! Down with the admins! No but seriously, this should be kept. --GorillazFan Adam 23:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Divisive and unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 21:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete not for template space American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike and Friendly (although I disagree with Friendly w/r/to the template's being possibly true; I think standards for adminship are, in general, too high). Joe 04:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has to do with someone's opinion on Wiki policy, what's the problem with that? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia after all. Homestarmy 13:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This speaks directly to the administration of this encyclopedia, and by virtue of not being used in article space, complaints of being unencyclopedic don't seem well-founded. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until/unless a concensus policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nathan 207.112.109.182 22:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (restored by Usgnus 22:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC) — see history)[reply]
Keep/subst. ShiningEyes, please do not bite my head off for not giving a reason! Fr e dd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very useful as a template, and harmless too. As are most of the victims of this tiresome battle. Mnerd 05:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this is a reasonable opinion --T-rex 17:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With lots of admins nominating userboxes for deletion, or deleting them before the discussion is over, I cant help beleive that this userbox is true. Either the standards are too low, or people become less law-abiding once they are admins - • The Giant Puffin • 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this closure is in violation of the very purpose of TFD. This template should be undeleted immediately. --70.218.30.181 04:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User blogger edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Broken Box? Unused? blogger seems to be encyclopedic after all, it has its own article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Template is used by almost 400 Wikipedians, including myself and I didn't find anything wrong with it or broken, until the message "The template User blogger has been proposed for deletion here" showed up screwed up the look of the box. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary to have Wikipedia being used to promote over 400 external blogs. --Cyde Weys 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO 400 Wikipedians promote their blogs on their User Pages. It is not Wikipedia, the Encyclopedia promoting them. Almost all Wikipedians are people with a whole life outside Wikipedia and some like to share that part with their fellow Wikipedians. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fixed Will (^E_@) T 10:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. I still believe userboxes are innocent until proved guilty. Please assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is widely used. Please check "what links here" before assuming somthing is unused.Mike McGregor (Can) 12:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Mike, "Fake User" is only a Wikipedian for a week and probably did not know ;) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 400+ user and a legit Wikipedia article, there's no basis for a deletion!. Sohailstyle 13:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reason that we keep the userboxes that advertise the various for-profit web browsers that we use.--M @r ē ino 14:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I suppose but shouldn't the link go to the internal Blogspot article, rather than to an external site? BigDT 15:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep indicative of skill type, skill level and intentions relative to interacting in an open community environment to inform the public. Editing, readibility, accountability, recognizing appropriate content, dealing with vandals, encouraging comments, understanding the relevance of subject matter, learning the value of providing verifiable sources, ... -- Paleorthid 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and protect from deletion'. Extremely-well used. Not only taht, but we have two users, User:Cyde and User:Conrad Devonshire. I have sent messages to them to stop the rampant nominations immediately. I will take this to arbitration if necessary.

User:Raccoon Fox - Talk

18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<The above comment has been refactored to remove personal attacks.> // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Umm... RE: above. This isn't a content for deletion page, its a template for deletion page. the consensus was to keep the template... that being said, this was only listed for about 10 hrs. and should not have been closed yet. I'd like the closing admin to relist and let TFD run its course, then not ignore the consensus. Mike McGregor (Can) 11:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I've had the same concern with other userbox TfD's being closed out very rapidly, primarily involving one admin who has made fast work of his own & others' TfDs.--Ssbohio 02:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User blz-4 edit

What it looked like before blanking

blz-4

This user is a near native speaker of blazon.

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to refer to the ability to understand the jargon associated with harldry. I fail to see how thats not relivent to an encylopedia. (which raises concerns about cyde's votes. It seemes he's just voting "Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template." to every userbox on this page without bothering to evaluate them... perhaps his votes on this page should be discounted by the closing admin...) Mike McGregor (Can) 12:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy? Delete - please note that the picture of the box above is NOT what it actually looks like - that was the original box, which was quickly blanked. For most of the box's life, it has been blanked and really could probably be speedied as housekeeping or something with little effort to do anything else with it. BigDT 15:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts, and is not in Template space. Nhprman 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' with box below, which should be kept. Septentrionalis 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 07:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Heraldry, as a concept, is important to diverse areas of study such as genealogy, history, political science, & vexillology. This userbox is encyclopedic on its face. It would be up to those arguing against it to make the case that despite its bearing on the creation of this encyclopedia, it should still be removed. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobody includes, not even the creator. --StuffOfInterest 18:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will put it on my page now, if it's a little inaccurate (I'd say I'm more like blz-3), but that's not important. And it IS encyclopedic; it could, theoretically at the very least, help find people who understand the complex jargon of heraldry. Lockesdonkey 20:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - one userbox for the blazon ability should be enough. // Liftarn 11:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat to make sense: nobody speaks blazon natively. Ardric47 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Claim of expertise. (and, yes, Mackensen, this means keep as template.) Septentrionalis 02:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but change wording; "near native" seems odd.--Runcorn 18:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, kept Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User blz-N edit

looked like this before blanking:

blz-N

This user is a native speaker of blazon.

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to refer to the ability to understand the jargon associated with harldry. I fail to see how thats not relivent to an encylopedia. (which raises concerns about cyde's votes. It seemes he's just voting "Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template." to every userbox on this page without bothering to evaluate them... perhaps his votes on this page should be discounted by the closing admin...) Mike McGregor (Can) 12:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cyde certainly seems to be motivated by more than just this one userbox, but I still think he has a good faith basis for his votes.--Ssbohio 03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - just as the above box, this one was blanked not long after being created. Nobody uses it and it has been blank for most of its life with only one attempt to unblank. Speedy as housekeeping or something. BigDT 15:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be used on User pages. Nhprman 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In addition to the general grounds why this sort of thing should be discouraged (above), this a claim of special knowledge, the primary purpose of userpages. It should be kept as a transclusion; it is useful to know who has it, and it is not the mark of a faction (both sides in the Style Wars will claim it.) Septentrionalis 00:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - one userbox for the blazon ability should be enough. But it's handy to have someone who can decode heraldic descriptions. Just think of all the coat of arms and such. // Liftarn 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Heraldry, as a concept, is important to diverse areas of study such as genealogy, history, political science, & vexillology. This userbox is encyclopedic on its face. It would be up to those arguing against it to make the case that despite its bearing on the creation of this encyclopedia, it should still be removed. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 03:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No inclusions. --StuffOfInterest 18:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Template:User blz-5 since nobody speaks blazon natively. Ardric47 19:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Ardric47.--Runcorn 18:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, kept (but been WP:BOLD and reformatted) Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User br wikipedian edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Large and ugly but this is no crime. Friendly Neighbour 11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:User_Brazil.--M @r ē ino 14:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the creator of the template, I will not vote on this, but I will say that, although I don't particularly mind if it's deleted, it also doesn't seem to cause any harm by being there (granted, it's unused). Also, it is as [un]encyclopedic as any other template that ids a user by nationality ("this user if from country"). About any particular problem with size, colors, etc, anyone can be bold and fix it, I believe. Redux 15:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - if it isn't being used and the creator doesn't mind its deletion, speedy delete it. Redux, thank you for your contribution and please don't be scared off by the user box wars - you are, of course, always welcome to display this logo on your own page or to create an actual userbox (similar to Template:User_Brazil, but with the colors and text you are looking for). The only reason it is (probably) going to be deleted is that it isn't particularly useful as a template. BigDT 15:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. The Gerg 01:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete big and nasty, not for template American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, harmless; you want to delete it because it's the wrong size? Wow... --Rory096 19:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason to delete beyond nominator's dislike for it. JohnnyBGood t c 17:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case, it's hard to see harm in a Wikipedian's country of origin. THat said, the userbox is a mess & should be cleaned up. Overall, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 03:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and <div style="float: left; border: solid #6ef7a7 1px; margin: 1px;">{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #c5fcdc;"| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #6ef7a7; text-align: center; font-size:14pt;"| [[Image:Flag of Brazil.svg|45 px]]="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a [[Wikipedia|Wikipedian]] in [[Brazil]]! (And loving it!|}</div>reformat. Now, now, FakeUser, it may not be a violation of NPOV, but just because you don't like it isn't a very valid reason for deletion!
Userfy -- Does not conform to UBX policy. John Reid 14:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make smaller.--Runcorn 18:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-3.5 edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. I still believe userboxes are innocent until proved guilty. Please assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed, it's totally harmless, but it's not used by ANYone.--M @r ē ino 14:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - malformed and unused userbox BigDT 15:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can still be used on User pages. Nhprman 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Harmless, but not suitable for project space. AnnH ♫ 21:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete not funny, not funny at all American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This userbox may or may not be funny. Userspace is (mostly) in the eye of the user, and funny vs. unfunny isn't directly related to keep vs. delete. Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 03:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobdy includes it. --StuffOfInterest 18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep jokes are okay, right? --70.218.30.181 04:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is doubtless a joke - not a very good one, but is that grounds for deletion?--Runcorn 18:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User independent Bethnahrin edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom American Patriot 1776 13:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as these Syraic userboxes are very useful to protect the Syraic-themed articles, which are constantly at risk for POV edits. --M @r ē ino 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, declaring a POV is good to maintain NPOV in articles. --Rory096 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As has been said before, we are born into this world naked, screaming, & wet... & (I assert) having a POV. If a controversial political stance were all it took, then the article on Taiwan could fall in the same category, as its existence as a seperate entity is a controversial issue. Having an identified POV can only help the editing process when compared with a hidden POV. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Only used by one user. --StuffOfInterest 18:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. What? Are only noncontroversial political stances acceptable? Pfooie. John Reid 14:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete as controversial. Ardric47 19:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is useful as showing where an editor stands; it is not likely to be controversial among most editors.--Runcorn 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User remember Andrew edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. I still believe userboxes are innocent until proved guilty. Please assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. This could be useful as a way of saying "This user likes to edit these types of articles", so let's hold off for a month or so to see if people actually use this box.--M @r ē ino 14:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if nobody has started using it in the first three months of its existence, I see no reason to believe that will change. BigDT 16:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm, used or not, and more useful if left in & available. Also, oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 03:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless userbox Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems more pointless than most.--Runcorn 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User rfa-2 edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. I still believe userboxes are innocent until proved guilty. Please assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they are tools for helping us edit the encyclopedia, these templates ARE guilty of being in the wrong place. Moving it to user space saves them from deletions. Let's do it and move on. Nhprman 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup to conform with standard number formatting, like template:User vandalized--M @r ē ino 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reason to believe the user is a troll, but if it isn't being used at all, it doesn't need to be there. BigDT 16:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to user space. Harmless, but unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. --StuffOfInterest 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. Cleanup per Mareino would be appropriate. John Reid 14:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge // Liftarn 11:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused and pointless. If this must be kept, at least change it to be more automated, e.g. "This user has failed RFA {{{number}}} times". Garrett^Talk 00:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people want to say this, why shouldn't they? --Runcorn 18:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User rfa-3 edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. I still believe userboxes are innocent until proved guilty. Please assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup to conform with standard number formatting, like template:User vandalized--M @r ē ino 14:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no reason to believe the user is a troll, but if it isn't being used at all, it doesn't need to be there. BigDT 16:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to user space. Harmless, but unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. --StuffOfInterest 18:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this should never have been nominated. John Reid 14:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge // Liftarn 11:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If people want to say this, why shouldn't they?--Runcorn 20:08, 25 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 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User shirley edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although my myspace "name" is that) Will (^E_@) T 10:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fixed the link so that it makes sense (linked to the movie that coined the catchphrase).--M @r ē ino 14:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I got a good laugh out of it, but yes, if nobody is using it, delete it. BigDT 16:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless. --Wintermute314 17:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be used there, if anyone wants to. Nhprman 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subst or move to user space, if necessary. Unencyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete great movie, humorous box, get out of template space American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. --StuffOfInterest 18:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's from the Airplane movie right?, unused Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. I get the joke if you don't. John Reid 14:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ssbohio - • The Giant Puffin • 13:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Funny, but has no meaning and unused. Get rid of it or move it. Rizk-O 01:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hilarious. Please add to my page! --70.218.30.181 04:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody is using it, which makes a case for deletion, but I sympathise with Ssbohio.--Runcorn 20:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus, kept (but been WP:BOLD and reformatted) Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User uk wikipedian edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's used, and if it doesn't conform to dimensions, {{sofixit}} Will (^E_@) T 10:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, where? Fake User 10:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By about 40 users, if that is what you ask about. Friendly Neighbour

Okay, do me a favor and point out one (just one!), I went through the list of refrenced userpages at the relevant image Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg, and none of them had it. Fake User 17:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious really - just click on "links" above - or just go here. Looks like a good 40 or so at first glance... including mine. DJR (Talk) 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you. Fake User 17:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's being used, and it can be fixed, is this nom still effective?--Ssbohio 02:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Large and ugly but this is no crime. Friendly Neighbour 11:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's widely used, so somebody must find it useful. BigDT 16:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Reformat - it is widely used, so rather than delete it, just redesign it to conform with the generic standard. DJR (Talk) 17:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. Nhprman 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harmless. AnnH ♫ 22:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reformat too big American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has over 40 users, none of whom have complained. Other Wikipedian userboxes have similar formats: Template:NorthernIrishwiki and Template:Irishwiki are two. --Mal 04:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Reformat - caprivi 07:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Reformat - I'm a user of this template. Please keep it. David 13:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. The problem with a "keep" here is that most template may be deleted soon. By "Substituting" the text (ref. to by "Subst") and moving it to User space, you get to keep the box, and ensure that no one can ever delete it again. Consider supporting "Delete and Move" to user space, or "Delete and Subst" and see WP:MACK for the proposal to save Userboxes from future deletions. Thanks! Nhprman 15:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is definitely used, are you kidding? --Rory096 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I use it, by all means reformat it if people want to hide it but I display my union jack with pride. Kev 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Natha n ^{(Got something to say? Say it.)} 01:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no solid reason to delete. JohnnyBGood t c 17:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{User United Kingdom}}, with which this template is essentially redundant. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:38, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this template has more information (especially the motto) than {{User United Kingdom}}. Tamino 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this is the prevailing sentiment, I would suggest merging the two templates and redirecting one to the other. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Until/unless a concensus policy is established. --StuffOfInterest 18:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy -- Does not conform to UBX policy. John Reid 14:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "unused"? Lots of people use this template! Now stop telling porkies and go sort out real problems instead of prolonging a useless war - • The Giant Puffin • 13:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It most certainly is used. If it doesn't fit the pattern perameters that can be adjusted easily. I was only a newbie when i made this template! Pydos 09:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-It is a big template, but we have lots of big templates and its widely used. Falphin 22:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per djr xi.-- preschooler @heart 01:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like it.--Runcorn 19:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User zodiac:Aquarius-3 edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. I still believe userboxes are innocent until proved guilty. Please assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I dont think that someone not getting a joke is grounds for a deletionMike McGregor (Can) 12:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know for a fact that this is a joke? I was just trying to assume good faith on what actually looks like a mistake of some kind. Fake User 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you implied it was a joke in your nomination as a reason to delete. Mike McGregor (Can) 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Move to the User space. Nhprman 18:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to user space. Not encyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. --StuffOfInterest 18:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FakeUser, I believe this is an attempt at humor. Fr e dd ie^{Against Userbox Deletion?} 01:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. BTW Aquarius is an astrological sign, not a programming language. John Reid 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless--Runcorn 19:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, kept Circeus 20:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User zodiac:Aquarius-N edit

Subst and delete, not an encyclopedic template. --Cyde Weys 09:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not harmful. I still believe userboxes are innocent until proved guilty. Please assume good faith. Friendly Neighbour 11:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I dont think that someone not getting a joke is grounds for a deletionMike McGregor (Can) 12:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to the User space, where it can be SAFE from deletion attempts like this in the future. "Keep" keeps it as a template, and it will simply come up again for deletion. - Nhprman 18:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move to user space. Not encyclopaedic. AnnH ♫ 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete American Patriot 1776 02:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unused. --StuffOfInterest 18:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all in-policy UBX. If you want to edit that policy to reflect your concerns, please do so. TfD is not the right place to create or subvert policy. John Reid 14:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 02:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless --Runcorn 19:54, 25 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.