Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SCZenz (talk | contribs) at 07:24, 7 January 2006 (→[[Template:User against scientology]]: add proper sig to own comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Help is needed to orphan the holding cell. This can be done by non-admins!

Help is needed to orphan the holding cell. This can be done by non-admins!

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Listings

January 7

Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography
Delete — This template is simply ugly, an oversized box that adds notihng to the page. Information on name, date of birth and death is already the first pieces of information on the article itself, so it adds no useful content. Regular old photos is all that's needed. Underwent TLD in the past, survived, but many, many people were upset by the decision. Now that it's spreading to other articles it needs to be stopped. DreamGuy 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against jews

Template:User against jews

Template:Infobox Community

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

Template:Infobox Community
Template:Infobox Community/No seal
Template:Infobox Community/Unincorporated

All were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox City, i.e. some places didn't have a nickname or flag. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every place defined by the U.S. Census can use Template:Infobox City. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. — Seven Days » talk 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahamas TV

Template:Bahamas TV
Delete — Only linked by {{Miami TV}} as a see also, and whatlinkshere therefore shows several other "usages" of the template (really the Miami TV link) (it is also linked to by an article that I don't know how), and only serves to navigate between one redlink -- which practically eliminates the need for such templates!. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Template:Frown

Template:Frown

Template:Dmoz

Do we really need that? Adrian Buehlmann 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As far as I can tell, it's just one of a number of handy external link templates. Handy is good. Lord Bob 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I disagree that this is particularly handy; it saves perhaps a few seconds worth of key-strokes. Like Adrian, I don't think we need this. This kind of thing just needs a quick style guideline somewhere, not a template. Having said this, I am qualifying my vote with weak since it doesn't seem harmful or much of a drain of resources; it wouldn't bother me much if it's kept. I just noticed that there is a near identical template at Template:ODP, so this is just a template fork which was made instead of just modifying the existing template --Qirex 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think that in general such templates are a good way of standardizing external links to large and often-linked sites like the IMDB or the ISFDB (both of which have such link templates). There is an argument not to subst such tempaltes, since if the site in question changes its location or internal format, all links can be repaired by simply editing the template. But if frequently used, perhaps such tempaltes should be protected or semi-protected to avoid possible DOS vandalism. DES (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't shure myself about nominating this here and I see now it has enough fans. I have executed the outcome of this nomination and I must say I was astonished that this over there had an outcome of "subst and delete". See for example what I had to do here to implement that consensus (the revision before my change there was clearly the better one for my taste). I feel there is something wrong with the treatment of these kind of templates. It would be much better to eventually implement something like an auto-subst in the MediaWiki software instead of this constant lookout for "subst and delete"-able templates. Adrian Buehlmann 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User oppose Kelly Martin

This sort of thing is inappropriate, for several reasons. If one wants to express another's fitness for the arbcom, they can do so through the election, and not through the creation of extra templates for campaigning. There are already official channels for campaigning. This sort of template may also set a precedent in attacking other users -- legitimate criticism of other users should be done through proper channels with regard to civility and other Wikipedia guidelines. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:afd3

This template is instruction creep. I don't know, maybe it was useful at one point, but now it just makes it harder to nominate an article for AFD. I removed reference to it from the instructions on AFD, and replaced it with the much simpler {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/whatever}}. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I personally find it easier to type {{subst:afd3|pg= then Ctrl-V (paste) the article name that I copied beforehand (I also pasted the article name into afd2). I've tried both, and using afd2 and afd3 is just a lot quicker. Both these templates were originally brought about to reduce instruction creep. It's a lot easier to remember {{subst:afd2|pg=Ctrl-V and the same with afd3. That's just me, but I just found it easier in terms of cutting and pasting. --Deathphoenix 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has been around for a long long time and most people who are familiar with the AfD process are used to using it. Removing it is just to make things more difficult. Your reason for deletion is essentially, "I don't like it." You don't have to use it, but a lot of us I think find it far more convenient. howcheng {chat} 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deathphoenix and Howcheng. FreplySpang (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persoanlly i never use this. I would support editing the instrucvtions to make it celar this is a tool, not a required step in the procedure. But It can be a suefual tool, and it does no harm that I can see. DES (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree with your suggestion to "make it clear this is a tool". Instructions are clearer and simpler (especially for newer users) if they simply prescribe a fixed set of steps that can be performed without understanding the mechanics underneath them. The first time I AfD'ed a page, I had no idea about subpages or how to transclude them. I don't think I even knew how to use templates. The instructions were straightforward, though: cut and paste this text here, that text there, the third text another place, and you're done. A simple page of instructions with templates that can be cut and pasted into place is the best way to make AfD accessible to everyone. Users who are interested in how the templates work can of course explore them on their own, but keep the details out of sight of everyone else.--Srleffler 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This template simplifies the AfD process by giving each step a similar form. The text needed is shorter and simpler with the template. I can't imagine how the nominator sees his version as simpler. --Srleffler 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I run the bot that, every day, finds all the articles that people tried to AFD, but screwed up the process. There are very, very many of them, usually between fifteen and thirty, though I've seen as many as eighty in a single day. While a lot of these don't actually make it to AFD - I speedy keep the obvious bad faith nominations and those without any rationale for deletion, move others to WP:RFD or WP:CP, and speedy others - we're still looking at between 10% and 20% of all afd nominations, every day not getting completely through the process on their own. (That's not counting the people who fail to subst afd3 on the daily afd subpages, but my bot takes care of them automatically and I don't even see them.)

    I don't know whether {{afd2}} and {{afd3}} help or hurt more here. As someone who intuitively understood what was going on when I first saw {{msg:stub}} start showing up back in - early 2004, was it? - I'm inclined to guess that they hurt more. However, I think the right way to proceed is to keep afd3 for those who are used to it, but to try deprecating it, using Phroziac's wording on the instructions, and give that a week or two to see what the real-world effect is. —Cryptic (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Template:Sq 300 et al.

Delete all — This is actually a TfD for 14 incomplete, obsolete, unused and long-dormant templates on Polish squadrons. BDAbramson T 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV
Delete — image copyright tag that is not compatible with the GFDL as it precludes the sale of the material. Discussed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#PA-KingCountyGOV. Non-free license. Possibly WP:CSD reason I3. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied at creator's request --Doc ask? 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User support Kelly Martin

I think it was pretty obvious from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin that she doesn't like boxes like these. Let's do her a favor and go through proper process to remove this insult to her beliefs from Wikipedia. karmafist 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since a user page doesn't have to be NPOV and this message of endorsement cannot be regarded as insulting. (+Comment somehow two templates got mixed up, can somebody please fix that, because I do not want to modify it). KittenKlub 16:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. David | Talk 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you please explain your reasoning? I'm just saving her the trouble of nominating this. karmafist 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this edit from Kelly Martin. She includes as an unacceptable class of box "Any userbox which tends to serve the purpose of organizing Wikipedians along political, ideological (other than Wikipedia-specific ideologies...)" (my emphasis). Support for a particular Wikipedian in an internal election is clearly a Wikipedia-specific stance. Therefore Kelly has not identified this as an unacceptable type of userbox (it was created by one who has in general supported her reasoning on the userbox issue) and you are exhibiting bad faith in suggesting that she does. David | Talk 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that the nomination could perhaps have been phrased differently, but this isn't an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources, and promotes factionalism. Jkelly 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, I think there's an encyclopedia around here somewhere, and it ain't finished yet. android79 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. DES (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does anyone realise how HARD it is not to post the photoshopped image I have of "her" with a Stalinesque moustache and eating a baby? :| I know people have no sense of humour. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be damn careful if I were you. Joke or not, such an image could lead to legal action. That's something the dear "community" can't protect you from. Rob Church Talk 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing as Ms. Martin hates these things so much, we'd probably be doing her a service. Morgan695 17:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can it get any more ironic than this? My eyes almost popped out when I saw this on my watchlist. BJAODn-fy or Delete. --Gurubrahma 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a superb parody of the whole saga. Also, per all your arguments that I can do what I like with my user space. Rob Church Talk 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You forgot the "Nyaa-nyaa :P". Great, are we now down to the "lol PWNED YOURSSLF N00B" level of discussion (that goes for many people here, but I'm replying to you because I thought you'd be above this)? Oh, and keep plus stop listing stuff here just to make some point. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep - and I'm no fan of Ms. Martin's actions, either. How's that for NPOV? ;) --CJ Marsicano 17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. But I wanted to state that David hit the nail on the head. Contrary to popular belief, I have no objection to userboxes generally, and even have seven of them on my user page. Furthermore, I'm touched that there are people who feel strongly enough about my competency and committment to go so far as to create such a template. I do think that many of the people involved in this particular discussion are exhibiting a great deal of hypocrisy, however ("userboxes are fine, except when they support that woman we don't like, then they need to be deleted" is a good summary of some of the arguments for deletion above). I encourage the administrator who closes this discussion to give due weight to the arguments of editors who are recommending deletion based on personal animosity instead of reasoned principle. I'd also suggest that the people who insist that I "hate these things so much" need to (a) go back and reread my comments on the matter of userboxes and (b) go reread WP:CIVIL. I also think that nominating this template for deletion was a very poor move on the part of whoever did it (I didn't notice) since it was virtually certain to create strife in the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an eye on people using it. TCorp 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If templates that are attacking Kelly have to be deleted, then these should be deleted too. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KM This user opposes Kelly Martin for ArbCom. Beware the cabal!
--Dschor 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect, regrettably, that there are some here that might say Keep if Kelly said Delete and Delete if Kelly said Keep... so what does her "no vote" mean under that logic? If I vote keep does that mean we are going to get 43 other boxes showing who is supporting whom? Blech. If I vote Delete do I get accused of hypocrisy because I'm a supporter of boxes, even ones that show POV? Blech again. Whoever nominated this really ought to ask him or herself why exactly they did it! So, dear readers, after reading all that, you probably are hoping I'll finally express my opinion!. Well here you go: Mu ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think I offered "no vote"? I'm not totally stupid. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm fine with people expressing support for Kelly or anyone else, but there's no need to have a template for it. This sort of thing could get silly. JYolkowski // talk 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the logic espoused by kelly martin in her recent purge on boxes, this would be a very strong contender for deletion, since its entire aim is to further factions on wiki. However, i do not see this as such a bad thing. She has become a real issue which needs to be debated and faced. Declarations of peoples positions on this should not be discouraged.
  • Strong Keep — And also any userboxes saying the opposite, for example: "this user thinks Kelly Martin should no way be an arbitrator or hold any position of power whatsoever": Both are just as much valid points of view. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • '
  • Delete. as per reasoning in TfD above. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete campaign buttons. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat same as Template:User oppose Kelly Martin. My preference would be the removal of both, but I'm ok with both being kept. I'd be concerned with the fairness of allowing support OR opposition, but not both. kenj0418 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was originally parody and humour by Rob Church, but is now being used as grounds for nastiness by Kelly's detractors. Perhaps BJAODN. --Doc ask? 15:36, 6 January 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User allow fairuse

I don't think this needs a massive amount of explanation. Suffice it to say, that this template may be used to convey the opinion that our users don't like US copyright law. Sorry, but you can't vote that away, otherwise I'd have shot George W. Bush under WP:IAR back in 2003. Rob Church Talk 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now Fair use provision in the US copyright law does not (and will not) specifically target the use of copyrighted image within a particularly defined (in the law) namespace in a particularly defined website. The statement "it's the law" in Template talk:User allow fairuse immutable version implies such a misleading statement, that, the action of which, is explicitly and/or specifically prohibited and/or targeted by law. Keep until relevant discussions in WP:FU and Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes have reached a consensus regarding the issue. -- Carlsmith 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily as disruption. --Pjacobi 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlsmith. Larix 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for two reasons. First, that whole law thing. Second, it says "vote". Users who don't know how "voting" works on Wikipedia should not be displaying templates encouraging misuse of policy discussions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dschor. It's ironic that those who want to delete this invoke dislike of George W. Bush since they've invoked his mindset over the past week: i.e "the ends justify the means". karmafist 15:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not irony. I just dislike idiotic American Presidents who ruin the reputations of fine upstanding nations such as the United Kingdom. Rob Church Talk 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images which qualify as fair use in an article might not qualify as fair use in a userbox, and this is not the fault of any Wikipedia policy. Fair use is a complicated concept, and it's not Wikipedia's idea. To me, usage of this templates suggests misunderstanding of the concept of fair use. However, deleting the template won't do anything about that, and keeping it will not do further harm. So I lean towards weak keep. EldKatt (Talk) 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Opinions may vary but copyright law is law and no vote on Wikipedia will change it. David | Talk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the creator and users of this template obviously have a weak grasp on copyright law. The use of this template advocates actions that would be copyright infringement - illegal under U.S. Copyright law. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I understand it, the rational behind this is inspired by Wikipedia's own rules on fair use images appearing in userboxes being somewhat over-the-top, as is explored in the Firefox template discussions. A logo or such that the creator and/or company allows to be used to support that product and/or company is currently not allowed in userboxes, per WP's rules - not US copyright laws. If I misunderstand this, I'm sure someone will correct me. - Hayter 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats not my understanding. Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license (cc-by-sa, public domain, etc.). Logos and such are not licensed under the GFDL and so must be used under the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law, or not be used at all. So there are two options for image use: free content or fair use. Any use that falls outside of that is copyright or license infringement. So even if the license says that you can do X, but the image is not under a GFDL-compatible license, the only way that image is usable in Wikipedia is under fair use. Even if you are doing X, if X falls outside of fair use, you can't do it in Wikipedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's it - even when an image falls under fair use, WP does not allow it to be used in a userbox - only on a relevant article. As DES says below, this is a stricter application than US law. - Hayter 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, "fair use" is a defence for a use in a particular context. If you want to write up a detailed rationale for the use of an image in a userbox template, do so. Use {{fairusein|Template:foo}}. The generic {{logo}} fair use rationale is that the image is used for identification purposes in an article. Use of a {{logo}} image in a userbox is what is against policy. If you can write up a reasonable rationale and use {{fairusein}} that would pass {{fairusereview}}, then by all means, do so. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fuddlemark. Jkelly 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per law of the United States of America. Stupid United States of America. Why can't your copyright law allow encyclopaedias to use whatever the heck we want? Someday, we will have an encyclopaedic wikistate of our own...perhaps we should buy Sealand with that $336,539.23 we just raised. Lord Bob 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Wikipedia policy is currently significantly strictler than U.S. copyright law. Some uses of fair uses images which are pretty clearly legel, and others which are at least arguably legal, are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. This template advocates changing Wikipedia policy, not copyright law. There is at least a good argument that the changes it advocates would be legal under U.S. copyright law, at least in many specific cases. Whether this is a good idwa for Wikipedia is debatable, but this template is precisely an attempt to join that debate. There is no valid reason to delete this. DES (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep as per all other supporters, especially DESiegel. --CJ Marsicano 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyright law is complex and this just perpetuates the muddled lack of clarity regarding this. There is no such thing as a "Fair use image". There are images for which "Fair use" can be claimed. It is relatively straightforward to make a strong case for such use on articles directly pertaining to a topic. Making a case for legitimate fair use in the user namespace is much more tenuous (not impossible, but likely far less likely than many proponents seem to think). Better to err on the side of caution with this one, IMO. older≠wiser 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The people voting delete here seem to be arguing against the ideology behind this template rather than the template itself. As I have explained above, I also disagree with the view expressed by the template, but that does not provide me with a reason to vote delete for the very template, as far as I can see: if people feel a desire to say, in effect, (my free interpretation) "I don't know what fair use means and intend to vote on the basis of a misunderstanding", so be it. I'd sooner delete all the meaningless templates about what beverages you prefer, but there doesn't seem to be much consensus towards that either. EldKatt (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if your comment was directed at me, but my vote was not only about the ideology of the template. The template as written perpetuates a fundamental misunderstaning that there is a category of things such as "Fair use images". There is not. There is only specific uses of specific images that can claimed to be "fair use". Beyond that however, this template is not directly helpful in building an encyclopedia. I have no objection if people were to write the equivalent text on their User pages; but there is no need for a template. older≠wiser 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO "Fair use image" in this context meas eaither a) "An image tagfed with one of the fair use licese tags" or b) "an image not available under a free license, and so usable only under fair use if at all" or c) both of the above. Given that understanding I find the phrase useful, although some people may misunderstand it. But then some people may misunderestand almost anything to do with copyright. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bkonrad makes a case for not changing wikipedia policy on this issue -- but not a case for suippresing arguments or views on Wikipedia policy, and so no case for deleting this template. Remember that this template does not itself contain any images of any sort -- it merely advocates a change in Wikipedia policy on how and where such images are acceptable. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. My objections are twofold. First, the template perpetuates an incorrect undetanding of fair use. While you might know better, this template is simply wrong about how it characterizes fair use. Second, it serves no useful purpose for building an encylopedia. Now, people are perfectly free to display their ignorance of fair use on their user pages, but we don't need to keep a template around to make it easy to do so. older≠wiser 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dunno, a template that said "this user knows nothing of fair use, but feels free to hold forth anyway" could be useful, especially if they're about to get in trouble for uploading dodgy images. However a template that helps spread ignorance about both the law and policy is an unqualified Bad Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipolitical userboxes must go. Created to be divisive and factionalizing. (Deleteing them is also divisive and factionalizing, but seems the lesser evil.) Also, I agree with fuddlemark's second reason. FreplySpang (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I see no policy authorizing such deltions. Such deletions should wait on settling the policy issue.
  • Keep. Harmless and futile. US law is miniimal to Wikipedia policy on fair use images (now a policy). Wikipedia strives to serve beyong US borders. TCorp 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but you can't vote away US copyright law. --Carnildo 18:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually you can, but not here. US Law is writtne and can be changed by US legislatiors, who are chosen by vote. however that is irrelevant, because this tempalte expresses an opnion not on US law, but on places where Wikipedia policy is at least arguably more strict than US law requires. DES (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This userbox is not about US copyright law, but about Wikipedia policy TCorp 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was planning to make a donation to Wikipedia in the next few days. It was going to be a pretty good one too, but given the attitude of some people, I chose to find something else to do with the money for the time being. --CJ Marsicano 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to refrain from displaying the template on your user page, Phil - please leave it available for those who disagree. Your silly name change doesn't fool anyone, Snowspinner - we all recognize you. --Dschor 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 'this user wants Wikipedia to break laws as policy'. - ulayiti (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. This template is pretty useless considering that the ArbComm has clearly come down against the use of fair use images on talk pages. Everybody who has boted keep should read what United States copyright law says about fair use. The section isn't very long, and the criteria for fair use is very simple. BlankVerse 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could quote US copyright law, but that doesn't mean I can't express my disapproval too. Tom 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DES. I might vote delete if U.S. copyright law was clear, but the voters here certainly don't agree (and I myself cannot understand why an image that's called "fair use" can be used on one internet page and not another). Meanwhile this userbox is not hurting anything. --Fang Aili 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is a viatal aspec of "fair use" that where and how you use it matters a great deal, and so what is reasoanble fair use on one internet page may well be nothign of the sort when used for a differen purpose in a different context on a different page. That is the main reason behind the current policy, as I understand it. Most of our usuall justifications for fair use would not apply, or not nearly as strongly, on user pages, and when an image is on a temple it is all too easy for it to be added to pages where the stated rationale does not apply. There are cases, however (like the image on the SEPTA template, and other logo cases) where IMO a plausisible rationale for fair use on templates could apply, and other cases where a valid rationale could apply for user pages. But current policy seems to forbid this, even if copyright law does not. DES (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jimbo has voiced opinion on this template [2], stating "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team." Carbonite | Talk 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dan | talk 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's just stupid to think we can simply vote about this. Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get on with building the damn encyclopaedia. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo, I agree. --Wgfinley 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger than a silly diamond keep This vote is about the userbox, not the idea behind the userbox. I have seen plenty of other userboxes for people supporting proposed policies and policy changes, no reason this one has to go. Remember, we're voting on the userbox, not the idea behind it. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As said elsewhere, Wikipedia fairuse policy is more restrictive than necessary according to U.S. copyright law. If a user wishes to express their interest toward changing policy, a userbox should be allowed as one of those methods of expression. Silensor 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template is useful as a n00b marker if nothing more. In any case, free speech. ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - note that Jimbo actually deleted this template himself before someone informed him about this TfD debate. (See [3] and [4]). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This userbox shows peoples support for a change of policy. Don't delete a person's right to free speech. mdmanser 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A surprising number of people seem to think that this is America, and that we have a right to free speech on here. I am baffled as to why they think that. That being, Nickptar and Mdmanser, that I can see right now without scrolling. You two (and anyone else who might have said it) are horribly wrong - there is no such right here in Wikipedialand. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any speech is only tolerated here in so far as it furthers the end of creating an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. --Doc ask? 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Removed misleading "vote" reference to clarify that this is about users' opinions regarding Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law, not about some fictitious "vote". -Silence 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not again. Keep, and a curse upon the head of whoever is incapable of figuring out that userpages are protected under fair use and that the only thing preventing the use of fair use images in user namespace is extralegal Wikipedia policy, not the law. Rogue 9 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this rather surprising as well. Look at any personal webpage outside of Wikipedia and you are very likely to see various fair-use images. Some Wikipedians - who I'm sure are well-meaning and sincere, but who I think are engaging in m:Copyright paranoia - think all of this is illegal. How many hundreds of New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox fan pages have team logos boosting their support for the team (and often denigrating the other one)? How many of these people have ever even been asked to take them down? What evidence do we have that the copyright holders care about such trivial and incidental uses at all? We're not talking about users hosting copyrighted MP3s on their user pages. We're talking about instances where there is a reasonable claim of fair use and where the rights holders have not even attempted to tell people that they can't use the materials in this manner. Three of the primary criteria for fair use are that the use is not for profit (and obviously this applies to user pages), that the amount used is minimal (again the case - in many cases, we are talking about single screenshots from movies or TV shows, or individual logos), and that the use does not affect the rights holder's ability to make a profit (and how are any of the uses on user pages possibly going to affect that?) In short, I think we have reasonable fair use claims for most of the instances involved here. It's fine if Wikipedia wants to adopt a more restrictive policy. In article space, I completely agree with trying to minimize fair use whenever a free alternative is possible. I see no reason to do this in userspace, but it's not really a big deal one way or the other. But these over-the-top claims that people are "breaking the law" must go - they border on violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. These individuals are acting in good faith and with reasonable claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most personal webpages on the internet do violate copyright; outside of Wikipedia, reuse of images from other websites is quite common. But without a license, that is generally illegal. The issue is not whether the copyright holders care, but what's legal, because the Wikimedia Foundation might be held responsible for deliberate misuse of copyrighted material. Your user page is not your personal page, it's part of the project, and fair use is least likely to apply there because it's not an article about something that requires a picture. Jimbo says (see above) that the current policy on fair use images was adopted on the advice of the project's lawyers—if you think they're wrong, you can copy all of Wikipedia to your own servers, start your own encyclopedia, and get your own lawyers. -- SCZenz 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Keith Greer 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wishful thinking versus reality. Why does this remind me of "Loretta" from Monty Python's Life of Brian? Perhaps I can create the "User allow free beer" template, to match. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perm-ban all users with this template then Delete. Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Wikipedia is not geocities. If you want a home page, go some place else. Wikipedia is for building an encyclopedia, and you can't vote to change that. Not here, not in some silly userbox, and not anywhere else. --Gmaxwell 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with a rebuttal: Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Should we file that line under B.S. or a strawman argument? Let's be realistic: The real "fair use abuse" here is coming from those wishing to discourage policy change by consensus. You scream "Don't rock the boat!" but it's those that are being falsely accused of rocking the boat that are trying to steady the ship. Those of you who repeat the obvious "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" mantra along with "Wikipedia is not a free speech zone" seem to forget that English Wikipedia would not EXIST without free speech. We now return you to the WikiRevolution already in progress. --CJ Marsicano 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users with this template are expressing an opinion. Something we are all allowed to do on talk pages and such. They are not getting wikipedia into trouble by actually using hundreds of fair use images. All they are doing is saying what they think about things.--God of War 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Measurement

Template:Measurement
Delete — This is an unfinished template that does not seem to be currently in use. The material covered is dealt with well elsewhere and I see no need for this table. Srleffler 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like it's supposed to be a template for creating articles about cemeteries. Delete, because it's pretty fairly useless.--Sean|Black 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can still transclude a template from your userspace, yes. However, the problem here is that it's not really a template- it's fine for a standardised format for cemetery articles, but the problem is that the way trancslusion works will produce just what the template says unless you include optional parameters (which is difficult and confusing). I'd suggest moving the template into your userspace, then dragging it into the empty edit box and filinf it out when making a new article.--Sean|Black 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't the purpose of templates. The logical alternative to such over-templating is to establish a page on a single, important cemetery and use that page as a "template" for future cemetery pages. - Cuivienen 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a misunderstanding of what templates are per User:Longhair. Templates are something to be included in an article, not a tool for creating substubs through subst:ing. - Bobet 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not what templates are for, although it is an understandable mistake. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, um, are there supposed to be two templates under consideration here, or just the same one linked twice? —Cryptic (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User soup nazi and Template:User-grammar nazi

Whatever your view on userboxes, these should go. 1) Not funny. 2) Comparisons to Nazis are always in poor taste. 3) We will have users who suffered, directly or indirectly, under Hitler. 4) Godwin's law. 5) And least important - there are some issues surrounding the use of the Swastika in some European countries. --Doc ask? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hm. None of those reasons sound very convincing. We don't censor Wikipedia articles, so why should we censor Wikipedia userpages? As long as it's someone identifying himself as a soup nazi or a grammar nazi, rather than accusing anyone else of being such, it's not likely to offend, since both terms are heavily ingrained in the popular culture (though the swastika in "user soup nazi" is a bit unexpected; I'd have expected an image of a bowl of soup or something). Not being funny and not being in good taste are matters of taste, and not really grounds for deletion, even though I agree; nor do Godwin's Law or censorship laws in various European countries make any difference in this matter. And if the "I hate GWB" templates are appropriate, I don't see how this one, which doesn't even express an opinion (it's not like it says "the Holocaust wasn't real" or "I <3 Hitler" on it or anything), could be considered unacceptably inappropriate.
As for people who have suffered due to Hitler: although I think for the most part these terms are used just for shock value and humor (although they can sometimes be offensive when applied to other people rather than to oneself, e.g. calling someone a "grammar nazi" for correcting your spelling), not really anything attempted to offend anyone, if anything, I'd say that such jokes as "soup nazi" trivialize naziism, they don't trivialize the Holocaust. Mocking Hitler and demeaning and degrading the term "nazi" with silly, amusing phrases "soup nazi" and "grammar nazi" is not mocking or attacking victims of nazis, but mocking nazis themselves. The needless suffering it's caused and continues to cause is bad, but the concept of naziism itself, really, isolated from its historical context, isn't scary so much as incredibly silly. If racism and religious bigotry wasn't so dangerous, destructive, and widespread in modern society, I'd almost consider racists and bigots adorable. Like crazy people on the subway. -Silence 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't censor wikipedia, because censorship damages content. We should remove sources of offence where to do so is content-neutral (else why not have an erect penis on the Mainpage). If people want to self-describe by comparison to mass-murderers, they are free to do so. The question is whether there should be a general template to facilitate this. --Doc ask? 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we do censor wikipedia. Confer autofellatio. Silence argues at great length that people shouldn't find this offensive (by invoking highly semantic arguments like: it's not a "description" but only an "allusion"), but maybe Silence should stop and consider whether any people do find this offensive, which is the more germaine point here, according to our practices. By the way, I'm a staunch freedom of expression advocate, who thinks that takes precedent over people's sensitivities, so I vote keep, but I find Silence's counterarguments unconvincing, and expect the senstivity consideration to carry the day. -lethe talk 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is that it's not self-describing by comparison to mass-murderers, it's using a term that very vaguely alludes to a mass murderer. Is even mentioning a term that is related to someone hateful off-limits, even when the actual template is certainly not supportive of that individual or his movement, and is in fact a parody of it? I think it's a tad excessive to say that we can't even use the word "nazi" in any template on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, intent, or meaning is. And if that's not what you're saying, then read Soup Nazi and grammar nazi, as they're references, respectively, to a very popular Seinfeld episode and to a very common colloquial term for people who are overly concerned with grammar, certainly not the direct references to Hitler you seem to think they are. My recommendation: keep both templates, and replace the swastika on the "Soup Nazi" with a more topic-appropriate image (like a bowl of soup or a clipped version of Image:Sein soup nazi.jpg) so it fits the joke properly. -Silence 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official policy on userboxes, but there is on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with which you might like to refamilliarise yourself! --Doc ask? 11:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then make that template too, and use it instead. I too am what many could describe as a "grammar nazi", being very concerned with grammatical consistency, yet I have no plans to ever use that template on my page because it doesn't fit my style of humor. Those who prefer that particular self-depracating way to state their grammar fixation should be permitted to do so, and those who don't prefer it, like you and I, can easily make other templates with a similar meaning for our own use. Deletion due to being needlessly offensive may be a valid justification (even though it doesn't apply well enough here), but deletion just because "As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of..." is purely a matter of personal preference and taste. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith.
It's getting difficult to assume good faith when the minority is repeatedly nominating large numbers of userboxes for deletion and then claiming that they are the true defenders of Wikipedia. - Cuivienen 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you if it was someone calling someone else a grammar nazi. Saying "You are such a grammar nazi" is potentially (though not necessarily) offensive; saying "You are such a soup nazi" will rarely be offensive, because it's so darned silly. However, saying "I am such a grammar nazi" or "I am such a soup nazi", which is exactly what the above templates do, is more goofy and humor-at-one's-own-expense than genuinely offensive. This really isn't that big of a deal. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the Nazi bit half as much as I mind the joke about being a member of the SS, which is in the poorest possible taste. That was the basis of my vote and comment. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup but Delete (or Rewrite) Grammar. The soup reference is too common an joke reference for any claims of offensiveness, and should be kept (at least until there is a consensus general policy on all joke-boxes). As much as I champion box-rights, even I find the grammar box (in its current form) to be in poor taste (If it had been funnier, I may have voted to keep, but it is not. There is a fine line between clever and stupid --Spinal Tap.) — Eoghanacht talk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People keep claiming that 'Soup Nazi' is common cultural reference. Well, it is not one I have ever heard - and so all I saw was some poor-taste comparision between soup and Nazism. I wonder that voters may be guitly of US-popular-culture imperialism. In most of the world, when people see the word Nazi, they do not think about US sitcoms. --Doc ask? 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Soup Nazi is worse than American-pop-culture imperialism, it is New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism. However, given that it is instantly identifiable to hundreds of millions of English speakers I think it qualifies as a common knowledge joke. Everyone who does not understand the reference (even if that means most other English speakers) can simply click on the link in the userbox to read about it. — Eoghanacht talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 'New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism' = 'common knowledge'. I suddenly feel like an ignorant foreigner. --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I should have typed: "Manhattan-pop-cultural-imperialism", but one of the joys of Wikipedia is the opportunity to expand your knowledge, such as the fundamental truth: Nothing important happens east of the East River, nor west of the Hudson. I don't believe it myself, but American media and advertisers keeps trying. — Eoghanacht talk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - Stop the deletionism. Delete only the templates that are actually useless and stop wasting space on this page and the time of Wikipedia users. - Cuivienen 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only templates that are 'actually useless' - OK, what 'use' are these to the goals of wikipedia? --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless templates are redundant templates or templates not being used as templates (see Template:Cemetery for one such example). This template is for humor on userpages, a valid use. - Cuivienen 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing offensive about it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by the precedent set by all the other meaningless userboxes here that nobody minds. If I may address the points of the nominator: 1) is not a valid criterion for deletion, and it is highly objective. I think most of the userboxes advertised as funny qualify as "not funny" to a greater or lesser extent by my standards, but I wouldn't think of trying to get them deleted based on this argument. 2) is also quite objective. I for one would disagree. 3) is technically correct, but I disagree with it as an argument for deletion here. While it is an interesting topic of discussion how offensive jokes should be allowed to be, this doesn't even come close to offensive enough to warrant such discussion, I think. 4) Godwin's law cannot be taken too seriously, and certainly is not a valid criterion for deletion here. 5) is obviously moot now that there is no swastika. EldKatt (Talk) 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak I'm going to hate myself in the morning keep- Tasteless yes, but it was Seinfeld, not Wikipedia, who came up with it, the terms are recognizable. Keep both. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not funny but rather offensive. Cyberevil 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete on grounds of offence. Grammar nazi is an internal Wikipedia thing so the concept is acceptable as a box, Soup nazi obviously refers to a joke I have not yet heard, but both are expressed in terms that I think go beyond what is acceptable. David | Talk 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar nazi is not even close to being "an internal Wikipedia thing". In fact, I'd say it's just about the most common usage of the word "nazi" in the modern English-speaking world that doesn't refer to literal nazis. It's practically ubiquitous as a pejorative, amusingly over-the-top term for obsessive grammarians. And voting to delete "Soup Nazi" just because you haven't heard the joke before is rather biased. Why should the arbitrary and random number of things you've happened to run into before in your life determine how you vote? My vote would be the same whether I'd happened to hear of Soup Nazi before or not, because my personal experience in this area is not what this vote is about. If "Soup Nazi" wasn't noteworthy, it wouldn't have an article! -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the use of the word 'nazi' should not frighten people. I'm more familiar with 'spelling nazi' but 'grammar nazi' is a common term that I've heard both in Rl and on the Internet and 'soup nazi' - well, lots of people found Seinfeld funny. - Hayter 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, espousing your knowledge of languages or political beliefs or even your web browser is one thing, but this is pretty well boxcruft. Yes, we know. You like Seinfeld. You think capital letters are good. That's swell, but we don't need userboxes for everything somebody somewhere thinks is good. Especially when the templates are about as funny as a swift kick to the groin. Lord Bob 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet political beliefs or web browsers--also irrelevant to the functionality of Wikipedia, unlike Babel--are okay? Out of curiosity, where exactly do you draw the line? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see all the genuinely useless humorous templates gone, not just the ones I dislike more. EldKatt (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. I might add that the "X-Nazi" form in sich versions as "Safety-Nazi", "PC_Nazi" ect, often to deride an opposing viewpoint, but soemtimes to deprecatingly describe one's own views (as apparently in this case) is considerably wider than Seinfeld, and the intended meanign should be clear to msot people. I personally wouldn't use such a designation, but if people want to so self-label, why not. I speak as a person who had relatives, albiet rather distant ones, who were Holocaust victims. DES (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. older≠wiser
  • Very Strong Keep for The Soup Nazi and Rewrite before Keeping (the wording I just saw has me iffy) for the Grammar Nazi. I'd also like to remind everone of Mel Brooks' words on why he always made fun of Nazis in his films: "When you're made a mockery of your enemy, then you've won." --CJ Marsicano 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Nazi here does not reference to national socialism, but more as a reference to the setereotype.→AzaToth 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Soup Nazi, Keep Grammar Nazi.Gateman1997 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CIVIL. FreplySpang (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup Nazi, on the grounds that it is hilarious and not really offensive. Rewrite Grammar Nazi on the grounds that it is in extremely poor taste. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - none of the nom's reasons for deletion are convincing, especially for the Soup Nazi. The grammar nazi thing is a bit wierd, but neither are offensive and both are users' choices to use or not use. No one is forcing anyone to use them, but if you want to then it is your right to do so. Deano (Talk) 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly in favour of userboxes, but delete these. Inappropriate in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Soup For You! - anon
  • Keep. No delete for you. --Stbalbach 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Offensiveness is subjective, there's no need to impose personal tastes on someone else's userpage. There are a significant number of people on this planet who find all pictures of people to be genuinely offensive (because allegedly idolatrous). We can't regulate for the vast variety of personal aversions out there. Craft your own userpage in whatever way suits yours. Babajobu 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; these don't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With or without Swastika, still bad taste. Garion1000 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think that any swastika imagery should be gotten rid of. Self-deprecating humor is acceptable in userspace. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't censor. Stop the deletion inquisition. People have different senses of humor... Get over it. Don't be humor nazis Zachomis 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and my extend the following two userboxes: {{userbox:wiki-nazi-0}} {{userbox:wiki-nazi-1}} Robert Paveza 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete I would have started this process if I knew how. I made comments on a couple of pages. Essentially, I particularly object to the term nazi, and pointed out how

it wouldn't be fun to have a "kkk-grammar" or substitute other hateful symbols. Dialogue is important, but comparing grammar usage to a genocidal regime is in poor taste, even if it was part of a major sitcom. Many people here claim its not offensive, but many people i know were stunned to here about it, especially after i was bragging so much about how great wikipedia is. It hurts and marginalizes some. Not allowing the use of a symbol that is oppressive is a tolerable curtail of freedom of speech, as it reminds some of hatred, murder and genocide. And we want those people contributing to wikipedia. I think the term for someone who is intense about grammar should remain, but i feel the use of the term nazi, both on wikipedia and in common day lexicon, is inappropriate.

I'll read the process here now that i found it, but for sure i am for deleting it. As a side note, as a new user to wikipedia i'm delighted by all the talk. Certainly a vibrant and interesting community, where so many users debate this issue. I'm impressed. Cool stuff! JamieJones 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Let me start off by saying that I am very close to the Jewish community, and that I am considering the possability in becoming a Jew myself through cleansing in the mitvah. I would also like to point out that I just came home from a day at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C and that I have spent many personal hours on the study of WW2 and the Holocaust. I don't find these templates offensive, and I don't find them to be in bad taste. Even if I would find them to be offensive, or in bad taste, I would still oppose the deletion of them. It is not my job (or yours) to define what is and what is not funny. Are these templates advocating the harm of people? No, they're not. The mere mention of the word "nazi" does not make these templates the rallying cry for ignorant activity. Everyone has their little sick jokes- It is not our job to police that. Zachomis 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This userbox isn't exactly promoting racism or anything. Ashibaka tock 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - "grammar nazi" is a commonly accepted term. "nazi" is synonymous with "fascist" in this case. no offense should be taken to this. DrIdiot 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't believe in the offensive reasons myself, I don't think that "fascist" is a much nicer term than "Nazi". They're both used as fairly over-the-top insults, after all. Lord Bob 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mostly meant they were by no means references to mass murder. Or politics at all. I'd like to add (this is irrelevant to your comment) that the Japanese raped/killed thousands of Chinese in WW2, but as a Chinese I hold no grudge and I'm not offended by mentions of Tojo or Japan. And even if I was offended, I would respect freedom of speech and would live with it. DrIdiot 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Are a bit wierd but not overly offensive. If we delete everything that causes offence, then we'd have hardly any userboxes left! We got to stop being to cowardly with these sort of things, and not delete something at the first sight of offence! - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Offensive, bad taste, unhelpful. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Smells like censorship. Bastique 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Valmi ✒ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-5

Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your POV judgement that you find it horrible is a fairly weak argument for starting to delete a project that is as successful as Babel. If we delete level five what argument is there for keeping level 1?? No language evaluation system in the world has only four levels. The American Standard is 5 levels ILR scale (excluding natives) the European Standard is at 6 levels (TELC). As Babel currently stands (4 levels) it is pretty useless. The language skills of people within one of these levels differ enourmously. It is hard to categorize yourself in one of only four levels. For your information, and I think you should have done some research before just suggesting a user template for deletion: we have hundreds of these templates here, which deserve deletion according to your reasoning. The template you are so keen on deleting facilitates work and life on Wikipedia for about forty users who are in that category. This deletion request is obviously in bad faith.--Fenice 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice straw man argument, there.--Srleffler 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First place, en-5 doesn't help make it any easier to categorize yourself; if en-5 is deleted, en-4 or en-N should be used. For a system that can't use testing, I found it fairly simple to categorize myself; much easier than to decide whether I speak English at a "professional" level. And whatever happened to assume good faith?--Prosfilaes 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument lacks logic: '...For a system that can't use testing...' - why shouldn't it be possible to use standard test results to categorize yourself - don't you want it to be comparable to standard tests or are you trying to claim that WP's Babel should be set in stone... or? I don't understand your argument. Or are you trying to argue that if we had levels comparable to standard test this will make people act in bad faith and make false statements about their skills. That would not be possible. Other users would notice anyway. --Fenice 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can disagree with someone without claiming their arguments is illogical, and claiming such does nothing to encourage calm discussion. We can't use test results, because serious testing is expensive and complex. I fail to see how it's relevant; en-5 has nothing to do with standardized testing anyway.--Prosfilaes 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the standard for a "professional" English speaker? Little known fact, I can contribute with a double secret level of English. Should I create Template:User en-6? Rhobite 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really needed, as en-4 and en-N both cover it - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No harm. --Thorri 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again not really needed, breaking the standard for no good reason I can detect. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I think a level 5 is useful, I personally have problem with defining the step from expert to native. A professional level for me indicates that the person in question have learned the language to a native level, but it's not his/her nativ language. For example a translator could use it to define it's profession is the language. →AzaToth 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all other language templates have four levels. Why break the standard for English? Not only that, this template implies that the user is somehow a better English speaker than most other people. Rhobite 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. →AzaToth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, AzaToth, you have just illustrated one of the problems with this template. I believe it is not intended to represent English ability equal to native English level (but without being native.) It is intended to indicate that the user's ability to write in English exceeds that of a typical native speaker. Hence, the description "professional"—this is intended for people who are professional writers, and who therefore (claim) to have better command of the English language than the rest of us. There are all kinds of problems with this, as others have pointed out. The fact that the tag is prone to misuse and misunderstanding, as you have shown, is only one of them.--Srleffler 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Could someone define exactly what a native speaker is? I understand it to be ones mother tounge. For example, I'm a native speaker of Swedish, but I'm not a professional in it's grammar. →AzaToth 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per User:OwenX. Appears to be attempting a reform of the Babel system's structure in its own sneaky way. Whether more levels are needed could be discussed, but in its proper place, and if it meets acceptance by consensus, it should be implemented in a proper way. Also, in this particular case it seems to imply that a "professional" speaker (in itself an ill-defined concept) somehow differs in skill or level of authority from a native or near-native speaker, which, I would argue, is patently false. The main (and probably sufficient) argument for deletion is that it poses as a Babel template but does not follow the standard form of Babel templates. EldKatt (Talk) 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and revise as per User: OwenX. DES (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite text as the term "professional" has so many different meanings (is it someone writing or translating as a living? Is it someone holding a provincially-issued licence of some sort, in the same way "professional engineer" and "registered nurse" each have a specific legal meaning? Is it someone who knows just enough English to use it in the workplace when practicing some other unrelated profession? Or is it just a perceived level of linguistic quality somehow rated a little better than merely "unprofessional"? If the meaning is that this person's employment is that of a linguist, author or teacher of English, by all means say so. The current wording is too vague to impart any meaning beyond that of {{en-4}} and therefore useless. --carlb 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Dan | talk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Many native speakers/writers of English can and do write at a near-illiterate level. A way to distinguish the better practitioners is needed, even if English isn't their native language. However, I'd rather see the template in a less-provocative color than the shades of red that it now uses. Another color might avoid offending the tender sensibilities of certain users. --QuicksilverT @ 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a distinct difference between being native in a language and taking college classes to learn the grammar.--God of War 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Look at all those people who contribute using textspeak, slang, "it's" in the wrong place, etc.. etc... They may be native speakers, but they definitely don't deserve the en-5 label. en-5 is a way to show people that you know when to use apostrophes, that you can spell correctly, etc.... You don't have to have written books to show that. Anyway, if it is deleted, people can just create a userbox on their own page, defeating the whole point of deleting it. Just look a second at all the people who have en-5 on their user pages. They can all contribute with a high level of English and spelling correctly. At least three people on the first page of the en-N category can't spell or, even worse, don't use proper grammar. After all, what's the point of deleting a userbox, why the fuss? If people want to put en-5 on their userpage, leave them alone... Nippoo 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Nippoo. Hi-cal usage isn't common even in native speakers; the en-5 suggests encyclopedia-caliber competence, which is to be desired. Add it to other languages, too, I've no problem with that; if you're de-5 (or Klingon-5, for all that), good on ya. Trekphiler 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're a professional editor, and want people to know it, why not write it in English on your user page? Why does it need to be in a stupid box? -- SCZenz 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nonstandard (and sets a terrible precedent), pointless, arrogant (by what standard do we judge "professional", other than just how well a person thinks of his own writing?), inaccurate, misleading, wasteful, unreliable (with no consistent standard, we'll have some of our best writers and some of our worst writers listed together, making the template useless), ugly. Has nothing to do with the Babel templates, which deal with whether you're a native speaker of the language or one who's learning it at some level or another. A distinct template should be created for things like "user is a professional writer", "user has an exceptional grasp of vocabulary and grammar, "user is a copyeditor", etc., if necessary. The Babel template deal with how fluent you are in English, not how skilled you are; whether your prose is masterful or not should be an unrelated template. Also, I have to say that I couldn't agree more with SCZenz; very good point. -Silence 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-standard-issue can easily be changed - what color do you want it to be? en-4 is yellow, so that would also be non-standard, should we also delete it? Why else could this template be nonstandard? Why would this template be more misleading than other levels? I personally beleive en-2 is way more misleading. It can mean anything. To some people intermediate means advenced, to others it means beginner. According to your reasoning we should urgently delete the native template because it does not identify a person who is learning the language (?) (I think, hope, we can assume that everybody who writes for WP is trying to improve his language skills -> so lets delete all babel templates?). And could you expand on your notion that fluency has nothing to do with skill?--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-standard and unnecessary template, although, as are said often above, a seperate userbox and category to show that you're a professional writer isn't a bad idea. Lord Bob 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Escapes the purpose of the Babel project, I believe. Plus, there's a duality difficult to resolve: this "professional speaker" could be a "über-native", that is, a native who also possesses a "professional knowledge" of the language, or a "über-level 4", that is, a person who is not a native speaker but who has studied and understands the language on a "professional level", such as an English teacher/professor in a non-English speaking country. Those two should not even be mixed to begin with, since it's not quite the same thing. Since this is not essential to the project, we'd be better off leaving this alone — plus what Silence said. Redux 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...A duality difficult to resolve...says Redux. We can't list all articles for deletion that have dualities that are difficult to resolve. Doing that in this case sets an uncanny precedent.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretentious as hell, and completely misleading. I lost track of the number of grammatical mistakes and misspelled words on the user pages of people with this userbox. Yeah, I'm a copyeditor. FCYTravis 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which are completley arbitrary. 4 sounds about right; I could decipher a message, I could communicate at a basic level, I'm pretty good in the language, I'm a native.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretentious, unhelpful, offensive. If you're a professional who uses English, say that; there's a difference between that and "speaking English at a professional level".--Prosfilaes 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the wording I have problems with; it's the fact that the Bable tool is being abused to look down at the people who only speak the language at a "native" level. It's an elitest and linguistically absurd concept.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The user template deletion craze is really going beyond comment. --Fenice 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. --Fang Aili 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Using that reasoning, we can delete every user template because it is "arrogant" and the user must be a "twit," right? Most languages have at least 5 levels, as the first comment noted. There is absolutely no reason to delete this, as it can be extremely useful in determining people who can help significantly with grammar. The argument that people with terrible grammar will use this is irrelevant, since someone could just as easily put a level 4 when they really speak at a level 2, and this would be apparent from the user page anyways. Using that reasoning, again, we can just delete all language templates because all Wikipedia users can be arrogant twits and lie, right? Wrong.
  • Tests (not languages) may have a level 5, but that doesn't mean that we should be that granular, and it espeically does not mean that we should have level 5 mean what en-5 does. Yes, they could put a level 4 when they speak at a level 2, but it's not really being an arrogant twit to say you're as good as most speakers. en-5 is misleadingly defined, since there's no linguistically accepted level of language knowledge beyond native, and there's no evidence that it's being used in a useful way.--Prosfilaes 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla

(previous nomination)

Redundant to {{logo}}, used on about ten images. That Mozilla explicitly says "go ahead and use this" is irrelevant; we don't allow "by-permission" images, and they're in fact speedyable. Their license explicitly disallows commercial exploitation (see their faq), making all images with this tag speedyable for that reason also. On top of this, they don't allow derivatives of any kind, further cementing the case that this is an unfree image. The only way images currently tagged with this template can be used on Wikipedia is under a fair use claim. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because everyone and their cousin knows (or should know) that there's no harm in displaying the Mozilla logos in this context. —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, using images we have been given permission to use doesn't carry any legal risk either, but because such images are unfree (does not allow commercial re-distribition) it has been dictated from the foundation level that such images are not to be used anymore (or at least used under the fair use doctrine instead). I don't see how this should somehow not apply here. --Sherool (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use on user pages. If they were to be added to related articles, that would qualify as fair use. What's the problem? —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use in the user namespace. As Kelly and Tony have reminded us in recent days, this is not part of the encyclopedia proper. —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FormerGA

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - wasn't this already listed and kept? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see this being used. But move it to Template:Former-GA for conventions. - Cuivienen 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to {{DelistedGA}}, which survived TfD, although I whole-heartedly endorse the GA project. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Template:DelistedGA, which should in turn have the box deleted and replaced with only a category: as long as this is only a proposed project without community consensus support, we should not be defacing the Talk pages of hundreds of articles with a big box that is totally useless by virtue of not in any way improving the editorial process. However, by keeping the template in existence, we can in the future easily re-add the box if there is ever consensus to do so, and in the meanwhile the template can consist entirely of a category that will allow easy navigation of all of these articles for those who are interested, but will be 100% non-intrusive for those who dislike or oppose the project or think there are already too many huge, cluttering, arbitrary boxes on articles and article Talk pages already (which there are). The exact same thing should be done with Template:GA: remove the box, but keep Category:Wikipedia good articles linked so anyone interested in the project can easily navigate it. Win-win situation. -Silence 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Silence, having a box for this is ridiculous. Good Articles is a fine project but we don't need to know what they didn't like, they can just drop a note on the talk page. If it does get kept, delete the box. Ashibaka tock 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the difference between, say, an unreferenced article you find by clicking the random article link, and an unreferenced article with {{FormerGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} added to its talk page? The answer is nothing. There are plenty of more specific templates available for noting flawed articles, such as {{unreferenced}} and {{reqimage}}. Noting "good" articles may be useful, noting non-"good" articles is not and if someone is seeking them, plenty can be found at Category:Wikipedia maintenance.—jiy (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It will be much more useful to make a section on the talk page saying "I removed the GA template because.." Sometimes templates just encourage laziness--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

On request from a third party, I have also moved the discussion (which is already quite sizable) there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood - no need to redirect as it isn't used. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?
  • Delete. Category is enough --kernoz 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren グレン 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbamb.
  • Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. DaGizza Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid POV, even if you don't like it. By my understanding at least, as long as you discuss all the other POV's where NPOV needs to be preserved, then it's actually protected by WP:NPOV as a religion. Not that it matters much in userspace.
Wikipedia has one big thing which guarantees freedom of expression on here, which is that if it doesn't it will rapidly cease to be so good. (Rhobite, I'm talking to you here.) In userspace we don't have to have NPOV, and that is a good thing. For example, there are a small but signifigant number of wikipedians whose user pages say things like "I am a homophobe", etc, etc, etc. My user page has a series of userboxes which say things like "This user identifies as gay", "This user has a boyfriend", and so on. None of these can be mistaken for encyclopedic statements, but, when I clash with otherwise good editiors in articles about sexuality we both know where we stand, and what each others biases are. That makes wikipedia stronger I think because we can never get rid of an individuals bias, and everyone has some biases. Being aware of them is the next best thing. Tom 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But Scientology should link to Scientology. Keith Greer 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does no one who is voting keep understand this is saying the same thing as "I am anti-semetic" or "I am anti-Islmanic" or "I think Christians are whackos" or "I dislike athiests"? This is a personal attack on a group of people and as such is against policy.Gateman1997 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep userboxes are free of NPOV requirements and users could simply make their own if so desired using existing templates. -Drdisque 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. {{User against jews}} got speedied--how is this any different? -- SCZenz 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Rogue 9 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain to me how Judaism is any different then Scientology? They are both recognized and widely accepted world religions. Being anti one is identical to being anti the other. I am appalled this hasn't been deleted yet and frankly if this is the stance Wikipedia takes on religious issues then frankly it doesn't have a prayer. The ACLU will jump on this site like fly's on crap.Gateman1997 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL, the ACLU likes free speech too, so I don't think they're gonna touch this one. And do review WP:POINT, Gateman1997. Creating an anti-semitic template was not the right way to draw attention to this TfD. -- SCZenz
  • Strongest Possible Keep Gateman, you want me to explain how Judaism is different from Scientology in the most blunt possible terms? It's simple. Jews were actual victims of an actual genocide, while Scientologists can only claim to be reincarnated victims of a fictional billions year old intergalactic genocide that was made up by a two-bit hack science fiction writer. The suggestion that members of this lunatic celebrity cult - and especially its paid operatives - are being lined up for gas chambers is far more offensive than the userbox is. --Daniel 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NH

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuisine

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Template:Green Parties

Template:Green Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Uh... Kaihsu voted "Delete". Do you want to vote for deletion or do you mean someone else? - Cuivienen 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smiley

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach (Smack Back) 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomertalk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia. Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian13ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:User_GWB2 expresses opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, not to George W. Bush in general, and, as such, shouldn't even be called "GWB2." - Cuivienen 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... - UK Bourbons3Talk | Contrib's 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach (Smack Back) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach (Smack Back) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated" UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach (Smack Back) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot of variations of it by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as Template:User survived, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.
This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:
File:Stalin3.jpg This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.
I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_- Template:Bigspace --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach (Smack Back) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach (Smack Back) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Template:Burger-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Chase-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ellsworth-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Fuller-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hughes-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Jaycourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Marshall-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rehnquist-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rutledge-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Stone-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taft-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taney-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Vinson-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Waite-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Warren-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:White-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Templates do not appear to be used any more. DLJessup (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (tho I'm sad to see those beauties go, and I'm goin' to keep a copy in my user space for personal reference). BDAbramson T 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark1 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consistency across the encyclopaedia is a good thing, but this is NOT the way to do it, and just bites the newbies. The language used in the latter two is not helpful at all and will scare off new editors and antagonise experienced editors. I agree wholeheartedly with Metaeducation - leave a note with a link to the relevant style guide. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having seen some of this edit war that would not die, these are clearly still needed.  ALKIVAR™ 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first two Delete third. Could we split this up the third is misleading as this is non-blockable--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

  • The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite or delete. Pressure should not be placed on Wikipedians to also work on other wiki projects. The template should be rewritten to identify content on Wikipedia that should instead be placed on Wikisource. If such a template already exists then this one should be deleted. —gorgan_almighty 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis should be used more often. The more general Move to Wikisource is too often used in articles that have an ecyclopedic introdution followed by source text. Then someone moves the whole page to Wikisource without taking out the encylopedic information and we have a HUGE backlog over there already--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
    • 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [6] is PD (Office of War Information).
    • 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
    • Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
  • Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMisleading--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States Federal Government
This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach (Smack Back) 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach (Smack Back) 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Template:MLB Athletics franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

The template
‹ Templates for discussion ›
has been
proposed for deletion

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDustimagic 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. It is obvious from the edit summary of the dispute that the creator intended it as a {{cleanup}} off chute not as a means of justifying the off-topic nature. I believe it should re rewritten to appear more like the {{cleanup}} template and less like the {{disputed}} template. —gorgan_almighty 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Could be useful if expanded. Dustimagic 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still supporting removal, I edited it as it was used for a while as target for a redir and its malfunctions affected the other template too.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice that the creator agreed to deletion on his talk page--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Listings

January 7

Template:Infobox Biography

Template:Infobox Biography
Delete — This template is simply ugly, an oversized box that adds notihng to the page. Information on name, date of birth and death is already the first pieces of information on the article itself, so it adds no useful content. Regular old photos is all that's needed. Underwent TLD in the past, survived, but many, many people were upset by the decision. Now that it's spreading to other articles it needs to be stopped. DreamGuy 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against jews

Template:User against jews

Template:Infobox Community

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

Template:Infobox Community
Template:Infobox Community/No seal
Template:Infobox Community/Unincorporated

All were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox City, i.e. some places didn't have a nickname or flag. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every place defined by the U.S. Census can use Template:Infobox City. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. — Seven Days » talk 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahamas TV

Template:Bahamas TV
Delete — Only linked by {{Miami TV}} as a see also, and whatlinkshere therefore shows several other "usages" of the template (really the Miami TV link) (it is also linked to by an article that I don't know how), and only serves to navigate between one redlink -- which practically eliminates the need for such templates!. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 6

Template:Frown

Template:Frown

Template:Dmoz

Do we really need that? Adrian Buehlmann 15:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As far as I can tell, it's just one of a number of handy external link templates. Handy is good. Lord Bob 15:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I disagree that this is particularly handy; it saves perhaps a few seconds worth of key-strokes. Like Adrian, I don't think we need this. This kind of thing just needs a quick style guideline somewhere, not a template. Having said this, I am qualifying my vote with weak since it doesn't seem harmful or much of a drain of resources; it wouldn't bother me much if it's kept. I just noticed that there is a near identical template at Template:ODP, so this is just a template fork which was made instead of just modifying the existing template --Qirex 15:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think that in general such templates are a good way of standardizing external links to large and often-linked sites like the IMDB or the ISFDB (both of which have such link templates). There is an argument not to subst such tempaltes, since if the site in question changes its location or internal format, all links can be repaired by simply editing the template. But if frequently used, perhaps such tempaltes should be protected or semi-protected to avoid possible DOS vandalism. DES (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't shure myself about nominating this here and I see now it has enough fans. I have executed the outcome of this nomination and I must say I was astonished that this over there had an outcome of "subst and delete". See for example what I had to do here to implement that consensus (the revision before my change there was clearly the better one for my taste). I feel there is something wrong with the treatment of these kind of templates. It would be much better to eventually implement something like an auto-subst in the MediaWiki software instead of this constant lookout for "subst and delete"-able templates. Adrian Buehlmann 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User oppose Kelly Martin

This sort of thing is inappropriate, for several reasons. If one wants to express another's fitness for the arbcom, they can do so through the election, and not through the creation of extra templates for campaigning. There are already official channels for campaigning. This sort of template may also set a precedent in attacking other users -- legitimate criticism of other users should be done through proper channels with regard to civility and other Wikipedia guidelines. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:afd3

This template is instruction creep. I don't know, maybe it was useful at one point, but now it just makes it harder to nominate an article for AFD. I removed reference to it from the instructions on AFD, and replaced it with the much simpler {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/whatever}}. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I personally find it easier to type {{subst:afd3|pg= then Ctrl-V (paste) the article name that I copied beforehand (I also pasted the article name into afd2). I've tried both, and using afd2 and afd3 is just a lot quicker. Both these templates were originally brought about to reduce instruction creep. It's a lot easier to remember {{subst:afd2|pg=Ctrl-V and the same with afd3. That's just me, but I just found it easier in terms of cutting and pasting. --Deathphoenix 21:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template has been around for a long long time and most people who are familiar with the AfD process are used to using it. Removing it is just to make things more difficult. Your reason for deletion is essentially, "I don't like it." You don't have to use it, but a lot of us I think find it far more convenient. howcheng {chat} 21:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deathphoenix and Howcheng. FreplySpang (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Persoanlly i never use this. I would support editing the instrucvtions to make it celar this is a tool, not a required step in the procedure. But It can be a suefual tool, and it does no harm that I can see. DES (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I disagree with your suggestion to "make it clear this is a tool". Instructions are clearer and simpler (especially for newer users) if they simply prescribe a fixed set of steps that can be performed without understanding the mechanics underneath them. The first time I AfD'ed a page, I had no idea about subpages or how to transclude them. I don't think I even knew how to use templates. The instructions were straightforward, though: cut and paste this text here, that text there, the third text another place, and you're done. A simple page of instructions with templates that can be cut and pasted into place is the best way to make AfD accessible to everyone. Users who are interested in how the templates work can of course explore them on their own, but keep the details out of sight of everyone else.--Srleffler 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This template simplifies the AfD process by giving each step a similar form. The text needed is shorter and simpler with the template. I can't imagine how the nominator sees his version as simpler. --Srleffler 22:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I run the bot that, every day, finds all the articles that people tried to AFD, but screwed up the process. There are very, very many of them, usually between fifteen and thirty, though I've seen as many as eighty in a single day. While a lot of these don't actually make it to AFD - I speedy keep the obvious bad faith nominations and those without any rationale for deletion, move others to WP:RFD or WP:CP, and speedy others - we're still looking at between 10% and 20% of all afd nominations, every day not getting completely through the process on their own. (That's not counting the people who fail to subst afd3 on the daily afd subpages, but my bot takes care of them automatically and I don't even see them.)

    I don't know whether {{afd2}} and {{afd3}} help or hurt more here. As someone who intuitively understood what was going on when I first saw {{msg:stub}} start showing up back in - early 2004, was it? - I'm inclined to guess that they hurt more. However, I think the right way to proceed is to keep afd3 for those who are used to it, but to try deprecating it, using Phroziac's wording on the instructions, and give that a week or two to see what the real-world effect is. —Cryptic (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Template:Sq 300 et al.

Delete all — This is actually a TfD for 14 incomplete, obsolete, unused and long-dormant templates on Polish squadrons. BDAbramson T 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV

Template:PA-KingCountyGOV
Delete — image copyright tag that is not compatible with the GFDL as it precludes the sale of the material. Discussed at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags#PA-KingCountyGOV. Non-free license. Possibly WP:CSD reason I3. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied at creator's request --Doc ask? 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User support Kelly Martin

I think it was pretty obvious from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin that she doesn't like boxes like these. Let's do her a favor and go through proper process to remove this insult to her beliefs from Wikipedia. karmafist 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since a user page doesn't have to be NPOV and this message of endorsement cannot be regarded as insulting. (+Comment somehow two templates got mixed up, can somebody please fix that, because I do not want to modify it). KittenKlub 16:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad faith nomination. David | Talk 16:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you please explain your reasoning? I'm just saving her the trouble of nominating this. karmafist 17:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See this edit from Kelly Martin. She includes as an unacceptable class of box "Any userbox which tends to serve the purpose of organizing Wikipedians along political, ideological (other than Wikipedia-specific ideologies...)" (my emphasis). Support for a particular Wikipedian in an internal election is clearly a Wikipedia-specific stance. Therefore Kelly has not identified this as an unacceptable type of userbox (it was created by one who has in general supported her reasoning on the userbox issue) and you are exhibiting bad faith in suggesting that she does. David | Talk 17:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that the nomination could perhaps have been phrased differently, but this isn't an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources, and promotes factionalism. Jkelly 16:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hey, I think there's an encyclopedia around here somewhere, and it ain't finished yet. android79 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. DES (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does anyone realise how HARD it is not to post the photoshopped image I have of "her" with a Stalinesque moustache and eating a baby? :| I know people have no sense of humour. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 17:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be damn careful if I were you. Joke or not, such an image could lead to legal action. That's something the dear "community" can't protect you from. Rob Church Talk 17:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seeing as Ms. Martin hates these things so much, we'd probably be doing her a service. Morgan695 17:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can it get any more ironic than this? My eyes almost popped out when I saw this on my watchlist. BJAODn-fy or Delete. --Gurubrahma 17:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a superb parody of the whole saga. Also, per all your arguments that I can do what I like with my user space. Rob Church Talk 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You forgot the "Nyaa-nyaa :P". Great, are we now down to the "lol PWNED YOURSSLF N00B" level of discussion (that goes for many people here, but I'm replying to you because I thought you'd be above this)? Oh, and keep plus stop listing stuff here just to make some point. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep - and I'm no fan of Ms. Martin's actions, either. How's that for NPOV? ;) --CJ Marsicano 17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote. But I wanted to state that David hit the nail on the head. Contrary to popular belief, I have no objection to userboxes generally, and even have seven of them on my user page. Furthermore, I'm touched that there are people who feel strongly enough about my competency and committment to go so far as to create such a template. I do think that many of the people involved in this particular discussion are exhibiting a great deal of hypocrisy, however ("userboxes are fine, except when they support that woman we don't like, then they need to be deleted" is a good summary of some of the arguments for deletion above). I encourage the administrator who closes this discussion to give due weight to the arguments of editors who are recommending deletion based on personal animosity instead of reasoned principle. I'd also suggest that the people who insist that I "hate these things so much" need to (a) go back and reread my comments on the matter of userboxes and (b) go reread WP:CIVIL. I also think that nominating this template for deletion was a very poor move on the part of whoever did it (I didn't notice) since it was virtually certain to create strife in the community. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an eye on people using it. TCorp 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If templates that are attacking Kelly have to be deleted, then these should be deleted too. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 18:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KM This user opposes Kelly Martin for ArbCom. Beware the cabal!
--Dschor 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect, regrettably, that there are some here that might say Keep if Kelly said Delete and Delete if Kelly said Keep... so what does her "no vote" mean under that logic? If I vote keep does that mean we are going to get 43 other boxes showing who is supporting whom? Blech. If I vote Delete do I get accused of hypocrisy because I'm a supporter of boxes, even ones that show POV? Blech again. Whoever nominated this really ought to ask him or herself why exactly they did it! So, dear readers, after reading all that, you probably are hoping I'll finally express my opinion!. Well here you go: Mu ++Lar: t/c 00:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think I offered "no vote"? I'm not totally stupid. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm fine with people expressing support for Kelly or anyone else, but there's no need to have a template for it. This sort of thing could get silly. JYolkowski // talk 02:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By the logic espoused by kelly martin in her recent purge on boxes, this would be a very strong contender for deletion, since its entire aim is to further factions on wiki. However, i do not see this as such a bad thing. She has become a real issue which needs to be debated and faced. Declarations of peoples positions on this should not be discouraged.
  • Strong Keep — And also any userboxes saying the opposite, for example: "this user thinks Kelly Martin should no way be an arbitrator or hold any position of power whatsoever": Both are just as much valid points of view. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 10:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • '
  • Delete. as per reasoning in TfD above. Dysprosia 11:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete campaign buttons. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treat same as Template:User oppose Kelly Martin. My preference would be the removal of both, but I'm ok with both being kept. I'd be concerned with the fairness of allowing support OR opposition, but not both. kenj0418 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was originally parody and humour by Rob Church, but is now being used as grounds for nastiness by Kelly's detractors. Perhaps BJAODN. --Doc ask? 15:36, 6 January 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User allow fairuse

I don't think this needs a massive amount of explanation. Suffice it to say, that this template may be used to convey the opinion that our users don't like US copyright law. Sorry, but you can't vote that away, otherwise I'd have shot George W. Bush under WP:IAR back in 2003. Rob Church Talk 12:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now Fair use provision in the US copyright law does not (and will not) specifically target the use of copyrighted image within a particularly defined (in the law) namespace in a particularly defined website. The statement "it's the law" in Template talk:User allow fairuse immutable version implies such a misleading statement, that, the action of which, is explicitly and/or specifically prohibited and/or targeted by law. Keep until relevant discussions in WP:FU and Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes have reached a consensus regarding the issue. -- Carlsmith 13:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedily as disruption. --Pjacobi 13:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Carlsmith. Larix 13:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for two reasons. First, that whole law thing. Second, it says "vote". Users who don't know how "voting" works on Wikipedia should not be displaying templates encouraging misuse of policy discussions. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Dschor. It's ironic that those who want to delete this invoke dislike of George W. Bush since they've invoked his mindset over the past week: i.e "the ends justify the means". karmafist 15:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not irony. I just dislike idiotic American Presidents who ruin the reputations of fine upstanding nations such as the United Kingdom. Rob Church Talk 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images which qualify as fair use in an article might not qualify as fair use in a userbox, and this is not the fault of any Wikipedia policy. Fair use is a complicated concept, and it's not Wikipedia's idea. To me, usage of this templates suggests misunderstanding of the concept of fair use. However, deleting the template won't do anything about that, and keeping it will not do further harm. So I lean towards weak keep. EldKatt (Talk) 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Opinions may vary but copyright law is law and no vote on Wikipedia will change it. David | Talk 16:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the creator and users of this template obviously have a weak grasp on copyright law. The use of this template advocates actions that would be copyright infringement - illegal under U.S. Copyright law. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 16:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As I understand it, the rational behind this is inspired by Wikipedia's own rules on fair use images appearing in userboxes being somewhat over-the-top, as is explored in the Firefox template discussions. A logo or such that the creator and/or company allows to be used to support that product and/or company is currently not allowed in userboxes, per WP's rules - not US copyright laws. If I misunderstand this, I'm sure someone will correct me. - Hayter 16:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats not my understanding. Wikipedia contributions are licensed under the GFDL or a compatible license (cc-by-sa, public domain, etc.). Logos and such are not licensed under the GFDL and so must be used under the fair use provision of U.S. copyright law, or not be used at all. So there are two options for image use: free content or fair use. Any use that falls outside of that is copyright or license infringement. So even if the license says that you can do X, but the image is not under a GFDL-compatible license, the only way that image is usable in Wikipedia is under fair use. Even if you are doing X, if X falls outside of fair use, you can't do it in Wikipedia. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's it - even when an image falls under fair use, WP does not allow it to be used in a userbox - only on a relevant article. As DES says below, this is a stricter application than US law. - Hayter 17:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, "fair use" is a defence for a use in a particular context. If you want to write up a detailed rationale for the use of an image in a userbox template, do so. Use {{fairusein|Template:foo}}. The generic {{logo}} fair use rationale is that the image is used for identification purposes in an article. Use of a {{logo}} image in a userbox is what is against policy. If you can write up a reasonable rationale and use {{fairusein}} that would pass {{fairusereview}}, then by all means, do so. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per fuddlemark. Jkelly 16:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per law of the United States of America. Stupid United States of America. Why can't your copyright law allow encyclopaedias to use whatever the heck we want? Someday, we will have an encyclopaedic wikistate of our own...perhaps we should buy Sealand with that $336,539.23 we just raised. Lord Bob 17:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Wikipedia policy is currently significantly strictler than U.S. copyright law. Some uses of fair uses images which are pretty clearly legel, and others which are at least arguably legal, are prohibited by Wikipedia policy. This template advocates changing Wikipedia policy, not copyright law. There is at least a good argument that the changes it advocates would be legal under U.S. copyright law, at least in many specific cases. Whether this is a good idwa for Wikipedia is debatable, but this template is precisely an attempt to join that debate. There is no valid reason to delete this. DES (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger Than Dirt Keep as per all other supporters, especially DESiegel. --CJ Marsicano 17:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Copyright law is complex and this just perpetuates the muddled lack of clarity regarding this. There is no such thing as a "Fair use image". There are images for which "Fair use" can be claimed. It is relatively straightforward to make a strong case for such use on articles directly pertaining to a topic. Making a case for legitimate fair use in the user namespace is much more tenuous (not impossible, but likely far less likely than many proponents seem to think). Better to err on the side of caution with this one, IMO. older≠wiser 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The people voting delete here seem to be arguing against the ideology behind this template rather than the template itself. As I have explained above, I also disagree with the view expressed by the template, but that does not provide me with a reason to vote delete for the very template, as far as I can see: if people feel a desire to say, in effect, (my free interpretation) "I don't know what fair use means and intend to vote on the basis of a misunderstanding", so be it. I'd sooner delete all the meaningless templates about what beverages you prefer, but there doesn't seem to be much consensus towards that either. EldKatt (Talk) 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure if your comment was directed at me, but my vote was not only about the ideology of the template. The template as written perpetuates a fundamental misunderstaning that there is a category of things such as "Fair use images". There is not. There is only specific uses of specific images that can claimed to be "fair use". Beyond that however, this template is not directly helpful in building an encyclopedia. I have no objection if people were to write the equivalent text on their User pages; but there is no need for a template. older≠wiser 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO "Fair use image" in this context meas eaither a) "An image tagfed with one of the fair use licese tags" or b) "an image not available under a free license, and so usable only under fair use if at all" or c) both of the above. Given that understanding I find the phrase useful, although some people may misunderstand it. But then some people may misunderestand almost anything to do with copyright. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bkonrad makes a case for not changing wikipedia policy on this issue -- but not a case for suippresing arguments or views on Wikipedia policy, and so no case for deleting this template. Remember that this template does not itself contain any images of any sort -- it merely advocates a change in Wikipedia policy on how and where such images are acceptable. DES (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. My objections are twofold. First, the template perpetuates an incorrect undetanding of fair use. While you might know better, this template is simply wrong about how it characterizes fair use. Second, it serves no useful purpose for building an encylopedia. Now, people are perfectly free to display their ignorance of fair use on their user pages, but we don't need to keep a template around to make it easy to do so. older≠wiser 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dunno, a template that said "this user knows nothing of fair use, but feels free to hold forth anyway" could be useful, especially if they're about to get in trouble for uploading dodgy images. However a template that helps spread ignorance about both the law and policy is an unqualified Bad Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipolitical userboxes must go. Created to be divisive and factionalizing. (Deleteing them is also divisive and factionalizing, but seems the lesser evil.) Also, I agree with fuddlemark's second reason. FreplySpang (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I see no policy authorizing such deltions. Such deletions should wait on settling the policy issue.
  • Keep. Harmless and futile. US law is miniimal to Wikipedia policy on fair use images (now a policy). Wikipedia strives to serve beyong US borders. TCorp 18:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but you can't vote away US copyright law. --Carnildo 18:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually you can, but not here. US Law is writtne and can be changed by US legislatiors, who are chosen by vote. however that is irrelevant, because this tempalte expresses an opnion not on US law, but on places where Wikipedia policy is at least arguably more strict than US law requires. DES (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This userbox is not about US copyright law, but about Wikipedia policy TCorp 18:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was planning to make a donation to Wikipedia in the next few days. It was going to be a pretty good one too, but given the attitude of some people, I chose to find something else to do with the money for the time being. --CJ Marsicano 06:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to refrain from displaying the template on your user page, Phil - please leave it available for those who disagree. Your silly name change doesn't fool anyone, Snowspinner - we all recognize you. --Dschor 10:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, 'this user wants Wikipedia to break laws as policy'. - ulayiti (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete. This template is pretty useless considering that the ArbComm has clearly come down against the use of fair use images on talk pages. Everybody who has boted keep should read what United States copyright law says about fair use. The section isn't very long, and the criteria for fair use is very simple. BlankVerse 13:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could quote US copyright law, but that doesn't mean I can't express my disapproval too. Tom 14:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DES. I might vote delete if U.S. copyright law was clear, but the voters here certainly don't agree (and I myself cannot understand why an image that's called "fair use" can be used on one internet page and not another). Meanwhile this userbox is not hurting anything. --Fang Aili 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is a viatal aspec of "fair use" that where and how you use it matters a great deal, and so what is reasoanble fair use on one internet page may well be nothign of the sort when used for a differen purpose in a different context on a different page. That is the main reason behind the current policy, as I understand it. Most of our usuall justifications for fair use would not apply, or not nearly as strongly, on user pages, and when an image is on a temple it is all too easy for it to be added to pages where the stated rationale does not apply. There are cases, however (like the image on the SEPTA template, and other logo cases) where IMO a plausisible rationale for fair use on templates could apply, and other cases where a valid rationale could apply for user pages. But current policy seems to forbid this, even if copyright law does not. DES (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Jimbo has voiced opinion on this template [8], stating "I think it should be deleted, and I think it's silly for users to think that they can vote on copyright policy. That's a matter for our legal team." Carbonite | Talk 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Dan | talk 20:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's just stupid to think we can simply vote about this. Jon Harald Søby 20:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and get on with building the damn encyclopaedia. --Nick Boalch ?!? 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jimbo, I agree. --Wgfinley 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger than a silly diamond keep This vote is about the userbox, not the idea behind the userbox. I have seen plenty of other userboxes for people supporting proposed policies and policy changes, no reason this one has to go. Remember, we're voting on the userbox, not the idea behind it. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As said elsewhere, Wikipedia fairuse policy is more restrictive than necessary according to U.S. copyright law. If a user wishes to express their interest toward changing policy, a userbox should be allowed as one of those methods of expression. Silensor 22:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this template is useful as a n00b marker if nothing more. In any case, free speech. ~~ N (t/c) 22:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - note that Jimbo actually deleted this template himself before someone informed him about this TfD debate. (See [9] and [10]). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This userbox shows peoples support for a change of policy. Don't delete a person's right to free speech. mdmanser 00:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A surprising number of people seem to think that this is America, and that we have a right to free speech on here. I am baffled as to why they think that. That being, Nickptar and Mdmanser, that I can see right now without scrolling. You two (and anyone else who might have said it) are horribly wrong - there is no such right here in Wikipedialand. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 00:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - any speech is only tolerated here in so far as it furthers the end of creating an WP:NPOV encyclopedia. --Doc ask? 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Removed misleading "vote" reference to clarify that this is about users' opinions regarding Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law, not about some fictitious "vote". -Silence 01:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not again. Keep, and a curse upon the head of whoever is incapable of figuring out that userpages are protected under fair use and that the only thing preventing the use of fair use images in user namespace is extralegal Wikipedia policy, not the law. Rogue 9 01:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find this rather surprising as well. Look at any personal webpage outside of Wikipedia and you are very likely to see various fair-use images. Some Wikipedians - who I'm sure are well-meaning and sincere, but who I think are engaging in m:Copyright paranoia - think all of this is illegal. How many hundreds of New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox fan pages have team logos boosting their support for the team (and often denigrating the other one)? How many of these people have ever even been asked to take them down? What evidence do we have that the copyright holders care about such trivial and incidental uses at all? We're not talking about users hosting copyrighted MP3s on their user pages. We're talking about instances where there is a reasonable claim of fair use and where the rights holders have not even attempted to tell people that they can't use the materials in this manner. Three of the primary criteria for fair use are that the use is not for profit (and obviously this applies to user pages), that the amount used is minimal (again the case - in many cases, we are talking about single screenshots from movies or TV shows, or individual logos), and that the use does not affect the rights holder's ability to make a profit (and how are any of the uses on user pages possibly going to affect that?) In short, I think we have reasonable fair use claims for most of the instances involved here. It's fine if Wikipedia wants to adopt a more restrictive policy. In article space, I completely agree with trying to minimize fair use whenever a free alternative is possible. I see no reason to do this in userspace, but it's not really a big deal one way or the other. But these over-the-top claims that people are "breaking the law" must go - they border on violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. These individuals are acting in good faith and with reasonable claims. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most personal webpages on the internet do violate copyright; outside of Wikipedia, reuse of images from other websites is quite common. But without a license, that is generally illegal. The issue is not whether the copyright holders care, but what's legal, because the Wikimedia Foundation might be held responsible for deliberate misuse of copyrighted material. Your user page is not your personal page, it's part of the project, and fair use is least likely to apply there because it's not an article about something that requires a picture. Jimbo says (see above) that the current policy on fair use images was adopted on the advice of the project's lawyers—if you think they're wrong, you can copy all of Wikipedia to your own servers, start your own encyclopedia, and get your own lawyers. -- SCZenz 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' Keith Greer 02:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wishful thinking versus reality. Why does this remind me of "Loretta" from Monty Python's Life of Brian? Perhaps I can create the "User allow free beer" template, to match. --Calton | Talk 02:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perm-ban all users with this template then Delete. Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Wikipedia is not geocities. If you want a home page, go some place else. Wikipedia is for building an encyclopedia, and you can't vote to change that. Not here, not in some silly userbox, and not anywhere else. --Gmaxwell 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, with a rebuttal: Users with this template are expressing a desire to expose the Wikimedia Foundation to additional legal liability and create greatly increased workload for those cleaning up fair use abuse. Should we file that line under B.S. or a strawman argument? Let's be realistic: The real "fair use abuse" here is coming from those wishing to discourage policy change by consensus. You scream "Don't rock the boat!" but it's those that are being falsely accused of rocking the boat that are trying to steady the ship. Those of you who repeat the obvious "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" mantra along with "Wikipedia is not a free speech zone" seem to forget that English Wikipedia would not EXIST without free speech. We now return you to the WikiRevolution already in progress. --CJ Marsicano 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Users with this template are expressing an opinion. Something we are all allowed to do on talk pages and such. They are not getting wikipedia into trouble by actually using hundreds of fair use images. All they are doing is saying what they think about things.--God of War 07:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Measurement

Template:Measurement
Delete — This is an unfinished template that does not seem to be currently in use. The material covered is dealt with well elsewhere and I see no need for this table. Srleffler 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Template:Cemetery and Template:Cemetery

No idea what this is about. One editor thinks it might be a game. I think it's merely a mistake and propose deletion. -- Longhair 22:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like it's supposed to be a template for creating articles about cemeteries. Delete, because it's pretty fairly useless.--Sean|Black 22:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the template for cemetery entries. What is your reason for wanting to delete it? It is used for the same reason as all templates, to create a standardized format for all entries in this category

I am still not sure what you are referring to. Which rule has been broken? Is it not useful? Is it not encylopedic? I use it to ensure that each cemetery I add has the same format when I transclude the template. Should I move it to my namespace? If I do then it defeats the purpose of standardization. Or have a stored my template in the wrong namespace? I am new to templates so be patient with me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • You can still transclude a template from your userspace, yes. However, the problem here is that it's not really a template- it's fine for a standardised format for cemetery articles, but the problem is that the way trancslusion works will produce just what the template says unless you include optional parameters (which is difficult and confusing). I'd suggest moving the template into your userspace, then dragging it into the empty edit box and filinf it out when making a new article.--Sean|Black 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This isn't the purpose of templates. The logical alternative to such over-templating is to establish a page on a single, important cemetery and use that page as a "template" for future cemetery pages. - Cuivienen 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looks like a misunderstanding of what templates are per User:Longhair. Templates are something to be included in an article, not a tool for creating substubs through subst:ing. - Bobet 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not what templates are for, although it is an understandable mistake. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, um, are there supposed to be two templates under consideration here, or just the same one linked twice? —Cryptic (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User soup nazi and Template:User-grammar nazi

Whatever your view on userboxes, these should go. 1) Not funny. 2) Comparisons to Nazis are always in poor taste. 3) We will have users who suffered, directly or indirectly, under Hitler. 4) Godwin's law. 5) And least important - there are some issues surrounding the use of the Swastika in some European countries. --Doc ask? 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hm. None of those reasons sound very convincing. We don't censor Wikipedia articles, so why should we censor Wikipedia userpages? As long as it's someone identifying himself as a soup nazi or a grammar nazi, rather than accusing anyone else of being such, it's not likely to offend, since both terms are heavily ingrained in the popular culture (though the swastika in "user soup nazi" is a bit unexpected; I'd have expected an image of a bowl of soup or something). Not being funny and not being in good taste are matters of taste, and not really grounds for deletion, even though I agree; nor do Godwin's Law or censorship laws in various European countries make any difference in this matter. And if the "I hate GWB" templates are appropriate, I don't see how this one, which doesn't even express an opinion (it's not like it says "the Holocaust wasn't real" or "I <3 Hitler" on it or anything), could be considered unacceptably inappropriate.
As for people who have suffered due to Hitler: although I think for the most part these terms are used just for shock value and humor (although they can sometimes be offensive when applied to other people rather than to oneself, e.g. calling someone a "grammar nazi" for correcting your spelling), not really anything attempted to offend anyone, if anything, I'd say that such jokes as "soup nazi" trivialize naziism, they don't trivialize the Holocaust. Mocking Hitler and demeaning and degrading the term "nazi" with silly, amusing phrases "soup nazi" and "grammar nazi" is not mocking or attacking victims of nazis, but mocking nazis themselves. The needless suffering it's caused and continues to cause is bad, but the concept of naziism itself, really, isolated from its historical context, isn't scary so much as incredibly silly. If racism and religious bigotry wasn't so dangerous, destructive, and widespread in modern society, I'd almost consider racists and bigots adorable. Like crazy people on the subway. -Silence 22:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't censor wikipedia, because censorship damages content. We should remove sources of offence where to do so is content-neutral (else why not have an erect penis on the Mainpage). If people want to self-describe by comparison to mass-murderers, they are free to do so. The question is whether there should be a general template to facilitate this. --Doc ask? 22:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we do censor wikipedia. Confer autofellatio. Silence argues at great length that people shouldn't find this offensive (by invoking highly semantic arguments like: it's not a "description" but only an "allusion"), but maybe Silence should stop and consider whether any people do find this offensive, which is the more germaine point here, according to our practices. By the way, I'm a staunch freedom of expression advocate, who thinks that takes precedent over people's sensitivities, so I vote keep, but I find Silence's counterarguments unconvincing, and expect the senstivity consideration to carry the day. -lethe talk 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the problem is that it's not self-describing by comparison to mass-murderers, it's using a term that very vaguely alludes to a mass murderer. Is even mentioning a term that is related to someone hateful off-limits, even when the actual template is certainly not supportive of that individual or his movement, and is in fact a parody of it? I think it's a tad excessive to say that we can't even use the word "nazi" in any template on Wikipedia, no matter what the context, intent, or meaning is. And if that's not what you're saying, then read Soup Nazi and grammar nazi, as they're references, respectively, to a very popular Seinfeld episode and to a very common colloquial term for people who are overly concerned with grammar, certainly not the direct references to Hitler you seem to think they are. My recommendation: keep both templates, and replace the swastika on the "Soup Nazi" with a more topic-appropriate image (like a bowl of soup or a clipped version of Image:Sein soup nazi.jpg) so it fits the joke properly. -Silence 01:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official policy on userboxes, but there is on WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA with which you might like to refamilliarise yourself! --Doc ask? 11:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then make that template too, and use it instead. I too am what many could describe as a "grammar nazi", being very concerned with grammatical consistency, yet I have no plans to ever use that template on my page because it doesn't fit my style of humor. Those who prefer that particular self-depracating way to state their grammar fixation should be permitted to do so, and those who don't prefer it, like you and I, can easily make other templates with a similar meaning for our own use. Deletion due to being needlessly offensive may be a valid justification (even though it doesn't apply well enough here), but deletion just because "As a serious grammar nazi I would however much prefer something along the lines of..." is purely a matter of personal preference and taste. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith.
It's getting difficult to assume good faith when the minority is repeatedly nominating large numbers of userboxes for deletion and then claiming that they are the true defenders of Wikipedia. - Cuivienen 15:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with you if it was someone calling someone else a grammar nazi. Saying "You are such a grammar nazi" is potentially (though not necessarily) offensive; saying "You are such a soup nazi" will rarely be offensive, because it's so darned silly. However, saying "I am such a grammar nazi" or "I am such a soup nazi", which is exactly what the above templates do, is more goofy and humor-at-one's-own-expense than genuinely offensive. This really isn't that big of a deal. -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind the Nazi bit half as much as I mind the joke about being a member of the SS, which is in the poorest possible taste. That was the basis of my vote and comment. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup but Delete (or Rewrite) Grammar. The soup reference is too common an joke reference for any claims of offensiveness, and should be kept (at least until there is a consensus general policy on all joke-boxes). As much as I champion box-rights, even I find the grammar box (in its current form) to be in poor taste (If it had been funnier, I may have voted to keep, but it is not. There is a fine line between clever and stupid --Spinal Tap.) — Eoghanacht talk 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People keep claiming that 'Soup Nazi' is common cultural reference. Well, it is not one I have ever heard - and so all I saw was some poor-taste comparision between soup and Nazism. I wonder that voters may be guitly of US-popular-culture imperialism. In most of the world, when people see the word Nazi, they do not think about US sitcoms. --Doc ask? 14:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Soup Nazi is worse than American-pop-culture imperialism, it is New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism. However, given that it is instantly identifiable to hundreds of millions of English speakers I think it qualifies as a common knowledge joke. Everyone who does not understand the reference (even if that means most other English speakers) can simply click on the link in the userbox to read about it. — Eoghanacht talk 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, 'New-York-City-pop-culture imperialism' = 'common knowledge'. I suddenly feel like an ignorant foreigner. --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I should have typed: "Manhattan-pop-cultural-imperialism", but one of the joys of Wikipedia is the opportunity to expand your knowledge, such as the fundamental truth: Nothing important happens east of the East River, nor west of the Hudson. I don't believe it myself, but American media and advertisers keeps trying. — Eoghanacht talk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep - Stop the deletionism. Delete only the templates that are actually useless and stop wasting space on this page and the time of Wikipedia users. - Cuivienen 14:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only templates that are 'actually useless' - OK, what 'use' are these to the goals of wikipedia? --Doc ask? 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Useless templates are redundant templates or templates not being used as templates (see Template:Cemetery for one such example). This template is for humor on userpages, a valid use. - Cuivienen 15:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing offensive about it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, by the precedent set by all the other meaningless userboxes here that nobody minds. If I may address the points of the nominator: 1) is not a valid criterion for deletion, and it is highly objective. I think most of the userboxes advertised as funny qualify as "not funny" to a greater or lesser extent by my standards, but I wouldn't think of trying to get them deleted based on this argument. 2) is also quite objective. I for one would disagree. 3) is technically correct, but I disagree with it as an argument for deletion here. While it is an interesting topic of discussion how offensive jokes should be allowed to be, this doesn't even come close to offensive enough to warrant such discussion, I think. 4) Godwin's law cannot be taken too seriously, and certainly is not a valid criterion for deletion here. 5) is obviously moot now that there is no swastika. EldKatt (Talk) 16:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak I'm going to hate myself in the morning keep- Tasteless yes, but it was Seinfeld, not Wikipedia, who came up with it, the terms are recognizable. Keep both. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply not funny but rather offensive. Cyberevil 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete on grounds of offence. Grammar nazi is an internal Wikipedia thing so the concept is acceptable as a box, Soup nazi obviously refers to a joke I have not yet heard, but both are expressed in terms that I think go beyond what is acceptable. David | Talk 16:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar nazi is not even close to being "an internal Wikipedia thing". In fact, I'd say it's just about the most common usage of the word "nazi" in the modern English-speaking world that doesn't refer to literal nazis. It's practically ubiquitous as a pejorative, amusingly over-the-top term for obsessive grammarians. And voting to delete "Soup Nazi" just because you haven't heard the joke before is rather biased. Why should the arbitrary and random number of things you've happened to run into before in your life determine how you vote? My vote would be the same whether I'd happened to hear of Soup Nazi before or not, because my personal experience in this area is not what this vote is about. If "Soup Nazi" wasn't noteworthy, it wouldn't have an article! -Silence 19:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - the use of the word 'nazi' should not frighten people. I'm more familiar with 'spelling nazi' but 'grammar nazi' is a common term that I've heard both in Rl and on the Internet and 'soup nazi' - well, lots of people found Seinfeld funny. - Hayter 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, espousing your knowledge of languages or political beliefs or even your web browser is one thing, but this is pretty well boxcruft. Yes, we know. You like Seinfeld. You think capital letters are good. That's swell, but we don't need userboxes for everything somebody somewhere thinks is good. Especially when the templates are about as funny as a swift kick to the groin. Lord Bob 17:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yet political beliefs or web browsers--also irrelevant to the functionality of Wikipedia, unlike Babel--are okay? Out of curiosity, where exactly do you draw the line? Speaking for myself, I'd rather see all the genuinely useless humorous templates gone, not just the ones I dislike more. EldKatt (Talk) 18:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a more complete userbox policy. I believe that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. I might add that the "X-Nazi" form in sich versions as "Safety-Nazi", "PC_Nazi" ect, often to deride an opposing viewpoint, but soemtimes to deprecatingly describe one's own views (as apparently in this case) is considerably wider than Seinfeld, and the intended meanign should be clear to msot people. I personally wouldn't use such a designation, but if people want to so self-label, why not. I speak as a person who had relatives, albiet rather distant ones, who were Holocaust victims. DES (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. older≠wiser
  • Very Strong Keep for The Soup Nazi and Rewrite before Keeping (the wording I just saw has me iffy) for the Grammar Nazi. I'd also like to remind everone of Mel Brooks' words on why he always made fun of Nazis in his films: "When you're made a mockery of your enemy, then you've won." --CJ Marsicano 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Nazi here does not reference to national socialism, but more as a reference to the setereotype.→AzaToth 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Soup Nazi, Keep Grammar Nazi.Gateman1997 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CIVIL. FreplySpang (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Soup Nazi, on the grounds that it is hilarious and not really offensive. Rewrite Grammar Nazi on the grounds that it is in extremely poor taste. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 18:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - none of the nom's reasons for deletion are convincing, especially for the Soup Nazi. The grammar nazi thing is a bit wierd, but neither are offensive and both are users' choices to use or not use. No one is forcing anyone to use them, but if you want to then it is your right to do so. Deano (Talk) 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly in favour of userboxes, but delete these. Inappropriate in my opinion. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No Soup For You! - anon
  • Keep. No delete for you. --Stbalbach 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Offensiveness is subjective, there's no need to impose personal tastes on someone else's userpage. There are a significant number of people on this planet who find all pictures of people to be genuinely offensive (because allegedly idolatrous). We can't regulate for the vast variety of personal aversions out there. Craft your own userpage in whatever way suits yours. Babajobu 19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; these don't belong in the template namespace. — Dan | talk 20:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. With or without Swastika, still bad taste. Garion1000 (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, although I think that any swastika imagery should be gotten rid of. Self-deprecating humor is acceptable in userspace. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't censor. Stop the deletion inquisition. People have different senses of humor... Get over it. Don't be humor nazis Zachomis 23:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and my extend the following two userboxes: {{userbox:wiki-nazi-0}} {{userbox:wiki-nazi-1}} Robert Paveza 00:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Delete I would have started this process if I knew how. I made comments on a couple of pages. Essentially, I particularly object to the term nazi, and pointed out how

it wouldn't be fun to have a "kkk-grammar" or substitute other hateful symbols. Dialogue is important, but comparing grammar usage to a genocidal regime is in poor taste, even if it was part of a major sitcom. Many people here claim its not offensive, but many people i know were stunned to here about it, especially after i was bragging so much about how great wikipedia is. It hurts and marginalizes some. Not allowing the use of a symbol that is oppressive is a tolerable curtail of freedom of speech, as it reminds some of hatred, murder and genocide. And we want those people contributing to wikipedia. I think the term for someone who is intense about grammar should remain, but i feel the use of the term nazi, both on wikipedia and in common day lexicon, is inappropriate.

I'll read the process here now that i found it, but for sure i am for deleting it. As a side note, as a new user to wikipedia i'm delighted by all the talk. Certainly a vibrant and interesting community, where so many users debate this issue. I'm impressed. Cool stuff! JamieJones 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Let me start off by saying that I am very close to the Jewish community, and that I am considering the possability in becoming a Jew myself through cleansing in the mitvah. I would also like to point out that I just came home from a day at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C and that I have spent many personal hours on the study of WW2 and the Holocaust. I don't find these templates offensive, and I don't find them to be in bad taste. Even if I would find them to be offensive, or in bad taste, I would still oppose the deletion of them. It is not my job (or yours) to define what is and what is not funny. Are these templates advocating the harm of people? No, they're not. The mere mention of the word "nazi" does not make these templates the rallying cry for ignorant activity. Everyone has their little sick jokes- It is not our job to police that. Zachomis 02:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This userbox isn't exactly promoting racism or anything. Ashibaka tock 02:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - "grammar nazi" is a commonly accepted term. "nazi" is synonymous with "fascist" in this case. no offense should be taken to this. DrIdiot 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I don't believe in the offensive reasons myself, I don't think that "fascist" is a much nicer term than "Nazi". They're both used as fairly over-the-top insults, after all. Lord Bob 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mostly meant they were by no means references to mass murder. Or politics at all. I'd like to add (this is irrelevant to your comment) that the Japanese raped/killed thousands of Chinese in WW2, but as a Chinese I hold no grudge and I'm not offended by mentions of Tojo or Japan. And even if I was offended, I would respect freedom of speech and would live with it. DrIdiot 21:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Are a bit wierd but not overly offensive. If we delete everything that causes offence, then we'd have hardly any userboxes left! We got to stop being to cowardly with these sort of things, and not delete something at the first sight of offence! - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 15:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Offensive, bad taste, unhelpful. Jayjg (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Smells like censorship. Bastique 20:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep --Valmi ✒ 04:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User en-5

Arrogant, non standard, horrible. The en-4 -> en-N should be adequate. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your POV judgement that you find it horrible is a fairly weak argument for starting to delete a project that is as successful as Babel. If we delete level five what argument is there for keeping level 1?? No language evaluation system in the world has only four levels. The American Standard is 5 levels ILR scale (excluding natives) the European Standard is at 6 levels (TELC). As Babel currently stands (4 levels) it is pretty useless. The language skills of people within one of these levels differ enourmously. It is hard to categorize yourself in one of only four levels. For your information, and I think you should have done some research before just suggesting a user template for deletion: we have hundreds of these templates here, which deserve deletion according to your reasoning. The template you are so keen on deleting facilitates work and life on Wikipedia for about forty users who are in that category. This deletion request is obviously in bad faith.--Fenice 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice straw man argument, there.--Srleffler 23:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • First place, en-5 doesn't help make it any easier to categorize yourself; if en-5 is deleted, en-4 or en-N should be used. For a system that can't use testing, I found it fairly simple to categorize myself; much easier than to decide whether I speak English at a "professional" level. And whatever happened to assume good faith?--Prosfilaes 23:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your argument lacks logic: '...For a system that can't use testing...' - why shouldn't it be possible to use standard test results to categorize yourself - don't you want it to be comparable to standard tests or are you trying to claim that WP's Babel should be set in stone... or? I don't understand your argument. Or are you trying to argue that if we had levels comparable to standard test this will make people act in bad faith and make false statements about their skills. That would not be possible. Other users would notice anyway. --Fenice 23:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You can disagree with someone without claiming their arguments is illogical, and claiming such does nothing to encourage calm discussion. We can't use test results, because serious testing is expensive and complex. I fail to see how it's relevant; en-5 has nothing to do with standardized testing anyway.--Prosfilaes 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is the standard for a "professional" English speaker? Little known fact, I can contribute with a double secret level of English. Should I create Template:User en-6? Rhobite 17:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really needed, as en-4 and en-N both cover it - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 17:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No harm. --Thorri 17:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again not really needed, breaking the standard for no good reason I can detect. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I think a level 5 is useful, I personally have problem with defining the step from expert to native. A professional level for me indicates that the person in question have learned the language to a native level, but it's not his/her nativ language. For example a translator could use it to define it's profession is the language. →AzaToth 17:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But all other language templates have four levels. Why break the standard for English? Not only that, this template implies that the user is somehow a better English speaker than most other people. Rhobite 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps there should be a lever 5 to the other languasges as well. Also, perhaps this user is a better English speaker that most other people, perhaps a professor in the English language for example. →AzaToth 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing all other language templates just to accomodate this one userbox is a bit much IMO - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» Talk | Contrib's 19:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, AzaToth, you have just illustrated one of the problems with this template. I believe it is not intended to represent English ability equal to native English level (but without being native.) It is intended to indicate that the user's ability to write in English exceeds that of a typical native speaker. Hence, the description "professional"—this is intended for people who are professional writers, and who therefore (claim) to have better command of the English language than the rest of us. There are all kinds of problems with this, as others have pointed out. The fact that the tag is prone to misuse and misunderstanding, as you have shown, is only one of them.--Srleffler 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Could someone define exactly what a native speaker is? I understand it to be ones mother tounge. For example, I'm a native speaker of Swedish, but I'm not a professional in it's grammar. →AzaToth 15:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per User:OwenX. Appears to be attempting a reform of the Babel system's structure in its own sneaky way. Whether more levels are needed could be discussed, but in its proper place, and if it meets acceptance by consensus, it should be implemented in a proper way. Also, in this particular case it seems to imply that a "professional" speaker (in itself an ill-defined concept) somehow differs in skill or level of authority from a native or near-native speaker, which, I would argue, is patently false. The main (and probably sufficient) argument for deletion is that it poses as a Babel template but does not follow the standard form of Babel templates. EldKatt (Talk) 16:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and revise as per User: OwenX. DES (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite text as the term "professional" has so many different meanings (is it someone writing or translating as a living? Is it someone holding a provincially-issued licence of some sort, in the same way "professional engineer" and "registered nurse" each have a specific legal meaning? Is it someone who knows just enough English to use it in the workplace when practicing some other unrelated profession? Or is it just a perceived level of linguistic quality somehow rated a little better than merely "unprofessional"? If the meaning is that this person's employment is that of a linguist, author or teacher of English, by all means say so. The current wording is too vague to impart any meaning beyond that of {{en-4}} and therefore useless. --carlb 18:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. — Dan | talk 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. — Many native speakers/writers of English can and do write at a near-illiterate level. A way to distinguish the better practitioners is needed, even if English isn't their native language. However, I'd rather see the template in a less-provocative color than the shades of red that it now uses. Another color might avoid offending the tender sensibilities of certain users. --QuicksilverT @ 20:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a distinct difference between being native in a language and taking college classes to learn the grammar.--God of War 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Look at all those people who contribute using textspeak, slang, "it's" in the wrong place, etc.. etc... They may be native speakers, but they definitely don't deserve the en-5 label. en-5 is a way to show people that you know when to use apostrophes, that you can spell correctly, etc.... You don't have to have written books to show that. Anyway, if it is deleted, people can just create a userbox on their own page, defeating the whole point of deleting it. Just look a second at all the people who have en-5 on their user pages. They can all contribute with a high level of English and spelling correctly. At least three people on the first page of the en-N category can't spell or, even worse, don't use proper grammar. After all, what's the point of deleting a userbox, why the fuss? If people want to put en-5 on their userpage, leave them alone... Nippoo 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Nippoo. Hi-cal usage isn't common even in native speakers; the en-5 suggests encyclopedia-caliber competence, which is to be desired. Add it to other languages, too, I've no problem with that; if you're de-5 (or Klingon-5, for all that), good on ya. Trekphiler 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If you're a professional editor, and want people to know it, why not write it in English on your user page? Why does it need to be in a stupid box? -- SCZenz 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Nonstandard (and sets a terrible precedent), pointless, arrogant (by what standard do we judge "professional", other than just how well a person thinks of his own writing?), inaccurate, misleading, wasteful, unreliable (with no consistent standard, we'll have some of our best writers and some of our worst writers listed together, making the template useless), ugly. Has nothing to do with the Babel templates, which deal with whether you're a native speaker of the language or one who's learning it at some level or another. A distinct template should be created for things like "user is a professional writer", "user has an exceptional grasp of vocabulary and grammar, "user is a copyeditor", etc., if necessary. The Babel template deal with how fluent you are in English, not how skilled you are; whether your prose is masterful or not should be an unrelated template. Also, I have to say that I couldn't agree more with SCZenz; very good point. -Silence 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-standard-issue can easily be changed - what color do you want it to be? en-4 is yellow, so that would also be non-standard, should we also delete it? Why else could this template be nonstandard? Why would this template be more misleading than other levels? I personally beleive en-2 is way more misleading. It can mean anything. To some people intermediate means advenced, to others it means beginner. According to your reasoning we should urgently delete the native template because it does not identify a person who is learning the language (?) (I think, hope, we can assume that everybody who writes for WP is trying to improve his language skills -> so lets delete all babel templates?). And could you expand on your notion that fluency has nothing to do with skill?--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-standard and unnecessary template, although, as are said often above, a seperate userbox and category to show that you're a professional writer isn't a bad idea. Lord Bob 00:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Escapes the purpose of the Babel project, I believe. Plus, there's a duality difficult to resolve: this "professional speaker" could be a "über-native", that is, a native who also possesses a "professional knowledge" of the language, or a "über-level 4", that is, a person who is not a native speaker but who has studied and understands the language on a "professional level", such as an English teacher/professor in a non-English speaking country. Those two should not even be mixed to begin with, since it's not quite the same thing. Since this is not essential to the project, we'd be better off leaving this alone — plus what Silence said. Redux 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...A duality difficult to resolve...says Redux. We can't list all articles for deletion that have dualities that are difficult to resolve. Doing that in this case sets an uncanny precedent.--Fenice 23:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretentious as hell, and completely misleading. I lost track of the number of grammatical mistakes and misspelled words on the user pages of people with this userbox. Yeah, I'm a copyeditor. FCYTravis 04:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of which are completley arbitrary. 4 sounds about right; I could decipher a message, I could communicate at a basic level, I'm pretty good in the language, I'm a native.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pretentious, unhelpful, offensive. If you're a professional who uses English, say that; there's a difference between that and "speaking English at a professional level".--Prosfilaes 20:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the wording I have problems with; it's the fact that the Bable tool is being abused to look down at the people who only speak the language at a "native" level. It's an elitest and linguistically absurd concept.--Prosfilaes 23:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The user template deletion craze is really going beyond comment. --Fenice 21:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above. --Fang Aili 21:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is ridiculous. Using that reasoning, we can delete every user template because it is "arrogant" and the user must be a "twit," right? Most languages have at least 5 levels, as the first comment noted. There is absolutely no reason to delete this, as it can be extremely useful in determining people who can help significantly with grammar. The argument that people with terrible grammar will use this is irrelevant, since someone could just as easily put a level 4 when they really speak at a level 2, and this would be apparent from the user page anyways. Using that reasoning, again, we can just delete all language templates because all Wikipedia users can be arrogant twits and lie, right? Wrong.
  • Tests (not languages) may have a level 5, but that doesn't mean that we should be that granular, and it espeically does not mean that we should have level 5 mean what en-5 does. Yes, they could put a level 4 when they speak at a level 2, but it's not really being an arrogant twit to say you're as good as most speakers. en-5 is misleadingly defined, since there's no linguistically accepted level of language knowledge beyond native, and there's no evidence that it's being used in a useful way.--Prosfilaes 00:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mozilla

(previous nomination)

Redundant to {{logo}}, used on about ten images. That Mozilla explicitly says "go ahead and use this" is irrelevant; we don't allow "by-permission" images, and they're in fact speedyable. Their license explicitly disallows commercial exploitation (see their faq), making all images with this tag speedyable for that reason also. On top of this, they don't allow derivatives of any kind, further cementing the case that this is an unfree image. The only way images currently tagged with this template can be used on Wikipedia is under a fair use claim. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because everyone and their cousin knows (or should know) that there's no harm in displaying the Mozilla logos in this context. —David Levy 17:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, using images we have been given permission to use doesn't carry any legal risk either, but because such images are unfree (does not allow commercial re-distribition) it has been dictated from the foundation level that such images are not to be used anymore (or at least used under the fair use doctrine instead). I don't see how this should somehow not apply here. --Sherool (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use on user pages. If they were to be added to related articles, that would qualify as fair use. What's the problem? —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These images are intended for use in the user namespace. As Kelly and Tony have reminded us in recent days, this is not part of the encyclopedia proper. —David Levy 03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Advertising

Unused and unuseful. — Dan | talk 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FormerGA

"This article has been delisted as a good article". Given the unofficiality of WP:GA, there seems hardly any point to list and categorize articles that were at one point considered "good" and no longer considered so, or were considered "not quite good enough but still decent" or whatever. Delete. Radiant_>|< 10:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - wasn't this already listed and kept? FearÉIREANN\(caint) 00:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can see this being used. But move it to Template:Former-GA for conventions. - Cuivienen 14:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant to {{DelistedGA}}, which survived TfD, although I whole-heartedly endorse the GA project. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Template:DelistedGA, which should in turn have the box deleted and replaced with only a category: as long as this is only a proposed project without community consensus support, we should not be defacing the Talk pages of hundreds of articles with a big box that is totally useless by virtue of not in any way improving the editorial process. However, by keeping the template in existence, we can in the future easily re-add the box if there is ever consensus to do so, and in the meanwhile the template can consist entirely of a category that will allow easy navigation of all of these articles for those who are interested, but will be 100% non-intrusive for those who dislike or oppose the project or think there are already too many huge, cluttering, arbitrary boxes on articles and article Talk pages already (which there are). The exact same thing should be done with Template:GA: remove the box, but keep Category:Wikipedia good articles linked so anyone interested in the project can easily navigate it. Win-win situation. -Silence 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Silence, having a box for this is ridiculous. Good Articles is a fine project but we don't need to know what they didn't like, they can just drop a note on the talk page. If it does get kept, delete the box. Ashibaka tock 04:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is the difference between, say, an unreferenced article you find by clicking the random article link, and an unreferenced article with {{FormerGA}} or {{DelistedGA}} added to its talk page? The answer is nothing. There are plenty of more specific templates available for noting flawed articles, such as {{unreferenced}} and {{reqimage}}. Noting "good" articles may be useful, noting non-"good" articles is not and if someone is seeking them, plenty can be found at Category:Wikipedia maintenance.—jiy (talk) 11:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It will be much more useful to make a section on the talk page saying "I removed the GA template because.." Sometimes templates just encourage laziness--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

On request from a third party, I have also moved the discussion (which is already quite sizable) there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Spanish Succession

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - This template is redundant with Template:Campaignbox War of the Spanish Succession which lists more battles. Roy Al Blue 02:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Template:Coin

Template:Coin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is redundant with Template:Infobox Coin, which is superior. In addition, this template is no longer in use. Markkawika 00:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood - no need to redirect as it isn't used. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 22:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AutoCAD related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — I believe this should be converted to a category or just deleted. I suspect "See also" and in-line links mean even a cateogory is redundent, and so I favor delete. Please note if you favor convert vs plain delete. If concensus is for convert, I'll work on creating the appropriate category. DragonHawk 23:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?
  • Delete. Category is enough --kernoz 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User against scientology

Template:User against scientology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template seems needlessly uncivil to me. It adds nothing to community or, if it does add to community, probably not the type that will help build an encyclopedia. I can think of a lot of users who would want "This user is vehemently opposed to Islam" and I am, in fact, vehemently opposed to ketcup on eggs... but, let us not use templates to attack others views. gren グレン 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want it on your user page, don't add it. This nomination is an attempt to censor the views expressed on user pages, and is a misuse of the deletion process. We are all entitled to our opinions, at least in user space. --Dschor 00:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're not, though. Don't you get it? This is an encyclopedia. A user page is fine for telling people about yourself or expressing yourself a little. It shouldn't be the main focus of your attention, and it certainly shouldn't be used to attack religions you disagree with in a cute boilerplate box. Wikipedia has no rule guaranteeing freedom of expression. Rhobite 01:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there' no hope if we continue with cheap shots like that. --Doc ask? 12:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jbamb.
  • Keep until we have a policy on userboxes. I don't want to see every single objectionable userbox individually nominated on TfD, nor do I want to see them unilaterally speedied as was recently done. Picking a few boxes and nominating them "to establish a precedent" is also a lousy solution. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Userboxes reflect opinions. If there are people here who are against scientology, let them feel free to say it. DaGizza Chat 13:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all non-encyclopedic userboxes. As for not having "attack boxes", I don't see how this is any different than the anti-women's choice userbox (*cough cough* "pro-life", whatever). --Cyde Weys votetalk 13:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone may be pro-life because they consider abortion to be a form of murder. It does not neccessitate they are against women having a choice because the former (i.e murder) trumps the latter (women's right to choose) in importance such that the latter wouldn't even come into consideration. Pepsidrinka 20:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid POV, even if you don't like it. By my understanding at least, as long as you discuss all the other POV's where NPOV needs to be preserved, then it's actually protected by WP:NPOV as a religion. Not that it matters much in userspace.
Wikipedia has one big thing which guarantees freedom of expression on here, which is that if it doesn't it will rapidly cease to be so good. (Rhobite, I'm talking to you here.) In userspace we don't have to have NPOV, and that is a good thing. For example, there are a small but signifigant number of wikipedians whose user pages say things like "I am a homophobe", etc, etc, etc. My user page has a series of userboxes which say things like "This user identifies as gay", "This user has a boyfriend", and so on. None of these can be mistaken for encyclopedic statements, but, when I clash with otherwise good editiors in articles about sexuality we both know where we stand, and what each others biases are. That makes wikipedia stronger I think because we can never get rid of an individuals bias, and everyone has some biases. Being aware of them is the next best thing. Tom 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But Scientology should link to Scientology. Keith Greer 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does no one who is voting keep understand this is saying the same thing as "I am anti-semetic" or "I am anti-Islmanic" or "I think Christians are whackos" or "I dislike athiests"? This is a personal attack on a group of people and as such is against policy.Gateman1997 22:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep userboxes are free of NPOV requirements and users could simply make their own if so desired using existing templates. -Drdisque 01:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. {{User against jews}} got speedied--how is this any different? -- SCZenz 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because Judaism isn't a global racket and money laundering scheme. Rogue 9 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Explain to me how Judaism is any different then Scientology? They are both recognized and widely accepted world religions. Being anti one is identical to being anti the other. I am appalled this hasn't been deleted yet and frankly if this is the stance Wikipedia takes on religious issues then frankly it doesn't have a prayer. The ACLU will jump on this site like fly's on crap.Gateman1997 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL, the ACLU likes free speech too, so I don't think they're gonna touch this one. And do review WP:POINT, Gateman1997. Creating an anti-semitic template was not the right way to draw attention to this TfD. -- SCZenz
  • Strongest Possible Keep Gateman, you want me to explain how Judaism is different from Scientology in the most blunt possible terms? It's simple. Jews were actual victims of an actual genocide, while Scientologists can only claim to be reincarnated victims of a fictional billions year old intergalactic genocide that was made up by a two-bit hack science fiction writer. The suggestion that members of this lunatic celebrity cult - and especially its paid operatives - are being lined up for gas chambers is far more offensive than the userbox is. --Daniel 07:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sam Fisher

Template:Sam Fisher (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template was only used on Sam Fisher, I've subst:'ed it. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

(and Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County/city seal)

I don't see any special reason we need this sub- and meta-templated fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. Can we orphan and speedy? -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox City NH

As above... fork of Template:Infobox U.S. City. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuisine

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutralitytalk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Template:Green Parties

Template:Green Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Uh... Kaihsu voted "Delete". Do you want to vote for deletion or do you mean someone else? - Cuivienen 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Smiley

It's Template:Sad (TFD discussion) all over again, with all its friends, all rolled up into one evil template via a {{switch}}. What's so terribly difficult about the image syntax that we need to use a two-level-deep template? They don't even need to be resized. —Cryptic (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User GWB

I pretty much believe this should be speedied for personal attack but apparently not all agree. Whatever the case, this user box signifies the problem many are having -- it's bomb throwing partisanship, makes light of vandalism, and if there's a template out there making it okay to "hate" someone or something on Wikipedia just what the heck are we doing here. --Wgfinley 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach (Smack Back) 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomertalk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia. Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian13ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Template:User_GWB2 expresses opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, not to George W. Bush in general, and, as such, shouldn't even be called "GWB2." - Cuivienen 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Template:Iff

Not used. Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The template is a violation of WP:NPA by characterising what the subject of the RFC (which is linked in white) as Stalinist and comparing the said user to Stalin himself. Not only that is a personal attack by comparing her to Stalin, it is also triviaizing the acts Stalin did while leader of the Soviet Union. Millions of people died under his leadership while all the admin did was to delete userboxes. Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach (Smack Back) 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as personal attack. Possibly speedy, but I've had enough of being bold today. [[Sam Korn]] 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it offends so many people (like everything nowadays seems to). Just for the record, i didnt create this userbox, it was already located on several other people's userpages and on the page it links to. I just moved it to a page for easier access, as people were already using it... - UK Bourbons3Talk | Contrib's 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I go ahead and speedy it? Zach (Smack Back) 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you could read you would know that I already said that i didnt create it, and that it wasnt used once, i have seen atleast 3 other users with the box on their userpage UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bourbons3 is correct on that one. By just seeing who has the image Image:Stalin3.jpg, you can see that the template is at other places. However, forks have been created of this template. I wish to ask permission to include those forks into this TFD debate. Zach (Smack Back) 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is one i know of which says "I survived" instead of "I participated" UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the I survived one, I will TFD that one separately. There was a fork of this one, same text and everything, so I deicded to speedy that one under the same grounds: gross violation of NPA and WP:CIVIL and its only purpose was to attack a user. Zach (Smack Back) 22:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's probably a lot of variations of it by now - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and I will try to find everyone that I can. Zach (Smack Back) 22:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Everyone is allowed free speech. Even if this is an attack people need to have the right to speak out against administrators.--God of War 08:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- NPA , divisive and uncalled for. 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I opposed User:Kelly Martin's actions in her pre-emptive deletion of Userboxes, but this is divisive and inflammatory in the current climate. As is the original prototype spoof "Userbox" which appears to have been created by User:El C supporting the "purge" (and derivatives thereof such as Template:User survived, now gone). A question to User:Sam Korn: will you also be removing all instances of El C's template, even when not transcluded, because that is equally inflammatory? --Cactus.man ✍ 12:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not an attack, it is a creative way to provide a link to an RfC, where concerned wikipedians can voice their opinions on the matter. If this userbox is deleted, wikipedia has lost all perspective. --Dschor 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this reminds me an aweful lot of the time someone was going around signing his name [[communist|Howard Dean]], wasn't terribly funny then...--64.12.116.6 14:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - {{User purge}} was much better, but it was deleted and protected against recreation by Martin-supporting admins before even bringing it to TfD.
This is just an example, so people can see what it actually was:
File:Stalin3.jpg This user actively participated in rebellion against the Great 2006 New Year's Day Userbox Purge, and would do it again.
I was actually banned for even having this on my user page, so beware if you're under the misunderstanding that you actually have any right to free speech on your user page. -_- Template:Bigspace --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 15:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User purge

This was a fork from the above template that I had deleted under the same reasons, but recreated out of "due process." Listing so that the due process can take place. Zach (Smack Back) 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cjmarsicano/g2K6up

Same as the first template, another fork. However, this is occured at a user page for transclusion. While TFD might not be the scope of this page, I want to keep the discussion of this template at one page. My vote of delete and it's reasoning as the same as the first one: this violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL by comparing the acts the admin did with acts that took place under the leadership of Soviet Premier Stalin. Zach (Smack Back) 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hawaiianmusic

Template:Hawaiianmusic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not used, no obvious advantages over the current {{MDmusic}} in use at Music of Hawaii. Circeus 19:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:*-court

Template:Burger-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Chase-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Ellsworth-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Fuller-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hughes-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Jaycourt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Marshall-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rehnquist-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Rutledge-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Stone-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taft-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Taney-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Vinson-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Waite-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Warren-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:White-court (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Templates do not appear to be used any more. DLJessup (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If author thinks it should be deleted, then its outcome is obvious. Little or no use now, so no need to keep - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (tho I'm sad to see those beauties go, and I'm goin' to keep a copy in my user space for personal reference). BDAbramson T 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DecencyWikiProject-Member

A template which was created for that notorious "WikiProject:Wikipedians for decency". --Victim of signature fascism 17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angel-screenshot

Template:Angel-screenshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A bad idea resurfaces. All the specialized {{tv-screenshot}} templates were deleted a while back because they gave the false impression that all screenshots of the program in question were "fair use". -- Carnildo 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Help Wikiboxes

This is a call to arms and totally lacks NPOV. Practically unused at present but ought not to be allowed, whatever one feels about the great Userbox debate of New Years' Eve. David | Talk 00:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Template:Infobox Iranian President

Optional parameters in Template:Infobox President now make this fork unnecessary. -- Netoholic @ 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Netoholic - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

Seems to have been created for use in beating other editors over the head with in edit wars... Dan100 (Talk) 17:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. 100% necessary. For months a bitter edit war waged over the use of styles in articles. A compromise solution was agreed after a long debate which stopped an edit war that was waging over hundreds of royalty articles. Wikipedia policy used to be to start articles on popes with His Holiness Pope . . . . monarch articles with Her Majesty Queen . . . etc. The consensus, agreed by 92%, was no longer to use styles in that form, but to confine the style into a special style box somewhere in the text. The solution is now part of the Manual of Style. Every so often a handful of users try to restart the edit war. Other times a new user joins and edits large number of articles to add in styles. These templates are used to inform users as to what Wikipedia policy is and how and when Wikipedia uses or doesn't use styles in biographical articles. They have had to be used on many occasions and have in every occasion stopped wholescale edit wars erupting on the issue again. If Dan had bothered to check his facts and asked any of the people who need regularly to use them about them he would have been told all of this and this ridiculous nomination of a set of widely used, much needed templates would not have taken place. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I was typing the above, another user changed 16 articles to add in styles. All 16 had to be changed back (he didn't just add in a styles contrary to policy, but managed to even get the style wrong). One of the above templates had to be used to inform the user that WP does not use styles at the start of articles. That is the third time that template had had to be used in 4 hours. That is why the templates are needed. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 18:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has just had to be used again. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we still need these. Deb 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another 100% keep, per FearÉIREANN. Standarzing styles across the encyclopedia are essential if Wikipedia is to emerge as a reputable and usable sourcebook. 172 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above - there is always some new user, who is unfamiliar with our style manual and wants to use the style of his choice. These templates are a good way of informing these users of our conventions and preserve a sense of consistency which emerged after close scrutiny of all alternatives. It is extremely unlikely that unfamiliar users will know better. These templates may also prevent revert wars over style - if all parties are informed of the standard Wikipedia style, a revert war over style is unlikely to emerge. Izehar 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What do you mean?! These are the products of a very long project to find an acceptable use on Wikipedia. A consensus has now been reached; we need to keep enforcing it. --Matjlav(talk) 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These were created precisely to avoid head-beating edit wars. Mark1 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jtdirl. Hopefully to be used as last resort. Herostratus 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Jtdirl. Mackensen (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The style templates promote consistency and accuracy. Styles shouldn't be used in titles or all throughout the articles... They should be kept to the side. - Charles 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If I had been given some of these sorts of messages way back in the beginning of my editing here, I would have been grateful for the help rather than feeling like I was beat over the head. Anything that can be done to make helping new users more efficient improves the quality of help that can be given per unit time, and that seems good for the project. If wording changes are needed to make them more kind, please do so, but I'm not seeing the need for deletion. Sometimes more than one statement IS necessary. ++Lar: t/c 16:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep- they have been used several times as a warning mechanism. Astrotrain 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Very empathetic to the frustration of the style-enforcers, but I feel that when humans write other humans on user talk pages it's better to stay in practice of leaving a brief personal note. (I've elaborated on this here). One can still link to the relevant style guide, but it leaves more opportunity to commend any other positive edits, and have the exchange seem less like an authoritarian "beating". I will say that these might be nice templates to put as a heads-up at the top of royalty article talk pages—even cooler if there were a MediaWiki feature to bring up relevant style guides when people clicked "edit this page". Note that I agree completely with the standard and the need to enforce it (am trying a similar initiative on post-nominals here). Metaeducation 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's always someone who can put these templates to good use. It saves the relevant pages being incorrectly edited UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Consistency across the encyclopaedia is a good thing, but this is NOT the way to do it, and just bites the newbies. The language used in the latter two is not helpful at all and will scare off new editors and antagonise experienced editors. I agree wholeheartedly with Metaeducation - leave a note with a link to the relevant style guide. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having seen some of this edit war that would not die, these are clearly still needed.  ALKIVAR™ 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first two Delete third. Could we split this up the third is misleading as this is non-blockable--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rn3

As above, plus what it suggests to be "vandalism" is not. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mess2

What it pretends to be spam isn't, and what it suggests is vandalism, isn't. Dan100 (Talk) 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource-addition

Delete — This TfD also includes Template:Wikisource-addition-1, Template:Wikisource-addition-2, Template:Wikisource-addition-3, Template:Wikisource-addition-4, Template:Wikisource-addition-5. Ive listed it for deletion because the author wants to keep it in main article space, does not care about appearances, and does not believe usage guidelines are needed. Also it says there is a source, but does not say where the source is located (online somewhere? Vatican library?), only that one exists (which is self-evident). An example usage can be seen at Apostolicae Curae. See also discussion found here. --Stbalbach 16:31, 31 December 2005

  • The only purpose of these appears to be to mis-use Wikipedia as an equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested articles for Wikisource. Wikisource already has a requested texts mechanism: Wikisource:Requested texts. A dangling interwiki link is one thing, but an outright request that Wikipedia readers hunt for unnamed "source documents related to X" and then add them to Wikisource is quite another. This is not the way to encourage more people to contribute to Wikisource. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the nominator completely misses the point of template deletion. A template should only be deleted if it serves no purpose or is redundant, if it's not used, or if it is bad beyond the point of fixing. The nominator makes no such claims; the closest he comes is his statement that I believe it should be used on the main article rather than the article talk page--which is hardly a reason for deleting it. If he thinks it should be on the talk pages, then he is by all means welcome to take it off the article page and move it on the talk page, and I wouldn't fight him over it unless and until a reasonable consensus has been reached as to the proper location. Everything else he names (it's ugly, it needs an explanation, etc.) can all easily be changed by anyone who wants to. Kurt Weber 04:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's not particularly useful, as it actually has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's not our job to search out original sources; do that on Wikisource and link to it when you find one. Adam Bishop 05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite or delete. Pressure should not be placed on Wikipedians to also work on other wiki projects. The template should be rewritten to identify content on Wikipedia that should instead be placed on Wikisource. If such a template already exists then this one should be deleted. —gorgan_almighty 11:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThis should be used more often. The more general Move to Wikisource is too often used in articles that have an ecyclopedic introdution followed by source text. Then someone moves the whole page to Wikisource without taking out the encylopedic information and we have a HUGE backlog over there already--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-USGov-LOC

Image copyright tag, provided misleading information about the copyright of images sourced from the Library of Congress. Numerous images in the LOC are not in the public domain. Template needs to be rewritten or deleted and images tagged within the exiting tag set up.--nixie 04:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nixie says, this tag will encourage people to assume that everything from the LoC is public domain. In actual fact, a careful reading of the image description there and information about the photo collection the image comes from is needed to make that determination. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 10:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite. - This template was strongly needed here. Same situation as with other USGov templates, not all images there all in PD, but this is already stated in template and btw. not all images from any USGov site all in PD, so this nomination is like nominating for deletion cat. "Jewish Americans" and not nominating other "ethnic Americans" categories. Look for example at Template:PD-USGov-State, this is confusing, because people assume that all images on state.gov site are in PD. In fact many photos from state.gov are not in PD. And let me give you two nice examples of photos from LOC.
    • 1.) Walker Evans. Floyd Burroughs' Farm, from Hale and Perry Counties and Vicinity, Alabama, 1935-1936. from [12] is PD (Office of War Information).
    • 2.) Photographer unknown (National Photo Company). President Calvin Coolidge Facing Press Photographers, 1924. from the same page probably isn't PD (National Photo Company Collection).
    • Point is that uploader of photos to Wikipedia should always find out copyright information. - Darwinek 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though that the copyright page does not mention the term "public domain" -- in fact, it seems to hold items that they don't even own! That means there are less PD items than we think. I'd say create an unknown use tag ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) so we can determine what images SHOULD be tagged -- a fair use tag or another PD tag (since the LOC is not going to mean PD). This could be done with a move, so keep and rewrite. This is a tag where just saying "it could be copyrighted, but if it doesn't say so, it's PD" isn't legally correct. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The tag is misleading and needs to be rewritten. LoC copyright policy states that they do not generally own rights in their collections and that it is the researcher's obligation to determine copyright status. In consideration of this policy, there is no right to assume that material taken from their site is PD unless it is marked as such and a template should reflect that.--Dakota ~ ε 17:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it should only be marked PD if it says its PD. Of course, what I basically was trying to say was that just because it was from the LOC does NOT mean it is immediate PD, and your point agrees with this. Saying its all PD is wrong -- for all we know, some are fair use and should be tagged as fair use, some might be for uses that Wikipedia does not accept, and if it IS PD, it is PD because of, say, being pre-1923, which would be tagged with {{PD-US}} anyway. My last point still stands -- that assuming PD if no copyright given is wrong -- but because it will generally always have copyright and SAY if it is PD. All of this can still apply to the vote I gave earlier. In other words, just assume that all images from the LOC are copyrighted unless it says it's PD. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the LOC site you basically haven't written by photos, that they are in PD. Vast majority of that photos are in PD, but there is written only f.ex. "Farm Security Administration", so basically it is in PD. This is exactly the same situation as with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), related tag Template:PD-USGov-NARA reflects it very good. And btw., when some PD photo is on the LOC site, they don't write down "PD", but when there is some copyrighted photo, they claim it (see for example here). That is their policy. - Darwinek 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to a less misleading name, of course. The LOC has a huge collection of images (I've uploaded hundreds myself), and there needs to be a category for them. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-31 15:58
  • Unsure -- This may be appropriate for indicating the SOURCE of an image, but it is entirely inappropriate for making any sort of assumptions regarding the copyright status. If kept, this tag should ALWAYS be accompanied by some other tag that explicitly indicates copyright status. older≠wiser 16:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Darwinek (thanks for the notice by the way!) and add ({{USGov-LOCimage}}) per Wcquidditch. The point that the tag as used now does not guarantee PD because taking images from the LOC does not guarantee PD, is well taken (and the fact that it says it's not clear argues that it should not be a PD- prefix tag), and something I missed. But that is no reason to delete this tag. Denoting that something came from the LOC, whether known or unknown, seems goodness to me. It's a big source. Images currently tagged this way thus all currently need work/investigation/review, so this tag, at this time, lets you know which images need review. (I put as much as I can in the provenance, but did every other uploader?) For ones that are unverified, chamge to the new tag (using the wording of this one) that WCQidditch suggests but leave this one for the ones that are known good. (I better be off to do some retagging!) To nixie, if you think the template needs rewriting as one outcome, why put it up on TfD? ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just used it a couple of days ago. The templates we have right now aren't precise enough, and using this one saves time. Primetime 23:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading. The vast majority of works from the Library of Congress are not in the public domain. --Carnildo 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not even a reasonable assumption that a random image from the LOC is PD. An image's copyright status should be investigated before it's uploaded anyway. "Known good" images should be tagged properly as PD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and alternative proposal. People thoughtlessly uploading images from the LOC website is a major source of unintentional copyright violation. Some images there are PD, but very many are copyrighted. The Library of Congress is rarely an original source of images, and images from their website should normally just be treated like any other images, and be attributed to their original source. There is one distinctive aspect of copyrights and the Library of Congress, though, that is important: they are rather good librarians, and so often document when the copyright on a post-1922 image has not been renewed. They have also sometimes made arrangements with photographers that have allowed their photographs to become public domain much sooner than otherwise would have happened. As the LOC can be a good source on the murky copyright status of post-1922 images, I propose the following template (Template:PD-US-LOC) instead for images it is appropriate for.--Pharos 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMisleading--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
United States Federal Government
This image was first published in the United States in 1923 or later, but is considered public domain by the Library of Congress because its copyright has not been renewed or has been formally released, or for another reason.

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

Delete — The user box serves no purpose to me other than to cause future problems. Before I even TFD'ed the template, vandalism along the lines of "O Rly, Ya Rly." And, while not a sufficient reason for deletion, the icons of these templates have fair use images, a no-no. But overall, it will just cause problems, and I agree that the userboxes have jumped the shark and now it is the time maybe we should say "no mas." Zach (Smack Back) 09:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach (Smack Back) 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Template:MLB Athletics franchise

Template:MLB Athletics franchise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Vw

Redundant with the {{test}} series. Firebug 20:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Styles4, Template:Rn4, and Template:Lang4

Threatens to block people for a nonblockable offense. Firebug 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosblock

A violation of WP:BP. No evidence this has ever actually been used. Firebug 19:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW, someone should go over Category:User warning templates. Do we need 142 separate warnings?! Firebug 19:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been used for MoS vandalism and will continue to be used. And yes those people who deal with vandalism know from experience we do need specific warnings dealing with specific issues. In fact there are many issues that are not covered by warnings which crop up all the time and for which users have been, and will continue to, creating templates as the need arises. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. I note that Jtdirl refers to "MoS vandalism" but that the word "vandalism" does not appear anywhere on {{Mosblock}}. android79 21:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism warnings. It appears as if Jtdirl wants to keep this around so he can use it in ways in which he would be violating Wikipedia policies himself, by definition. Aumakua 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If Jdtirl routinely blocks, or even threatens to block, editors for violating the Manual of Style, he needs to read it himself, noting especially: "Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Writers are not required to follow all or any of these rules: the joy of wiki editing is that perfection is not required." Thus the existance of this template is evidence for a far worse problem than failure to adhere to the MoS, and every use of it, past or future, is a violation of a much more important principle. The sooner it gets deleted, the better. Aumakua 02:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Or, maybe keep it, so we can see which admins violate Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Unlike WP:MoS, admins are bound to follow that when they use their mop and bucket. -- SCZenz 02:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. It seems that these kinds of blocks are not for violating the manual of style per se, but rather are about ignoring requests to stop editing editing that way. I am uncertain if the request should bear enough weight to ever justify blocking, but in any case should generally lead to a discussion of some sort. We don't want people editwarring over decided matters like the MoS, but we also don't want to create an environment where making mistakes with grammar/style standards leads to a block. Discussion should usually sort that out, and hopefully everyone will follow the MoS afterwards. Willfully and knowingly violating the MoS after having it brought up, especially for users who have enough grammar skills in English that it's clear they're just being difficult, should perhaps leave the door open to further pressure. --Improv 02:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no question. It's a violation of policy, simple as that. BTW Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of vandalism defines vandalism; no other "vandalism" is blockable. Dan100 (Talk) 09:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Per Jtdirl. If Wikipedia is not going to enforce content policies, it has no reason for being at all. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. 172 19:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, deliberately disregarding content policies following repeated warnings is clear vandalism. If Wikipedia is to be sucessful as a project conforming to its goal of writing a reliable encyclopedia, we must tighten our mechanisms for enforcing content policies. 172 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 12:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You cannot be blocked for violating guidelines. You may however be taken to an RFC or an RFAr over it. The probable effect for enforcing a guideline is by consensus reversion; then the 3RR would serve its purpose and not this template. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 05:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nom and because violating the MoS is not vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Musicbrainz album, Template:Musicbrainz track, Template:Musicbrainz artist

These templates give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz. If they are kept, we should at least lose the images - it's basically an ad. Rhobite 18:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web reference 3

Not used. Variant of Template:Web reference. Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dangh

Fork of {{afd}}. (Though I do agree with the creator's sentiments as expressed in the edit history. Down with Monobook-specific formatting and evil javascript tricks! Torches and pitchforks and all that!) —Cryptic (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small

Despite the name, it isn't any smaller than {{tfd}}; it's just a forked version of it, with different wording and an extra enclosing box. Only ever used on one template, where I've replaced it with the canonical tfd. —Cryptic (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redundant and unnecessary. Kenj0418 17:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIX {{tfd}} first, then delete this one. I have seen at least one place where this template was better, tfd made the page quite ugly.. Perhaps someone cleverer-er than me could fix it (but without using the dreaded {{if}}?)? Until then it's not redundant, although it IS a fork and therefore should be opposed... ++Lar 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed it on Template:Middle-earth portal; the absolute positioning via css there was what prevented the normal tfd from being put into the box without fuss. Position:absolute is Quite Rare, and this was the first template I've seen that needed an additional <div> stuck around the tfd template. (I'm not sure why position:absolute is permitted in css anyway; I've only seen it used for vandalism and for the evil hack that is {{click}}, which would be better done as an additional image tag.) Was this the template you were thinking of, or was it used on another that I'm not aware of? —Cryptic (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it was, thanks for remembering, Cryptic! So what's the upshot, is {{tfd}} fixed (that is, was that <div> already there or did you add it), or is it more of a "watch out for very weird cases and fix them rather than the template"? Putting some remarks into bracketed by {{tfd}}<noinclude> might be the way to go. (or put them in the instructions here?... I'm thinking this one can now be deleted in any case... ++Lar 22:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fork. Possibly speedy per a similar discussion several months ago. Radiant_>|< 18:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's also misleading, as the reall "small version of {{tfd}}" is {{tfd-inline}}, which is much smaller than this one (when used, of course!) By the way, it's just funny how it looks:

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Template for discussion ...}} with {{subst:Template for discussion ...}}.

The template
‹ Templates for discussion ›
has been
proposed for deletion

Template:Magic-please-dont-expose

Unused, and we don't remove information from the encyclopedia just to help someone sell it. —Cryptic (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either redirect to Template:Magic-spoiler or delete. If the creator is so concerned about the secret of a commercial magic trick getting out, then he might as well remove that information from the page. --JB Adder | Talk 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's a copyright violation it should be reported as such, otherwise it's redundant with generic spoiler templates. Pleas to readers by means of templates seem silly to me anyway. --IByte 22:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all reasons above and several below (forthcoming) -- Krash 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is an attempt at compromise. Yes, please do take a look at my contributions where you will find several tricks explained in full (better than most of the magic material currently on WP). I can contribute a whole lot more, and so could others, if they felt the WP community was respecting them. My hope is that if certain classes of tricks can be declared off limits for exposure, then maybe we can get magicians to contribute and have better quality magic information on WP. Kleg 23:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just read Talk:Out of This World (card trick), and I am having trouble finding the "overwhelming consensus" which Finlay McWalter speaks of. Could I trouble someone to tell me how I can tell which posts count towards finding a consensus and which ones don't? Also, is "refactoring" of discussions allowed here, like is done on Ward's Wiki? It might make sense for a bunch of the exposure related stuff to go on the Talk:Exposure (magic) page (where I looked for it) rather than being scattered around on the talk pages of random tricks. Kleg 01:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think refactoring of talk page discussion is generally thought to be a good idea. Summarization of points made, yes, but changing people's words and removing them? No, typically I think you present a summary and then, if consensus is reached it's accurate, archive the old page. (but I'm a newbie so I may be misreading, do your own research). I just read through Talk:Out of This World (card trick), as well as the article itself and I have this comment: I am not an IBM member, not a professional magician by any stretch of the imagination, but I do happen to know a few tricks, including this one (at least a trick that delivers the same effect). Without going into how it actually is done (if you want to know how it's done, teach me one I don't know (in person) and I'll show you), the way I know to present it isn't the way given in the article, not by a long shot (I'm not talking patter, I mean the mechanics and fundamental principle are totally different). I think the way the article is now, presenting a magic specific spoiler and asking people not to read it if they don't want to know, is sufficient, assuming that the information can be sourced... Under WP:V if a particular article section can't be shown to have a publicly verifiable source, or is a copyvio (or a contract violation, I think) deletion of that section can be argued for by those editing it. I guess I'm not seeing how this template helps at all, what it asks people to do seems unencyclopedic (from the perspective of a reader of the encyclopedia, readers come to get information, and shouldn't be asked not to share it). So I favour deletion, as I (sort of) said above. ++Lar 02:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everything above. Template:DaGizza/Sg 05:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anti-encyclopedic. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saw it in half, no wait that would create 2 templates... Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:50, Jan. 2, 2006
  • Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteDustimagic 01:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Off-topic

Looks like a one-off created for one specific dispute. Redundant with {(sofixit}}? -- Netoholic @ 09:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»Talk | Contrib's 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. It is obvious from the edit summary of the dispute that the creator intended it as a {{cleanup}} off chute not as a means of justifying the off-topic nature. I believe it should re rewritten to appear more like the {{cleanup}} template and less like the {{disputed}} template. —gorgan_almighty 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Could be useful if expanded. Dustimagic 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

Fork of existing template. Only new purpose seems to create a category structure for POV disputes by date (see Quickly). I don't think we need that. -- Netoholic @ 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objective

Unused, and redundant with other dispute templates. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lucidinformationsystems

Unused. —Cryptic (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various icon image templates

(namely Template:MacOS-icon, Template:Windows-icon, Template:Gnome-icon, Template:Kde-icon, Template:X-icon, Template:Oss-icon, Template:Free-icon, Template:Nix-icon, Template:Linux-icon, Template:FreeBSD-icon)
We don't use templates merely to insert an image at a given size. Further, the only place any of these are used are in Comparison of image viewers, Comparison of accounting software and Comparison of bitmap graphics editors, where their use is purely decorative and thus runs afoul of WP:FUC (at least for MacOs-icon and Windows-icon), and in Template:OS-icon-key, listed below. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Template:OS-icon-key

Unused, and we don't use fair-use icons for things like this anyway. —Cryptic (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If equal g

It's deprecated, so let's kill it. -- Netoholic @ 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Divizia A

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Divizia A: "It is unused. It was copied from Romanian Wikipedia (including fonts). There's another similar template, Ro Divizia A, in use. Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   05:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)" --Idont Havaname 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still supporting removal, I edited it as it was used for a while as target for a redir and its malfunctions affected the other template too.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice that the creator agreed to deletion on his talk page--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   16:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holding cell

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Other

  • See Primefac's note above. Just keep using the existing templates. They will be converted for you during the merge process, whenever it happens (these merges sometimes take a while, as you can see above). When the conversion is done, the merged template will support the features that you need. That's how it's supposed to work, anyway. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's helpful. Is there a change that could be usefully made to the display text in {{being deleted}}? Or maybe the assumption is that no one reads beyond the first line anyway. Thincat (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=34217775"