Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokemonusermadeimages

edit

Template:Pokemonusermadeimages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A template that is entirely redundant with placing the image page in Category:Pokémon User Made Images (which is on CFD anyway). Additionally, it is unused and more or less unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was new so it wasn't used yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveminun (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ControversialArticle

edit

Template:ControversialArticle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Used as a disclaimer on Abortion (I have removed it until this discussion concludes). It isn't necessary to crowd articles with a disclaimer, just in case, people do not know what Wikipedia is about. If it is kept, at the very least it should be clarified it is not to be used in articles. - RoyBoy 800 23:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! expert? pfft Be bold! --Domthedude001 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22122&dict=CALD Disclaimer: 1 FORMAL a formal statement saying that you are not legally responsible for something, such as the information given in a book or on the Internet, or that you have no direct involvement in it, 2 SPECIALIZED a formal statement giving up your legal claim to something or ending your connection with it
The box contains no claims about legal responsibility of wikipedia or editors, it is only a warning that the contents of the article can be changed at anytime by anyone. It is not redundant, as the disclaimer at the bottom of the page is purposely small, and there are errors, intentional disinformations (John Seigenthaler), and nationalist POVs (see Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nonsense) not only used by people unexpecting the possibility that something that calls itself "encyclopedia" could be inaccurate, but also mirrored on other servers, therefore sending the nonsense info further to other audiences. I have explained the problem with nonsense / biased edits that go undetected for a long time on the talk page of this template. Please read the reasons there before you vote here. According to the definition provided (Cambridge dictionary), this box is not a disclaimer, therefore the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates doesn't apply here. And the "just in case people don't know what Wikipedia is about" argument is the most silly thing I've ever heard, though a very popular argument among wikipedians - like the Seigenthaler scandal never happened. Do you really expect an average internet user who googles something once twice a week and google sends him to wikipedia (which calls itself "encyclopedia") to research and find out what Wikipedia actually is, at least for this type of articles - a big chatroom for people pushing their beliefs and geeks who want to prove to the world that they are "wise" somehow?
Disagree with the deletion. ackoz   00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're smoking, but that's a damn disclaimer. --mboverload@ 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question... yes I expect them to know what Wikipedia is when an edit tab is at the top of almost every page. Furthermore we aren't going to tailor the site for clueless users, we tailor it (as best we can) as an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's do not have disclaimers at the top of controversial articles. - RoyBoy 800 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference to the fact that I might be a drug addict, very kind of you Mboverload. No, it's not a disclamier, if you could read, you could read the definition above and as the text makes no claims about legal responsibility, it's not a disclaimer. Furthermore, if wikipedia was encyclopedia, the contents wouldn't be changing constantly with the current "consensus" of editors. I would provide consistent information. Which it doesn't. Those articles need a warning, because they are a public chatroom. ackoz   07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Followed abortion for a while now and feel this is innapropriate, regardless of whether it is a disclaimer or not.
Ackoz - you say it is a warning, I think a warning about a page not being authoritative is a disclaimer, even if not explicitly legal. I also think your attempts to belittle the editors are pretty low and hypocritical. |→ Spaully°τ 17:17, 14 May 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moo?. What a mess. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more userboxes

edit

{{User against haters}} thye are too useful. STOP THE HATE!!! DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 12:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Cyde has dropped another batch of boxes below. So here goes another batch voting. This section applies to all userboxes below, so move your votes upwards (from under #All userboxes below) to upgrade them to a wider range of templates and let's hope it's all for today. Misza13 T C 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that all these userboxes should not be grouped into one mass deletion, but be rather considered individually for best results. Some of these can, in fact, be used to describe oneself realistically. For example, a person could be a procrastinator and could be using the said user box not to be funny, but to describe himself in a quick and easy fashion. I know it'd take longer, but, in the end, its often better. -TwilightPhoenix 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, how does having this in Userspace rather than Template space destroy the intent of what you're saying? It doesn't. Deleting these boxes and putting them in the Userspace as text hurts no one. Secondly (and more philosophically) consider how these even remotely help us edit an encyclopedia, either as text or tempate. They don't, and I (and Jimbo) discourage their use in any format. Nhprman 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See below comment in responce to Shining. It explains all. -TwilightPhoenix 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And how do they do that? If its storage, there are plenty of pictures that take up more space than a number of userboxes combined. -TwilightPhoenix 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comparing an userbox with a picture? For God's sake, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and of course needs pictures for the articles, can you explain how an userbox can be as useful as them? —SHININGEYES 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully explained thier usefulness on my user page. Too long to post it here, so you'll have to go to my page. -TwilightPhoenix 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about you stop trying to kill the little fun there is on Wikipedia? Jesus christ, these things take about 1/4 of a kilobyte. --mboverload@ 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Trying to kill the little fun"?! Mboverload, if you didn't noticed before we have WP:FUN for that, since when an userbox is supposed to be funny? As of now Wikipedia has more than 2000 userboxes, sufficiently enough to permanently damage the servers; and that takes more than 1/4 of kilobyte. —SHININGEYES 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently damage the servers???? Good grief ... even if userboxes were an incredible drain on resources, the damage wouldn't be permanent. And as far as resource hogs go, I've got to think that long TFD pages getting reloaded over and over would be more of a drain than userboxes. As of right now, the May 13 TFD page is 334 K. Every time this page gets viewed, that's 334K of bandwidth and that's not even counting generation time. BigDT 05:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem of userboxes is their massive inclusion; TFD reviews DON'T APPEAR in every userpage, man! —SHININGEYES 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is absurd. Sorry, but I really can't imagine a little box with words and a picture causing harm to a server. That would be pathetic. We're still here aren't we? Did this page really take that long for you to load? --Pilot|guy 12:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be incivil, but ROFLMFAO. Even 2000 templates at .25KB each would add up to a whoping 500KB total, as of this posting, just THIS DAY's TFD discussion adds up to "This page is 208 kilobytes long." enough space to hold 832 boxes itself!. — xaosflux Talk 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure loading a single article is a bigger drain on resources than 30 user boxes on one page. These cannot possibly have any real effect on the servers, as I'm sure, given the likely number of visitors any given moment, Wikipedia servers are capable of handling at least several hundred megabytes of bandwidth at any moment.
On the contrary, I would say: "If you like them, then {{subst}} them on your userpage and stop consuming server resources" —SHININGEYES 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of them.Wandering Star 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is just too much. honestly, I can understand deletions in some cases, but most of this is based upon the "unenecyclopedic" and "subjective humor" arguments. Userboxes are meant for userspace and just because a person doesn't find them funny doesn't mean they should be deleted. I extend this to every relevant mass-userbox vote below this point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't people understand that THESE ARE NOT IN USER SPACE. They are in TEMPLATE SPACE with the articles, and are therefore not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. In User space, an argument can be made that they are completely acceptable, but NOT in Template space. Nhprman 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. Why don't you userfy all 2000 userboxes? See how people would respond to that. Signed, Freddie 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If whether they're in template or user space is the problem, move them to User:Template/Template:Name, and hope no one wants the username "Template". Armedblowfish 14:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of template space has to be encyclopedic. Most of it is just sorting. By your reasoning, warning templates, various signing templates, and many other related functionality templates should be deleted to because they aren't encyclopedic either. Template space isn't article space. It's meant to easily insert standardized code into an article without the mess of that code appearing in said article. Same logic goes with userboxes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, Templates that sort, warn, etc. should not be deleted. They are actually useful for editing the encyclopedia. However, Templated Userboxes (most, anyway) hardly fit into the same category. Nhprman 06:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could argue that some of these other userboxes are also helpful. Say for example you're looking for someone who's knows about Republicans. Someone with a petinant userbox would seem to be the logical choice, no? These arguments can go back and forth forever. It's clear we're never going to convince one-another. For what it's worth, I do subst my userboxes, mostly because of all this. however, I don't feel that everyone should have to deal with that, especially those who love these things so much that they keep two-page long sections of them. Userboxes can be called a double-edged sword, but you don't always toss things out because there's a chance it might hurt you. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you that most users aren't seeking out Templated Republican Userboxes and saying, "Gee, this user is an expert in Republicans." What's been happening is that either fellow Republicans are using the template system to recruit other Republicans to gang-edit (and I mean no bias by using the GOP as the example, it happens on both sides) or to form "Republican Wikipedian" groups here, which are wildly inappropriate. Obviously, this isn't universal and many people, like you, already subst their boxes. But it's happened enough times that it's become a problem. By Substing boxes and moving them out of template space, the problem pretty much disappears. While biases on user pages are still a bad idea, that's not the issue here. It's a question of templated Userboxes and why they are demonstrably bad for the project. Nhprman 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all good points. I think what Someguy0830 is trying to say is that the reasons for destroying the userboxes are completely irrelevent and slapping "unencyclopedic" and "not funny" on all 10,000 of them is pointless. Sorry, maybe it's just me on this additional note, but I really don't see why everyone is freaking out over the fact that these are in template space. If we start cutting throats other everything that is possibly unencyclopedic in that section, this stupid little war shall go on. --Pilot|guy 12:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking them out of Template space does not "destroy" Userboxes. Deleting them simply moves them to User space, and this stupid little war ENDS immediately. Nhprman 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will not end immediately, and likely never will. Templated userboxes do little harm in most cases. Also, userboxes are destroyed once deleted, because the code, though simple enough for some to duplicate, is gone. It's not "moving" anywhere unless someone goes through and substs every instance of it. As it stands, there is almost no harm in having most of these userboxes in Template space. There will always be ways to abuse features of various things. This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you've made several misstatements here, hopefully not deliberately. Let me sort them out. First, the problem may not end the day the Templated boxes are deleted, because people will retain the links to their friends, etc. But the linkage will end and new users will (horror of horrors) get the idea that this is some kind of encyclopedia, rather than a much neater version of MySpace. Next, bots have been set up, I understand, to "userfy" these boxes and "Subst" them on Userpages. They will remain active and NONE of them will simply disappear. I also expect there will be a responsitory of Userboxes created after they are all moved to the User pages. If you don't know the harm and abuse they've done to the Project, you have not been paying attention, or you're willfully ignoring them, so I won't rehash it. I just hope you're advocacy will not mislead too many people. - Nhprman 03:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's shrink this back down for room. First you assume that these userboxes somehow mislead people into thinking this isn't an encyclopedia. Honestly, this is really far-fetched. A user would have to be fairly unintelligent not to catch the "pedia" part of Wikipedia or not notice the 100,000+ articles here. That kind of argument is straw-man at best. Second, if every instance were to be substed (like I specifically mentioned), then those users who have the boxes would retain them. However, any new users will have to resort to code-copying to gain those templates, and one can only imagine what kind of a mess that would make on those user template lists the userbox project maintains. As it is, a simple line of code (substed if they prefer) will instantly put that same format on their userpage. I, for one, can see the obvious benefit for inexperienced users in that rather than the annoying process of copying down and self-aligning all of that code by themselves. Please do not mis-interpret my statements to fit your own view, as I am very well aware of just how the template process works and what will result when you delete them. What you seem to forget is that you can't transclude a template once its gone. This is the main point here. Templates are made for the express purpose of adding standardized code to any number of places. This is what they are for. It applies to userboxes just the same as is does to anything else. I'm getting tired of arguing this back and forth. We're never going to convince each other. You may be content with your user interest list. Others are not. Others like the ease of use that comes with these templates. Simple as that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)
  • 99.9% of Userboxes would be fine if they weren't Templates. Please re-read my comments, and keep them in context. The vast amount of Users aren't idiots, and users become very adept at cutting and pasting and even editing Wikicode very quickly, as I did just days after coming here. Below is an example of a SIMPLE line of Wikicode that ANYONE can figure out how to use and easily adapt on their User page. Ending the practice of housing Userboxes in the Template space does NOT destroy Userboxes, so please stop misleading people by saying it will.
{{subst:Userbox|#3f3|#0c3|NO<br>UB|This user opposes Templated [[Wikipedia:Userboxes|Userboxes]]}} - Nhprman 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony of using a standard userbox template to express one's dislike of userbox templates is priceless, I must say. They're still using userboxes that way. It just puts all the strain on a single template being included thousands of times over instead of many being included on a much smaller scale. In the end, they achieve the same goal. It only makes locating a certain group of users somewhat more difficult, not impossible. For clarity's sake, I'll simply refer to Timrem's reply to you near the bottom. He sums it up rather nicely. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony was completely intentional, I assure you. As for not being able to seek out others, that's the goal. Wikipedia's mission is not to become a place where we can locate other users who are just like us. It's a place for writing a NPOV encyclopedia. Period. That may seem harsh, but that's reality, and reflects the site owner's views, as well. I realize in this society we live in, one that HATES following rules and believes everyone can do anything at any time and in any place, that creating an ordered, structured Website with a single goal is damn near impossible, especially in this medium. Perhaps it's not worth trying anymore, since mobs will be mobs and will enforce their own chaos on things. Whatever. Nhprman 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some and Delete the very stupid ones like Im a ninja, pirate, that longcat one etc, too many userboxes listed though Jaranda wat's sup 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except keep serious skill/interest (Babel-like) boxes. These are actually useful for editing, since using they can give you a list of knowledgeable users. User firearm seems to be the only one listed, and is the only one I have voted on individually. --Philosophus T 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Userboxes, if used in moderation, can add spice and a little humour to otherwise bland user pages like mine. I know there are some objectionable ones—why not nominate them on a case-by-case basis? — Tangotango 05:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If some users want all userboxes deleted, they should propose a new policy, not nominate them bunch after bunch. Friendly Neighbour 05:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain your reasons clearly or your vote will be discounted. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons are they should not be voted (uh oh, evil word) on as a group, they should each have an indvidual vote (there it is again) for each. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, and Subst them all - Templated Userboxes have been abused over and over again to turn Wikipedia into a mini Myspace, with the creation of clubs like "Wikipedians who ... " and vote stacking to delete or save other Userboxes. It's gotten out of hand. By taking them out of Template space, they will still exist, but will be text-based, and COMPLETELY in User space. Those users spreading misinformation about what it means to delete them should be ashamed of themselves. I urge everyone voting "keep" who didn't know they would still exist to change them to "Delete and Subst" (delete as templates, but substitute them as text) Nhprman 06:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Userboxes because this proposal to get rid of userboxes en-mass (or otherwise) violates WP:POINT and WP:CON. Deleting or substituting userboxes does not respect the community consensus against getting rid of userboxes, and it ignores everyone who protested under the basis that it stifles free expression. Yes, I know it won't stop people from saying the same thing on their user pages, but deleting userboxes en-mass like this has the same effect as the rejected policy. We've already decided against deletion/subst, and if point pushing like this keeps getting allowed, can the last user to edit Wikipedia please turn out the lights; I am already sick of people who want to get rid of (a) userbox(es), and I don't even use one. --DavidHOzAu 06:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you're quoting policy, note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, or a place of unregulated free expression. And the lights on WP started dimming when people started Templating Userboxes and using them to gang up on other boxes and articles they didn't like. (WP is also not a social networking site.) - Nhprman 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If networking among users is the problem, remove the category tag from the offending box so that users can't network around that specific box, but don't delete the userbox. (protect it if need be.) Problem solved. Also, consider requiring users who use userboxes to add a template to their user page such as
    This page contains user boxes
    User boxes are provided by wikipedia for humor and user classification purposes only. Using them to network with other users and target an article for the purpose of malicious or disruptive editing is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you suspect that this user is targeting your edits by a userbox classification in this manner, please leave a note at an administrator's talk page.
    Note: This template must precede all userboxes on this user page; removal violates wikipedia policy and may result in a temporary block and removal of offending content.
    I know it is lacking links, but this should be adequate discouragement if networking is the real problem. I believe a bot could be made to add them automatically. (BTW, I still believe the open slather delete of userboxes is heavy handed and WP:POINT.) --DavidHOzAu 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one clarification about my opinion: If the admins want to delete a userbox to eliminate blatant, repeated abuse and reverts of a controversial userbox, and not for I-don't-think-it-is-funny interests, I'm fine with it. The jokes should stay though, I always enjoy a laugh out of those. --DavidHOzAu 07:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pragmatic Keep — Let’s assume we deleted all or most of the(se) user boxes, because we agreed they didn’t belong into Template space. Someone might then start to put them in subpages of his userpage, e.g. User:Foo/Bar, and tell others to include them with the usual template mechanism, {{User:Foo/Bar}}, because the edit views of their userpages would stay maintainable this way. Next someone adapted Template:Babel-X (or something like it) to do the “User:Foo/” part, further minimising the code required. The user boxes would then have gone out of Template space, which is definitely not the same thing as article space, but any alleged server impact would remain. Therefore I think that deleting user boxes solves nothing and substing them is ugly (and in the case of inclusion by Babel-like templates probably hard to do). Efforts should rather be invested in keeping them well designed. It can save time, when one can quickly skim over a userpage, because it uses standardised information representation. Userpages themselves are useful for enhancing collaborative work—in the good sense and in the bad. I’m undecided on the issue of automated categorization of users, though: It can be used as an alternative approach to votes and it can be abused for vote stacking in traditional Wikipedia votes. Anyhow, “What links here” basically offers the same feature. Christoph Päper 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC) PS: What I loathe much more are customised signatures on Talk pages.[reply]
  • Get them out of template space, but find a way for us to use them without having to copy code down. The only argument I see deletionists have is that it wastes template space. I am well aware of WP:FREE, however, it was created as a countervandalism measure and shouldn't be applied to userpages. Plus, it's not official policy, nor is it a guideline. It's just Wikipolitics. Userboxes do not "disrupt Wikipedia." I find many userboxes offensive, but that doesn't mean I start flame wars with Wikipedians. I get along with them just the same. Just find a new way to use Userboxes that don't take up template space and Jimbo's money. WP:NOT a bureaucracy or an autocracy any more than it isn't a democracy. Also, someone's opinion on whether or not something is funny is relative. I mean, there are some that users just don't get, but that's no reason to delete them. They have jokes that they don't understand, so they TfD them. Humor is relative. And if something is an "Inside joke," remember that WP:NFT applies only to articles. Crazyswordsman 13:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most emphatically keep all. They do no harm and their removal would serve only to gratify a handful of killjoys. Ou tis 14:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete all of the "funny"/inside joke ones, after subst:ing, per Misza. There is a line past which certain userboxes are just a waste of space. I understand that Wikipedia is not paper, but these just clutter up the template namespace. This is in contrast to the religion ones, which help to build the encyclopedia. TheJabberwʘck 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the last two comments: You really mean "Delete," don't you? Because the word "Keep" in this discussion means "Keep them in Template space." Nhprman 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I most certainly do not mean delete. Deletion would mean I want them totally gone. If you do not agree with my terminology, then you can interpret my vote as Move to a Userbox space. Timrem 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This meaning of the word "Delete" is at the crux of this entire discussion. If they are Deleted from Template space and "Subst'ed" (or "Userfied") then they remain on every single User page where they currently exist. So when you say "move" that's effectively the same thing. Saying "Delete" doesn't mean "delete from wikipedia" in this case - although I won't lie, some people don't want them here. But if they do go to User space only, most of the problems people have now with Templated Userboxes will simply disappear. I do understand the fear that they will be lost, and I don't want them to be lost. Nhprman 03:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: by "totally gone" I did not mean they would dissapear totally from Wikipedia, but that they would be unavailable to easily add to a userpage. Instead of simply adding or substing a template to the page, you would have to write the code yourself, or find a user with the userbox and copy the code from their page. It is much easier and more efficient to be able to add {{userbox}} or {{Userbox:the_box_you_want}} instead of copying the code from someone else. I'm not scared that my userboxes will go away, but I and all other users should be able to add new boxes quickly and easily. Timrem 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying. I stated it again because I think most people fail to grasp what it means in this context. Above, I posted one single line of code that I've used on my User page and it was VERY easy to create and cut/paste here. Most users are very smart and catch onto Wikicode very quickly. For those who don't, I'm sure someone will (if they haven't already) create a repository of Userbox codes to cut/paste onto User pages. - Nhprman 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!!! :Let all user boxes, in line with Jimbo's wish, BURN IN HELL!!! Except for the Babel boxes, location boxes and WikiProject boxes alle of them should be speadily deleted. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STOP NOMINATING USERBOXES FOR DELETION. Hezzy 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. It's a pity that administrators, who are supposed to be some of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors, choose to waste their and other contributors time with such pointless activities instead of spending it in the betterment of WIkipedia's content. Loom91 07:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, and if you delete them, userfy them. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep These userboxes are HARMLESS. Userboxes that are personal attacks will not be here because an admin will have already deleted them! the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the userboxes, delete the admins who waste their time on trying to mass-delete userboxes instead of working on the hundreds of different backlogged categories that need urgent attention - • The Giant Puffin • 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some userbox messages should be moved to individual space; however, they should go through appropriate deletion channels so that people can be warned that they need to copy code to userspace; also, if the consensus for a given userbox is that it is harmless humor and the consensus is to keep it at time of deletion proposal, why *should* they be deleted? If there's a movement to move all userboxes to userspace, isn't there a better way to do it than by nominating individual humor templates for deletion? UnDeadGoat 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are ALL moved to User space, ALL userboxes will be saved. That's clearly better than deleting cetain boxes because someone doesn't think they're funny, etc. I urge everyone to check out the Mackensen proposal to save all Userboxes, end deletions and move them all to Userspace where they can be used freely and adapted by anyone to say what they want them to say. It's a VERY good solution. - Nhprman 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per various above. Additionally, subjectivity of humor prevents deletion on basis of lack thereof. Peas 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazingly Strong Keep -- STOP THE VIOLENCE!!! I do not understand what sort of need for vengeance you guys have against userboxes. Let them be. They're fun, harmless, and seriously, "harm the server"? Does Wikipedia run on dial-up or something? And don't the admins have better and more relevant things to do than to debate on the fate of coloured boxes? --many Revolutions 06:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Wikipedia:Humourboxes.
  • Keep. Okkay, so I'm new around here, but I completely fail to see what these hurt. There have to be much bigger problems with Wikipedia than letting users decorate their pages with snippets of code. Further, keeping them all in one place and allowing them to be easily reused is probably a bigger savings than having them in N users' pages as the actual code they represent. Nhprman, if you're not willing to rehash just how userboxes harm the servers, how about a pointer to the discussion where it's laid out? Technical detail, please, as I'm an experienced computer geek. Jay Maynard 12:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I've never argued that they are such a strain on the server, because I'm not sure they are - or ever can be much of a strain, but maybe I'm wrong. Someone else can deal with that one. That said, let me also say I don't think they "hurt" anyone, either. That's not the point. You want cold, hard reality here? If they remain in the Template space, some people are going to continue deleting them - fairly or unfairly - and some users will continue to stubbornly defend them from deletion - even the ones that should be deleted under current or future Template space deletion criteria (T1/T2, etc.) Wikipedia is supposed to be something MORE than this idiotic battling. The best solution is to find a home for these "snippets of code" in the User space (or some other non-template space, whatever) and have users cut/paste that code onto their pages, edit them as they wish, and enjoy them to their hearts' content. Please tell me, as a new user, how that offends you? How does it offend the VETERAN users here? I think some of those veterans (users since way back in 2004) just like to argue about things and LOVE this "process" debate, while some others are willfully twisting the facts or ignoring the simple solution in front of us because they enjoy conflict. Whatever the case, it's VERY tiresome, and not worth our time here. - Nhprman 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, i very much dislike not having that option to include them using 10 to 20 letters of wikicode. I'm not saying that i can't deal with the lots of lines of code that some people want to force on us, but missing that nice little feature that works now feels like having to add <a href>s instead of double-square-bracket-ing... -- Jokes Free4Me 05:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sumofpi

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

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what WP:POINT means - Cyde genuinely wants these gone, so it isn't a WP:POINT. Also, supporters of userboxes have been moaning at admins to use TfD and not speedies - now one does, you call it invalid. He isn't using admin rights to do this, so that's irrelevant. --Doc ask? 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, an administrator saying "Opinions like 'Oh but it's funny' are irrelevant" at the top of the discussion is using the position of administrator to enforce a particular POV, even if he does not actually use any special administrative rights to do it. BigDT 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP'Point. Not an abuse unless he deletes it against consensus. Septentrionalis 22:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Septentrionalis and Doc. —SHININGEYES 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course Pi is not bad for Wikipedia. A Userbox in Template Space is. This could still exist in User space even if it's deleted as a template. Do you realize that? Look at the comments of the deleters. No one is saying restrict its use in Userspace. - Nhprman 02:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT is merely a guideline, and it's only for articles, not for templates. —SHININGEYES 09:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
personal expression? Signed, Freddie 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Sumofpi2

edit
Template:User Sumofpi2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is a violation of WP:CIV, not WP:POINT. Please don't make another personal attack. —SHININGEYES 02:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain your reasons clearly or your vote will be discounted. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 02:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are unencyclopedic only in Template space, which is reserved for editing tools. If they are deleted from Template space, they would still exist in User space, and could still be used. Nhprman 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Stop trying to delete userboxes.Hezzy 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moo?. What a mess. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All userboxes below

edit

I didn't feel like copying my vote some 50 times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below. Misza13 T C 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nominators are in no way trying to make a WP:POINT. If they were, they would delete ALL userboxes without discussion, or perhaps create anti-Userbox Userboxes or some other rash, silly act that policy was meant to discourage. The intention here seems pretty straightforward - to take these boxes OUT of template space, as per T1, and as per common sense. We aren't here to form social networks and make jokes, but if people choose to do that, they can put the code on their User pages without cluttering up the template space. Nhprman 21:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above two votes/comments should probably be discounted. They give no valid reason for keeping. Since the nominators genuinely wish these things deleted, this is simply not a WP:POINT. Indeed it is ironic that when folk are always screaming at admins to use TfD rather than speedy boxes, now they do they are told 'this is not the place for it'. --Doc ask? 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are misphrased, but they should be counted. It is not WP:POINT to nominate something because you don't find it funny; but it is frivolous. Septentrionalis 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you don't think frivolous things belong in template space, then surely TfD is the way to go? Or would you rather he just speedied them? The above contributions must be discounted - as this is a discusison not a vote. So as saying 'WP:POINT' when it isn't does not contribute to the discusion on the fate of these templates, so it cannot be 'counted'. --Doc ask? 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, putting a billion userboxes up for deletion before waiting to see how a sample userbox goes over is trying to make a point. I was totally for this but trying to delete 20 userboxen in one day is just crazy.
ALSO: I deleted the tfd template on some of the user boxes because the one there before was heavily biased in favor of deleting them. Thankfully they all use the standard inline template. --mboverload 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment replaced from an edit conflict, might not be threaded correctly, sorry. Kotepho 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this comment very constructive. I did not think about this more before, but I did notice that pages load considerably longer if they have userboxes. Also, wikipedia servers do quite often become cloged. Is there any statistics that says what is the percent of the server load caused by the userboxes? I will really appreciate if someone finds some, and will base my vote on that statistics. Lakinekaki p.s.: I don't think that user pages are visited as much as user talk pages. Also, much less than article pages and article talk pages.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sum

edit
{{User:UBX/Sum}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reasons, otherwise your vote is unvalid. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...So, that would make you a wikiextremist? Quick, someone write an article on this new-fangled ideology! --mboverload@ 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Darth Rage 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Keep They're mostly pretty dumb, but that's no real reason to stop people from using this userbox. --Alphachimp talk 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User carbon

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

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It harms the servers. BTW, do you know how many userboxes Wikipedia has? —SHININGEYES 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Seahen 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Signed, Freddie 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia's goals, overall policies and mission are well established. Does everyone realze that if this is "deleted" you can still use this box? Deletion is simply deleting it from template space, not from Wikipedia. Saying "keep, keep, keep" based solely on content is missing the point of what's being attempted here. Saying it would "disallow individuallity and humor" is missing the point of Wikipedia altogether, but also ignores the fact that this will NOT be leaving Wikipedia even if it's deleted. So please reconsider your "keep" votes. Nhprman 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "This is a template now, so it should be in template space" is self-referential and circular and misses the point of the discussion, which is to move them to another place, but still keep them. Saying "It does do not belong in Template space because Userboxes are not tools used to edit an encyclopedia" is completely logical, however. Nhprman 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No regardless of what name space it is in, it would be used as a template, moving this to user space would make it a template in user space, but it would still be a template --T-rex 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • False and deliberately confusing. All people should take from this is that putting it in User space SAVES it from further reviews and deletion attempts. Mindlessly saying "Keep, I like it," as many are doing, is not resolving the issue. Nhprman 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User benzene

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User benzene}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User clownfear

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User clownfear}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a smile on his talk page. Is a mass bombardment necessary? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rational for this vote follows no logic at all --T-rex
  • WHY?. Just asking. Why should it remain as a template. If it's Deleted and moved to User space, it can still be used by users without the threat of this deletion process happening again. Did you know that? I bet no one who reflexively said "Keep" knew this. - Nhprman 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you asking me why or everyone? If you're asking me, yeah, I already knew that. Thanks, but it doesn't change my opinion.
  • I was asking you. If you know "Keep" keeps this userbox in harm's way, but support "keeping" it anyway, I can't really counter that because it baffles me. - Nhprman 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ignorant

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

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User mad

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User mad}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No Napoleon

edit
Template:User No Napoleon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userboxes will only be truly saved if they are moved to the User space, where they are beyond the scope of reviews and deletions like this. Please see WP:MACK for the proposal to do this. Thanks. Nhprman 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Keep than whoever put this up for deletions delete I need to make an automated message for these stupid deletions Darth Rage 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User paranoia2

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User paranoia2}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh I guess it's not been properly explained, but if this is "substituted" and deleted from Template space, it will still be available for use on User pages, just as text. It should not be in Template space, because that should be used strictly for articles. Right now, it's in the same "space" as articles. Please consider Subst'ing and Deleting this as a template. Thanks. - Nhprman 02:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Bermuda Triangle

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

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Martian ancestry

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Martian ancestry}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User maybe ET

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User maybe ET}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User firearm

edit
{{User:1ne/Userboxes/User firearm}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Umm, unless I'm missing something, this userbox is actually about articles that the contributor writes or hopes to write. I would think that this one would be rather worthy to be kept. BigDT 20:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess I'm missing something. This is a very important box. --mboverload 20:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't look like humor to me. Homestarmy 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very helpful. But it doesn't need to be a template so it can be used for social networking. Subst and take out of template space. Nhprman 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This userbox is almost exactly akin to all the language boxes which tell the world "Hey, I know stuff about this for Wikipedia", are all the language boxes social networking too? Have I been participating in Myspace Junior by using the basic spanish comphrehension template? And now that I think about it, how many times has any userbox been caught in the act as being a social network creator? Homestarmy 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this comment of yours elsewhere, and I seriously doubt language boxes will ever be controversial in the way you suggest, and they are not now. Few people rally to create counter-boxes like "I oppose Finnish." But it's widely known that these Templated Userboxes create communities of "Wikipedian Gun Owners" etc. and that's a perversion of Wikipedia's purpose. Even if this box is deleted, it's not like the text will disappear. It will still be available as text. They just won't be used anymore to create "clubs" of users. - Nhprman 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of this userbox is sound, to tell people that they have knowladge of firearms, convienently in an encyclopedia who's goal is to collect knowladge on nearly everything, which includes firearms. If there's really some sort of evil community of gun owners, i'd say that's a failure of the people using the template rather than a failure of the template itself. Homestarmy 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two (failure of the template/failure of the users to use templates properly) are intertwined. If we delete this and other Userbox Templates, they go to Userspace and the abuse of templates to build a social network for this or any other subject ends. - Nhprman 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well deleting the template doesn't delete the category, and if people are commiting the apparently anti-wikipedia policy of meeting acquaintences, one would think they would be determined enough to simply re-add themselves to the category and then the problem isn't solved compleatly, if there is one in the first place. Homestarmy 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the template "unlinks" users. That's enough. The categories cannot exist without that linkage. If so, I don't know how. Please explain. - Nhprman 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try adding yourself to [[Categories: Wikipedians interested in firearms]] and be amazed as you are labellebed under a category without the usage of a userbox :). When the Christian userbox was deleted, I was able to do the exact same thing with Category:Christian Wikipedians or whatever it's called, and a few people were still there who I assume listed themself manually as well. Homestarmy 14:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wow, nice of you to speak on behalf of "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS," which are what, to disallow individuality and humor? How does this userbox hurt anybody? Who put you in charge of deciding "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS"? Give Peace A Chance 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space.--Doc ask? 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, this one does indicate an editing interest rather than a POV. --Doc ask? 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why don't you focus on the wiki instead of putting your same message on every vote? --mboverload@ 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting, another guy who answers a question with another question, but in this case in particular with a clear lack of community service; if you didn't noticed before, many users use the same reason for different proposals. —SHININGEYES 03:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So a single userbox (okay, fine, a batch of userboxes) is corrupting Wikipedia. Do we really need all this text because of it? Signed, Freddie 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user merc

edit
Template:Usermerc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Do you know you can still use this box if it's Substituted and Deleted as a template? It won't disappear, just change form. I'm not sure people are understanding this. Please consider supporting deletion as a template. Nhprman 02:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am aware of that, but not everyone here understands nor has the time and (in some cases) the ability to learn the nessisary code to put it in themselves, particularly those who merely do text modification, such as myself. - TwilightPhoenix 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit disingenuous. If someone can use enough Wikicode to edit an article, they can cut-and-paste the text onto a Userpage. I trust users to be smart enough to cut-and-paste, don't you? Nhprman 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • where are they going to cut and paste the code from if this is deleted? --T-rex 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Used to, no offense to anyone. I've had too many experiences where solutions such as that made things more complicated, such as people complaing a code doesn't work because they miscopied it, its too hard (when its not), etc. etc. etc. -TwilightPhoenix 19:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Pillage

edit
Template:UserPillage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reasons or your vote will be discounted. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Tommy Gun

edit
Template:UserTommy Gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and not a place of unrestricted free speech. The nominator didn't invent that, he's just repeating it. The goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not clutter the Template space with funny boxes. If deleted, it will still exist as text and you can put it on your User page. Did you know that? If so, why are you arguing? Nhprman 06:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keeping the template allows me to locate others who share the same views or sense of humor. This can lead to collaboration, and eventually improved articles. Yes, wiki is not a soapbox, but there is no harm in keeping you views confined to userpages and templates. Give Peace A Chance 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but policy states that Wikipedia is also NOT a social networking site. People may wish it to be so, but it's not. "Locating others" who share your sense of humor isn't the goal of this project. It's to edit an encyclopedia. However, you got it half right at the end. If you keep your views confined to the USER SPACE, few will bother with those comments. If they are Templates, that's a community concern, because that's not where POV belongs. - Nhprman 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give Peace A Chance, also note that you can still locate the users trough categories instead of userboxes, taking less server resources. —SHININGEYES 08:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Keep that yours hahaha Do these people have a life? or do they look for innocent things to delete? Darth Rage 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Kalashnikov

edit
Template:UserKalashnikov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UBER UBER NON-NOOB 1337 KEEP whats with the hatin' of teh userboxen? no need to delete, in fact go find a sense of humor and get a life Darth Rage 19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user EBR

edit
Template:UserEBR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? --Doc ask? 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user pirate

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Pirate}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Pirate

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Pirate}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gee Bee Series

edit

Template:Gee Bee Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A "series" of three video games to which none will be added. The Template is unnecessary ("see alsos" would do the job just as well). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Auckland Line

edit

Enooormous template that completely dominates several of the articles that it is on and deals with what is a fairly minor feature of them. Have a look at Maungaturoto for instance. Having a railway halt there is a minor feature of the township, and certainly doesn't require the stub to be blighted with this monstrosity. At the very least it needs a serious re-working, but I'd seriously question the need for it at all. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- The content of the template is really interesting, I'm just not sure that it adds to the geographic articles.--Limegreen 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinate

edit
Template:Userprocrastinate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinate2

edit
Template:Userprocrastinate2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Strongest Possible Keep This is a funny and harmless userbox. If we vote to kill this userbox, we may as well kill 95% of the rest! the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon 03:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Aeon, let's see, useerbox Tokyo(the largest city in the Boworld, is in danger from Cyde. That give you an idea?--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

UBER LEET STRONG KEEP This doesnt offend anyone and it is there for your enjoyment, i see no reason to delete something that alot of us are. Darth Rage 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Industrial strength KEEP It gives a good introduction into the eternal struggle that procrastinators face. I should know; it took me a week to contribute to this discussion. (The Lake Effect 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinatea

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User procrastinatea}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Rotary Dial

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It is only unencylopedic in the Template space. If this Userbox is deleted, it will STILL be available for people to use on user pages AND it be protected against being nominated for deletion again. Everyone should check out WP:MACK for the details of this proposal to save Userboxes. Nhprman 05:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it won't be available to other users because it will no longer be in a substable form. It'll be code on random pages. This is why it WON'T be available. This is comparable to taking a product of the market then claiming "Oh, it's still available. Look, that guy has one." Keep the product on the market. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's patently false and misleading. Yes, the boxes will be available to users in User space. There will be a central location for all code to exist, most likely where they are listed right now, and where users currently go to get the template code. You are seeking to make this complicated and confusing, when it's not. - Nhprman 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it, too. Vote "Delete and Move" to move it to user space (and to keep it on those 200 pages) otherwise, it will remain a tempate and be subject to deletion again and again by people who simply don't like it. - Nhprman 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sellout

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User sellout}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User serviceable-no

edit
Template:User serviceable-no (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Sheep Herder

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion. --Pilot|guy 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using this irrelevant stereotype. You should note that many Userbox supporters have made many useful edits to Wikipedia. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SNL

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User stories

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User stories}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User The Stig

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight - the stig article is linked in that box and explains everything about it. Icecradle 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This and other user boxes should be saved and protected from deletion on the grounds they are not funny or have no point. See WP:MACK for details of this proposal to save Userboxes from future deletions. - Nhprman 05:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user used parts network

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User used parts network}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Who's On First

edit
Template:User Who's On First (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User zombie

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User zombie}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user your mom

edit
Template:Useryour mom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Dingbat

edit

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Wombat

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User self test

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it very funny. Furthermore, if it is not deleted, i won't have to edit my userpage at all. DuctoMan 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ILife

edit

Template:ILife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
New template that is useless because it is redundant. All the pages it is used on already have the same list using Template:Apple_software
--mboverload 00:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cowbell fever

edit
{{User:Xaosflux/UBX/User Cowbell fever}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User love you

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Subst'd, now delete Shanel § 01:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Longcat

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User IP

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

Has no use and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It is possible to adjust this userbox, so that the IP address changes. Check out my user page for an example... It's there, somewhere, but the IP can be changed, via a mode. I think it's...

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User IPv6

edit
Template:User IPv6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has no use and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying this is myspace, we're saying all this is a WP:POINT and to keep the userbox war going. Period. --Pilot|guy 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a way to end the Userbox war, and to get Userboxes out of Template Space once and for all. Unencyclopedic content doesn't belong there. Period. This is not a WP:POINT nomination. The nominator's statement is clearly not "making a point" under those guidelines. I suggest people actually go and read the WP:POINT guideline and decide for themselves. - Nhprman 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SNL

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sdrawkcab

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User sdrawkcab}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User asplode

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whats the point in deleting it? arnt we allowed to express ourself on our user page? the only reason i would see it deleted if ti cropped up on articles, but ive only seen it on user pages, (plus i have it on mine ;P)Darth Rage 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot - deleted by Cyde. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamalemming-en

edit
Template:User iamalemming-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot - deleted by Cyde. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamafish-en

edit
Template:User iamafish-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The vote was to delete it. Myrtone 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LSOH

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Fatmouse

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Fatmouse}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of people use the template and like it. You guys seem to have nothing else to do, other than incite flame wars, and try to delete every template that does not suit your group/pack/gang's tastes, tand then back your pointless deletions up with "it doesn't fit on wikipedia." or "it's not encyclopedic". if that's so, then NO ONE should have a userpage here... "humour is relative"...i beg to differ. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MrDucky

edit
{{User:Keithgreer/User MrDucky}}

Has no purpose and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DuctoMan 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MrDucky2

edit
File:Mr rubber ducky.gif
This user has no idea who Mr Ducky is, but wanted to join in the fun.

Has no purpose and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MrDucky3

edit
File:Mr rubber ducky.gif
This user may, or may
not be Mr Ducky.

Has no purpose and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Alien

edit
ALIEN This user will never look at spaghetti the same way again.

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that deleting things on Wikipedia (save for images) don't free up space on the server. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of technical, so bear with me. It's "pointless" (and "unencylopedic", as I said above) only in Template space, where it resides now. Templates are supposed to be for tools that help create the encyclopedia. The nominators of these boxes want them to be moved over to the USER space, where they can still exist on your user page - in the same form, shape and size - but will be clearly out of the main space where the encyclopedia is written. By supporting "Keep" you are, perhaps unwittingly, saying you want it to stay in the Template space, where it risks being deleted. It CANNOT BE DELETED in the User space. If people support "Delete, and Userfy" it becomes "Userfied" and SAVED for users to continue using without the risk of deletion. Isn't that what everyone wants? I have no idea why this wasn't explained better before, but here it is now. Does this clear things up? - Nhprman 17:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User alien

edit
  This user believes in aliens and lies naked on his or her rooftop, waiting to be picked up.

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or suck more in the case of this userbox. (But, hey, if someone wants their userpage to suck more, who am I to stop them?) Bucketsofg✐ 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User antiderivative

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean the graphic makes no sense? The graphic is hypothetically asking for the indefinite integral of 3x². I couldn't just put the integral symbol up on there because then it would be asking for the sum of nothing. As stated above, it's making fun of those anti-drug commercials where they put messages at the end of commercials such as " |P|A|R|E|N|T|S| The antidrug". Hopefully, that clears up some confusion. Douglasr007 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You forgot the "dx" Timrem 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh wow... I didn't even notice that until you pointed that out, Timrem. Good point. TauNeutrino 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh crap. You're right. Douglasr007 23:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to the lack of "dx". Ardric47 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I tested out adding the dx and it would actually still be the same size. It's just that the current TfD notice makes the table bigger. Douglasr007 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I'll repeat myself from earlier, let them enjoy the clever user templates which do not get applied to articles and that are harmless. Andrew D White 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cowbell +

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde hates Wikipedians? =P --mboverload@ 00:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Towel

edit
{{User:Akrabbim/Towel}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Person

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Person}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

  • Comment Those boxes are next up for deletion, more than likely. None of them should be in template space - which exists to help us edit an encyclopedia, not create and disseminate clever or funny Userboxes (or boxes like this.) You do realize that even the deleters, above, want them only out of Template space, but available for use in User space, right? I don't think that message is getting through. - Nhprman 01:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User smartass

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

  • Let me explain. The Userboxes can still be on User pages even if they are deleted from Template space. They should not exist in Template space, which is reserved for tools for creating articles. They are only "unencyclopedic" when they are templates. Once they're out of template space, the problem will go away. If misguided users keep all their "favorite" boxes in Template space, they could very well be nominated for deletion again. Please consider deleting them as templates but saving them in User space. Nhprman 03:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pirate

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Pirate}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Comment This userbox has been nominated twice today, shouldn't the top nomination be removed? Homestarmy 21:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj2

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj2}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj3

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj3}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

HEY, why do you want to delete this?! This userbox IS funny if you are familier with the real ultimate power website! Please let it stay! The ninja will get really mad if you don't!

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj4

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj4}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Chuck Norris

edit

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around}}--> Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Yeah, what do we need food for in a war? You can't kill dem terrorist sumsabitkes with bread! Remove teh food! --mboverload@ 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T

Also, did you know, oxygen requires Chuck Norris to Survive? Its true. DuctoMan 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokemonusermadeimages

edit

Template:Pokemonusermadeimages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A template that is entirely redundant with placing the image page in Category:Pokémon User Made Images (which is on CFD anyway). Additionally, it is unused and more or less unnecessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was new so it wasn't used yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveminun (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ControversialArticle

edit

Template:ControversialArticle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Used as a disclaimer on Abortion (I have removed it until this discussion concludes). It isn't necessary to crowd articles with a disclaimer, just in case, people do not know what Wikipedia is about. If it is kept, at the very least it should be clarified it is not to be used in articles. - RoyBoy 800 23:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete! expert? pfft Be bold! --Domthedude001 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=22122&dict=CALD Disclaimer: 1 FORMAL a formal statement saying that you are not legally responsible for something, such as the information given in a book or on the Internet, or that you have no direct involvement in it, 2 SPECIALIZED a formal statement giving up your legal claim to something or ending your connection with it
The box contains no claims about legal responsibility of wikipedia or editors, it is only a warning that the contents of the article can be changed at anytime by anyone. It is not redundant, as the disclaimer at the bottom of the page is purposely small, and there are errors, intentional disinformations (John Seigenthaler), and nationalist POVs (see Talk:Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II#Nonsense) not only used by people unexpecting the possibility that something that calls itself "encyclopedia" could be inaccurate, but also mirrored on other servers, therefore sending the nonsense info further to other audiences. I have explained the problem with nonsense / biased edits that go undetected for a long time on the talk page of this template. Please read the reasons there before you vote here. According to the definition provided (Cambridge dictionary), this box is not a disclaimer, therefore the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates doesn't apply here. And the "just in case people don't know what Wikipedia is about" argument is the most silly thing I've ever heard, though a very popular argument among wikipedians - like the Seigenthaler scandal never happened. Do you really expect an average internet user who googles something once twice a week and google sends him to wikipedia (which calls itself "encyclopedia") to research and find out what Wikipedia actually is, at least for this type of articles - a big chatroom for people pushing their beliefs and geeks who want to prove to the world that they are "wise" somehow?
Disagree with the deletion. ackoz   00:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're smoking, but that's a damn disclaimer. --mboverload@ 01:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to your question... yes I expect them to know what Wikipedia is when an edit tab is at the top of almost every page. Furthermore we aren't going to tailor the site for clueless users, we tailor it (as best we can) as an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia's do not have disclaimers at the top of controversial articles. - RoyBoy 800 04:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference to the fact that I might be a drug addict, very kind of you Mboverload. No, it's not a disclamier, if you could read, you could read the definition above and as the text makes no claims about legal responsibility, it's not a disclaimer. Furthermore, if wikipedia was encyclopedia, the contents wouldn't be changing constantly with the current "consensus" of editors. I would provide consistent information. Which it doesn't. Those articles need a warning, because they are a public chatroom. ackoz   07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Followed abortion for a while now and feel this is innapropriate, regardless of whether it is a disclaimer or not.
Ackoz - you say it is a warning, I think a warning about a page not being authoritative is a disclaimer, even if not explicitly legal. I also think your attempts to belittle the editors are pretty low and hypocritical. |→ Spaully°τ 17:17, 14 May 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moo?. What a mess. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more userboxes

edit

Template:User against haters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) thye are too useful. STOP THE HATE!!! DEATH TO THE SOVIETS!! 12:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Cyde has dropped another batch of boxes below. So here goes another batch voting. This section applies to all userboxes below, so move your votes upwards (from under #All userboxes below) to upgrade them to a wider range of templates and let's hope it's all for today. Misza13 T C 22:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that all these userboxes should not be grouped into one mass deletion, but be rather considered individually for best results. Some of these can, in fact, be used to describe oneself realistically. For example, a person could be a procrastinator and could be using the said user box not to be funny, but to describe himself in a quick and easy fashion. I know it'd take longer, but, in the end, its often better. -TwilightPhoenix 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, how does having this in Userspace rather than Template space destroy the intent of what you're saying? It doesn't. Deleting these boxes and putting them in the Userspace as text hurts no one. Secondly (and more philosophically) consider how these even remotely help us edit an encyclopedia, either as text or tempate. They don't, and I (and Jimbo) discourage their use in any format. Nhprman 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See below comment in responce to Shining. It explains all. -TwilightPhoenix 19:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And how do they do that? If its storage, there are plenty of pictures that take up more space than a number of userboxes combined. -TwilightPhoenix 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you comparing an userbox with a picture? For God's sake, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and of course needs pictures for the articles, can you explain how an userbox can be as useful as them? —SHININGEYES 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully explained thier usefulness on my user page. Too long to post it here, so you'll have to go to my page. -TwilightPhoenix 21:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about you stop trying to kill the little fun there is on Wikipedia? Jesus christ, these things take about 1/4 of a kilobyte. --mboverload@ 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Trying to kill the little fun"?! Mboverload, if you didn't noticed before we have WP:FUN for that, since when an userbox is supposed to be funny? As of now Wikipedia has more than 2000 userboxes, sufficiently enough to permanently damage the servers; and that takes more than 1/4 of kilobyte. —SHININGEYES 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Permanently damage the servers???? Good grief ... even if userboxes were an incredible drain on resources, the damage wouldn't be permanent. And as far as resource hogs go, I've got to think that long TFD pages getting reloaded over and over would be more of a drain than userboxes. As of right now, the May 13 TFD page is 334 K. Every time this page gets viewed, that's 334K of bandwidth and that's not even counting generation time. BigDT 05:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem of userboxes is their massive inclusion; TFD reviews DON'T APPEAR in every userpage, man! —SHININGEYES 08:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is absurd. Sorry, but I really can't imagine a little box with words and a picture causing harm to a server. That would be pathetic. We're still here aren't we? Did this page really take that long for you to load? --Pilot|guy 12:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be incivil, but ROFLMFAO. Even 2000 templates at .25KB each would add up to a whoping 500KB total, as of this posting, just THIS DAY's TFD discussion adds up to "This page is 208 kilobytes long." enough space to hold 832 boxes itself!. — xaosflux Talk 17:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure loading a single article is a bigger drain on resources than 30 user boxes on one page. These cannot possibly have any real effect on the servers, as I'm sure, given the likely number of visitors any given moment, Wikipedia servers are capable of handling at least several hundred megabytes of bandwidth at any moment.
On the contrary, I would say: "If you like them, then {{subst}} them on your userpage and stop consuming server resources" —SHININGEYES 08:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all of them.Wandering Star 21:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is just too much. honestly, I can understand deletions in some cases, but most of this is based upon the "unenecyclopedic" and "subjective humor" arguments. Userboxes are meant for userspace and just because a person doesn't find them funny doesn't mean they should be deleted. I extend this to every relevant mass-userbox vote below this point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't people understand that THESE ARE NOT IN USER SPACE. They are in TEMPLATE SPACE with the articles, and are therefore not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. In User space, an argument can be made that they are completely acceptable, but NOT in Template space. Nhprman 06:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine. Why don't you userfy all 2000 userboxes? See how people would respond to that. Signed, Freddie 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If whether they're in template or user space is the problem, move them to User:Template/Template:Name, and hope no one wants the username "Template". Armedblowfish 14:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of template space has to be encyclopedic. Most of it is just sorting. By your reasoning, warning templates, various signing templates, and many other related functionality templates should be deleted to because they aren't encyclopedic either. Template space isn't article space. It's meant to easily insert standardized code into an article without the mess of that code appearing in said article. Same logic goes with userboxes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, Templates that sort, warn, etc. should not be deleted. They are actually useful for editing the encyclopedia. However, Templated Userboxes (most, anyway) hardly fit into the same category. Nhprman 06:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could argue that some of these other userboxes are also helpful. Say for example you're looking for someone who's knows about Republicans. Someone with a petinant userbox would seem to be the logical choice, no? These arguments can go back and forth forever. It's clear we're never going to convince one-another. For what it's worth, I do subst my userboxes, mostly because of all this. however, I don't feel that everyone should have to deal with that, especially those who love these things so much that they keep two-page long sections of them. Userboxes can be called a double-edged sword, but you don't always toss things out because there's a chance it might hurt you. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assure you that most users aren't seeking out Templated Republican Userboxes and saying, "Gee, this user is an expert in Republicans." What's been happening is that either fellow Republicans are using the template system to recruit other Republicans to gang-edit (and I mean no bias by using the GOP as the example, it happens on both sides) or to form "Republican Wikipedian" groups here, which are wildly inappropriate. Obviously, this isn't universal and many people, like you, already subst their boxes. But it's happened enough times that it's become a problem. By Substing boxes and moving them out of template space, the problem pretty much disappears. While biases on user pages are still a bad idea, that's not the issue here. It's a question of templated Userboxes and why they are demonstrably bad for the project. Nhprman 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are all good points. I think what Someguy0830 is trying to say is that the reasons for destroying the userboxes are completely irrelevent and slapping "unencyclopedic" and "not funny" on all 10,000 of them is pointless. Sorry, maybe it's just me on this additional note, but I really don't see why everyone is freaking out over the fact that these are in template space. If we start cutting throats other everything that is possibly unencyclopedic in that section, this stupid little war shall go on. --Pilot|guy 12:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taking them out of Template space does not "destroy" Userboxes. Deleting them simply moves them to User space, and this stupid little war ENDS immediately. Nhprman 19:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will not end immediately, and likely never will. Templated userboxes do little harm in most cases. Also, userboxes are destroyed once deleted, because the code, though simple enough for some to duplicate, is gone. It's not "moving" anywhere unless someone goes through and substs every instance of it. As it stands, there is almost no harm in having most of these userboxes in Template space. There will always be ways to abuse features of various things. This is just throwing the baby out with the bathwater. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you've made several misstatements here, hopefully not deliberately. Let me sort them out. First, the problem may not end the day the Templated boxes are deleted, because people will retain the links to their friends, etc. But the linkage will end and new users will (horror of horrors) get the idea that this is some kind of encyclopedia, rather than a much neater version of MySpace. Next, bots have been set up, I understand, to "userfy" these boxes and "Subst" them on Userpages. They will remain active and NONE of them will simply disappear. I also expect there will be a responsitory of Userboxes created after they are all moved to the User pages. If you don't know the harm and abuse they've done to the Project, you have not been paying attention, or you're willfully ignoring them, so I won't rehash it. I just hope you're advocacy will not mislead too many people. - Nhprman 03:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's shrink this back down for room. First you assume that these userboxes somehow mislead people into thinking this isn't an encyclopedia. Honestly, this is really far-fetched. A user would have to be fairly unintelligent not to catch the "pedia" part of Wikipedia or not notice the 100,000+ articles here. That kind of argument is straw-man at best. Second, if every instance were to be substed (like I specifically mentioned), then those users who have the boxes would retain them. However, any new users will have to resort to code-copying to gain those templates, and one can only imagine what kind of a mess that would make on those user template lists the userbox project maintains. As it is, a simple line of code (substed if they prefer) will instantly put that same format on their userpage. I, for one, can see the obvious benefit for inexperienced users in that rather than the annoying process of copying down and self-aligning all of that code by themselves. Please do not mis-interpret my statements to fit your own view, as I am very well aware of just how the template process works and what will result when you delete them. What you seem to forget is that you can't transclude a template once its gone. This is the main point here. Templates are made for the express purpose of adding standardized code to any number of places. This is what they are for. It applies to userboxes just the same as is does to anything else. I'm getting tired of arguing this back and forth. We're never going to convince each other. You may be content with your user interest list. Others are not. Others like the ease of use that comes with these templates. Simple as that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs)
  • 99.9% of Userboxes would be fine if they weren't Templates. Please re-read my comments, and keep them in context. The vast amount of Users aren't idiots, and users become very adept at cutting and pasting and even editing Wikicode very quickly, as I did just days after coming here. Below is an example of a SIMPLE line of Wikicode that ANYONE can figure out how to use and easily adapt on their User page. Ending the practice of housing Userboxes in the Template space does NOT destroy Userboxes, so please stop misleading people by saying it will.
{{subst:Userbox|#3f3|#0c3|NO<br>UB|This user opposes Templated [[Wikipedia:Userboxes|Userboxes]]}} - Nhprman 05:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony of using a standard userbox template to express one's dislike of userbox templates is priceless, I must say. They're still using userboxes that way. It just puts all the strain on a single template being included thousands of times over instead of many being included on a much smaller scale. In the end, they achieve the same goal. It only makes locating a certain group of users somewhat more difficult, not impossible. For clarity's sake, I'll simply refer to Timrem's reply to you near the bottom. He sums it up rather nicely. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The irony was completely intentional, I assure you. As for not being able to seek out others, that's the goal. Wikipedia's mission is not to become a place where we can locate other users who are just like us. It's a place for writing a NPOV encyclopedia. Period. That may seem harsh, but that's reality, and reflects the site owner's views, as well. I realize in this society we live in, one that HATES following rules and believes everyone can do anything at any time and in any place, that creating an ordered, structured Website with a single goal is damn near impossible, especially in this medium. Perhaps it's not worth trying anymore, since mobs will be mobs and will enforce their own chaos on things. Whatever. Nhprman 17:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some and Delete the very stupid ones like Im a ninja, pirate, that longcat one etc, too many userboxes listed though Jaranda wat's sup 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except keep serious skill/interest (Babel-like) boxes. These are actually useful for editing, since using they can give you a list of knowledgeable users. User firearm seems to be the only one listed, and is the only one I have voted on individually. --Philosophus T 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Userboxes, if used in moderation, can add spice and a little humour to otherwise bland user pages like mine. I know there are some objectionable ones—why not nominate them on a case-by-case basis? — Tangotango 05:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If some users want all userboxes deleted, they should propose a new policy, not nominate them bunch after bunch. Friendly Neighbour 05:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain your reasons clearly or your vote will be discounted. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 08:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons are they should not be voted (uh oh, evil word) on as a group, they should each have an indvidual vote (there it is again) for each. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 04:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, and Subst them all - Templated Userboxes have been abused over and over again to turn Wikipedia into a mini Myspace, with the creation of clubs like "Wikipedians who ... " and vote stacking to delete or save other Userboxes. It's gotten out of hand. By taking them out of Template space, they will still exist, but will be text-based, and COMPLETELY in User space. Those users spreading misinformation about what it means to delete them should be ashamed of themselves. I urge everyone voting "keep" who didn't know they would still exist to change them to "Delete and Subst" (delete as templates, but substitute them as text) Nhprman 06:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep All Userboxes because this proposal to get rid of userboxes en-mass (or otherwise) violates WP:POINT and WP:CON. Deleting or substituting userboxes does not respect the community consensus against getting rid of userboxes, and it ignores everyone who protested under the basis that it stifles free expression. Yes, I know it won't stop people from saying the same thing on their user pages, but deleting userboxes en-mass like this has the same effect as the rejected policy. We've already decided against deletion/subst, and if point pushing like this keeps getting allowed, can the last user to edit Wikipedia please turn out the lights; I am already sick of people who want to get rid of (a) userbox(es), and I don't even use one. --DavidHOzAu 06:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While you're quoting policy, note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, or a place of unregulated free expression. And the lights on WP started dimming when people started Templating Userboxes and using them to gang up on other boxes and articles they didn't like. (WP is also not a social networking site.) - Nhprman 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If networking among users is the problem, remove the category tag from the offending box so that users can't network around that specific box, but don't delete the userbox. (protect it if need be.) Problem solved. Also, consider requiring users who use userboxes to add a template to their user page such as
    This page contains user boxes
    User boxes are provided by wikipedia for humor and user classification purposes only. Using them to network with other users and target an article for the purpose of malicious or disruptive editing is a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you suspect that this user is targeting your edits by a userbox classification in this manner, please leave a note at an administrator's talk page.
    Note: This template must precede all userboxes on this user page; removal violates wikipedia policy and may result in a temporary block and removal of offending content.
    I know it is lacking links, but this should be adequate discouragement if networking is the real problem. I believe a bot could be made to add them automatically. (BTW, I still believe the open slather delete of userboxes is heavy handed and WP:POINT.) --DavidHOzAu 07:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one clarification about my opinion: If the admins want to delete a userbox to eliminate blatant, repeated abuse and reverts of a controversial userbox, and not for I-don't-think-it-is-funny interests, I'm fine with it. The jokes should stay though, I always enjoy a laugh out of those. --DavidHOzAu 07:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pragmatic Keep — Let’s assume we deleted all or most of the(se) user boxes, because we agreed they didn’t belong into Template space. Someone might then start to put them in subpages of his userpage, e.g. User:Foo/Bar, and tell others to include them with the usual template mechanism, {{User:Foo/Bar}}, because the edit views of their userpages would stay maintainable this way. Next someone adapted Template:Babel-X (or something like it) to do the “User:Foo/” part, further minimising the code required. The user boxes would then have gone out of Template space, which is definitely not the same thing as article space, but any alleged server impact would remain. Therefore I think that deleting user boxes solves nothing and substing them is ugly (and in the case of inclusion by Babel-like templates probably hard to do). Efforts should rather be invested in keeping them well designed. It can save time, when one can quickly skim over a userpage, because it uses standardised information representation. Userpages themselves are useful for enhancing collaborative work—in the good sense and in the bad. I’m undecided on the issue of automated categorization of users, though: It can be used as an alternative approach to votes and it can be abused for vote stacking in traditional Wikipedia votes. Anyhow, “What links here” basically offers the same feature. Christoph Päper 13:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC) PS: What I loathe much more are customised signatures on Talk pages.[reply]
  • Get them out of template space, but find a way for us to use them without having to copy code down. The only argument I see deletionists have is that it wastes template space. I am well aware of WP:FREE, however, it was created as a countervandalism measure and shouldn't be applied to userpages. Plus, it's not official policy, nor is it a guideline. It's just Wikipolitics. Userboxes do not "disrupt Wikipedia." I find many userboxes offensive, but that doesn't mean I start flame wars with Wikipedians. I get along with them just the same. Just find a new way to use Userboxes that don't take up template space and Jimbo's money. WP:NOT a bureaucracy or an autocracy any more than it isn't a democracy. Also, someone's opinion on whether or not something is funny is relative. I mean, there are some that users just don't get, but that's no reason to delete them. They have jokes that they don't understand, so they TfD them. Humor is relative. And if something is an "Inside joke," remember that WP:NFT applies only to articles. Crazyswordsman 13:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most emphatically keep all. They do no harm and their removal would serve only to gratify a handful of killjoys. Ou tis 14:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete all of the "funny"/inside joke ones, after subst:ing, per Misza. There is a line past which certain userboxes are just a waste of space. I understand that Wikipedia is not paper, but these just clutter up the template namespace. This is in contrast to the religion ones, which help to build the encyclopedia. TheJabberwʘck 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the last two comments: You really mean "Delete," don't you? Because the word "Keep" in this discussion means "Keep them in Template space." Nhprman 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I most certainly do not mean delete. Deletion would mean I want them totally gone. If you do not agree with my terminology, then you can interpret my vote as Move to a Userbox space. Timrem 21:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This meaning of the word "Delete" is at the crux of this entire discussion. If they are Deleted from Template space and "Subst'ed" (or "Userfied") then they remain on every single User page where they currently exist. So when you say "move" that's effectively the same thing. Saying "Delete" doesn't mean "delete from wikipedia" in this case - although I won't lie, some people don't want them here. But if they do go to User space only, most of the problems people have now with Templated Userboxes will simply disappear. I do understand the fear that they will be lost, and I don't want them to be lost. Nhprman 03:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify: by "totally gone" I did not mean they would dissapear totally from Wikipedia, but that they would be unavailable to easily add to a userpage. Instead of simply adding or substing a template to the page, you would have to write the code yourself, or find a user with the userbox and copy the code from their page. It is much easier and more efficient to be able to add {{userbox}} or {{Userbox:the_box_you_want}} instead of copying the code from someone else. I'm not scared that my userboxes will go away, but I and all other users should be able to add new boxes quickly and easily. Timrem 05:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying. I stated it again because I think most people fail to grasp what it means in this context. Above, I posted one single line of code that I've used on my User page and it was VERY easy to create and cut/paste here. Most users are very smart and catch onto Wikicode very quickly. For those who don't, I'm sure someone will (if they haven't already) create a repository of Userbox codes to cut/paste onto User pages. - Nhprman 05:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete!!! :Let all user boxes, in line with Jimbo's wish, BURN IN HELL!!! Except for the Babel boxes, location boxes and WikiProject boxes alle of them should be speadily deleted. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STOP NOMINATING USERBOXES FOR DELETION. Hezzy 00:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 01:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. It's a pity that administrators, who are supposed to be some of Wikipedia's most valuable contributors, choose to waste their and other contributors time with such pointless activities instead of spending it in the betterment of WIkipedia's content. Loom91 07:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, and if you delete them, userfy them. --NorkNork Questions? fnord? 14:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep These userboxes are HARMLESS. Userboxes that are personal attacks will not be here because an admin will have already deleted them! the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the userboxes, delete the admins who waste their time on trying to mass-delete userboxes instead of working on the hundreds of different backlogged categories that need urgent attention - • The Giant Puffin • 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some userbox messages should be moved to individual space; however, they should go through appropriate deletion channels so that people can be warned that they need to copy code to userspace; also, if the consensus for a given userbox is that it is harmless humor and the consensus is to keep it at time of deletion proposal, why *should* they be deleted? If there's a movement to move all userboxes to userspace, isn't there a better way to do it than by nominating individual humor templates for deletion? UnDeadGoat 23:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they are ALL moved to User space, ALL userboxes will be saved. That's clearly better than deleting cetain boxes because someone doesn't think they're funny, etc. I urge everyone to check out the Mackensen proposal to save all Userboxes, end deletions and move them all to Userspace where they can be used freely and adapted by anyone to say what they want them to say. It's a VERY good solution. - Nhprman 03:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per various above. Additionally, subjectivity of humor prevents deletion on basis of lack thereof. Peas 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazingly Strong Keep -- STOP THE VIOLENCE!!! I do not understand what sort of need for vengeance you guys have against userboxes. Let them be. They're fun, harmless, and seriously, "harm the server"? Does Wikipedia run on dial-up or something? And don't the admins have better and more relevant things to do than to debate on the fate of coloured boxes? --many Revolutions 06:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move to Wikipedia:Humourboxes.
  • Keep. Okkay, so I'm new around here, but I completely fail to see what these hurt. There have to be much bigger problems with Wikipedia than letting users decorate their pages with snippets of code. Further, keeping them all in one place and allowing them to be easily reused is probably a bigger savings than having them in N users' pages as the actual code they represent. Nhprman, if you're not willing to rehash just how userboxes harm the servers, how about a pointer to the discussion where it's laid out? Technical detail, please, as I'm an experienced computer geek. Jay Maynard 12:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I've never argued that they are such a strain on the server, because I'm not sure they are - or ever can be much of a strain, but maybe I'm wrong. Someone else can deal with that one. That said, let me also say I don't think they "hurt" anyone, either. That's not the point. You want cold, hard reality here? If they remain in the Template space, some people are going to continue deleting them - fairly or unfairly - and some users will continue to stubbornly defend them from deletion - even the ones that should be deleted under current or future Template space deletion criteria (T1/T2, etc.) Wikipedia is supposed to be something MORE than this idiotic battling. The best solution is to find a home for these "snippets of code" in the User space (or some other non-template space, whatever) and have users cut/paste that code onto their pages, edit them as they wish, and enjoy them to their hearts' content. Please tell me, as a new user, how that offends you? How does it offend the VETERAN users here? I think some of those veterans (users since way back in 2004) just like to argue about things and LOVE this "process" debate, while some others are willfully twisting the facts or ignoring the simple solution in front of us because they enjoy conflict. Whatever the case, it's VERY tiresome, and not worth our time here. - Nhprman 04:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Personally, i very much dislike not having that option to include them using 10 to 20 letters of wikicode. I'm not saying that i can't deal with the lots of lines of code that some people want to force on us, but missing that nice little feature that works now feels like having to add <a href>s instead of double-square-bracket-ing... -- Jokes Free4Me 05:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sumofpi

edit
{{User:Scepia/sum of pi}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. TfD isn't the place to make a WP:POINT about how much you don't like userboxes. By your comment, you seem to be saying a priori that you will ignore any consensus that is opposed to your desire to eliminate all userboxes. That is a dangerous attitude for someone entrusted with administrative rights to take, IMO. BigDT 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what WP:POINT means - Cyde genuinely wants these gone, so it isn't a WP:POINT. Also, supporters of userboxes have been moaning at admins to use TfD and not speedies - now one does, you call it invalid. He isn't using admin rights to do this, so that's irrelevant. --Doc ask? 20:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, an administrator saying "Opinions like 'Oh but it's funny' are irrelevant" at the top of the discussion is using the position of administrator to enforce a particular POV, even if he does not actually use any special administrative rights to do it. BigDT 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not WP'Point. Not an abuse unless he deletes it against consensus. Septentrionalis 22:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Septentrionalis and Doc. —SHININGEYES 01:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Of course Pi is not bad for Wikipedia. A Userbox in Template Space is. This could still exist in User space even if it's deleted as a template. Do you realize that? Look at the comments of the deleters. No one is saying restrict its use in Userspace. - Nhprman 02:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT is merely a guideline, and it's only for articles, not for templates. —SHININGEYES 09:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
personal expression? Signed, Freddie 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep the content. As comments overwhelmingly addressed the content of the box rather the status which it occupies, I'm closing this as a subst the content and delete the actual template. No actual content is lost in the process, and the removal of said code to a user's page places it beyond the bailiwick of TfD and CSD. Mackensen (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Sumofpi2

edit
{{User:Scepia/sum of pi2}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is a violation of WP:CIV, not WP:POINT. Please don't make another personal attack. —SHININGEYES 02:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explain your reasons clearly or your vote will be discounted. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 02:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are unencyclopedic only in Template space, which is reserved for editing tools. If they are deleted from Template space, they would still exist in User space, and could still be used. Nhprman 19:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: Stop trying to delete userboxes.Hezzy 20:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moo?. What a mess. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All userboxes below

edit

I didn't feel like copying my vote some 50 times below, so I just created this section. The following votes (you can add your own) should be accounted for all userboxes listed below. Misza13 T C 17:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The nominators are in no way trying to make a WP:POINT. If they were, they would delete ALL userboxes without discussion, or perhaps create anti-Userbox Userboxes or some other rash, silly act that policy was meant to discourage. The intention here seems pretty straightforward - to take these boxes OUT of template space, as per T1, and as per common sense. We aren't here to form social networks and make jokes, but if people choose to do that, they can put the code on their User pages without cluttering up the template space. Nhprman 21:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above two votes/comments should probably be discounted. They give no valid reason for keeping. Since the nominators genuinely wish these things deleted, this is simply not a WP:POINT. Indeed it is ironic that when folk are always screaming at admins to use TfD rather than speedy boxes, now they do they are told 'this is not the place for it'. --Doc ask? 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are misphrased, but they should be counted. It is not WP:POINT to nominate something because you don't find it funny; but it is frivolous. Septentrionalis 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you don't think frivolous things belong in template space, then surely TfD is the way to go? Or would you rather he just speedied them? The above contributions must be discounted - as this is a discusison not a vote. So as saying 'WP:POINT' when it isn't does not contribute to the discusion on the fate of these templates, so it cannot be 'counted'. --Doc ask? 23:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, putting a billion userboxes up for deletion before waiting to see how a sample userbox goes over is trying to make a point. I was totally for this but trying to delete 20 userboxen in one day is just crazy.
ALSO: I deleted the tfd template on some of the user boxes because the one there before was heavily biased in favor of deleting them. Thankfully they all use the standard inline template. --mboverload 22:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment replaced from an edit conflict, might not be threaded correctly, sorry. Kotepho 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this comment very constructive. I did not think about this more before, but I did notice that pages load considerably longer if they have userboxes. Also, wikipedia servers do quite often become cloged. Is there any statistics that says what is the percent of the server load caused by the userboxes? I will really appreciate if someone finds some, and will base my vote on that statistics. Lakinekaki p.s.: I don't think that user pages are visited as much as user talk pages. Also, much less than article pages and article talk pages.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sum

edit
{{User:UBX/Sum}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reasons, otherwise your vote is unvalid. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...So, that would make you a wikiextremist? Quick, someone write an article on this new-fangled ideology! --mboverload@ 21:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Darth Rage 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Keep They're mostly pretty dumb, but that's no real reason to stop people from using this userbox. --Alphachimp talk 01:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User carbon

edit
{{User:UBX/User carbon}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It harms the servers. BTW, do you know how many userboxes Wikipedia has? —SHININGEYES 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Seahen 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Signed, Freddie 00:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia's goals, overall policies and mission are well established. Does everyone realze that if this is "deleted" you can still use this box? Deletion is simply deleting it from template space, not from Wikipedia. Saying "keep, keep, keep" based solely on content is missing the point of what's being attempted here. Saying it would "disallow individuallity and humor" is missing the point of Wikipedia altogether, but also ignores the fact that this will NOT be leaving Wikipedia even if it's deleted. So please reconsider your "keep" votes. Nhprman 17:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "This is a template now, so it should be in template space" is self-referential and circular and misses the point of the discussion, which is to move them to another place, but still keep them. Saying "It does do not belong in Template space because Userboxes are not tools used to edit an encyclopedia" is completely logical, however. Nhprman 19:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No regardless of what name space it is in, it would be used as a template, moving this to user space would make it a template in user space, but it would still be a template --T-rex 19:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • False and deliberately confusing. All people should take from this is that putting it in User space SAVES it from further reviews and deletion attempts. Mindlessly saying "Keep, I like it," as many are doing, is not resolving the issue. Nhprman 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User benzene

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User benzene}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User clownfear

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User clownfear}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a smile on his talk page. Is a mass bombardment necessary? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 22:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rational for this vote follows no logic at all --T-rex
  • WHY?. Just asking. Why should it remain as a template. If it's Deleted and moved to User space, it can still be used by users without the threat of this deletion process happening again. Did you know that? I bet no one who reflexively said "Keep" knew this. - Nhprman 03:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you asking me why or everyone? If you're asking me, yeah, I already knew that. Thanks, but it doesn't change my opinion.
  • I was asking you. If you know "Keep" keeps this userbox in harm's way, but support "keeping" it anyway, I can't really counter that because it baffles me. - Nhprman 22:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User ignorant

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

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User mad

edit
{{User mad}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No Napoleon

edit
{{User No Napoleon}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userboxes will only be truly saved if they are moved to the User space, where they are beyond the scope of reviews and deletions like this. Please see WP:MACK for the proposal to do this. Thanks. Nhprman 22:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Keep than whoever put this up for deletions delete I need to make an automated message for these stupid deletions Darth Rage 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User paranoia2

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User paranoia2}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh I guess it's not been properly explained, but if this is "substituted" and deleted from Template space, it will still be available for use on User pages, just as text. It should not be in Template space, because that should be used strictly for articles. Right now, it's in the same "space" as articles. Please consider Subst'ing and Deleting this as a template. Thanks. - Nhprman 02:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Bermuda Triangle

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

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Martian ancestry

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Martian ancestry}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User maybe ET

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User maybe ET}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User firearm

edit
{{User:1ne/Userboxes/User firearm}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Umm, unless I'm missing something, this userbox is actually about articles that the contributor writes or hopes to write. I would think that this one would be rather worthy to be kept. BigDT 20:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess I'm missing something. This is a very important box. --mboverload 20:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Doesn't look like humor to me. Homestarmy 21:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very helpful. But it doesn't need to be a template so it can be used for social networking. Subst and take out of template space. Nhprman 21:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This userbox is almost exactly akin to all the language boxes which tell the world "Hey, I know stuff about this for Wikipedia", are all the language boxes social networking too? Have I been participating in Myspace Junior by using the basic spanish comphrehension template? And now that I think about it, how many times has any userbox been caught in the act as being a social network creator? Homestarmy 21:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen this comment of yours elsewhere, and I seriously doubt language boxes will ever be controversial in the way you suggest, and they are not now. Few people rally to create counter-boxes like "I oppose Finnish." But it's widely known that these Templated Userboxes create communities of "Wikipedian Gun Owners" etc. and that's a perversion of Wikipedia's purpose. Even if this box is deleted, it's not like the text will disappear. It will still be available as text. They just won't be used anymore to create "clubs" of users. - Nhprman 02:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of this userbox is sound, to tell people that they have knowladge of firearms, convienently in an encyclopedia who's goal is to collect knowladge on nearly everything, which includes firearms. If there's really some sort of evil community of gun owners, i'd say that's a failure of the people using the template rather than a failure of the template itself. Homestarmy 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two (failure of the template/failure of the users to use templates properly) are intertwined. If we delete this and other Userbox Templates, they go to Userspace and the abuse of templates to build a social network for this or any other subject ends. - Nhprman 19:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well deleting the template doesn't delete the category, and if people are commiting the apparently anti-wikipedia policy of meeting acquaintences, one would think they would be determined enough to simply re-add themselves to the category and then the problem isn't solved compleatly, if there is one in the first place. Homestarmy 21:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the template "unlinks" users. That's enough. The categories cannot exist without that linkage. If so, I don't know how. Please explain. - Nhprman 03:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try adding yourself to [[Categories: Wikipedians interested in firearms]] and be amazed as you are labellebed under a category without the usage of a userbox :). When the Christian userbox was deleted, I was able to do the exact same thing with Category:Christian Wikipedians or whatever it's called, and a few people were still there who I assume listed themself manually as well. Homestarmy 14:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wow, nice of you to speak on behalf of "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS," which are what, to disallow individuality and humor? How does this userbox hurt anybody? Who put you in charge of deciding "OUR ENCYCLOPEDIC GOALS"? Give Peace A Chance 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Subst and delete - fine in userspace, not in template space.--Doc ask? 21:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, this one does indicate an editing interest rather than a POV. --Doc ask? 23:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why don't you focus on the wiki instead of putting your same message on every vote? --mboverload@ 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting, another guy who answers a question with another question, but in this case in particular with a clear lack of community service; if you didn't noticed before, many users use the same reason for different proposals. —SHININGEYES 03:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So a single userbox (okay, fine, a batch of userboxes) is corrupting Wikipedia. Do we really need all this text because of it? Signed, Freddie 00:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user merc

edit
Template:Usermerc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Do you know you can still use this box if it's Substituted and Deleted as a template? It won't disappear, just change form. I'm not sure people are understanding this. Please consider supporting deletion as a template. Nhprman 02:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am aware of that, but not everyone here understands nor has the time and (in some cases) the ability to learn the nessisary code to put it in themselves, particularly those who merely do text modification, such as myself. - TwilightPhoenix 02:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit disingenuous. If someone can use enough Wikicode to edit an article, they can cut-and-paste the text onto a Userpage. I trust users to be smart enough to cut-and-paste, don't you? Nhprman 02:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • where are they going to cut and paste the code from if this is deleted? --T-rex 17:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Used to, no offense to anyone. I've had too many experiences where solutions such as that made things more complicated, such as people complaing a code doesn't work because they miscopied it, its too hard (when its not), etc. etc. etc. -TwilightPhoenix 19:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Pillage

edit
Template:UserPillage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your reasons or your vote will be discounted. According to WP:TFD: "Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement." —SHININGEYES 02:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Tommy Gun

edit
Template:UserTommy Gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and not a place of unrestricted free speech. The nominator didn't invent that, he's just repeating it. The goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not clutter the Template space with funny boxes. If deleted, it will still exist as text and you can put it on your User page. Did you know that? If so, why are you arguing? Nhprman 06:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keeping the template allows me to locate others who share the same views or sense of humor. This can lead to collaboration, and eventually improved articles. Yes, wiki is not a soapbox, but there is no harm in keeping you views confined to userpages and templates. Give Peace A Chance 06:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but policy states that Wikipedia is also NOT a social networking site. People may wish it to be so, but it's not. "Locating others" who share your sense of humor isn't the goal of this project. It's to edit an encyclopedia. However, you got it half right at the end. If you keep your views confined to the USER SPACE, few will bother with those comments. If they are Templates, that's a community concern, because that's not where POV belongs. - Nhprman 07:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give Peace A Chance, also note that you can still locate the users trough categories instead of userboxes, taking less server resources. —SHININGEYES 08:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger Keep that yours hahaha Do these people have a life? or do they look for innocent things to delete? Darth Rage 19:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Kalashnikov

edit
Template:UserKalashnikov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UBER UBER NON-NOOB 1337 KEEP whats with the hatin' of teh userboxen? no need to delete, in fact go find a sense of humor and get a life Darth Rage 19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user EBR

edit
Template:UserEBR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? --Doc ask? 23:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user pirate

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Pirate}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user Pirate

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Pirate}}

Unencyclopedic template, does not belong in template space. Opinions like "Oh but it's funny" are irrelevant, as humor is relative, but our encyclopedic goals are not. --Cyde Weys 20:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gee Bee Series

edit

Template:Gee Bee Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A "series" of three video games to which none will be added. The Template is unnecessary ("see alsos" would do the job just as well). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Auckland Line

edit

Enooormous template that completely dominates several of the articles that it is on and deals with what is a fairly minor feature of them. Have a look at Maungaturoto for instance. Having a railway halt there is a minor feature of the township, and certainly doesn't require the stub to be blighted with this monstrosity. At the very least it needs a serious re-working, but I'd seriously question the need for it at all. Grutness...wha? 07:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- The content of the template is really interesting, I'm just not sure that it adds to the geographic articles.--Limegreen 23:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinate

edit
Template:Userprocrastinate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinate2

edit
Template:Userprocrastinate2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Strongest Possible Keep This is a funny and harmless userbox. If we vote to kill this userbox, we may as well kill 95% of the rest! the_ed17(talk)(contribs) 16:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeon 03:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Aeon, let's see, useerbox Tokyo(the largest city in the Boworld, is in danger from Cyde. That give you an idea?--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 12:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

UBER LEET STRONG KEEP This doesnt offend anyone and it is there for your enjoyment, i see no reason to delete something that alot of us are. Darth Rage 19:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Industrial strength KEEP It gives a good introduction into the eternal struggle that procrastinators face. I should know; it took me a week to contribute to this discussion. (The Lake Effect 03:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinatea

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User procrastinatea}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Rotary Dial

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It is only unencylopedic in the Template space. If this Userbox is deleted, it will STILL be available for people to use on user pages AND it be protected against being nominated for deletion again. Everyone should check out WP:MACK for the details of this proposal to save Userboxes. Nhprman 05:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it won't be available to other users because it will no longer be in a substable form. It'll be code on random pages. This is why it WON'T be available. This is comparable to taking a product of the market then claiming "Oh, it's still available. Look, that guy has one." Keep the product on the market. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's patently false and misleading. Yes, the boxes will be available to users in User space. There will be a central location for all code to exist, most likely where they are listed right now, and where users currently go to get the template code. You are seeking to make this complicated and confusing, when it's not. - Nhprman 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it, too. Vote "Delete and Move" to move it to user space (and to keep it on those 200 pages) otherwise, it will remain a tempate and be subject to deletion again and again by people who simply don't like it. - Nhprman 22:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sellout

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User sellout}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User serviceable-no

edit
Template:User serviceable-no (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Sheep Herder

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion. --Pilot|guy 16:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using this irrelevant stereotype. You should note that many Userbox supporters have made many useful edits to Wikipedia. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 23:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SNL

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User stories

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User stories}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User The Stig

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight - the stig article is linked in that box and explains everything about it. Icecradle 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This and other user boxes should be saved and protected from deletion on the grounds they are not funny or have no point. See WP:MACK for details of this proposal to save Userboxes from future deletions. - Nhprman 05:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user used parts network

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User used parts network}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Who's On First

edit
Template:User Who's On First (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User zombie

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User zombie}}

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user your mom

edit
Template:Useryour mom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Dingbat

edit

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Wombat

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User self test

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

Unencyclopedic template, simply not funny, no point in having around. Get this junk out of template space. --Cyde Weys 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I find it very funny. Furthermore, if it is not deleted, i won't have to edit my userpage at all. DuctoMan 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ILife

edit

Template:ILife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
New template that is useless because it is redundant. All the pages it is used on already have the same list using Template:Apple_software
--mboverload 00:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cowbell fever

edit
{{User:Xaosflux/UBX/User Cowbell fever}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User love you

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Subst'd, now delete Shanel § 01:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Longcat

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User IP

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

Has no use and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It is possible to adjust this userbox, so that the IP address changes. Check out my user page for an example... It's there, somewhere, but the IP can be changed, via a mode. I think it's...

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User IPv6

edit
Template:User IPv6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Has no use and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're not saying this is myspace, we're saying all this is a WP:POINT and to keep the userbox war going. Period. --Pilot|guy 21:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a way to end the Userbox war, and to get Userboxes out of Template Space once and for all. Unencyclopedic content doesn't belong there. Period. This is not a WP:POINT nomination. The nominator's statement is clearly not "making a point" under those guidelines. I suggest people actually go and read the WP:POINT guideline and decide for themselves. - Nhprman 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SNL

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User sdrawkcab

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User sdrawkcab}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User asplode

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep whats the point in deleting it? arnt we allowed to express ourself on our user page? the only reason i would see it deleted if ti cropped up on articles, but ive only seen it on user pages, (plus i have it on mine ;P)Darth Rage 19:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot - deleted by Cyde. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamalemming-en

edit
Template:User iamalemming-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was moot - deleted by Cyde. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User iamafish-en

edit
Template:User iamafish-en (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The vote was to delete it. Myrtone 09:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User LSOH

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Fatmouse

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Fatmouse}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A lot of people use the template and like it. You guys seem to have nothing else to do, other than incite flame wars, and try to delete every template that does not suit your group/pack/gang's tastes, tand then back your pointless deletions up with "it doesn't fit on wikipedia." or "it's not encyclopedic". if that's so, then NO ONE should have a userpage here... "humour is relative"...i beg to differ. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 15:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MrDucky

edit
{{User:Keithgreer/User MrDucky}}

Has no purpose and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DuctoMan 18:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MrDucky2

edit
File:Mr rubber ducky.gif
This user has no idea who Mr Ducky is, but wanted to join in the fun.

Has no purpose and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MrDucky3

edit
File:Mr rubber ducky.gif
This user may, or may
not be Mr Ducky.

Has no purpose and is possibly misleading or confusing.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Alien

edit
ALIEN This user will never look at spaghetti the same way again.

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that deleting things on Wikipedia (save for images) don't free up space on the server. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 19:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is kind of technical, so bear with me. It's "pointless" (and "unencylopedic", as I said above) only in Template space, where it resides now. Templates are supposed to be for tools that help create the encyclopedia. The nominators of these boxes want them to be moved over to the USER space, where they can still exist on your user page - in the same form, shape and size - but will be clearly out of the main space where the encyclopedia is written. By supporting "Keep" you are, perhaps unwittingly, saying you want it to stay in the Template space, where it risks being deleted. It CANNOT BE DELETED in the User space. If people support "Delete, and Userfy" it becomes "Userfied" and SAVED for users to continue using without the risk of deletion. Isn't that what everyone wants? I have no idea why this wasn't explained better before, but here it is now. Does this clear things up? - Nhprman 17:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User alien

edit
  This user believes in aliens and lies naked on his or her rooftop, waiting to be picked up.

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or suck more in the case of this userbox. (But, hey, if someone wants their userpage to suck more, who am I to stop them?) Bucketsofg✐ 20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User antiderivative

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean the graphic makes no sense? The graphic is hypothetically asking for the indefinite integral of 3x². I couldn't just put the integral symbol up on there because then it would be asking for the sum of nothing. As stated above, it's making fun of those anti-drug commercials where they put messages at the end of commercials such as " |P|A|R|E|N|T|S| The antidrug". Hopefully, that clears up some confusion. Douglasr007 23:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You forgot the "dx" Timrem 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh wow... I didn't even notice that until you pointed that out, Timrem. Good point. TauNeutrino 23:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh crap. You're right. Douglasr007 23:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring to the lack of "dx". Ardric47 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I tested out adding the dx and it would actually still be the same size. It's just that the current TfD notice makes the table bigger. Douglasr007 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I'll repeat myself from earlier, let them enjoy the clever user templates which do not get applied to articles and that are harmless. Andrew D White 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Cowbell +

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde hates Wikipedians? =P --mboverload@ 00:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Towel

edit
{{User:Akrabbim/Towel}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Person

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Person}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

  • Comment Those boxes are next up for deletion, more than likely. None of them should be in template space - which exists to help us edit an encyclopedia, not create and disseminate clever or funny Userboxes (or boxes like this.) You do realize that even the deleters, above, want them only out of Template space, but available for use in User space, right? I don't think that message is getting through. - Nhprman 01:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User smartass

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

  • Let me explain. The Userboxes can still be on User pages even if they are deleted from Template space. They should not exist in Template space, which is reserved for tools for creating articles. They are only "unencyclopedic" when they are templates. Once they're out of template space, the problem will go away. If misguided users keep all their "favorite" boxes in Template space, they could very well be nominated for deletion again. Please consider deleting them as templates but saving them in User space. Nhprman 03:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User pirate

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Pirate}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Comment This userbox has been nominated twice today, shouldn't the top nomination be removed? Homestarmy 21:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj2

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj2}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj3

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj3}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

HEY, why do you want to delete this?! This userbox IS funny if you are familier with the real ultimate power website! Please let it stay! The ninja will get really mad if you don't!

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User nj4

edit
{{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User nj4}}

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Chuck Norris

edit

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

Stupid and lacking in humor. Pointless to have around}}--> Conrad Devonshire Talk 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)--[reply]

Yeah, what do we need food for in a war? You can't kill dem terrorist sumsabitkes with bread! Remove teh food! --mboverload@ 01:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T

Also, did you know, oxygen requires Chuck Norris to Survive? Its true. DuctoMan 18:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13&oldid=1146049554"