Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/Not deleted/January 2006

Template:User KO v. O'Reilly

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

The "vandalism" was to remove the fair use images :P --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SPUI. I still do not think the images are a reason for template deletion, but I think we got carried away on these boxes. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 09:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it seems like a pretty harmless userbox. I feel that until a consensus has been reached on what userboxes to keep and what to throw out, we should err on the side of inclusionism. --BenjaminTsai ^Talk 09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No reason to delete user boxes. Larix 13:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Larix. However, I was wondering, since when are fair use images illegal for userboxes? --D-Day 14:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Since longer than user boxes have been around. See WP:FUC, and WP:FU before it was split out. —Cryptic (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until we get a consensus on userboxes in general and I suspect that will be a pro-userboxes one, even though I'm not too fond of them myself - but if they don't run against any other policy or guideline I see little harm in them, and even then these are mostly {{sofixit}} problems and not {{soputitontfd}} problems. Maybe userboxes have jumped the shark, but so has nominating them for deletion. To the anti-userbox faction: Stop cluttering this page. To the pro-userbox faction: A joke doesn't get any funnier if you put it in a template and plaster it all over the User namespace. Thank you for listening and goodnight,  grm_wnr Esc 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone wants to create the opposite, that's OK with me. Bubba73 (talk), 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Let me know if anymore unique userboxes come up for deletion. I'm an automatic keep. karmafist 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Withdrawn. Copyright issues are sorted, but it seems like users are in favor of the userbox. I'll take my attention elsewhere. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 00:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Jkelly. --Angelo 19:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Wikisource-addition

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

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

Template:Mess2

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

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep another ridiculous nomination (part of the course with Dan). This template is used to deal with people who post in personal comments and other information into articles. Only yesterday someone posted in a five paragraph commentary on an article into the text - "I don't think this article is accurate because . . . " . The template was created after a number of users asked if something could be created to be put on user pages asking users not to post messages in articles. This was happening so regularly that various users dealing with vandalism were fed up having to write a new message every time. So a standard template was drafted and is being used in these cases. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless there is evidence that irrelevant personal comments are not being inserted. Deb 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per FearÉIREANN. Quite useful. Actually, looking back I should have used the template when dealing with the messes made by KDRGibby yesterday. 172 19:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this template is obviously useful - vandalism is not limited to "PENIS!" Izehar 19:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I just don't understand this one. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- per Jtdirl Astrotrain 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteMakes little sense we want to inform people not confuse them--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Rn3

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

• Delete. --Stbalbach 17:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The rules governing usage of complicated royal naming in Wikipedia are laid out in the Manual of Styles and Naming Conventions pages. A small minority of users regularly try to make up their own versions of names that are factually incorrect and which are contrary to the MoS and the NC agreed format that covers 800+ articles. This template is used to deal with users who ignore appeals from a large number of users who have repeatedly pointed out that all the articles in an encyclopædia need to follow the same structure and format. As usual Dan didn't check his facts. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per FearÉIREANN. Wikipedia is lagging behind in developing mechanisms for ensuring community adherence to the MoS and the NC; these and other templates are thus essential for correcting that problem. 172 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a quick and efficient way of informing users of the MoS and reduces the risk of revert wars over style: if everyone actually knows of the MoS, then the likelihood of one crossing it reduces a lot. Izehar 19:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per FearÉIREANN. Per Netoholic, hopefully only to be used as last resort in exteme casess. Herostratus 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Jtdirl. Proteus (Talk) 19:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or modify to get rid of "vandalism". As it stands, it runs contrary to the Wikipedia definition of vandalism. (And the bolded Stop doing it is inappropriately peremptory. Even the templates for true vandalism use the word "please".) AnnH ^(talk) 20:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - a valid way of informing users of styles. Persistant reversion against styles (and nov) is so often just "professional" vandalism. Djegan 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - style usages can be changed, by consensus, over time. Defining changes in usages as a priori vandalism is un-wiki. Nandesuka 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- per Jtdirl
• Delete - per nom and Nandesuka. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep having seen some of this edit war that would not die, these are clearly still needed.  ALKIVAR™ 14:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Too harsh and misleading If someone is ignoring the kinder template you need to leave a message opening a dialouge with them not leave more templates!--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Rn2, Template:Styles2, Template:Styles3

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

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

Template:Divizia A

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

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

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

• Keep, I don't see what's wrong with this. It looks better than {{ro Divizia A}} and has a better name. The other template should be a redirect here. - ulayiti (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-english--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed 'sezonul' to 'season', now it's in English. :) - ulayiti (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Has a much better title than {{ro Divizia A}}, and as only about 5 or so articles use that template the argument that this one has no use is not particularly appropriate. Also, this template looks better than {{ro Divizia A}}, and I've just improved it further. Terrafire 17:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:NPOV-date

(also Template:POV-section-date)

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

• Question: Couldn't that new date field be integrated into template:NPOV? (Without category thing, I don't think we need to categorize that by date)? Adrian Buehlmann 10:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Keep. Helps Jbamb doing his work. Let's let him try this and see how it flies. Adrian Buehlmann 15:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • It could be yes, I created it and asked for comments on it. There are over 1400 NPOV disputes, sorting by date would be able to quickly isolate the real stale issues, and that certainly would be helpful for me since I'm cleaning them up. -- Jbamb 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • IF (big if) this is something that we want to do, it should be discussed on Template talk:POV and integrated without creating this fork. As such, there is no need for this template. -- Netoholic @ 19:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Been trying to discuss it several places, no one seemed interested in discussing the matter... Jbamb 20:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Then let the idea die. -- Netoholic @ 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but discuss a merge at Template talk:POV. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Off-topic

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

• Weak Delete Keep. Has the potential to be usefull, but is overly specific. Also, that yellow burns my brain.--Sean|Black 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, I've de-uglified it, and it may be useful if given a chance. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Upon reflection, I've changed my mind. Still a tad specific, but okay.--Sean|Black 10:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I like it better after recent edits changing colour and modifying wording. It's true that it's currently only on one article, but that doesn't mean if wouldn't be useful for other articles (if other Wikipedians were aware of its existence). I don't see how Template:sofixit could be used as a substitute for this one. AnnH ^(talk) 11:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC) (Changed from "something between weak keep and keep" at 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. Yes I created it in a specific situation and have not used it on other articles, but I don't think that the problem of off-topic additions to articles (or incongruency of title/topic and content) is restricted to this dispute. As I found that no template like this existed, I created it. It's free for all to use. Improvements are of course welcome. Str1977 12:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Question: If a section is off-topic, shouldn't it just be deleted or moved instead of tagged? Aren't articles SUPPOSED to stay on topic? -- Jbamb 13:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Sometimes, depending on the writing style and how the off-topic material flows into the on-topic material, it may be difficult for someone not entirely familiar with the subject to excise it. BTW: this is the same question people ask whenever the {{POV}} or {{Disputed}} templates come up for deletion. =) (Except with "Why not remove the POV portion?" and "Why not remove the factually inaccurate portion?"). —Locke Cole • t • c 13:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you there. If you are familiar enough with a subject to determine when something is off-topic, you are familiar enough to remove it. It's different than fixing POV or factual errors. If a user really can't determine whether a section is off-topic or not, they should just leave it alone entirely. Kafziel 13:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. ^BlankVerse 13:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Jbamb. If a section of an article is off topic, it should be fixed, not tagged. Other tags, like {{cleanup}}, automatically list their articles on a special page dedicated to cleanup requests. This tag doesn't have a page like that; it only serves to highlight the section, when the user should be fixing the problem instead. Delete. Kafziel 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, obviously if something strays from the topic, it should be removed, but sometimes that isn't possible — edit wars and all that! On Jbamb's line of argument, deviations in neutrality and accuracy should be corrected rather than tagged, yet we have tags for them. (The problem is that a person who introduces POV, inaccuracies, or rambling, may not agree with your verdict, and may revert your efforts to clean up. And, of course, you may be wrong in thinking that it's POV, inaccurate or irrelevant.) The POV and accuracy tags are useful for warning readers and for directing them to the talk page, where they might join in the discussion and might make helpful coments bringing about consensus. I don't think the value of this particular tag lies in warning the reader not to be misled by the statements in the article. I do, however, think that it's useful in encouraging readers (who may not be regular editors) to help where there's a dispute. I was looking up Wikipedia for about nine months before it ever occurred to me to click on "discussion". On that basis, I'm changing my vote above to a clearer "keep". AnnH ^(talk) 14:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Imagine looking up an article in Encyclopaedia Britannica and seeing a caveat that says, "The information in this section may or may not have anything to do with what you are looking for." What kind of confidence would that inspire in the information? It hurts the whole article. The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out. Besides - if I'm reading an article about cats and come across a sentence about MP3 players or maple syrup, it won't lead me to any incorrect conclusions about cats. That's the difference between this and the POV tag. So just be bold! That's what talk pages are for. Make a note of what you took out, and why, on the talk page. If someone reverts you, then you have your answer. Kafziel 15:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously if someone starts talking about maple syrup in a cat article, that should be edited out right away. I see this template being more useful when there is some dispute as to whether or not a particular section is on or off topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenj0418 (talk • contribs) 17:17, December 30, 2005

Well it wouldn't inspire great confidence in Encyclopedia Britannica either if we looked up something and saw a caveat that said, "The factual accuracy of this section is disputed"! I think we're all agreed that if something clearly doesn't belong in the article, it should be removed. But that's not taking into account the possibility of opposition. AnnH ^(talk) 21:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the innacuracies tag hurts articles as well, but it's a necessary evil and this one isn't. Allow me to quote myself from my last entry: "The difference here is that on factual errors it's conceivable that someone might say, "Well I don't know what's right, but that certainly isn't it." And it's important to let others know that it's wrong (or at least disputed). But if a sentence or section is off-topic, you don't need to do any research to fill in the space with something else; just take it out." Be bold! Either take the initiative to fix the article yourself, or leave it alone. So what if someone disagrees with your change? The info is still in the page history and they can change it back. That can be dealt with on the talk page without putting a tag on the article. Kafziel 16:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, useful for folks like me who prefer to warn page editors of a problem rather than going in and deleting big chunks of content. Kappa 14:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, should also have a category page that lists all such possibly off-topic pages. Kenj0418 17:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'd actually find much more use for this on talk pages. On articles themselves, I'd prefer something more reminiscent of {{split}} to either this or massive deletion. —Cryptic (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If it's true it should be obvious to any reader, and in any case anyone noticing it will be free to fix it. Utterly useless. Anyone putting it on a page certainly deserves to get awarded Template:sofixit. Palmiro | Talk 23:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems potentially useful, like any other maintenence template. Not everything can be immediately fixed by the user who sees it. -- SCZenz 02:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I look at a lot of articles on Wikipedia out of curiosity (right now I have 10 open tabs pointing to Wiki articles that I haven't gotten back to yet). Many articles that I look at obviously need work, and when I can do the work, I do it. But sometimes, while I am perfectly able to recognize a problem, I don't have the time, or the expertise, or perhaps the audacity, to barge in and 'take it over' from the people who have been working on it before I saw it. In that case, adding a template (with a short explanation) to the article or its talk page would be a reminder to me (on my contribution page) to do the work later or a gentle nudge to others that the article needs work. This template is in that category, and does no harm when used on a talk page. Plus, there are a lot of grey areas where one person should not unilaterally decide to delete "off topic" material without discussing it with others who put it there, e.g. on an article about cats, is cat food off topic? Cat behavior, caring for cats, taking cats traveling, cat shows, cats in the movies? I would not be so quick to use an axe on someone else's contribution, but I wouldn't hesitate to drop this template onto the talk page. Aumakua 11:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: but it's not a talk page template, it's an article template to point people to the talk page. There's no reason to use it instead of either fixing the problem or raising it in a normal way on the talk page. Possible divergence from the topic is not something that users need a big template message warning them about, unlike NPOV problems for example where the templates both categorise the articles into a category other editors can use to look for problems that need fixing, and warn users that the information may not be reliable where this may not be apparent. This isn't the same sort of issue at all. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Absolute rejection. As with Netoholic , and as per other delete AND stronger. This template is deisigned to diminuish clarity. off-topic ain't the problem, the problem is that of even entering any topic meaningfully. The creation of this template is designed towards e negative result. I can point to many failures to even link to the related but more-topical-elsewhere. I tell you there aren't even links, and I have shown the creator odf this causes the situation, repeatedly. The creator of this is trying to reduce WP from exactly that un-linkage situation, even further. The use of off-topic can be very negative and destructive,so, I will repeat myself -this template must be deleted . I have proof of this activity, as used precisely against me, by its creator. This is not wehere WP needs to go , but rather follow my inclusive template, expressed at [[Vatican Bank}}/talk.EffK 03:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep has an obvious use, and plenty of people who would use it if needed. Its not spam, offensive or orphaned. No reason to delete - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3»^{Talk | Contrib's} 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Rewrite. It is obvious from the edit summary of the dispute that the creator intended it as a {{cleanup}} off chute not as a means of justifying the off-topic nature. I believe it should re rewritten to appear more like the {{cleanup}} template and less like the {{disputed}} template. —gorgan_almighty 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Let the "creator" explain. In order to do a "Clean-up" there first has to be some core of the section that is on topic. The trouble is in this case nothing in the section was actually on topic. Nothing. You might say "Then delete it all!", but you can read EffK's reply above. He accuses me of wanting to delete this information (when in fact I only wanted to move where it belongs) even though I (grudgingly) retained the off-topic text. Str1977 19:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Could be useful if expanded. Dustimagic 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. While I agree that most editors could probably excise any content they put this tag on, when I'm in "reader" mode I generally will stop reading only to make minor edits — I'm not going to stop and fix the structure of a discursive, tangential passage. I can imagine placing this tag over a section that makes me go "WTF?" when I wouldn't have time or inclination to actually fix it right now, and then coming back later and seeing what's in the template's linklist and making some fixes. Though I'd personally like a cleanup category added to the template for that purpose, whatlinkshere works just as well.... --TreyHarris 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Well I'm a little embarrassed to have nominated these templates for deletion given the strong response. I think my real problem is with the images. Nobody else (IMDB, etc) gets images - why are we endorsing Musicbrainz? Anyway I'm withdrawing the nomination. Sorry. Rhobite 04:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The IMDB image was removed with little to no discussion The Last.fm template includes an image. I address why I think these are useful in my comments below. Be sure to follow the Beatles link to see my example. — Mperry 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep, external links to musicbrainz are abundant. Remove the image if you must, though I personally don't think it's a problem. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per grm_wnr. Apart from the added images (although as grm_wnr said, I don't see a problem with them), these are not ads in any way, they're merely external links. -- Parasti 19:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no problem with this. --Liface 19:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I can't see any problem too. Visor 20:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I find MusicBrainz to be very useful. Also, its content is public domain (and some parts are licensed under creative commons) and anyone can edit. Doesn't that remains you another wonderful website ? ;). I don't think the image is needed, it's just prettier like that. We should use MORE templates for more websites, so the all links would be colorful and pretty ! Hum. --pankkake
• I generally don't edit or even read music articles, so I don't know how widespread links to this site are (the templates almost certainly won't cover all of them), so neutral on deletion. But the images should definitely go. —Cryptic (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • MB artist: ~270, MB album: ~134, MB track: ~1 —Mperry 21:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems useful. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 20:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rhobite, I oppose the deletion of this template. Your reasoning is not sufficient for deletion to take place as you have not proven that the template meets the criteria for deletion. You state that the templates "give preferential treatment to Musicbrainz." That's the point of the template. They exist to link to the MusicBrainz database so that users might conduct further research about an artist and their works. MusicBrainz is a non-commercial, community developed site much like Wikipedia. It makes all database data available as either public domain or licenced under the CreativeCommons license. It is maintained by the MetaBrainz Foundation which is a legally registered non-profit organization funded by donations and the sweat of volunteers. Under these circumstances I fail to see how such links support your claim that they are ads. I don't see you calling for the removal of the IMDB template. IMDB is a commercial, for profit company with a non-free license for their data. Regarding the icon, I feel that it should remain. Its existence allows the user to quickly see the meaning of the link that follows. The user knows that clicking the link will provide them with more information from the MusicBrainz site without having to read and mentally parse the list. This can be very important when there is a long list of links such as in The Beatles article. It's the same principle that is used on computers to show lists of files. The icons help give context to the name so that the user's brain can more quickly identify the purpose of the text. If you still feel that this template should be deleted, I look forward to your detailed rebuttal. —Mperry 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Mperry. I can't see anything wrong with this template; in fact I find it quite useful. The icon is a nice touch. — flamingspinach | (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• As strong as I can make it Keep: I modeled this template off of the MusicBrainz permanent link feature. I seriously recommend that you read the MusicBrainz article. It does for music what wikipedia can't. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment: Oh, and for the record, the images are GPL, so there is no fair use problems with them. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Nobody said anything about them being removed due to fair use issues. They should be removed for the same reason we disallow sisterproject-like boxes for sites that aren't sister projects. Their use improperly elevates these external links above others, and they're purely decorative - they add no information whatsoever to the articles they're on. —Cryptic (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely, as per Mperry. --Loopy 06:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These templates are incredibly useful. SoothingR 12:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above Larix 13:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: As I understood, one aspect of Wiki was to encourage linking to other analogous non-profit/open-to-all-style database projects. MusicBrainz deserves the template AND image. IMO, it's not unfairly elevated, rather it's deservedly elevated. No way I would support deleting this. - Liontamer 21:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per above. MusicBrainz often has links to Wikipedia articles on artists as well. As far as I can tell, most MusicBrainz users try hard to add Wikipedia links. What I'd like to know is why this is still up for deletion: only the person who originally put it up for deletion is against it.
• Stronger Than Dirt Keep per all previous supporters. --Cjmarsicano 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Basically what the above has stated. Sorry for the little input added, it's better than no input. Douglasr007 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. These templates should only be used under the External links subheading on an article. —gorgan_almighty 12:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep Useful. More ridiculous nominations from the Deletion Police. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete More ultra-specific templates with only two or three words different from standard vandalism templates. As for "Rn4", just how many times do you expect to use a template to chastise someone for changing "thousands of royal article files", anyway? It looks to me like this template is the result of one person's edit war with one other person, and will never be applicable to any other edit war. If it's vandalism, use the vandalism templates. The use of any of these ultra-specific templates almost requires a failure to Assume Good Faith on the part of the other user, and a lazy refusal to discuss the disagreement with the other person. Aumakua 22:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. The only occasions when a user can be blocked is laid down by the Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Dan100 (Talk) 09:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree that it's problematic to threaten to block people for a nonblockable offence. And given the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, I think it's also wrong to have: "Any more deliberate vandalism may lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia." As long as the 3RR rule isn't violated, I can't imagine an administrator blocking someone for inserting "Her Majesty". As far as I know, before the MOS was changed, people weren't blocked for removing "Her Majesty". AnnH ^(talk) 18:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete be kind to newbies. Besides, going against the MOS is never vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 19:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The debates on these things are closed. Deleting these templates will simply re-open those debates, and we'll be back to square one.  Denelson83  20:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per User:Jtdirl DES ^(talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - when you get to your fourth revert (very often "playing" 3RR) against common sense you need a stern warning. Their is too much consensus in wikipedia on how to avoid dealing with vandalism and the like. Its time to get tough. Djegan 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Jtdirl. 172 21:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As above - Charles 03:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. They are rude and will only scare away newbies. Vandals seldom heed those warnings anyway. --Ezeu 03:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - if the newbies want to contribute, they should follow the rules, this has been debated to death. Prsgoddess187 04:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Adding "Her Majesty" to an article on royalty is not vandalism, no matter how much the royalty enthusiasts would like it to be. Posting edits which do not conform to the Manual of Style is not vandalism, no matter how much some people would prefer to rigidly enforce their personal aesthetic preference. Warnings which threaten to block users for vandalism for making edits which are not vandalism are therefore egregiously inappropriate. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 12:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. May have occasional uses, but it's also terribly easy to misuse. It also gives the wrong impression about WP:BP. As much as I wish admins could block people for rampant stylistic changes, we just plain can't. -- SCZenz 16:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Astrotrain 21:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per Nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Vw

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

• Keep Useful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Useful for what? What does this do that {{test}} doesn't? Firebug 20:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Obviously you have neither read them nor dealt with vandalism or you would know the answer to such a silly question. FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

    No question that has to be asked can be classified as stupid. It's a valid question, and warrants a polite response. Rob Church ^Talk 07:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Redundant with {{test}}. android79 21:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Useful for inital warnings when the circumstances look a bit too intentional for {{test}}, but not severe enough to jump to {{test2}}. In effect this is {{test1.5}}. In adition, since this warning does not use the "test" language, it is better when the user is clearly not testing, and the standard wrnign could well be simply confusing. DES ^(talk) 21:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep forks of user talk templates. (Really!) No need to clue the vandals in that these comments are standardized. If you got the same test1, test2, test3 messages in a row as you did last week, would you have any chance of thinking they were from a human, and thus worth listening to? —Cryptic (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine any but the dullest of vandals would fail to realize that {{test}}, et al. are standardized language. If I couldn't use templates for vandalism warnings, the messages I would leave wouldn't be as verbose as these; not anywhere close. android79 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redundant with {{test}}. --IByte 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Weak Delete Maybe move into the test series (ya, why NOT test1.5??), but this one is useful as it addresses a different kind of fooling around than test1 does. If this gets nuked I hope that some one person chooses to userify it and lets people know about it, as I'd use it, but why fork another copy into my own userspace just for me? I think a variety of templates that address different situations is a good thing. Within reason. Or should we all fork our own copies? ++Lar 22:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I recant... I found this: {{TestTemplates}} and that has a lot of them. I just didn't know about all of the ones there were. ++Lar 23:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep! I use this on a daily basis. Tufflaw 03:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The way I see it, this template is more suitable when a user has made several test edits and hasn't been warned. Royboycrashfan 04:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no reason for deletion presented, not redundant. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{test}}. Dan100 (Talk) 17:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep per Jtdirl. 172 20:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - but wikipedia needs a fundemental relook on how we deal with vandalism. Their is too much consensus on avoiding the issue. Djegan 21:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete - the multiplicity of boilerplate test messages is absurd. If you need to customize what you say that specifically, consider just writing something instead of trying to find the perfect Hallmark Card for blanking George W. Bush. Phil Sandifer 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. , same thing --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not entirely redundant. I think that having similarly-worded templates here is okay. I want the people doing RC patrol to have templates they're comfortable with, and if that means having a whole load of templates, that's cool. If for some reason the result is not keep, at least redirect it somewhere so as not to disrupt RC patrollers. JYolkowski // talk 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I use it when it's clear it's not a test, and the user should know better, but not a {{bv}}. It makes it so we aren't mollycoddling vandals, which is extremely important. -Mysekurity(^{have you seen this?}) 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant to {{test}}. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Ditto reasons from DESiegel.and JYolkowski Kenj0418 01:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, we have separate messages for blanking and testing, why not a separate first warning for vandalism. If enough people use it, its useful. —siroχo 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Redundant. - Hayter 17:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; while I personally have never used it; keep per DESiegel, though. - Jjjsixsix 01:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pretty much same as test. Dustimagic 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User infallible

Template:User infallible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — The wording of the template is a violation of WP:NPA and causes incivility issues. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Template is useful for reminding admins like myself that they are merely mortal through its sly humor. Personal attack can be easily removed. IN fact, I think I will remove it now. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteNeutral The humour of the template was based upon a personal attack and a fair use image. The template is useless and rubbish. [[Sam Korn]] 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Maybe it's not rubbish. If someone can find a good image/short tag, I'll vote keep. [[Sam Korn]] 21:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The humor was not intended to be a personal image. It was intended as HUMOR only and not supposed to be taken seriously. The fair use issue, I understand, but this userbox is NOT useless or rubbish.(For the record, the "personal attack" was a link to William Hung). --D-Day 21:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — This is only a little humor _→AzaToth 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep now, harmless. —Cryptic (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep in it current (changed) state, there is nothing wrong with it. Ian¹³_ID:540053 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Withdraw. Ok, maybe a slight change of wording made the template better. However, editors should realize that while editors may feel like they can do no wrong, they should respect our rules, policies, guidelines and other editors. Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:User GWB

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 15:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Question?: Since the result of this vote was a rathr strong keep, why exactly has the template been deleted?--MoVe! 17:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened, but it might have something to do with the fact that this is not a vote. Jkelly 17:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not sure you can honestly call yourself libertarian and propose templates for deletion on the grounds of their content at the same time . In any case, the template is not really harming anyone, and partisanship is perfectly acceptable on user pages. Finally, as the template does not actually encourage vandalism I don't see how it 'makes light' of it. - Cuivienen 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unlike other political templates I've seen this one actually relates to wikipedia - albiet in an off-hand sort of way. Heck, I'd put both that and a bill clinton version on my page just because I dislike seeing the useless, probably partially-politically-motivated vandalism . That's just my opinion though . I do agree it is a bit combative though... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep; nothing wrong with it. Wgfinley attempted to get it speedy deleted as nonsense and then as an attack page, reverting the removal of the tags several times. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Very strong keep!!. Are we going to be censoring political humor now? Jesus Christ! --Cjmarsicano 06:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. People have "support" GWB templates, too. No reason to delete either. Dave (talk) 06:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and change the wording. I think this is what the templates need is a slight word change. Maybe it should just read "This user does not wish to revert vandalism at GWB." Zach ^{(Smack Back)} 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and either change wording per Zach or move to Template:User hates GWB or something similar, without a redirect. Content is harmless, but the title's misleading. —Cryptic (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wrote the "Support GWB" Template in response to this one. To be honest, it's not the hate that bothers me as much as the implicit endorsement of vandalism on Wikipedia. I believe the other template that jokes about "Reverting his edits to the Constitution" makes the same point, doesn't endorse vandalism, and (most important of all) is funnier. However, I'm not going to vote on this one, as the users of this userbox should make the final call. Palm_Dogg 08:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If you post the link to that version, I'll switch to it and I suspect others will as well. Dave (talk) 08:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Statements like these are not really my style (though I don't support GWB either) but I also think banning them would be a totally unacceptable kind of censorship. Regardless of political colour, it's really a treasure when political leaders can be freely critized. Larix 08:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that censorship of any kind is totaly unnaceptable. But, on Wikipedia, our opinions on political or social issues almost never matter, and usually just serve to polarize us- I don't think it's fair to characterise this as a censorship issue.--Sean|Black 09:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Emphatic Keep for both templates for GWB and against GWB. The truth is exactly the opposite sean - userboxes serve to build community and better community gets people to stay with the project and build a better encyclopedia. - I support all user boxes.--God_of War 09:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, pretty much, but I didn't really say anything about userboxes in my comment above.--Sean|Black 09:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This shouldn't be an ideological debate over the relative merits of userboxes in general. This particular template is not even a statement of opinion: it's an ad hominem attack that is potentially in violation of our policy on personal attacks (that, of course, is up for debate since the subject isn't technically a Wikipedian, but I digress). And I say this as someone who does not have any particular love for the president or his policies. – Seancdaug 09:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I have to agree with God of War in that userboxes help to build community, but I have to disagree with God of War inasmuch as this one has the potential to build only animosity. As for the argument that getting rid of the template is censorship, I would have to disagree—nobody's saying people can't say they hate GWB or hate removing vandalism from the GWB article. I don't care if people want to spew vitriol on their personal pages, but this template makes doing so a part of the WP namespace rather than a perceived protected right to expression. Additionally, the name User-GWB is an especially poor choice of name for this template. Tomer^talk 09:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep - this is silly. It's just a bit of fun - I only created it in response to hearing loads of people say it themselves. --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or BJAODN (if possible) It seems to be a confession of vandalism to me, or can be used that way. Some of us may hate the guy, but it doesn't give the right to vandalise his article; in short, there are no exceptions. I can understand the political side of the humour, but the faux (I assume that was the original intention) vandalism confession. --JB Adder | Talk 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Vandalism to GWB's biography and distaste for the president himself are two very notable aspects of Wikipedia and its members. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 11:47, Jan. 2, 2006
• Delete. I don't like having to revert vandalism on his article, either, but to put it like the template does seems too much like implicit approval of vandalism. And yes, I see the humour — but it's not funny. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete - as fuddle said. --Doc ^ask? 12:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - but change "hate" (an overly strong word) to "can't stand". Userboxes are only for User pages and user pages are free to be POV. By deleting this box it is effectively a denial of free speech, which goes against everything anyone stands for. WP:NPOV does not come into it because the userbox system is not for the encyclopedia. Deano (Talk) 12:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not a suitable subject for a userbox. David | Talk 12:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons already given - JVG 13:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep As far as I am aware no Wikipedia policy forbids voicing opinions on userpages. Reword 'hate' to 'dislikes' or 'can't stand'. And there is certainly enough dislike to warent a template providing it does not phrase that he is wrong. Ian¹³_ID:540053 13:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep and f*ck Dubya! - Darwinek 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Even though I can't vote yet, I'm a republican at heart, hence my vote. --ViolinGirl^♪ 20:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This isn't a popularity contest for this userbox. Everyone has the right to free speech - even if it is unpopular.--God_of War 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment As another user said, this userbox could cause a headache with regard to vandalism on GWB's page (already much vandalised and warred over). I'd suggest rephrasing, but not outright deletion, as from that POV, a number of other userboxes would be eligible, and it would undermine the usebox idea. Regards, Kaushik twin | Talk 16:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete Delete them both. Or at least change the wording of this one. A Bush supporter would probably not enjoy seeing things like "..hate George W. Bush.." (even though they cant pretend not to have seen that kind of thing before). These sort of "strong opinion" boxes polarize the community, IMO. Banes 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep But change Hate to something less extreme POV. DaGizza ^Chat 21:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV user pages should not be political hate forums. Djegan 21:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the template, but lose the president. Grutness...wha? 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the president and the template --Ezeu 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• You delete the president and I delete the template. - Cuivienen 00:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Secret Service notified. -- Jbamb 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, it's in user space. -- Jbamb 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Usercruft. android79 01:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Reword to "This user hates George W. Bush because he/she does not like reverting vandalism there." Drop the singular they, btw. I'm not a {{User singular they}} guy. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a strong GWB supporter but why shouldn't people be allowed to indicate how they feel about the man? Plus it lets me know who the enemy is. Lawyer2b 03:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: why are you on the anarchist user list? Why are almost all the "anarchist" users not anarchists at all? Not relevant, I know, but I just want to know. At least you support free speech. The Ungovernable Force 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but change wordingMaybe use 'strongly dislike'? Or something like that. If it was changed, I'd use it.Clarinetplayer 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - A bit of humour and political satire never hurt anybody. Keep the pro GWB one as well even though it's not up for deletion, I just voted early. Maybe the language could be moderated a bit as some have suggested, but otherwise it's fine. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep template. Delete president. --Dschor 13:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Closedmouth 14:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep — Free speech --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 14:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unless George opens an account on Wikipedia. Then it would be a personal attack on a fellow Wikipedian and we can't have that. TCorp 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  Ah, but he has one! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep... because I want to use it, too. ;) Kafziel 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. the wub "?!" 21:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, pending a more compelte userbox policy. I belive that one is now under discussion. Once it is accepted, then delete any uservoxes which are unacceptable under that policy, and only those. 23:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Dan | talk 00:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 00:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Whether I agree with the political opinion expressed or not, I think it unwise to advocate vandalism of any Wikipedia article, as does this box, even in jest. There are, after all, those who would take it seriously.TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Well, on looking at it more carefully it's not as objectionable as on first reading. I think it too wishy-washy about the vandalism, but that's hardly grounds to delete it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I think this userbox makes it clear that the GWB article is carefully policed for vandalism, even by those who don't like him. Kafziel 03:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Political afflictions have always been permitted on user space. If someone does hate GWB then that is a political affliction & should not be censored. —gorgan_almighty 10:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There are many political affliations userboxes, should be kept as it is a user's view. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A user's personal page can include their personal political preferences. KittenKlub 14:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but change "hate" to "can't stand" or "dislikes" - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 17:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 'Hate' is not something we should be promoting on wikipedia, and it also endorses page vandalism. Template:User_GWB2 could be used instead. Kenj0418 17:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Template:User_GWB2 expresses opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act, not to George W. Bush in general, and, as such, shouldn't even be called "GWB2." - Cuivienen 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and tone down, WP:CIVIL. ~~ N (t/c) 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't agree with the sentiment but if this one goes then many more will follow. It could perhaps do with toning down though. Boddah 05:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep – I personally think that expressing such stong opinions does more harm than good, but it's still perfectly allowable on user pages. – ClockworkSoul 06:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Even Americans are allowed political opinions. Sjc 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No we're not--172.172.197.68 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this endorsement of vandalism postured as freedom of speech. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjc. Benami 12:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Deano - Hayter 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The userbox obviously can't be used on a normal article, if it goes on a user page that's up to the user. I can't believe we're trying to censor criticism of politicians here. In any case, that userbox on my user page is the most prominent reminder for me of the need for POVness, regardless of my feelings for any subject. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. plus it lets me know who the enemy is. Whether that comment was made as a joke or not. Still enough reason to delete. Garion96 (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a opinion of some people and they have a right to express it Keith Greer 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A right of people to free speech does not require that the Wikimedia Foundation pay for hosting such speech. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 16:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but Reword As I said on the other template discussions, the user page is that user's POV. If we can't respect that, then the user pages will need to be written by independent and impartial third-parties rather than the user themselves. Be that as it may, I don't see a problem with toning down the userbox so that its not quite so controversial.--Silverhand 21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and Don't Reword Clearly political humor, not an attack. Ashibaka tock 02:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as it is Satire is the soul of wit. DrIdiot 05:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Moot. This userbox has become obviated thanks to semi-protection. Hall Monitor 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have no idea why it's even here. Niffweed17 01:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Deleteadolescent bumper sticker looking piece of POV garbage.--MONGO 14:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• So? POV garbage is allowed on userpages. Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 19:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rephrase. A better statement would be "reluctantly reverts vandalism on the George W. Bush article". Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 19:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Just the type of userbox Jimbo expressed concern about. We're here to create an encyclopedia, not a group of factions who always get into bitter disputes. --Wikiacc ¶ 20:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rephrase could be better worded. Dustimagic 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Fair game political expression Eusebeus 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This has been up for several days now and it is obvious what the outcome is--Keep. My vote makes it 50 to 19 in favor of keeping (I could be a little off, but not by more than 2 or 3 each way, still, more than enough margin of error to declare a winner as far as I'm concerned). Several of the keeps were on the stipulation that the template be toned down, (which it has been), therefore this should be closed. Please remove the notice from my page, it messes up my formatting. And I would support any wording of this userbox btw. As other have said delete GWB (and all politicians for that matter), not the GWB userbox. The Ungovernable Force 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete or rewording. This template makes it sound like vandalism should be condoned on specific articles. A simple rewrite to "this user does not support George W. Bush" would be enough. -- Sneltrekker 14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and all userboxes that express negative views or that attack others or their beliefs. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Way too insulting. Rephrase is needed but not deletion. Gflores ^Talk 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: This morning, Tony Sidaway speedy deleted this template as an attack. I have now speedy undeleted it in conformance with the likely outcome of this TFD. Please see: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#More_attack_templates. Dragons flight 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The only people it insults are those who try to attack GWB's page. It clarifies that many of us do not support GWB AND do not support or do vandalism. Kukini 15:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete' - being interested in the GWB article helps Wikipedia. Expressing your like/hate for him does not. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I put this template (the only userbox on my userpage) up in order to be open and honest. I do hate George W. Bush overwhelmingly, and if I were ever crazy enough to make substantive edits at his page (which I'm not), I'd want them thoroughly reviewed, for NPOV's sake. Xoloz 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This kind of offensive template willsimply confirm most people's fears that wikipedia is a leftist rag--Nn-user 18:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why try to deceive people then? If everyone here is a rabid leftist, so be it. The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Martin 22:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - it's one thing to have a POV on your user page, it's quite another to actively encourage a political attack. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I take strong offence at some users unilaterally deleting a template while a vote is still taking place where there not overriding copyright or legal issues that requires its immediate removal. In protest at efforts to force through this deletion irrespective of the vote here I am voting to keep this template. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• This template has been multiply speedied, and multiply recreated, and the recrators take offense at it having been deleted when a TfD discussion is going on, though there is a long-standing policy of speedy deleting attack articles and the WP:NPA guideline. But I note that the recreators don't bother to put the tfd tag back on it when they recreate it, so one has to wonder who's being disingenous. Speedy delete as with all attack pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • You call this an "attack" as have others -- i don't see that exrpressign dislike, even such strong dislike as "hate", constitutes an attack. It is a clearly verifiable fact that many people do stronglky dislike GWB. I might add that this isn't an article so the speedy criterion does not technically apply even if this is conceded to be an attack. NPA does, but I think that applying that to comments about a very public figure who does not edit wikipedia is streaching it from its intended use. DES ^(talk) 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or reword to make clear that it applies to the article and not the person. Users should be free to express their political opinions on their userpages (within reason). However, Wikipedia should not appear to condone and encourage its contributors using standardized soundbites in expressing their opinions. That's how it looks like to a newbie seeing this and it reflects badly on the project. But please let's settle this within process and with a discussion but not with a boxing match. - Haukur 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Suitable userbox. // paroxysm (n) 00:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If you want a bumpersticker, slap one on your own damned car. --Calton | Talk 00:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you see my other userboxes? I don't have a car, and my Razor scooter can't fit anymore anti-bush bumperstickers (I've already tried). The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is an encyclopedia, not host for personal statements. --Mmx1 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

They you have to delete every userbox that expresses personal beliefs (which was tried and failed). The Ungovernable Force 04:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yet another pretty redundant POV-expressing userbox; treat accordingly, i.e., when we have a remotely applicable policy, or any sort of consensus for what to do with such. Not an attack page, unless it gets used in the article space, not a breach of NPA, unless Dubya is editing WP of late, and not so problematic as to justify undue speedying or IARing. Alai 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Tentative keep as long as it remains in its current non-attack, non-incitement form, lamenting the vandalism on the George W. Bush article without linking to that much-vandalised article and without attacking Bush. If it links to the article again then it will probably be speedied as a vandalism risk. If it attacks Bush it will probably be speedied as a page that disparages its subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That reads less like "keep with provisos" (which would have little standing as such) as "keep with threats". The assertions that the original was an "incitement to vandalism", while much-repeated, make no sense. If I say "I wish we didn't keep having to undelete this template while there's an on-going vote on it", does that constitute incitement to out-of-process delete it? After all, no-one in any coercive or policy sense has to do either revert vandalism on GWB, or restore inappropriate deletion, so it's not reasonable to put a reading on either statement that they express a wish to be relieved a responsiblity to do such, but rather that they ought not to be done in the first place. And "attack" is pretty tenuous, too: "X hates Y" tells me more about X, than it does about Y. Alai 08:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this is just wrong. -- JJay 08:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Green Parties

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 15:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Delete — Over the top. We already have Template:Greens which is more than enough for most relevant pages. – Kaihsu 21:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Template:Greens serves a different purpose. It does not link to individual Green parties. - Cuivienen 00:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Cuivienen. --Loopy 03:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. At the very least listify. Circeus 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • listify? Do you mean like this?--Ezeu 04:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hum... I think that article is misnamed. I would not expect to find a List of Green parties (which doesn't even redirect) in there (hence my vote). Circeus 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. the iBook of the Revolution 22:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above Larix 10:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Both are useful for different reasons. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kaihsu - Hayter 17:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Keep Being a "Green" person and being affiliated or supportive of a "Green" party are two different things. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 10:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Greenman 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Dustimagic 18:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:AutoCAD related articles

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

• Keep. I see no reason to delete this. Simply put [[Category:AutoCAD related articles]] inside the template. —gorgan_almighty 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We do not have, need, or IMO want, a template for every category. The category system already does what this template does, automatically. Categories don't require separate maintenance or human intervention for updates, nor do they add the server load templates do. Why does AutoCAD need a special template just for it's related articles? This isn't an article series; it's just some related articles. That's what links and categories are for. Is there a benefit we get from this template?
• Delete. Category is enough --kernoz 15:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Convert--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Doing no harm, I find both boxes like this and categories to be useful. — Wackymacs 08:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Consider {{NY-bt}}. That template does much more than just list the articles in a particular category. It gives structure to them and sorts them in a meaningful way, and adds related articles not in the category which are nevertheless useful references. When there are enough articles to warrant such organization, then I think a template is warranted. With just 4 articles and no clear ordering or subcategorization, I'm in agreement with those users not seeing the need for this template, the category does just fine. Delete. ++Lar: t/c 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox City Florida Broward County

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

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Keep because it is in use. Remove use and I will reconsider my vote. Adrian Buehlmann 14:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Keep I wouldn't call it meta-templated because we have some cities with seals and others without. This particular introduction is not available on Template:Infobox U.S. City. I have no interest in modifying a template to improve it that may have seven thousand articles which need to be changed, therefore I created a template that unifies cities in one particular county. The Template:Infobox U.S. City is presently insufficient for these articles. Using the original Template:Infobox U.S. City would in fact limit our ability on these articles. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 03:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Per what I just said below with the NH Infobox. karmafist 04:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Additional Comment: This request for deletion does not satisfy the rational for listing for deletion as listed above. The rational put forth by the proposer pretends to address number 2: The template is redundant to another better-designed template, however, this template incorporates more than the other one. ℬ 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Redundant, footnotes on Template:Infobox City can be used to add addtional information. — Seven Days » talk 21:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One-size-fits-all templates don't necessarily meet all needs. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox City NH

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

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

• Strong Keep Unlike many other states, New Hampshire has a wide variety of governments both in terms of towns and cities at the municipal level under NH RSA Title III, thus giving need for the creation of this infobox. karmafist 14:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep I echo the statement by karmafist, but would like to add that the Infobox U.S. City is lacking needed information which the NH Infobox has. Assawyer 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll be happy to add whatever information is missing from the main infobox. Such a subtle concern is no reason to fork this template. -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful and used. Adrian Buehlmann 08:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral pending resolution of question as to whether this functionality can be incorporated within Template:Infobox U.S. City. If so, delete. If not, keep. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 13:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep looks like that it cannot be integrated into the generic US city box without causing problems for all the rest.  ALKIVAR™ 14:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep.Gateman1997 18:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The Template:Infobox U.S. City modifications will require a substantial amount of changes before it can be adjusted to meet our areas' muncipalities unique and individual needs. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Redundant, footnotes on Template:Infobox City can be used to add addtional information. — Seven Days » talk 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep One-size-fits-all templates don't necessarily meet all needs. -- Dalbury

Template:Cuisine

This discussion is closed. Result is Keep --Adrian Buehlmann 18:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Giant, unnecessary template; no linkage or series involved; choice of links is subjective. --Neutrality^talk 05:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep No more harmful than, say Musicboxes as a topical template. Circeus 05:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No real reason to delete as far as I can see. It's used in multiple articles and has no simple alternative. - Cuivienen 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Circeus. --Loopy 21:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see a good reason to delete this template. --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm fed up of all these stupid nominations - It's used in several articles!!! What's wrong with it!? — Wackymacs 08:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A large number of userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions

• For convenience, I have listed the templates Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions.

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

• • This debate has been closed with a result of keep and continue to disucss policy on userboxes. -- Jbamb 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)