Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 13

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ShiningEyes (talk | contribs) at 08:18, 14 May 2006 (minor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< May 12 May 14 >

May 13, 2006

Template:Pokemonusermadeimages

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]

Template:ControversialArticle

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]

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]

Yet more userboxes

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]
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]
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]
  • Keep (not withstanding any specific argument I place at any below), these aren't hurting anything, Wikipedia is not paper. If you don't like them, don't use them. — xaosflux Talk 03:32, 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Strong Keep Oh but it's funny. ILovePlankton (T—C—U—L) 06:21, 14 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]

Template:User sumofpi

Template:User sumofpi

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]

Template:User Sumofpi2

Template:User Sumofpi2

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]

Template:User sum

Template:User 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]

Template:User carbon

Template: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]

Template:User benzene

Template: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]

Template:User clownfear

Template: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]

Template:User ignorant

Template:User ignorant

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]

Template:User mad

madThis user is a native speaker of Madurese.

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]

Template:User No Napoleon

Template: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]

Template:User paranoia2

Template: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]

Template:User Bermuda Triangle

Template:User Bermuda Triangle

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]

Template:User Martian ancestry

Template: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]

Template:User maybe ET

Template: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]

Template:User firearm

Template: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)

  • 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]

Template:user merc

Template:User merc

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]

Template:user Pillage

Template:User Pillage

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]

Template:user Tommy Gun

Template:User Tommy Gun

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]

Template:user Kalashnikov

Template:User Kalashnikov

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]

Template:user EBR

Template:User EBR

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]

Template:user pirate

 This user agrees that Pirates are better than Ninjas. Y'arr!

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]

Template:user Pirate

 This user participates in WikiProject Piracy.

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]

Template:Gee Bee Series

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]

Template:North Auckland Line

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]

All userboxes below

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.
  • Keep all. The reasons for the deletion of most of the userboxes makes it sound like all userboxes should be deleted based on the same reason. All this is doing is starting up another userbox war which is getting people who don't even know that userboxes exist involved. Douglasr007 02:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Ditto. If it's such a concern, tear the categories from userboxes. That will limit the options for the vote-stacking said to be resulting from these userboxes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep ALL Oh but it's funny. (I too do not like to vote 50 times) Friendly Neighbour 06:48, 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 06:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See full opinion at #Yet_more_userboxes.--DavidHOzAu 07:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinate

Template:User procrastinate

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]

Template:user procrastinate2

Template:User procrastinate2

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]

  • Strong Keep This really is a brilliant userbox. It won't be used in any serious way, is totally harmless and inoffensive, AND it makes me burst into laughter. Keep things light-hearted :) Russia Moore 07:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:user procrastinatea

Template: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]

Template:User Rotary Dial

Template:User Rotary Dial

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]

Template:User sellout

Template: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]

Template:User serviceable-no

 No user serviceable parts inside.

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]

Template:User Sheep Herder

Template:User Sheep Herder

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]

Template:User SNL

Template:User SNL

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]

Template:User stories

Template: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]

Template:User The Stig

Template:User The Stig

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]

Template:user used parts network

Template: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]

Template:User Who's On First

 This user knows Who's on First.

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]

Template:User zombie

Template: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]

Template:user your mom

Template:User your mom

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]

Template:User Dingbat

Template:User Dingbat

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]

Template:User Wombat

Template:User Wombat

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]

Template:User self test

Template:User self test

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]

Template:ILife

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]

Template:User Cowbell fever

Template:User Cowbell fever

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

Template:User love you

Template:User love you

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

Template:User Longcat

Template:User Longcat

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

Template:User IP

IPThis user's IP is 127.0.0.1.

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

Template:User IPv6

IPThis user's IP is ::1.

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]

Template:User SNL

Template:User SNL

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

Template:User sdrawkcab

Template:User sdrawkcab

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

Template:User asplode

Template:User asplode

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

Template:User iamalemming-en

 This user is a lemming, or at least thinks so.

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

Template:User iamafish-en

 This user is a fish, or at least thinks so.

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

Template:User LSOH

Template:User LSOH

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

Template:User Fatmouse

Template:User Fatmouse

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

Template:User MrDucky

Template:User MrDucky

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

Template:User MrDucky2

Template:User MrDucky2

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

Template:User MrDucky3

Template:User MrDucky3

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

Template:User Alien

Template:User Alien

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

Template:User alien

 This user believes aliens exist.

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

Template:User antiderivative

Template:User antiderivative

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

Template:User Cowbell +

Template:User Cowbell +

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]

Template:User Towel

Template:User Towel

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

Template:User Person

Template: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]

Template:User smartass

Template:User smartass

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

Template:User pirate

 This user agrees that Pirates are better than Ninjas. Y'arr!

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]

Template:User nj

Template:User nj

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

Template:User nj2

Template:User nj2

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

Template:User nj3

Template: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!

Template:User nj4

Template:User nj4

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

Template:User Chuck Norris

Template:User Chuck Norris

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_13&oldid=53124023"