Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 30



April 30, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television Black
This template is an unused black styled version of Infobox Television. The DJ 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Template won't work properly without css coding. Never going to be used. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (user request) Just another star in the night T 07:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Chad-Sudan
I made this but now realise there is already Template:Chadian-Sudanese conflict, please delete it, thank you. --Horses In The Sky 17:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete and agreed, thanks for posting it. The only user to maintain the suggested page also placed it here, and as such, I'd like to grant his/her request. Logical2u 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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

The result of the debate was delete Circeus 21:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Mexico infobox
Mexico infobox is a single-article infobox that recalls another template, just as World War II infobox did. / / User:Brendenhull (talk • contribs) | 12:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if not used except in one article. The rationale is similar to the United States info box, which is also not used. Nhprman 23:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


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


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

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux  Talk  14:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Hell
This is a blasphemous template, more wikipedians would probaly take offence to it than would beleive in it.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-
 * I disagree, Strong Keep. Religious and humourous userboxes are here to stay for the time being, until Jimbo Wales enforces his Febuary 20th decree. Please see the deletion review on this page for reasons as to why not to delete these. There is no discussion on this topic either, and this user is enforcing his personal beliefs. I see no need to delete these, and I encourage others to support freedom of speech and of personal beliefs on userpages, especially those considered humourous. Logical2u 12:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep unless a better rationale is proposed than "This is a blasphemous template"; the same rationale could be used to delete the Satanism, Atheism, or even Christianity (from different perspectives of what's "blasphemous") templates. Wikipedia is not censored to conform to any specific religion's beliefs, and its userpages even less so. A concrete and consistent userbox policy should be established before we start decreeing which usertemplates are or aren't acceptable, lest we turn Wikipedia into an arbiter of morality. -Silence 13:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep why it is blasphemous? The concept of Hell is an integral part of many religions.  Grue   14:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, what good reason is it for the template to go? Hell exists in all religions. What's wrong with it? --Ter e nce Ong 15:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * attempted to sneak this into Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 16 after closing next to Template:Joke new messages, and then added the template to the Holding cell to be deleted. Apparently "strict" means "dishonest".  A severe abuse of process!
 * This template was previously kept at Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions.
 * This template is listed at Userboxes/Religion.
 * This template is used by roughtly 150 users.
 * --William Allen Simpson 16:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not devicive or inflammatory. Crumbsucker 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, If it offends you, don't use it. Jamie Battenbo 19:22,`30 April 2006 (BST)
 * Keep Per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per all above. But let me reiterate: if you don't like it, don't put it on your userpage. rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 21:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, nothing wrong with it per all above. seems to be going around proposing the deletion of all userboxes that don't suit him/her, as for User not-Drug-free. Amusingly, this user is so strict that he/she is the only one in the Category:Strict wikipedians. Now that's a category that should be considered for deletion if I ever saw one. Iron C hris  |  (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I weigh in on this hesitantly. Generally, humorous Userboxes (and this IS kind of funny, I admit) do no harm, but it is a short leap from "User is going to hell" to "Rev.___ is going to hell" or "(insert world leader) is going to hell." All of this is not why Wikipedia exists, and it takes away from the mission of the project. Can I suggest cutting and pasting the template's text and placing it on your own user pages? Then, it's not a community issue, as ALL templates are, by their very nature. Nhprman 23:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep If this is deleted then I demand the deletion of all religious user boxes ever, they all offend me. This unsigned comment was added by Johnny Copper. Mistakes happen.
 * yeah t'was me, sorry everyone (Johnny Copper 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC))

And...c'mon, the definition "blasphemous" is ridiculous! --Hard Rock Thunder 16:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Blasphemousness is not a reason for deleting a template, but I cannot see how this is blasphemous. As an atheist, most Christians say I am condemned to Hell. Hence, Christians should be pleased I display this template in awareness of my grossly sinful condition. Mgekelly - Talk 23:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep unless every religion-related userbox is also deleted Mícheál 02:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete 'strict' does not mean dishonest (that is highly offfensive and I would like an apology), it is a relating to the fact that a siginificant portion of wikipedians are situated in the USA are are thus US style liberterians, also most Australian wikipedians are US oriented and thus are also of that type, shairng loose moral. I am a genuine middle class Australian with strict morals, for example, I am more serious about, in particular, vandalism that maybe deeply insulting, such as Nazi vandalism. In this case, I have no particular view on some belief related template, but if they are socially inapropriate, they are one of my most serious pet peeves.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 02:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
 * Note that this is the nominator. --Rory096 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, obviously a misunderstanding of the rules of deletion. Wikipedia is not censored for moral beliefs. --Rory096 03:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously delete "Wikipedia is not censored for moral beliefs." I consider this as being based on loose morals of US liberterians and US style liberterians elsewhere.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
 * Note that this is Myrtone's third vote. "Wikipedia is not censored for moral beliefs." This means your beliefs along with everyone else's. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 04:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hrmmm ... how about subst? This thing obviously doesn't belong in Template: namespace as it isn't encyclopedia-related.  That's simple policy.  But to avoid pissing off users, I could subst it everywhere it's used first.  That seems like a good compromise.  -- Cyde Weys  05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that actually a policy? Looking over Template namespace, I'm not seeing anything of the sort.  While I agree with you it would be nice if Template: was reserved for main namespace templates, the two possible actions as I see it from such a development would be either wiping out nom main-space templates (which would be massively wasteful as there are many many useful templates for Wikipedia: and User:) or creating [Namespace] template namespaces for everything, which also seems to be overkill. PoptartKing 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, I don't really see how this is polemic. PoptartKing 06:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. No question about it, it's not divisive, not likely to be used for "vote" solicitation, even if it includes a template --- in other words, keep unless all userboxes except WikiProject boxes are eliminated.  (This includes babelboxes.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Some of us may actually use this userbox as an indication that we actually believe we are going to Hell, not "based on loose morals of US liberterians and US style liberterians", whatever that means. --Rocketgoat 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and suggest nominator read Aucassin and Nicolette. Septentrionalis 05:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Absurd, just absurd. I take offense to people taking offense at my "hell" userbox. Skeletor2112 06:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Excuse me? You voted on your own proposal to have something deleted three times? That's just stupid. Obviously no one wants this userbox deleted, so you might as well forget about the entire prospect, pal. Burstroc 07:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think the nominator has made a strong enough argument for deleting this userbox, which, in my opinion, is not divisive enough to merit deletion, and is damned funny. I think the general consensus is that censorship because of a moral position is not cool at Wikipedia.Cerealkiller13 17:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Aw, for the love 'a... I for one am getting a little tired of people these days recoursing to the bonfire to expunge anything they don't like or find offensive. Don't like Christmas? Have it banned. Don't like the theory of Evolution? Get it bounced from the schools. Despise crucifixes, yarmulkes and Muslim head scarves? Forbid people to wear them. Don't like editorial cartoons? Just riot and threaten death upon the publishers until they stop printing them. Go through the local library and destroy any book you personally disagree with. Don;t dare ignore or gasp engage with a viewpoint you disagree with, because you'll end up contaminated. If we hold to that asinine standard, there is going to be nothing left, and we'll be left sitting upon the ashes of another Library of Alexandria, because I gaurantee you there is something that offends everybody. I will die before I let that happen. Pat Payne 21:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is meant to be funny, and I don't see what's so "blasphemous" or "offensive" about it. --Eastlaw 00:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, since this vote has been up for four days or so, and, with the exception of the nominator, there has only been one delete vote (and an explicitly weak one at that) and 23 keeps, can someone simply assume that the community consensus is keep and remove this? Cerealkiller13 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, just because it pisses off the Pat Roberson-style Christians. The Fading Light 01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Shawn 01:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep As per norm -- - K a s h  Talk 15:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Religious guys always want to set the rules, but this time I'll speak up. I don't see the problem for a christian to keep this userbox in Wikipedia: if you want, you put it in your page, if you don't want to, you let it be. I'm atheist, but since I see there are many christians in Wikipedia, I think it's right to have in Wikipedia christian Userboxes; the same way, christians should allow atheists to have their humorous userboxes.
 * Keep for the same reasons as user Pat Payne, plus I like the style of humour this template represents. --Dudo2 22:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep because its funny, and, ironically, sometimes true. GANDALF1992 00:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: How is this blasphemous? Obviously, slapping this userbox up on somebody else's page is rather unacceptable, but that's already the case for most other userboxes. I fail to see how stating an opinion about oneself is wrong, as opposed to stating an opinion about the universe or some supposed universal truth. ---Bersl2 05:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - obviously a lost cause, but what is the point? People speak of humor, but is that the purpose of wikipedia?  Not that talk pages can't include it...further it seems more likely to be used for vandalism than self-identification.  Is it possible to get stats on this?Timothy Usher 07:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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


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

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux  Talk  15:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:User not-Drug-free
I don't consider this template as socially appropriate, get rid of it!Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 14:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC):-(
 * I disagree, Strong Keep. If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this? Otherwise it seems like repression of free speech. Logical2u 12:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. But as long as we are all pretending it is, you are right - both pro and con boxes should be deleted. Nhprman 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If we delete both, yes, I agree with that. At the moment though I only put this here because it was in the same place as User-Hell above. I find offence with singling out on specific aspect of it. So if drug use and no drug use boxes are to be deleted, I agree to delete them both as divisive and sometimes too much of a politcal statement. Until that point becames the issue, I want to stand next to my earlier statement that for the time being these should be saved in that the user proposing for deletion hasn't really explained his terms nor followed proper procedure in deleting them. However, now I feel unvalidated and all sad and stuff. I guess what I'm saying is, I disagree with the procedure used to nominate this template, and this current debate should be closed for no delete, but I would vote the other way given the drug related ones for deletion. More explanations: Yes, isn't it socially appropriate? How can we know? It IS part of society. Is dividing wikipedia down the middle appropriate? Probably not.Logical2u 23:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC).
 * I see no problem with someone nominating the "no drug use" box for deletion, based on fairness, though I hope the nominator of that Userbox makes a more compelling case for deletion than lack of "social appropriateness." That's not a proper argument and I expect this template will be saved because to that. The nominator showed POV by nominating this one and not the other at the same time. Most nominations are for both sides of the argument. - Nhprman 18:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I don't understand. What about this template do you not consider acceptable? Drug use is an extremely common social behavior, and no more or less "appropriate" than any of the other self-identification templates. Keep in lieu of an explanation. -Silence 13:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it tells us more about the user, why should we delete it?  Grue   14:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, what is wrong for the user saying that he/she is drug free? --Ter e nce Ong 15:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep moved here from out-of-process attempt at deletion on
 * and
 * itself.
 * --William Allen Simpson 17:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not devicive or inflammatory. Crumbsucker 18:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; nothing wrong with it. Not drug free isn't divisive, inflammatory, provocating or insulting. In fact, it doesn't even specify "illegal drugs" (which in any case would be impossible considering the variations in laws between countries). Iron C hris |  (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep There is nothing socially inappropriate about this userbox. If you don't like it, don't put it on your userpage. rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 21:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all such templated Userboxes about divisive political and social issues, including this one. This encyclopedia isn't the place for political or social debates. That said, I'm not sure the nominator has gone about this the right way, procedurally, and his rationale ("socially unacceptable") is bound to unleash the very debate we're seeing here - a debate which is, itself, inappropriate and not what WP is all about. I do have to add that "it is so socially acceptable" isn't a very good debating point FOR keeping this template. Nhprman 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It doesn't seem to be espousing a viewpoint. — Cuivi é  nen  , Monday, 1 May 2006 @ 01:52 UTC 
 * "I am not drug free" is not a viewpoint? It doesn't provoke? Isn't it meant to? Sure it is. It's a template in order to meet other people who are also not drug free (and the anti-drug template is designed to work the same way.) Unfortunately, social networking is not why we're here on Wikipedia. Nhprman 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think that, then ALL userboxes can be seen as aiming to meet other like-minded people, not just this one. I have this template, and I can assure you that I have never even spoken to someone else who has it, nor do I intend to. And no, it is not aiming to provoke. It is a fact, just like being drug free is a fact, believing in god is a fact, liking chocolate is a fact. In this respect, it is no different from any other userbox. Iron C hris |  (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do believe that ALL Userbox Templates have the potential to draw us away from our primary goal here (editing an encyclopedia.) The fact that these are TEMPLATES allows for that social networking to take place. Even if you don't engage in it, many others do, and use these Templates to defend or delete friendly or unfriendly userboxes and form mini-tribes here. All, according to WP policies, is a distraction and not our primary mission here. On the other hand, if this message was simply written on your User page, very few would ever care. But create it as a template, and it becomes a legitimate community issue and ends up in debates like these. Nhprman 04:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - If it's deleted, we will just continue to use the content, and continue to make the statement. The userspace itself is not encyclopedic at all, it's for personal viewpoints and personal information. Trying to sterilize Wikipedia will only serve to waste time debating rather than contributing. -- Av ill ia  03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, obviously a bad faith nom. "[Not] socially appropriate?" --Rory096 03:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously speedy delete "If we allow "User drug-free" on wikipedia, why shouldn't we allow this?" Because one is more socially acceptable than the other, and I am getting a bit upset at other wikipedians behaviour towards me and my strict morals, In the real word there do exist social classes in some societies where this is perfectly normal and ani-moral judement (as is, unfortunaty, almost universal among wikipedians) can itself be a form of moral judgement.Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian) 04:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC):-(
 * It might be worth noting that this is the nominators vote. This anonymous comment comes from a lazy Logical2u


 * Hrmmm ... how about subst? This thing obviously doesn't belong in Template: namespace as it isn't encyclopedia-related. That's simple policy. But to avoid pissing off users, I could subst it everywhere it's used first. That seems like a good compromise. -- Cyde Weys  05:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Once you subst this one, then you'll have to go through substing every other similar template, of which there are at least twenty or so. Then you move into the ones related to this, and from that point it degrades into a mess of code everywhere. On top of all that, it will just encourage similar nominations like this, when the whole matter has already been discussed with an overwhelming consensus on keep. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 06:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or reword to something like "this user uses drugs" or something - right now it sounds combative. Just another star in the night T 07:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy (or Strong) Keep. No reason given to delete.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy (or Strong) Keep.I believe it is outrageous to even think about deleting these boxes. Some might put them up there to make a statement, but what about regular users like me who see it as just giving more information about ourselves, simply? What I mean is, if someone is able to put a box that say 'Im a level 2 singer' for example, then there is no difference for me between that box and this 'not drug-free' user box. Just because some dont agree with this practise should NOT mean that they be given the right to remove our possibility to communicate a useful, interesting fact about us on our personnal page (which is what it was designed for, was it not?)--DragonFly31 07:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it was not designed for any such thing. "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia. If you are looking to make a personal webpage or blog, please make use of one of the many free providers on the Internet. The focus of user pages should not be social networking, but rather providing a foundation for effective collaboration. - Nhprman 15:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In this case, coudnt the fact that I assert on my user page that I am 'not drug free' provide some other user with the view that I support drug use and therefore provide useful edits and points of views on the subject should it be needed, or should my help be requested on the subject? If the box is deleted, then it is very possible this may happen to man, many people. Particularly since Wikipedia is preparing and building a project on such a subject. This box IS 'providing a foundation for effective collaboration', just like most other boxes that exist.--DragonFly31 17:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with writing "I'm interested in articles on drugs and drug legalization" (or whatever) on your Userpage. Even if you use the Userbox, and "Subst" it, that solves the Userbox Template problem. Few people will have a problem with you saying this in some fashion on your page, and yes, that would be useful to those working on Wiki Projects. The problem comes when it's a template that's used as a tool to recruit other users who are pro-drug or anti-drug (or anti/pro abortion, immigration, EU, etc.) and then rally them to form tribes on Wikipedia to "fight" for these causes and prompt POV edit wars in support of them. That's not why we're here. Nhprman 18:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It appears as though you have a rather negative view of Wikipedians in general, if you think that this is what we're all out to do. Let's assume good faith, please. If you are so vehemently against userboxes overall, as you claim, may I suggest that fighting against one or two particular boxes, which seem to have overwhelming support, may not be the best use of time? These boxes exist currently and are both widely supported and used. No crime has been committed, no one is attacking anyone else. Is this really such an important problem? rom a rin[[image:Rosemary white bg.jpg|15 px]] [talk to her ] 18:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speaking of AGF, please don't assume my view of Wikipedians. Saying I have a "negative view of Wikipedians" doesn't even make sense. I guess I just don't have my head buried in the sand (perhaps willfully) when it comes to the games some Wikipedians are playing to "test the boundaries" of the project's rules and policies. The "crime" here is that these box templates are changing the nature of Wikipedia, and I have every right to point that out to people who are trying to hijack the project and turn it into myspace. And finally, just because the Wikipedia social network is working well, and people are "rallying" to these boxes makes no difference. I will continue to point out the error of their ways. Nhprman 04:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Although some Wikipedians do want to 'test the boundaries',form clans and change the site to their views MOST DO NOT! It is the reason why this site is one of the greatest that exists on the internet! NPOV is in itself a reason as to why Wikipedia is an incredible place of knowledge. Most users do not seek to destroy or unbalance that -- even when they do not agree with something. This is particularly true in this case. Why delete these boxes if knowledge is to be lost from it (because that WILL happen!), without Wikipedia benefiting in any way? Why be overly and unecessarily protective of a problem that can be taken care of swiftly if and when it arises? I have no overtly big plan to destroy drug free wikipedians! I just hope that one day, there won't be a need for conversations like this, so that the two life choices of being drug free or not won't matter or cause fuss!--DragonFly31 16:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I grant that many (if not most) are not out to test the boundaries. But many are. A Question: How is Wikipedia benefiting from knowing a user is "not drug free"? Or for that matter, that he/she "is drug free"? You're right about drug choices not mattering - both views DON'T MATTER in the Wikipedia project, unless a user plans on using the templated box to rally all other pro/anti drug users to advocate one or the other view or to simply "know" other Wikipedians who agree with them. Both goals are contrary to Wikipedia's mission and policies. If you truly have no intention to do this, will you agree that taking them out of the template space - while still allowing them on userpages as text-ified boxes - is a wise thing to do, since it ends the community-wide discussion of this issue once and for all? Nhprman 17:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I will certainly not let go of this box issue! If you grant that most Wikipedians are are not out to test the boundaries, then where is the problem? You ask, how does wikipedia benefit from knowing a user is not drug free. The answer is simple; Wikipedia benefits (and will benefit) from the use of these specific boxes by abling users that have questions or want to know more about drug use though first hand experiences or points of views to ask the members of the two 'sides' of the choice. Remember, boxes also allow list of people to come together (this is what you dispute-- it is what I am proud of,) not to fight to the death and create clans but rather create contructive knowledge, something that will be made more difficult by the destruction of the two boxes! As to when I say that drug choices dont matter, you've misinterpreted my view; what I meant was, I wished for a place where people won't create petty fights of absolute right and wrong about this issue, but rather place where both views could be debated peacefully without intend to crush one another. Deleting these boxes is one step in the wrong direction. Keeping them, one step in the right. One step towards a more complete and better Psychedelic Drugs' section, a project in the making that requires as much help as it can get.--DragonFly31 18:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're talking past one another. I actually didn't ask you to "let go" of the issue, I offered a solution that would end this seemingly endless bickering. The fact that "boxes allow lists of people to come together" is a bizzare perversion of Wikipedia's mission (hint: it's got something to do with editing an encyclopedia.) Please read the page "What Wikipedia is not" at WP:NOT. it is policy, not opinion. This is not a debating society or a social networking site, and wishing it was one and saying that over and over again won't make it so. - Nhprman 05:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that "boxes allow lists of people to come together" is NOT a perversion of Wikipedia. It is simply an asset that can be used to improve the quality and accuracy of articles in a very simple, direct and unthreatening way. The wish to remove such a tool for some people's moral grounds (as that can honestly be the only reason I can see to remove them, your argument that it incites people to harass rsch other in the form of clans being unfounded) is just ridiculous. Which is why you and I 'bicker' away. And will continue to do so for a while it seems. One last thing -- this user box IS, in my opinion, used to show EXPERTISE in a subject that requires it. It is NOT, when used by most users, used to provoke or offend. The user box 'Hell' gives more probability of offending a user and does not show any 'expertise' in any subject. Since most people in this page support a 'keep' motion, it makes sense to do exactly that. --DragonFly31 18:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's kind of unbelievable that "User not drug free" shows any expertise, other than perhaps in using drugs, and I still believe most users think it provokes anti-drug types quite nicely. The fact that people are "voting" in droves to "keep" this box doesn't mean it's good for Wikipedia. It means social networking works. Nhprman 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OF COURSE the user box 'not drug free' shows expertise in the field of using drugs! Just because it's something you don't agree on morally doesn't mean it is not an area where expertise is not needed! Again, a 'psychedelic' section is in construction in Wikipedia, where all types of drugs (depressants, deliriants and so on) are discussed, including their effects! I, personally, don't put it on to 'provoke' other users but to show that I have experienced the use of drugs, therefore could easily help write, correct or debate points on them. Let me remind you -- if you have a look through that 'psychedelic' section, drugs affect individuals in many areas and are connected with numerous other areas of knowledge, eg. different states of consciousness, dissolution of ego, used to trigger psychosis for study purposes, etc... The fact that people are voting 'keep' means that Wikipedia benefits, again, from the caring society it has relied upon in order not to let people's individual morals and opinions from getting in the way of opportunities to extend knowledge.--DragonFly31 16:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually haven't made a moral argument for or against this box, and either opinion is irrelevent (that's kind of the point I've been making.) WP is neither a caring, unjudging society or a judgemental, moralizing one. It's a NPOV encyclopedia. That's it. Still - as I've said about 42 times - feel free to put the coding or text of this box on your Userpage if you want to alert others to your drug-taking status and/or expertise in drugs if you wish. Just keep it out of template space and 90% of this discussion vanishes. - Nhprman 18:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True. We keep it out of template space and the problem goes away. But I am much too stubborn and tenacious to do so.--DragonFly31 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely impressed that you admit this. How refreshing! ;-) - Nhprman 20:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to let it go, until I saw the deletes are starting to increase in number. The reason why I am so much against deleting this box is simply because Myrtone stated the reason as 'socially inappropriate' for the removal of the template. The reason I love Wikipedia and come back every day is because people don't judge on what's socially acceptable; rather all ideas and thoughts are welcome, no matter how stupid, counterintuitive, or crazy. It is an extremely reliable source of information that is NPOV, so you can read about anything without being careful to pick out the undertones or insinuations. I can say what I want (within reason) and people are just going to discuss it. This is why it is pissing me off that this gets deleted. If it gets selected for deletion for another reason, some other day -- then yes, maybe. But not now. It would go against what Wikipedia is about.--DragonFly31 06:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the reason given by the nominator wasn't that great. To recap my position: My major concern is that this is a Templated Userbox. Cut-and-paste the text onto a Userpage and that problem goes away, because WP is not a social networking site, and not the place for debates on social issues. Nhprman 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Quoting from Userboxes, "Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, an online community. Userboxes are to help us create the best encyclopedia we can." Note the part that says "as a means to an end." You keep arguing that Wikipedia is not a social netoworking site, and it's not, but a small amount of social network is necessary to achieve the end result of being an online encyclopedia. The people using these boxes are merely identifying themselves as belonging to a specific group, drug users in this case. I would argue that the higher use userboxes (Christian, Atheist, Republican, Democrat, etc) have a much higher risk of violating the policy you keep referring to. This particular box, however, does not see such use and is far less likely to violate that policy. On top of that, there are far more frivilous boxes than this, like Template:User arrested no. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * First, that's not a policy page you're quoting from. It's also a misinterpreation of the quote. Wikipedia is an online community ONLY IN THAT it exists to edit an encyclopedia. It is in no other sense. You also neglected to quote from Jimbo Wales on that page. He said: "User boxes that are designed to provoke, offend, or reflect a POV rather than show expertise are generally discouraged." "User is not drug free" is designed to provoke, not inform or show expertise. Can't a person simply WRITE "I am part of the Legalization Wiki Project, dealing with issues surrounding banned drugs" or "I edit articles on the topic of drug legalization" on their Website - or create a code-only, non-Template Userbox with these messages? If all these boxes were NOT templates, and were simply text on User pages, the arguments here that they are simply identifiers and not an invitation to rally others against or for certain issues would be more convincing. Nhprman 15:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian." I realize that this isn't policy, but it's accepted practice. Also, Jimbo's quote here expresses concern over political and polemical (controversial) userboxes. I don't believe this qualifies as controversial. If anything, it's more of a joke template. This template hardly promotes conflict as you believe. There's less than 50 people linking to it. This template is no worse than the userbox on my page stating that "The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain." As a slight tangent, I do believe that quite a few people abuse the userboxes. I think they should be limited to a single line with maybe 10 at the most. The hundreds I see on userpages do annoy me. However, I don't feel that this one, low-use template needs to be deleted. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference here is that the Chuck Norris box is genuinely funny. Nhprman 04:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are obviously many people who want to use this - it is appropriate. It could be clarified a little though (Marijuana user vs. aspirin user) hobmcd 15.38, 1 May 2006 (BST)
 * The page it links to describes many legal ways a user can be "not drug-free." It's clear enough. Of course, a suboption could always be added to specifiy just what kind of "not drug-free" a person is. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep One users moral standing is not basis for deletion. Skeletor2112 06:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Give me a break. Burstroc 07:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Smoking spliff keep Give me a break too. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 20:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Socially innapropriate is not a valid argument in this case. And while divisive is, I don't believe that this particular box is a divisive as others.Cerealkiller13 21:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as arguing 'socially inappropriate' is the rationale Middle Schoolers use against people who kiss in public. --Shawn 01:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - the fact that there are no definitive boundaries on what's "socially appropriate" completely destroys his argument. --Cwiddofer 07:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Strong Strong Keep Myrtone, have you come to play the good man fighting the devil? You also want the deletion of Template User Hell, and now you attacked the not-drug-free! I agree with many others that if we delete this, then let's delete the drug-free one too. Anyway, I think they should both be kept.--Hard Rock Thunder 16:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Polemic userboxes don't belong in the template namespace. How exactly does this benefit the encyclopedia? Snoutwood (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 *  Strong Weak delete. I don't feel this has a place on Wikipedia, and personally, I don't wish to know about any drug issues people may have. It is a moral stance template as much as anything, and certainly not something the rest of us need to know. Ian13/ talk 18:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete along with its twin, User drug-free. These political userboxes do not help write an encyclopedia, and do not belong in the Template namespace.  These should be T1 speedy candidates. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per GTBacchus above.Timothy Usher 08:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both T1. JoshuaZ 16:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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