Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4



June 4, 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 -- Drini 00:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Bible
Redundent with Template:bibleverse, currently unused (was used by two articles, I changed them to bibleverse). Jon513 22:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete! File not even found. --QuizQuick 23:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which file was not found?? It worked for me. Ans  e  ll  01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete deprecated by bibleverse template. Ans  e  ll  01:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above. --Coredesat 05:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom. EVula 05:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, but I still don't know what that is... Reason: They're exactly the same except for that text at the bottom of Template:bibleverse. Random the Scrambled 11:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ansell, but this doesn't fall under any CSDs. --Rory096 21:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are they really "exactly the same"? Compare using template bible: with using template bibleverse: . --Lambiam Talk  05:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In purpose they are. There has been discussion though over whether even bibleverse is duplicating functionality of sourcetext. I see your point about sameness though and you have a precedent in the way that ISBN links work. They link to a page which is able to redirect them to any number of book storage or purchase facilities. Bibleverse only has the functionality to push things to one source through its fourth parameter. If someone demonstrates a situation where bible is more appropriate than bibleverse I will have to change my vote. Ans  e  ll  09:27, 7 June 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 -- Drini 00:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Round Lake Beach, Illinois
A metro-area template for a village of 25,000 in the metro area of Chicago. The larger "suburbs" listed are just about as large as it is, and some of the Wisconsin "suburbs" are located just as close to the 90,000+ city of Kenosha. Currently unused. HollyAm 20:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is unnecessary. --Coredesat 21:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. --QuizQuick 23:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. EVula 05:20, 5 June 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 -- Drini 00:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Mozilla 1.6
Unused, replaced by user browser:SeaMonkey. --Pmsyyz 17:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Redirected to non-version specific User browser:Mozilla --Pmsyyz 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Coredesat 21:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep not hurting anyone. --QuizQuick 23:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless SeaMonkey is the exact same thing as Mozilla 1.6, I don't see how the latter replaces the former. EVula 05:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep, per EVula. --Coredesat 05:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of use. Even its creator doesn't use the box, the related category is empty, and the Mozilla 1.6 article doesn't exist.  The current release of Mozilla appears to be 1.7.13.  The release of 1.6 goes back to Jan. 2004, I'm not sure that we're going to see new users of this. -MrFizyx 16:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I corrected the link from Mozilla 1.6 to Mozilla Application Suite (which is the proper article, regardless of version number). EVula 19:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unused and not likely to ever be used. Kusma (討論) 19:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. First off, there shouldn't be templates for specific versions of software except for where there is a GREAT difference between versions. (e.g. Windows XP and Vista, not Mozilla 1.5 and 1.6)  Second, Mozilla 1.6 should not be used by anyone because of unpatched security vulnerabilities.  Mozilla 1.7.13 is the latest stable release.  Mozilla 1.6 no longer receives security updates.  SeaMonkey is the successor to the Mozilla Application Suite.  In time there will be no more security updates for Mozilla 1.7. --Pmsyyz 20:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is not a general-purpose template; it's a UBX. Please don't nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 21:03, 11 June 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 For a change, I'll uphold official policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, '''Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site. Delete''' -- Drini 00:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Gangster
Wherever a user may live, this template clearly siginifies crime, in fact, it does seem logical to obide by international laws on wikipedia and not to create templates that signify crime, it's an angry face. Myrtone@Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4.com.au 02:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I mean come on stop being so sensitive.
 * I don't know about any internation laws, but this was created for humorous purposes. I seriously doubt that any wikipedia editors are actually gangsters. To take it with such seriousness is itself so ludicrous as to almost qualify as a strawman argument.Obvious Keep and ignore the strawmen. --God Ω War''' 02:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go with keep on this one. Although, I don't care that much either way.  It should really just read wannabe gangster. MJCdetroit 03:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's supposed to be funny. — Mi r  a  04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep C'mon, why is every other delete nom derived from having no sense of humor? EVula 09:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the nom is misunderstanding today's connotation of "gangster". --Osbus 13:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, why do we have to take humour so seriously? Can't an encyclopedia be humourous. --Ter e nce Ong 14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, this was kept in a TfD less than a week ago (I think... Certainly not long ago at all.) Renominating it almost the moment after isn't helpful to anyone. Grand  master  ka  19:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Okay, maybe I was wrong, but still keep. Who would take this seriously? (Well, I guess the nom did, so I dunno...)  Grand  master  ka  19:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  Serious speedy delete . If there realy aren't any gangster wikipedians than this template is clearly only for glovepuppets and not very cleaver humour. Myrtone@Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 4.com.au 22:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per EVula. QuizQuick 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep some of us are willing to die for our colors. Give Peace A Chance 02:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I think its funny, not many gangster frequent this site probably anyways. Not all the userboxes are serious User:superbowlbound
 * Delete - Previously, User:Nazi was deleted, as was User:Fascist, with the rationale: "Those people aren't the type of people editing here anyway." If that's the precedent that was set, then we certainly don't want thugs, extortionists, and murders (i.e. Gangsters ) editing here either, or even those proclaiming themselves to be such. - Nhprman List  03:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC) (p.s. If gangsters ARE editing here, the've really let their own article go to seed. It's horrible.)
 * Speedy Keep. It's clearly meant as a joke, not some sort of crime advocacy; why are all the funny userboxes being nominated for deletion? CameoAppearance 10:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because they think that Wikipedia should never make people laugh. Random the Scrambled 11:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per EVula and CameoAppearance. Random the Scrambled 11:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The angry face is no longer on the template, so the reason proposed for deletion is moot.--M @ r ē ino 13:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I guess. I assume they really mean they are a gangsta. -MrFizyx 16:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep. irony is assumed. frymaster 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. ~ PseudoSudo 19:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This was kept in a TfD about a week ago. --Rory096 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stop deleting userboxes, it's supposed to be funny >_< Don&#39;t give an Ameriflag 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close. This survived a TfD last week, this one shouldn't even have been posted. --Coredesat 06:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep seriously, this is harmless. Mike McGregor (Can) 14:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keepThis is a no-brainer. Being a gangsta doesn't mean you can't contribute positively. This is racism. I have it on my own page.--Bonafide.hustla 20:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Guns are not illegal -- whether you like it or not. Nor is it a crime to belong to a gang. This is not a general-purpose template; it's a UBX. Please don't nominate in-policy UBX. John Reid 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 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 Speedily Close as a defective listing. See my comments at the other TfD for this, which I have also just closed, on the June 5th Log. Xoloz 17:22, 5 June 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 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 For a change, I'll uphold official policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site: Delete -- Drini 00:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes
User:Dtm142/User no evil boxes&#160;( [ edit]&#160;discuss&#160;[ links]&#160;[ history] )

Serves no useful purpose and seems to be an ad for a specific person.QuizQuick 01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC) QuizQuick 16:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming this is a poorly formatted nomination. If it is a nomination of some sort, it is invalid, as the "template" being nominated is actually located in userspace. — Mi r  a  04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close nomination per MiraLuka. --Coredesat 09:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's certainly a userbox according to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes
 * Whether it is a userbox or not is not at issue. It is not a template, and this is templates for deletion. If you wish to pursue this, take it to WP:MFD. — Mi r  a  16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Max S em 18:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this back from MfD, it sounds like a TfD issue to me Computerjoe 's talk 18:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How can it be a TfD issue if it's not in template space? — Mi r  a  23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, quite a few people work by the "if it walks like a template, it's a template" policy, which has had pretty good acceptance for a while. With all the userboxes migrating to userspace, there's a lot of explaining that has to go on.  Be prepared to repeat yourself a lot. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved it to MfD, per Mira's suggestion. --QuizQuick 23:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is precisely what Jimbo suggested doing with userboxes: getting them into user space. Nothing is out of order with this userfied userbox template.  It has no encyclopedic value that I can see, but it's consistent with allowing "wide latitude" in user space. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If we're going to do this here (I'm very confused now), then let me add this Keep in case it wasn't clear from the comments above. — Mi r  a  23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is in user space, which even Jimbo has said should be given more leeway.  See The German solution  for reasoning.  How many ?fD lists to I have to keep track of?  --StuffOfInterest 00:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably two or three, until things settle down. Ripples take a minute to spread, and rebound, and eventually blend in as normal.  I think it might make more sense to use MfD for userfied userboxes, seeing as we'll be applying userspace rules to them, and MfD is more accustomed to that.  I imagine if someone disagrees, they'll say something... -GTBacchus(talk) 00:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per rfar/Tony Sidaway. Kotepho 02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, Kotepho, what do you mean by rfar/Tony Sidaway? Please note that this is located in userspace, so any NPOV, T1, etc. arguments do not apply. Charon X /talk 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway. User: is not some holy ground where no rules apply, as you seem to think. Kotepho 16:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not a template. We have no power to delete it through this process.--M @ r ē ino 13:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 1) Located in userspace, not templatespace. Not a template. Wrong process. 2) Nomination says Serves no useful purpose and seems to be an ad for a specific person - not a good reason for deleting stuff from userspace, and can't really understand the "ad for a specific person" part. Please clarify. 3) POV and personal stuff is given leerway on userpages. 4) "Userboxes" in userspace might be the solution to the userbox issue, see The German solution. Charon X /talk 13:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Relist on MfD. I have no opinion on the template one way or another but since it isn't a template, this is out of process.  Powers 13:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't belong here. as stated above by many. In any case it shouldn't be deleted by this process, so I suppose I need to make a point of saying keep. -MrFizyx 15:58, 5 June 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.