Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates/Archive 1

What Jimbo actually wrote

 * ''I wonder if you might consider simply removing your political userboxes and asking others to do the same. This seems to me to be the best way to quickly and easily end the userbox wars.


 * ''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 think rather than us having to go through a mass deletion (which is what is likely to happen if the userbox fad doesn't go away), it will be better to simply change the culture, one person at a time. Will you help me?--Jimbo Wales 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I therefore propose the following language to qualify T1:
 * Unless there is some unusual circumstance, which should be noted at WP:ANI, deletion under this rule should be preceeded by
 * Discussion with the author or transcluder of the template, or
 * Modification to NPOV, e.g. changing This user supports X to This user is interested in X.
 * Templates which may or may not fall under this criterion should be sent to TfD.

Regards, Septentrionalis 05:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support such a change. Deco 07:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I also support this, particularly the last line (which I would italicise for emphasis) - I've seen too many DRV/U discussions where there is clearly no consensus whether the template falls under the speedy criteria or not, only to have the deleter say "it doesn't matter about consensus if I think it is divisive then it gets deleted". Having a devisive template discussed for a week is less harmful than a vitriolic deletion review. Thryduulf 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support qualifying language, within reason, the criteria should be fairly easy to apply without having to fire up your internal parser. As for Jimbo's exact message I am thinking that a footnote giving it might be the best way to show it. But consensus is, in my view,forming around making T1 more precise and having it state the broadness that we're seeing in practice.  +  + Lar: t/c 10:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am nervous about instruction creep with T1, but I think a big part of the problem with T1 is how its every use inflames the contributors using the affected template. It'd be nice if there were at least a friendly suggestion that it be used only as a last resort after more diplomatic means have failed, such as rewording the template or talking to the user. Deco 15:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not proposing to include Jimbo's words; although a linked subpage is an idea. Septentrionalis 18:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this suggestion is a very good idea. We will save ourselves a lot of angst in the long run if everyday users who happen to have these userboxes and haven't been following the debate (believe me, they do exist!) are politely informed about a template's deletion and the reasons for it before they notice a redlink on their user page and get upset about it.  I would even support a further emendation, that any user page which still has a template transcluded onto it at the time that template is deleted under T1 should be subst'ed with the raw code of that template.  If we're going to do this, let's not let it be New Year's all over again. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course; I should have thought of the subst requirement. (Although for I hate X boxes, this increases the necessity for discussion also.) Septentrionalis 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am strongly opposed to T1. More broadly, I am strongly opposed to userbox deletionism. Those userboxes do not hurt anyone, they do not harm the project, and more importantly, they have no impact on the encyclopedia content. Whatever it is you think that makes them "bad for the project", it's in your head. More importantly, whatever it is you think "it means to be a Wikipedian" is entirely in your head. That remark smells of repressive dictatorial sentiment and does not earn you credibility. If you do not have the tolerance to let people decide for themselves what it means to them to be Wikipedian, then you are the wrong person to dictate any policies, rules or guidelines in defiance of community concensus. Now please stop this bickering and let the people who want their userboxes have them. &mdash; Timwi 19:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. If you decide that what it means for you to be a Wikipedian is to participate in partisan politics at Wikipedia, for example, then you're just wrong, and have to go. You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia is whatever each user decides it is.  That's utterly irresponsible, and implies a complete abandonment of focus on the task at hand, which is writing a free, neutral encyclopedia.  Oh, and that smell of repressive dictatorial sentiment - it's entirely in your head. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have entirely misunderstood me, and misrepresented me accordingly. Firstly, just because someone puts a userbox on their userpage doesn't mean they "participate in partisan politics". That's ridiculous. Suggesting that having userboxes even allows people to turn Wikipedia into "whatever each user decides it is", is even more ridiculous. Furthermore, I never said any such thing. &mdash; Timwi 00:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Change in T1
(Per GTb just above...)

I have so changed it to use the exact wording. See this version, under the Bold-revert-discuss paradigm. Revert me if you must but it's time we move to this level.  + + Lar: t/c 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would just like to remind everyone at this point that T1 refers to all templates, not just userboxes, and it has been used to justify the speedy deletion of templates that were not userboxes. Even if the language is changed to apply only to userboxes, Lar's new wording allows for the speedy deletion of Babelboxes (which up till now have generally been considered "good" userboxes) for levels xx-0 through xx-4, since stating which foreign languages one has chosen to learn (and therefore which ones one has not chosen to learn) certainly expresses "personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions" and in some cases even "viewpoints on controversial issues". Angr (t • c) 16:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but if so, it's a price to be paid that I'm willing to pay, and I suspect others are too. The wording could be revised to exclude those, but I think there's merit in using Jimbo's words as is.  + + Lar: t/c 17:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you have to do unreasonable backflips to interpret "I speak language X" as "I am expressing a political viewpoint." So I disagree with you that this impacts babelboxes.  If we wanted to be super-careful, we could specifically carve an exemption for them, but I don't think it's necessary. Nandesuka 17:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There are certain situations where saying "I speak language X" is practically synonymous with "I am expressing a political viewpoint". For example, if a user from Northern Ireland says "I speak Irish" or "I speak Ulster Scots", their political affiliations will in most cases not be difficult to discern. Likewise "I speak Greek" vs. "I speak Turkish" for a user from Cyprus. I don't want to "carve out an exception" for the Babelboxes; I want everyone to be aware that Babelboxes can be every bit as "inflammatory and divisive" as any userbox already speedied under T1. Angr (t • c) 20:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Xaosflux reverted with the edit summary: ''rv "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." Signifigant policy changes should be discussed (in depth) first''.

Xaosflux, are you reading this page? How has this not been discussed in depth? The very impetus for this particular edit was the emerging consensus at WP:DRV/U. Please state your objection to Lar's version. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I subscribe to 1RR so I will not revert back, I leave that to others. But I think the conensus was pretty clear. This broadening is, IMHO, a change whose time has come.  + + Lar: t/c
 * I will not revert this again either, although I 'strongly disagree with it for the reasons I've listed below. Apparently someone else has already reverted it again, if it goes again it seems to be a demonstration that consensus has not been met. —  xaosflux  Talk  17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict note)I've reverted "Templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory. (Note that this criterion was established with an endorsement from Jimbo Wales and now uses his exact wording.)" <-- that change to T1. It is too broad, just because a template expreses a controverisal issue does not mean it has no use. We have plenty of articles about controversial issues, this would go so far as to mean a navbox between several related controverisal articls would be speedily deletable in my interpertation. This is a criteria for all templates, not about "userboxes" If this change is trying to be specific to "userboxes" the best place to establish it's change would be in a userbox policy, IMHO. — xaosflux  Talk  17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * (double edit conflict) e.g. Template:Christianity is a "template that expresses an ideology", is it not? It doesn't support or condone it, but it expresses it. —  xaosflux  Talk  17:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that I changed T1 from PART of Jimbo's wording to ALL of it. Arguably not an intent change, just a clarification that gets rid of the wiggle room that causes so much trouble. As for a userbox policy, been there, done that, got the tshirt, that dog don't hunt. People are speedying these things and I argue that the broadened T1 I put up is what they are using. I vehemently disagree with that because it's out of process, and yet I agree with their reasons for doing so. How to fix it? RfAr all of them for doing what is probably right? No. Change the criteria so it supports their actions. That gets to the right outcome and keeps us process wonks happy. ALL that said, I still dispute that this change doesn't reflect emerging consensus. If others agree I invite them to support this view with discuussion. (not votiing because voting is evil)  +  + Lar: t/c 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful to include a link to his statement, but I do think the templates described (an infobox for example) would really meet it. If the template used in an article already expresses a view, it probably should be at least NPOV'd. Also, can we archive some discussion off of this page? Kotepho 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up on WP:VP, I forgot about it... as for Template:Christianity, it's used in mainspace. I doubt it would pass TfD much less CSD. Yes technically you could argue it expresses an ideology but I think it's a bit of a stretch. I don't see it as expressing, merely describing. No attribution to any person is intended.  + + Lar: t/c 17:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Christianity is part of the encyclopedic content, and let's be honest, T1 isn't made to deal with encyclopedic content. -- Cyde Weys  17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Template:Christianity doesn't express anything; it's a signpost to related articles. That's encyclopedic.  "This User is a Christian" expresses something personal, and non-encyclopedic.  There's no danger of confusion there - it's a red herring. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur with GTBacchus - there's a world of difference between "this is part of a series of articles on X" and expressing value judgements on X. The first is part of making the encyclopedia feel cohesive and nice. The latter is part of the messy stuff we've been dealing with. A good way to understand the difference is
 * Does the template talk about its author/user specifically?
 * Does the template invoke a value judgement? (this can get slightly fuzzy in some cases)
 * Is the template intended for userspace or for articlespace?
 * Does the template make the encyclopedia better (in a way unrelated to the "toss users a bone" argument)?
 * --Improv 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * T1 doesn't say anything about an exception being made for "encyclopedic content" (a concept not defined anywhere in Wikipedia AFAIK). Template:Christianity is a perfect example of a non-userbox template that has been made speediable by the new wording of T1. Angr (t • c) 20:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you suggest a different wording that still carries the power of Jimbo's words but does allow for commonsense exceptions (since you feel it's deletable under T1. I don't, really, but if there is a clarification that works and retains the wording strength... I'd support it)?  + + Lar: t/c 21:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I can't. I don't think there is any wording that will uniquely capture the intent behind T1, because that intent is both subjective and arbitrary. And although I have objected to your new wording, it should be clear I was never a fan of the old wording either. The true intent behind it always seemed to be "any userbox any admin doesn't like", although it was always worded in such a way as to applicable to non-userboxes as well. And indeed the only templates I have ever argued should be deleted under T1 were used in article space. Angr (t • c) 22:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, no. How does Template:Christianity "express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues"?  That's nonsense.  It's a big table of "see also" references.  How does Jimbo's wording spill over and make any encyclopedic template speediable - I just don't see it. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion is a result of two different meanings of "express". The slightly broader meaning is to "show sign of" or "provide information about", but that's clearly not the one that is meant. The definition we want is closer to the "profess" meaning. I don't think that, provided precident is set properly by initial application of the expanded rule, we'll run into problems. I don't think the four clarifying questions I ask above are too far off the mark either. Even if what is encyclopedic is controversial in some areas, it is pretty clear that in this case, it's fine -- I don't think that anyone could say that providing bumper stickers are part of the goal of an encyclopedia. The vast majority of userboxen are simply that -- self-expression in the style of bumper stickers, and not helpful (often harmful) to our goals. I think the chance of confusing the Template:Christianity thing to "Template:User Christian" is negligible. If there is grey ground here, it's not particularly easy to see. --Improv 22:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the definition of "express" you choose, Template:Christianity expresses all sorts of personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, and viewpoints on controversial issues. It includes the Trinity as part of Christianity, though some Christians do not believe in the Trinity. The section on the Bible excludes the Book of Mormon. It lumps all of Eastern Christianity into "Orthodox Christianity" while splitting all of Western Christianity into "Catholicism" and "Protestantism"; there are lots of Christian denominations that would not consider themselves as belonging to any of those three. Sounds pretty inflammatory and divisive to me. Angr (t • c) 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not express any personal commitments such as "I am a Christian" or "I support Christianity". That is the kind of thing we don't want a template to say. Or at least I hope we can agreement that that is the sort of thing now considered speediable that should be expressed in T1. The words I suggested yesterday still seem to me to make the distinction we want, but I'm prepared to see better formulations. Metamagician3000 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We all know what we mean - this is just words lawyering - but how about: User templates that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues, or any other templates which are otherwise divisive or inflammatory. - that seems a reasonable clarification of Jimbo's words. --Doc ask?  00:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would happily support that tweak, it's a good clarification.  + + Lar: t/c 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Doc's proposal is very good. Nandesuka 01:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Any change along those lines has got to be better than the current words. And if it is just wikilawyering about precise formulations in the future, then we can either shrug it off or continue to fine tune. Someone going to be bold enough to make the change or do we await a broader consensus? Metamagician3000 01:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it currently has "my" wording. ;) Well, I for one won't object if someone boldly tweaks it. Metamagician3000 01:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In for a penny, in for a pound. Tweaked.  + + Lar: t/c 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Angr, regardless of whether I think these things are inherently deeply problematic or not with Template:Christianity, I do appreciate that that statement does provide enough information to move the conversation forward. I might guess that we should overinclude rather than underinclude, even if that means potentially offending people. If, for example, some followers of Orthodox Judaism were to say that Reform Judaism is not really Judaism, I don't think we should feel that it's getting involved in that struggle over the meanings of words to include a link in a Template:Judaism. A preference to overinclude when it comes to contention over definitional content will probably serve us well. --Improv 03:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

All right. Now we await the community's judgment as to whether we had adequate consensus here, and generally whether this will stick. I think we've done the right thing and that some wording like this should have been adopted from the beginning. Still, the events of the past few months have taught us what was needed. Metamagician3000 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, how does this proposal differ from the one roundly rejected in January, at ; Templates for deletion/userbox templates concerning beliefs and convictions? Septentrionalis 04:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the resemblance. The intitiative taken here involves a change of policy not a vote on a bunch of userboxes under existing policy, and the circumstances are now quite different. E.g,. there's now been plenty of time for people to userfy and customise their userboxes and generally come to grips with the fact that sooner or later these sorts of userbox templates would cease to be accepted. Metamagician3000 06:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting, as this actually covers something like "This user thinks that pink is for girls." (and that actually did get tagged as a CSD under T1), or even "This user's favorite color is blue," which expresses a personal belief. This is far too broad, and I don't see any real consensus for it. --Rory096 06:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this back, but I don't want to get into a revert war over it. Just think, though, before you keep reverting, why would we want a userbox expressing either of those opinions in template space? If someone wants to tell us their favourite colour, by all means let them do so on their userpage (which could be by way of a customised userbox). But this is not what template space is for, and I'm still betting that there is now a rough consensus about that, at least among those who care about the issue and the project. Metamagician3000 07:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Templatespace is not articlespace, it's not like it has to be encyclopaedic content. We could have a Userbox: space too, but nobody wants that. --Rory096 07:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's do a straw poll or something.  Grue  11:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not. Policy pages are not legislation - they are a record of what actually happens. T1 is being interpreted in this way, and a growing consensus is endorsing such deletions. So update this page to reflect consensus. Polls are evil --Doc ask?  12:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This wording is an improvement in one respect: it is much less subjective, so there will be greater agreement about when it applies.
 * However, there was 88% consensus against deleting such templates in January. The discussion now underway at WP:UBD about Template:User Christian looks to be about even (and most of the advocates of the present policy have already voiced their opinions). There is no consensus on this policy; if it is forming, it has not yet formed. Septentrionalis 18:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because you and some other admins interpret it this way doesn't mean you have the right to change policy to suit your needs. This kind of proactive policymaking is unacceptable. I won't even comment such silliness as "growing consensus". There either is one or there isn't one.  Grue   20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to reinforce my point that if T1 is going to be useful at all, it should not be restricted to userboxes: just today, User:Freakofnurture quite appropriately speedy-deleted Template:Axis of Evil (a box consisting of "Iraq (former member) – Iran – North Korea") under T1. Rather than using T1 to whack userboxes, let it do its useful work of eliminating inflammatory and divisive templates from article space. Angr (t • c) 20:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to have separate criteria for templates in user and article space, so that we can draw each as narrowly as possible. I've edited T1 to say 'User templates.' Maybe we could have a T2 saying initially about the same thing, but 'Article templates,' and see how it develops. Tom Harrison Talk 20:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I would endorse the view that there is no consensus for any version of T1 at this time, so that it should be completely removed from this page. I think it would be possible to develop a more limited consensus for adding language akin to "Templates used only in user space that describe a user, are inflamatory, and that express more about personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues than would help another editor to understand the using user's point of view." Then we could have a separate T2 that functions as Angr describes above "Templates used in the main space that are divisive, inflamatory, or inherently POV." 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GRBerry (talk • contribs).
 * Endorse that a community consensus does not exist at this time. — xaosflux  Talk  21:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, of course it doesn't, but that doesn't matter. Jimbo himself readded T1 after it had been deleted, and whether we like it or not, Jimbo's actions trump consensus at Wikipedia. Angr (t • c) 21:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The criterion Jimbo readded is not the present text, which is far more sweeping (and much more workable as a speedy criterion.) Septentrionalis 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and in the absensce of both consensue, or any update from Jimbo, I would suggest it remains as it was at that point, namely "Templates that are divisive and inflammatory." Regards, MartinRe 21:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You would honestly remove our only speedy deletion criteria? So no matter what someone puts in a template, it would have to go through the rigamarole of WP:TFD?  What if someone made a template whose sole content was "Fuck all Wikipedians up the ass"; we can't speedy that?  Don't be ridiculous.  -- Cyde Weys  22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a misrepresentation. The general criteria would still apply. Do please try not to confuse this with straw men. Septentrionalis 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Such a template would of course be speediable under G3. Angr (t • c) 22:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm weighing in either way, but the eight General criteria apply to Templates too... &mdash;Wh o  uk (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Endorse all opinions that the General provisions apply to all pages, and would easily cover a template stating "F*** all Wikipedians up the a**" just as they would support removing someone typing that on their userpage. — xaosflux  Talk  23:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus whatsoever to support CSD:T1. But, Jimbo overrides any consensus as and when he wishes. I completely agree with the Grue above - there are several drastically bad userbox speedies happening, and it is getting worse. Stifle (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then he should certainly be notified of any change; such as the one made yesterday. Septentrionalis 22:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is being discussed on the English Wikipedia mailing list, to which Jimbo subscribes. It's up to him whether he wants to get involved any further or exercise the option of masterful inactivity. Metamagician3000 00:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Does moving userboxes to userspace solve any problems?
I started a conversation about Moving userboxes from Template space to User space. Does this solve any problems discussed here, or is it just rearranging deck chairs? Rfrisbietalk 19:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In my view it does. Especially if images and categories are removed at the same time and if users are asked to subst or use userbox rather than transcluding each other's pages. Those all cut off avenues for easy votestacking (yes, votestacking is still possible, but harder).  + + Lar: t/c 19:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, is "votestacking" the underlying issue (or at least a primary one)? If so, does this potential threat outweigh the potential benefits of "community building"? Rfrisbietalk 20:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Some of the problems it solves are: a)makes it more difficult to vote stack as attached categories are removed. b)moves all potential POV text into userspace. c) removes the edit war possibility, as everyone's userbox is independent.
 * I think converting all the templates to  would do a lot to help, as currently many templates are subst's to raw html, which makes users likely to revert the subst. I think if it was substs to userbox templates, it would not be as complex (it's wiki format) but yet would move it out of template space. Also, I think if we were to encourage this method, it would be better to re-write WP:UBX to use userbox format (except in cases of very offical templates), to try and stem the tide first, before trying to reverse it. Regards, MartinRe
 * Okay, since there's no technical reason why a userspace userbox can't be categorized, I assume deleting categories is another issue. IMHO, that seems to be getting closer to the heart of the issue, at least in terms of the votestacking concern.  However, categories have a tendency to be more neutrally worded, e.g., "Wikipedians interested in bla, bla, bla" even when the userbox might say something with a more POV tone.  From this perspective, they serve two highly useful (also IMHO) purposes for writing content - networking around a topic and community building.  Attempts at wholesale banning of the communication functions userboxes serve through deletions of the boxes and categories out of votestacking fears is like trying to ban cell phones because terrorists use them. The potential costs of overly restricting these communication tools far outweigh the potential benefits of responsibly using them in an open environment such as this...IMHO. ;-) Rfrisbietalk 21:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * p.s. Moving userboxes from Template space to User space demonstrates that "moving userboxes to userspace" does not necessarily make userboxes independent. They still can be transcluded (if that's the proper term for it).  Maybe it's just me, but looking for ways to handcuff the use of an available technology intended to facilitate collaboration seems a bit odd to me. Rfrisbietalk 21:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As it happens, I've been working on extra features for my userbox substing script. One of these is the ability to automatically convert ("un-subst") an existing userbox template back into a tidy Userbox call. It's not perfect yet, but it already works more than half the time — it should be able to handle any userbox that was originally created using Userbox, Userbox-r or Userbox-2, but a lot of userboxes have nonstandard modifications that have to be allowed for. I've got some plans for a more robust version which I'll try to implement after the weekend. (Pathoschild also has an AWB-based solution at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Userboxes.)

Basically, I started thinking that it might make sense to start a project to subst all the userboxes "that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues" in one pass. This would be much more efficient than doing them one by one, since the time required for script-assisted substitution scales proportionally to the number of user pages edited but is mostly independent of the number of boxes substed on each page. I have no desire to force this thing through in a hurry — but if the criterion I quoted above sticks, I feel it'd be better to subst the boxes before people start deleting them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

CSD:Tx
I may have gone out on a limb here, and will not revert this change if removed by any registered user, but it seems that Jimbo's addition of T1 is not really the problem here, it is an expanded definition for userboxes, and arguing over it may unintentionally damage the original intent. To that end, I've restored T1 to a version placed by Jimbo, and forked all of the user template related items to T2. This does NOT mean that I endorse this version, just that there seems to be a pretty good community consensus on how normal templates should be dealt with. — xaosflux  Talk  00:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The distinction is useful and should be kept. If we decide on one of them, we can always comment the other out. Septentrionalis 02:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that! I'm fine with this change into two criteria if it makes things clearer. I liked the note about things being speedied needing to go to TfD if they get undeleted, till this comes to rest, although I'd rather see them go to DRV.  + + Lar: t/c 01:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I support T1 as a criteria for speedy deletion. I absolutely oppose T2 as a criteria for speedy deletion. I think we could craft a significantly more restrictive version as a criteria for deletion, but not as a CSD. GRBerry 01:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think both should be criteria for deletion. The problem with T1 is that reasonable editors will (and have often) disagreed on what it covers; producing much of the chaos now with us. Septentrionalis 02:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as T2 goes, the goal is WP:NPOV, not the elimination of userboxes. If doing something as simple as changing "likes/doesn't like" to "is interested in" eliminates the speedy deletion issue, then even attempting to have a speedy deletion policy appears to be the real issue in this case. Just clarify the usage guidelines for Userboxes with this type of syntax, put AWB on the case and be "done" with it. This is an opportunity for education on NPOV, don't make it a demonstration of intolerance. Rfrisbietalk 02:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It smacks a bit too much of instruction creep for my taste, but I'm going to treat the proposal with respect and not revert without seeing more discussion. It's obviously a good faith effort to advance consideration of the issue. Metamagician3000 03:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed some statements which appeared to be of a generic nature (xfd is always an option). I also think that the section "it would be civil..." is unnecessary and somewhat patronising. I think it should probably be removed. --Tony Sidaway 13:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * These are largely Jimbo's recommendations; if they had been generally followed, there would be less ill-feeling now. Please reword to adjust the tone. Septentrionalis 13:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've done that since Tony's remarks - and I've tried to keep the intention intact.--Doc ask?  13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that's too weak; it's certainly weaker than Jimbo was. How about We recommend? Septentrionalis 14:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Things have moved on, the writing has been on the wall for a long time, etc., etc. I do not condone the mass userbox deletions that happened in the past, of which I was one of many innocent victims, or the shenanigans with the "User Christian" userbox. But there has now been ample time for people to adjust to the idea of not having these things in template space. I think we all just have to accept that concept and make it official. Jimbo didn't say to stop taking strong action forever.


 * I say that we should keep the criteria as simple as possible. I do hope admins will show some sensitivity and take action to substitute, etc., before deleting, when it is practical, to try to look after people who don't know about all these debates. That will have to be a matter of discretion, though; this shouldn't turn into a new nightmare with all sorts of procedural challenges to people who are essentially doing the right thing. We have to trust admins to administer this with good sense. Metamagician3000 14:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Metamagician3000 100%. The train has left the station.  Current practice is that any userbox template that expresses political, religious, or similar opinions may be speedily deleted.  The CSD need to reflect that practice.  Any formulation which ignores this reality is unacceptable. Nandesuka 16:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this ("current practice is that any userbox template that expresses ... similar opinions may be speedily deleted") even true, and does it have consensus?   I don't think it is true, but that's only my impression from the pages I watch.  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  16:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

T2 is a special case of T1. As such, it either should be renumbered to T1.1 or the terms "divisive and inflammatory" should be inserted, notwithstanding Nandesuka's revert and justification of "current practice." Practice should follow policy, not the other way around. Rfrisbietalk 16:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, policy pages are supposed to reflect practice, not the other way arround. --Doc ask?  17:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? That's interesting. I'll go and speedy delete all articles relating to France now, and then come back and write a new speedy criterion A9 "Articles relating to France", shall I? Angr (t • c) 17:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You missed the part where we're editing an encyclopedia, and not myspace.com. Nandesuka 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't miss that part. We're discussing the userspace portion of the encyclopedia. Not one bit of information on anyone's user page has any relevance to the encyclopedia. Not yours, not mine, not Jimbo's, no one's. Either userspace is allowed to contain unencyclopedic information (that status quo since Wikipedia began), or the entire User: namespace should be deleted. Angr (t • c) 19:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought we're talking about templatespace, though. Userboxes, the ones we're talking about, live in templatespace. I have subst'd userboxes on my user page and I've been arguing all along that knowing my POV helps others help me be a better editor. But in templatespace, they're part of the encyclopedia.  + + Lar: t/c 19:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Templates are not viewed by readers in isolation; they're seen on pages. Templates that appear on articles should be judged by the same criteria as articles. Templates that appear on user pages should be judged by the same criteria as user pages. There are already lots of non-userbox templates intended for user pages (see Template messages/User namespace and Userboxes/Large/Licencing; the latter aren't userboxes despite the name). Presumably these are now all speediable under T2. Angr (t • c) 23:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In less-inflammatory words... I'd say policy reflects consensus (or Jimbo's will) but consensus is not necessarily reflected by practice. Consensus needs to be shown for the practice first if you want to say "policy reflects practice".  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  18:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Go to WP:DRVU and scroll down to achieves - notce how such speedy deletions are increasingly being endorsed by the community. It isn't just that some admins are interpreting T1 in this fashion, it is that the community is endorsing it. That's policy in the making. --Doc ask?  18:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleting a template because it is divisive and inflammatory is not the same as deleting it because it characterizes a point of view. Using one argument to justify the other is unfounded. Rfrisbietalk 18:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the last two debates, my rough count looks like use athesist 13Del 17Undel, and user christan 20Del 22Undel, which is far from consensus to me, it's more like split down the center, and isn't devisiveness the exact thing we're trying to prevent?? MartinRe 18:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which suggests that when consensus goes up against fiat, you get funny results. We've been asked to get rid of these out of templatespace for some time but DRVU sometimes comes up with funny results.  + + Lar: t/c 19:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might help if it was first easier for people to move it to user space. Yes, they can subst, but many of the templates subst to complex html, instead of using a userbox template. Also, if the the templates listed at WP:UBX were updated to user instead of  it might reduce the number of new users linking to the templates as they would then be cutting and pasting in pre-subst'd code. I agree that these need to move to user space, but I just don't think speedying them like this is the correct way. (not yet anyway!) Regards, MartinRe 19:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You should also look at the debates and see how much of a walled garden DRVU is, also DRVU does not show consensus as only a bare majority is needed. Kotepho 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see userbox policy
This discussion is not about CSD; it's about userboxes. Please see Userbox policy. You may wish to edit this policy to reflect your concerns or you might like to discuss it in the appropriate place. John Reid 23:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, but I think it's about CSD criteria. There have been attempts to develop new CSD criteria and this seems the place to discuss that.  + + Lar: t/c 03:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the appropriate discussion page. That doesn't necessarily preclude discussion elsewhere, but discussion here is totally appropriate. Metamagician3000 10:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Another idea
Another idea to throw into the mix before I hit the hay. Currently the discussion is about whether or not a template can be speedy deleted, or required to go to Tfd. However, because of the nature of templates, do we not have a middle option of "speedy subst+delete" that might be worth exploring? Would that option help reduce some of the tension as a half way house? So "really bad" templates get speedy deleted, "okay, not template space worthy, but would cause ill will if outright deleted" get substs to userspace, and all other go to tfd where the discussion can say delete, subst+delete, or keep. Comments? MartinRe 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I could support that if it included removing categories and images at the same time (both can be used for votestacking)  + + Lar: t/c 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Substituting first is good practice, but not always practical if a very large number of people have a userbox. My feeling is that with a userbox like "This user is a feminist" the best thing to do is change the template to "This user is interested in feminism". But there will be many situations, and I think we have to leave it to the good sense of admins. Let's avoid instruction creep. And yes, I know that not all admins have always used good sense in the past, but most have been quite cautious.


 * Responding to this point specifically, it took me about 40 minutes to fix all the 300 or so pages transcluding User Christian. Anyone can do this with a tabbed browser (optional but recommended) and a bit of javascript.  Also, the script can easily do multiple userboxes at the same time, and can be run by multiple users.  At a guess, the time needed to subst all the religious and ideological userboxes, once the groundwork (deciding which boxes to subst, copying them to userspace, replacing the HTML code with a tidy Userbox call) has been done, would be measured in hours or days at most.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The main thing is to clarify what kinds of userboxes are not supposed to be in template space to stop the endless disputes when admins take actions that don't fall literally into the words of the old T1, with resulting inconsistencies, depending on the vagaries of how reviews go. We all know what kinds of userboxes Jimbo doesn't want to be in template space indefinitely. His views on this are widely shared, at least among the admins. It's time to ensure that formal policy is worded in a way that clearly conforms with this. That's what I'm trying to achieve, and what I think Lar, Doc, Nandesuka and so on are trying to achieve. I don't understand why anyone would be against this - as opposed to being against deletions that don't match the words of the policy.


 * I mean, if Jimbo steps in and says we are going too far in trying to get this policy change to stick, of course I'm going to back off and eat my tasty dessert of humble pie. But at the moment this seems like a necessary and overdue step. Once it is taken, admins should be able to act in sensible ways without too much controversy. If some admins then go on a wild spree to delete userboxes en masse without attempts at substitution I'll be disappointed in them, but I don't want a whole lot of instructions tying admins in knots. Keep it simple. Metamagician3000 02:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Precisely. I'm willing to get behind various ideas, even if they take things too far in the complexity direction, because I tend to go along with good faith efforts, but, as User:GTBacchus told me on my talk page yesterday, every once in a while it may be prudent to take a whack at all the exceptions, butifs, special cases, and etc and simplify back down to essentials. So sure, MartinRe, if you can get this to stick, fine. But I think going to how MM3K and I and everyone else were trying to get T1 to be worded (without T2 and all the special cases) is simpler and perhaps better. Jimbo said points of view in userboxes are divisive and asked us to get rid of them if we would. We haven't.


 * It's time to be crisper about this. Stuff that helps people transition is goodness but is not the main point here. The main point is that while it's OK to have a point of view (any point of view), having it in a box in template space is divisive, and it has to go, per Jimbo. He asked. Sooner or later he will tell us instead I think. I'd rather we took care of this ourselves if we can.


 * I expect there are some people raising their eyebrows at my taking this stance at this time, because back at the time of the New Years deletions I was pretty adamant about how the out of process deletions were a bad thing. I still feel that way and there is no inconsistency, but it's clear to me now that when policy or process fail to give the right result, the policy and process have to be changed or fixed, because constantly just invoking WP:IAR over and over in the face of incorrect policy or process is NOT the way to go.  + + Lar: t/c 03:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I also agre that overuse of IAR is not the way to go, and I also would like userboxes out of template space, but I feel that most of the solutions try and do too much in one fell swoop, and that doing in it in steps, while not as quick, will work better overall and end up in the same place, but without as much chaos. When policy and process give the wrong result, the problem is people, and that can't be changed quickly. I think the first step was done ages back, namely specifying every template designed for user space was prefixed with user, and I think the next step is to first stop the increase of those being created before we try and reduce it. In that light, I would support the speedy deletion of a) any template designed for user space without the prefix user and b) the sppedy deletion of any user templates created after X day which do not have clear use to the enclyopedia (to allow more style, which I assume people believe are fine. Any new "userboxes"  created must be created using the userbox template, and may be added to WP:UBX in that form only. All templates existing prior to that date (including those on UBX), either get speedy deleted if covered by the old T1 (devisive and inflamitory) or go to tfd, where the only results are "use to project, 'officalise' in section of UBX", "delete" or "de-cat, userboxify, subst, and then delete". UBX should be monitored to ensure that those "project useful" templates are in an appropiate labeled sections, and any others are re-edited to user userbox format. (e.g. by tagging templates with "userboxify this on ubx by X date or it will be removed from there". At that point, there may be still many userboxes on user pages, but they will all be in userspace, and I believe that without a central and simple place to create  the number used will slowly wither away. And I think it'll be that allowing to wither away rather than abrupt removal that will allow it to work. For better or worse, people are seem to get attached to, and value more anything you try and forcibly take away. Think of a large group of people as a child with a toy, try and take it away to tidy up, and the child will throw a tantrum and claim it's their favourite. Simply ignore them and they'll eventually throw it away in boredom. Both end up at the same point, but the latter case, while not as quick, is handled without screams. Regards, MartinRe 09:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS so, if anything, I support a harsher speedy delete than proposed now (delete everything without a claim of "usefulability", (A7 for templates? :) albeit applied only to a subset created after an agreed date. Regards, MartinRe 09:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Votestacking is simply not enough of an argument here. There are tons of ways to locate editors besides userboxes, and most of the methods can be used for as much good as bad.  It's like saying that automobiles should be outlawed, because you could use them to run somone over. —  xaosflux  Talk  03:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose bundling categories with templates on this issue. The potential benefits of collaboration facilitated by the use of wikipedian categories by topic far outweigh the potential costs of any form of aoutmated wikipedian groupings used to facilitate votestacking. Rfrisbietalk 03:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New proposal
The present state of WP:UBD demonstrates that there is no consensus for T2 as a speedy criterion. I suggest therefore we add the following to Deletion policy:


 * Many Wikipedians disapprove od user pages templates that are frivolous or which express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues. They may be perceived as unencyclopedic, or as condoning partisan behavior. It is always in order to suggest that such templates be substituted into user pages; or to reword them in a non-partisan fashion (for example, replacing This user likes x with This user is interested in X). If this fails, they can be listed at Templates for Deletion; a consensus shall delete them if they are harmful to the project.


 * and comment out T2.

(I chose this wording because: But improvements are welcome.)
 * Mentioning votestacking is WP:BEANS.
 * Technically, This user likes X is NPOV; it's a (possibly verifiable) fact. Rather than encourage that dilatory argument, I used non-partisan.

Combined with a tprod tag, which would be an in-line prod for templates, this should accomplish all the legitimate goals of T2. Please comment Septentrionalis 13:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the tl|prod idea is a good one - at the moment you can't prod a template - so I'd strongly support that. You will need to discuss it with folk on the prod page first, I think.) As for T2, I disagree. I don't think it is really a new criterion, it is an interpretation (all be it a broad one) of T1 - personally I'd not have split it off. Many of us have been interpreting t1 broadly for a while (and will continue to do so evenif T2 was removed). That broader interpretation is gathering increasing support - as can be seen by recent consensuses on DRV. CSD are not primary legislation anyway, they are a reflection of what actually generally happens - they are a record not a permission. --Doc ask?  14:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This broad interpretation of T1 is causing unnecessary discord. Please stop. Septentrionalis 14:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. At what point does "broad interpretation" become "bias"? Rfrisbietalk 14:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All the same could be said for 'narrow interpretation'--Doc ask?  14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Criteria for speedy deletion should be objectively verifyable, needing minimal interpretation, thus, minimizing the likelihood of any form of biased interpretation. Rfrisbietalk 14:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what T2 tries to do - spell out more clearly what T1 might mean. --Doc ask?  15:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it tries and fails. That's why I added the section below. Rfrisbietalk 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. T2 circumvents due process on topics that are, by definition, controversial. POV in and of itself is not cause for deletion.  In fact, in a userbox, it supports full and frank disclosure. Rfrisbietalk 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What possible reason do we have for annealing layers and layers of "due process" around content that is in no way useful to the building of the encyclopedia? For templates in article space I agree.  For templates in user space, give me a break.  Nandesuka 16:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To avoid the reality, and the appearance, of arbitrariness and oppression; and to keep a handful of users, on both sides, from making fools of themselves. Septentrionalis 23:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is it oppressive to ask users to type their opinions or affiliations on their user pages, rather than having them in templates? How does spending time and resources on maintaining blog-like content meant for personal use in template space advance the cause of building an encyclopedia?  Answer: in no way whatsoever. Nandesuka 00:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How is promoting and supporting collaboration being counter to the cause of building an encyclopedia? Rfrisbietalk 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're unable to collaborate without a pretty HTML box stored in template space, you might want to look for a site more suited to what you hope to achieve. Nandesuka 00:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up myspace, as if having userboxes on one's user page were tantamount to making them myspace pages. A faulty comparison at best -- and ironic considering you yourself have no fewer than three userboxes on your own user page "that express personal beliefs, ideologies, ethical convictions, or viewpoints on controversial issues". Angr (t • c) 01:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have zero templated userboxes on my own user that meet that criteria. So I think your understanding of that phrase is simply wrong.  If you're talking about the babelboxes, then I will claim that you're the only person in the entire universe who believes that "I speak French" is a "personal belief, ideology, ethical convinction, or viewpoint on a controversial issue." Nandesuka 01:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I'm talking about the babelboxes, and of course I am not the only person in the universe, or even the only Wikipedian, who considers a statement of which languages you have considered worth learning to be a statement of a personal belief; and, as I already mentioned above, one which in many cases (perhaps not yours) can have clear political indications. I am not saying we should get rid of Babelboxes. I am saying we should get rid of the idea that it's possible to draw a clear line between userboxes that do and do not meet the criteria of T2. It is furthermore utterly absurd that only templates on user pages should be subject to this restriction. Templates are just a convenient way of storing information to be placed on other pages. Restrictions on the content of templates should be relative to the pages on which they appear. Templates appearing on articles should be subject to the same conditions as the articles themselves. Templates appearing on user pages should be subject to the same conditions as the user pages themselves. If you say "templates appearing on user pages must not express personal beliefs etc.", that is functionally equivalent to saying "user pages must not express personal beliefs". If you're worried that a colored box saying "This user is a Christian Socialist" makes the user page look more like a myspace page, then you must feel the same way about a plain text sentence saying "I'm a Christian Socialist". Whether the statement is written in a template, substed from a template, or written in plain text is completely irrelevant. Angr (t • c) 09:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

(de-indenting) You say: "If you say "templates appearing on user pages must not express personal beliefs etc.", that is functionally equivalent to saying "user pages must not express personal beliefs"". To which I reply "well, except that it really isn't functionally equivalent to that at all, in any way." So again: I simply think you're wrong. Kind of the same way that your claim that "I speak French" is "expressing a personal belief" turned out to be wrong also. Again: the entire point of expanding T2 is to avoid having to make these sorts of value judgments. No one (let me repeat that: no one) has suggested deleting babelboxes, except you in a sort of roundabout WP:POINT way, and I believe there would be consensus for carving out an explicit exception for babelboxes if that was a legitimate concern. But it's not a legitimate concern, it's a ridiculous example taken to extremes, and that's why no one has added that exception. Nandesuka 13:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're going to have to defend your statement "well, except that it really isn't functionally equivalent to that at all, in any way." If I have information about my religious and political beliefs on my user page, it's completely irrelevant how it got there and what the code looks like. People keep saying "template space is for encyclopedic content only", except that it isn't and never has been, as a glance at Template messages/User namespace will show. That page is full of long-established, well respected templates without a shred of encyclopedic content, intended for use on user pages. As for Babel boxes, I have never suggested deleting them: I have always only pointed out that any attempt to write a policy banning any subset of userboxes will wind up applying to Babelboxes too, because it's impossible to draw clear lines as to what are "good" userboxes and what are "bad" ones. Angr (t • c) 18:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Tack on the words "this policy does not apply to babelboxes." There, done.   Your concept of "impossible" is extremely unambitious. Nandesuka 18:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And how do we define babelboxes? Is User en-5 a babelbox or just a "fun" userbox? What about User AmE-5? User tlh? I amend my statment above to "it's impossible to draw clear, non-arbitrary lines as to what are 'good' userboxes and what are 'bad' ones." Angr (t • c) 19:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Templates are merely transclusions
Templates are part of "omni-space". Templates are merely transclusions. If there are objections to substance contained in templates, then the same substance should be removed from User:space. If there is no objection to substance, then there is no reason to remove the transclusion of that substance. Bits are bits are bits. --William Allen Simpson 15:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bits is bits, and policy is policy. The critical issues revolve more around which policies apply.  They are different for mainspace and userspace.  The question then becomes which policies apply to which templates.  Since transclusions are not "inherently" substantive, it makes sense that templates that are restricted to specific namespace(s) should be subject to their corresponding policies.  In the case of userboxes, for example, they should be subject to userspace policies. Rfrisbietalk 16:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There's a number of things that we wouldn't allow in one namespace, but would in another. This sounds like you're talking about the userbox thing, so here's what I think about that: We wouldn't have a Wikipedia: page about wombats, and we shouldn't have a template page either. Anything on this encyclopedia exists to further to encyclopedia. Jokes and humor are fine, but keep it confined to userspace where people won't be the impression that these templates are what we're about. Snoutwood (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument "Anything on this encyclopedia exists to further the encyclopedia" can lead to the entire deletion of User: space, and possibly Help: space, Wikipedia: space, and MediaWiki: space as well. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. Angr (t • c) 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is a matter of concern, since there's no definition of what "furthering the encyclopedia" does or does not include. -- grm_wnr Esc  19:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * About the first post: I agree that templates which are used (or meant to be used) in User space are already governed by User policy, and other spaces by their policies - however, there is one difference with Template space that I know of: things controversial or borderline as to whether they are detrimental to the project probably shouldn't be allowed in Template space, since wide proliferation of those things is undesirable in favor of better alternatives. But that doesn't really change the point - in the end, the "it doesn't benefit the encyclopedia" argument (and some other arguments, probably) still doesn't really fit in here, since the argument is really about whether it should be used in User space and is about changing userspace policy, not the templates.  If that argument has any weight, one should change the userspace policy to disallow such things.
 * I don't see a reason why that wombat box would be deleted. Since the wombat userbox is meant for userspace, if the joke is agreed to be acceptable in userspace (and I don't see any reason why it would ever be thought of as harmful to the project), there is no reason why a template would be unacceptable.  Any such template would be used on userspace, where they've already been determined to be acceptable.
 * Especially with these joke templates, which I don't think can be construed as damaging to the project, whether or not those are within Template space seems meaningless to me, since there's no reason why having it in Template space is any worse than having it in User space. What good would it do to move these to User space if there is no reason why having it as in Template space is bad and most would agree that it would be acceptable in User space either way, and why not allow the harmless templates since they're not damaging the encyclopedia?
 * Also, saying that there would never be a Wikipedia: page about wombats is probably not correct, since one never knows the context in which one might be appropriate. And, you know, there's already one about tigers.--AySz88 ^  -  ^  20:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wombat! Rfrisbietalk 22:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)