Not really. It would partially solve part of the problem, while creating another, but the technical irrelevance and the fact that, in the end, it has nothing whatsoever to do with building an encyclopaedia, would remain. Just zis Guy you know?12:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree with most of the grammar userboxes, however not userboxes in general, this one is one that I ain't like. --NigelJtalk05:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we're going to keep {{User french spacing}}, why would we get rid of just its negation? Has any evidence of this userbox's divisiveness materialised? Have we seen countless revert wars or bannings due to a french spacing argument? It seems to do very little harm; keep it. Oh, and if the capitalisation is wrong ... change it! --Lloegr-Cymru£¥14:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1) The subject and usage of the template isn't very divisive. The text should be renamed to be more neutral, per User:Cuivienen. 2) HTML rendering and the wiki currently not distinguishing between them does not matter - it's still an opinion. 3) Mis-capitalisation should mean a rename, and shouldn't affect the outcome. 4) Since the Chicago Manual of Style has nothing to say and the MoS doesn't care, we can't proclaim a 'right' answer. This suggests that people should make up their own minds. SeventyThree(Talk)03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added the counter-infobox Template:User french spacing per above comments. Question: what does a typographical convention which is (a) open to dispute, (b) not settled by the leading source and (c) irrelevant in text rendered in HTML anyway, have to do with building an encyclopaedia? Just zis Guy you know?22:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, one might ask the same question about the individualised ways we add colour and bits and bobs to our signatures. Really, does my use of green, red, and currency cymbols add anything to an encyclopaedia? Well, actually, yes ... in a sense. It helps highlight the diversity of the membership. But in any case, this can't be really all that divisive. Surely we ought to be going after the really divisive userbox templates, you know ... religion, politics, and whether one has had his weetabix or not. I mean, honestly, just how many revert wars have been fought over french spacing? --Lloegr-Cymru£¥00:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This nomination is WP:POINT because the nominator used the depreciation template on it without discussion and then decided to nominate it as someone reverted the depreciation, as the edit summary for the nomination says "to be noncabal then, I nominate this for tfd.". Djegan19:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missunderstand a little. There have been an ongoing deprecation of country specific template the last couple of months, some have gone through tfd, and some have just been deprecated. Ususaly no one complain when deprecation is occuring, but in this place some is afraid of a cabal, so I try to show that's not the case. It's not WP:POINT here, just that this template was in line for deprecation (taking one template at a time). →AzaToth19:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no discussion held prior to nomination for this template about how wikipedia might go about the transfer of one template to another. Just nomination because someone cannot get their way. Simple. Djegan19:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see little reason to have country specific templates for universities. (seem to be plenty of discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_University, so no objection from me on that.) So long as those depreciating this infobox have a process of transferring the info without loss to the generic infobox, I'm happy. MartinRe20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the one of the individuals who have been busy transferring items to the standardized infobox, I agree in principle with the nomination, but I disagree with the way that it was done. We don't need to step on people toes to get a nomination done even if we are doing something better overall. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it should be noted that the templae in question was never marked as a tfd, nor was their never any notification give outside of the tfd log either, so editors that would have had an intrest in making a responce to ths tfd were never abble to make a responce to this invalad tfd, editors should disregard the former tfd as nothing but a back door way of deleting a template, and a violation of WP:POINT=. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boothy443 (talk • contribs) 2006-05-06 03:51:16 (UTC) (damm i keep on forgetting to sig things
True, yet that tagging reflects the current ongoing discussion, their were no tags applied for the cited discussion above, so how can one say that the outcome of those discussion, which were about other templates and not this one, had any impact or decision on the status of this template, they cant. It might provide background information, but it should not provide any basis in the change of status, "deprecation" , or deletion of this template. If they wanted it to be included in those discussions then they should have tagged the template at the time of those discussions, and added it to the discussion, instead they are applying a "blanket policy" based upon the tfds on two other similar templates, and the discussion on the talk page of anther with no relation to the template in question until now. This is no different then a similar blanket policy issue that i have recently delt with, in which users were applying the discussion/decision of a cfd to merging articles w/o discussion. --Boothy443 | trácht ar06:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, strong, how anyone can say that the template is deprecated amazes me, the discussion was made on the take page of of another template by editors who only purpose seems to be to replace the other templates with their preferred one, the discussion is basically and should be consider informal and non binding, in that no one involved with this other template made an attempt to contact any editors involve with this template, their was never a notice posted on the talk page on the temple to say that the status of the template was being discussed, even a regional noticeboard, in regards to Irish issues, could have been contacted to make aware that their was a discussion, non of which is done, so no one involved in this template was ever involved in the discussion or in the creation of the new template. Basic lay this is a back door process to delete templates with out having to go threw a process, for a place that stresses it's non-cabal the sure is cabal like. To support this tfd based upon the idea that the template is deprecated is support for non-process, non- collaboration , and anti-wiki procedures, you are basically saying that you support merging of article w/o discussion, the deletion of categories w/o discussion, the deletion of articles w/o discussion, ect ect, that you do not believe in the idea of consensus or consensus building, i could go on. As i see it if this tfd moves forward then i am going to use the precedent that will be set by this and depreciate the use of the offending replacement template on all Irish university articles. --Boothy443 | trácht ar03:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support process, and this tfd is basically saying "this specific template can be covered with a more general one, what do you think?", which is perfectly within process to me. Yes, it would have been better to notify those involved with the other template, and this oversight has been acknowledged, but it was accidential and not an attempt to bypass anyone. This tfd is a discussion, so I do not see where you get the w/o discussion issue. (the talk on infobox unitversity could be seen as a discussion about a future discussion, which is somewhat ironic to my irish humour :) Apart from the slighty untidy background, do you have any objection based on the actual difference between the two templates? Regards, MartinRe09:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No i disagree, this tfd has nothing to do with that argument, thats was not stated in the reasoning for deletion, the reson for deletion is that their version of the box is superseeded the one that is being used, which is rubbish. I dont see how you can sway that it is superseeded if you did not comment as such on infoboxes that are aternatives to the one being proposed. this is a nomination based upon a non process decsion. And to say it was an accident is just as rubbish, that is basiclay saything that they had no idea that the infobox was ever their, ehich is not the sace thay have had since 27 January when they first tagged the template to seek comment on it, yet ever time they just tagged the template and never explaind why it ws the case that thei template is being deprecheated other then the it was, so bascialy a decison has been made since the end of january if not before to seek to delete this template, without commnet from editors of the alternative. Basiclay so a precendent is now being set that any one user or any group can basicaly decide the status of any other template/article/category w/o comment from editors concerned from the other one, so i guss then next time i want to merge something i am just going to do it w/o seeking comment becuas i dont need to, so basiclay throw any idea that we try to colbaerate on anything, which they could have saught to do, and they didn't, not that they didnt have plenty of chances to seek comment, or trying to build a real consensus ehich they did not, by basicaly excluding editors of alternatives in foavroe of a general. And no i don't like the alternative, i dont belive that one use general templates are a good idea, and of the ones i have seen i think while the concept is good one the excution is noting less then poor, i see no reason why the current temple needs to be replaced. As for the exact points in why i dont like it, whell i have no reason to say them, as it has been show that the editors of this other templte do not seem to be intrested in the comments of those intresed in templated opposed to thsier, not by what they have said but by their actions and the way they have conduted this farce. So if this template does get deleted then i am going to creat another alternative, not see any comment form editors of other templates and deprechate the new general box, sicne now that seems to be the correct way to do it. --Boothy443 | trácht ar21:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop the arm waving long enough to state why you think the template shouldn't be deprecated/deleted? Does this template being nominated for deletion offer something the template that's being used to replace it doesn't? If not, why have two templates? If so, what's in this template that's not in the other, and why is it important enough to justify a seperate template? —Locke Cole • t • c22:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Delete I'd actually prefer it speedy deleted, but it's not quite that bad. In any case, there is no such word as "Lostflashback," so I hope this cruft goes away quickly. Danflave17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake - I thought someone actually created an *article* entitled "Lostflashback"! In any case, delete it. It's duplicate information. Danflave17:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
