Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15, 2006 edit

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 deleted by ALoan (talk · contribs). —Locke Cole • t • c 05:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FPpages edit

Speedy delete under G7 - try {{db-author}} for this sort of situation. Pagra shtak 20:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relatively speedily deleted at author's request. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fpopages edit

~~All functions now carried out by (up-to-date) Template:FPpages. Batmanand | Talk 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Um - what was wrong with the old version? {{fpopages}} is clearly for the portals, and {{fpipages}} is clearly for the pictures: which is {{FPpages}} for? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crap just realised that. Ugh this is annoying. OK nomination withdrawn. I will do my due diligence and 1. move all the stuff I have added to fpopages to make it FPpages, into fpopages (if that makes any sense) 2. change all the links and 3. list FPpages for deletion. OK gimme a day or two. Sorry about all this. Batmanand | Talk 23:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC) See above Batmanand | Talk 23:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect to {{People of the Three Kingdoms}}. Pagra shtak 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3 kingdoms warlords edit

It's not unsubstantiated -- all of those are major warlords of the Three Kingdoms era. But you can delete it anyways if you like ... I'll make a better one. -- (original author) ran (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, "subst" means "substituted". See WP:SUBST for more information. —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 @ 02:22 UTC
~~Keep~~ unless there's a better one. — Instantnood 23:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't fit on the existing pages, since all of them have a biography infobox already. I suppose it can be recreated as a footer box. -- ran (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, I've made the replacement: Template:People of the Three Kingdoms. -- ran (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep the edit history of {{3 kingdoms warlords}}, and change it as a redirect to {{people of the Three Kingdoms}}. — Insta ntnood 16:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I've been bold and performed the rd. If anyone objects to this we can always restore the previous version and reopen the TfD. John Reid 17:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redesign it and replace the current one - too cluttered, hard to read. Perhaps the Chinesenames should be added as well? –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 05:15, 20 April 2006

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. Pagra shtak 19:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Cities of India edit

Template:Major Cities of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The word "major" is subjective. A separate template: (Template:Metropolitan cities of India) exists with a clearly defined criteria, thus making the major cities template redundant. =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The template is indeed redundant, as said. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 10:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Please reference the metropolitan cities template. John Reid 10:47, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nichalp, it is not even placed on most of the "major cities of India" pages. Gizza^Chat ^© 11:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nichalp. --Andy123(talk) 13:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nichalp, - Shyam ^(T/C) 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Ganeshk (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Deizio 11:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom joturn e r 03:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I'll welcome the expansion of the metro template to include this content. John Reid 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Metros are defined as cities (not the conurbation area) having a population of over 4 million (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2001/04/07/stories/0207000q.htm). Only five cities in India qualify. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 (author request). GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-web edit

Keep. Well, I was hoping to debate this suggestion at the template's talk page or at the Village pump (where I have tried to begin the discussion), but I guess this is a good a place as any. I believe that this template is a valid interpretation of A7, because just as bands and clubs represent real people, so too do internet forums and blogs. The only difference is that their communication and activities are online rather than offline. But I'm happy to talk it through further. You'll note that I wrote it up on Village pump (policy), and waited for comments—and didn't just start using the new template immediately. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, we don't need this. It kind of short-circuits Wikipedia:Notability (websites), not even mentioned in the template (only hidden under a piped link with the text "importance or significance", not an appropriate piped link as far as I'm concerned), and not intended to be used as criteria for speedy deletion. If A7 applies (which, for instance, might be in the case of a personal website of a non-notable person, with no illuminating info apart from personal info on that person) I don't see the need for a "specific" template. In that case one of the four available CSD A7 templates ({{db-bio}}, {{db-band}}, {{db-club}}, {{db-group}}) or the the generic {{db|reason}} would better be used, I suppose. --Francis Schonken 07:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- One could equally well argue that {{db-band}} is redundant because it could also be substituted by {{db-bio}} or {{db-club}}. And again, {{db-band}} links to WP:MUSIC rather than WP:BIO. (Although I'd be happy to change the target of {{db-web}}'s link, if that's what people would prefer). The point is that these are all common types of vanity articles, and the intent of A7 is to facilitate the removal of the most obvious and egregious attempts to use Wikipedia for self-promotion. The intent of {{db-web}}, like {{db-band}}, is simply to identify a specific, common type of self-promotion—i.e. real persons writing about themselves—so that it can be effectively addressed. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 09:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GeorgeStepanek Zzzzz 10:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite to point directly and explicitly to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and not through a misleading or obscure pipelink. Caution that repeated misuse of this tool (not that I am so alleging at present) may cause me to renominate. Note that this comment should be considered Keep if rewritten, Delete if unimproved. John Reid 10:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, how's this: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group / corporate website (see ranking) that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject or the website. But please feel free to tweak the wording a little more if you think it can be further improved... GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For me it's still delete, Wikipedia:Notability (websites), was not written as criteria for speedy deletion. The (exclusive) use of Alexa for implying non-notability in the template, "(see ranking)", is also contrary to what had been agreed upon in Wikipedia:Notability (websites)... at least this needs more interpretation than just implying something by an Alexa link. Thus, not suitable as "speedy" criterion. Further the two piped links now in the template are still worse than what was there before. Also the template completely neglects possible implications of Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) (examples can include, but are not limited to, a company that has the same name as its website and is hit by the this template, irrespective of its notability according to the "companies" guideline) --Francis Schonken 12:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your comments, Francis. I respect your opinion, but I do feel that the link to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) is as justified as {{db-band}}'s link to Wikipedia:Notability (music). Neither defines the criteria for speedy deletion (that's the purpose of the CSD link), but each provide helpful suggestions for what might be counted important or significant in their respective areas. Likewise, my inclusion of the link to Alexa was intended to be helpful, not prescriptive. As I mentioned on the talk page, I see it's role as one of ruling out articles for deletion, rather than the reverse. The companies issue is one that I am unclear about in my own mind—is a company more than just a group of people?—and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on the matter. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether "a company [is] more than just a group of people" is irrelevant. Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is an accepted guideline, and it doesn't fit in a CSD scheme. Whatever your comments at Template talk:Db-web, and your intentions (which by definition are good), the template would create a situation where it overrides an accepted guideline. No good. Don't do.
      Similarly, the implication of the Alexa link, which is contrary to the accepted guideline Wikipedia:Notability (websites), makes the "speedy" procedure of the template override an accepted guideline. Comments and intentions don't remedy that, so still: delete.
      Further, maybe you didn't get what I meant by "the two piped links now in the template are still worse than what was there before.", my objection was to the quality of the pipe (now two links with a bad piping). I consider the quality of these pipes bad, while they obfuscate that they're links to guidelines that mention a lot of criteria that don't fit in a "speedy" scheme. The website notability guideline doesn't even mention a single criterion that fits in a speedy scheme. So, you're still trying to force new guideline content/procedure via template, as also remarked by Rob below. Don't. Bad procedure. --Francis Schonken 09:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do actually agree with most of what you've said. You're correct, Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) is the appropriate guideline for companies—and it's not referenced on the template. And I am beginning to think that it would actually be going beyond the intention of CSD A7's "person or group of people" to try to include companies and corporations. And yes, Wikipedia:Notability (websites) makes no mention of Alexa or any other ranking, so perhaps the inclusion of that link would be misleading, and could be misused. I have removed both of these elements. The wording is now: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group website that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject or the website.
        But I still feel that if {{db-band}} can link to Wikipedia:Notability (music), then {{db-web}} should also be able to link to any guidelines that may be helpful, even if they mention criteria that are not directly applicable to the speedy deletion. All of the A7 templates link to guideline pages, so I don't see why {{db-web}} cannot follow the same pattern. If you're suggestion that these links to notability guideline pages are inappropriate, then we should remove them all—not just the ones on this template. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Still, bad piping, a website's subject might be a company or whatever other topic other than people, using [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|the subject]] is bad piping while it narrows possible topics of websites to the people running the site (who may be perfect nobodies compared to the subject of the website).
        And you're seemingly still not seeing the difference between Notability guidelines that can easily be used in a speedy deletion criteria scheme (e.g. bands) and other notability guidelines that are a bit less suitable to that kind of approach (e.g. companies and websites)
        So, for the proposed template still delete as far as I'm concerned --Francis Schonken 21:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's think this through. When we delete an article about an unnotable astronomy club, we do not take into account the fact that astronomy is an obviously notable subject. Which means that you're right: the subject is not relevant. I've changed the link to [[Wikipedia:Notability (people)|the author(s)]] to reflect this. The wording is now: it is an article about an blog, internet forum or personal / group website that does not assert the importance or significance of the author(s) / participants or the website. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not the subject of the website, it's the subject of the article. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, George appears to be messing this up completely: an article about a website that is run by perfect nobodies (the authors) can not be speedied for that reason. It's about the notability of the topic (the subject) of the wikipedia article. If that topic/subject is a website, then wikipedia:notability (websites) is the applicable guideline. And that guideline is not formatted to be of much use in a speedy process. So, delete the template, it is confusing, and gives a false impression that articles can be speedied for reasons for which they can not be speedied. Use {{db|reason}} if there is a real reason to speedy (and name that reason), that is: if any of the CSD criteria applies. What's wrong with that? --Francis Schonken 10:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I think perhaps that you are confusing yourself. It's really quite simple. If an astronomy club is speediable, then an astronomy internet forum with the same degree of notability should also be speediable. They are both groups of people who meet to discuss the same things. The fact that one is online and the other is offline is irrelevant, and is not mentioned in our CSD policy. CSD does not exclude online groups of people. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        No. It's not the same thing as the template is currently worded. A forum is a place where the group meets--like writing an article about the soda shop where the astromony club hangs out. Not speediable. A personal website is a publication that talks about a person, like an autobiography published by a vanity press. Not speediable. In any case, TFD is not the place for this discussion. I can certainly understand if the template was created believing that there was a consensus for this, but now that it is clear that there is not, I don't think it's appropriate to try to create an application of CSD here. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I must respectfully disagree. A soda shop exists for other patrons, whereas an internet forum consists of nothing but the discussions between its participants—it is the essence of the meetings between them, as it were.
        I feel that it is my fault that confusion and disagreement have occurred here, and that had I communicated more clearly then this might have been avoided. Hence my attempts to explain, and my willingness to keep modifying the template's wording until it does make the concept clear to everyone.
        The point is that I don't want to change CSD policy. I'm happy with it the way it is. I just want to unlock some of its potential, in exactly the same way that {{db-band}} unlocks some of its potential. If we didn't have that template then people would say that a band is more than just a group of people: it's the music, the fans, the whole phenomenon. But a band is just a group of people. And an internet forum is just another group of people. I just hope that I can convey that clearly enough. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think what's missed in the arguements defending this template, is that you can't make up new *policy* in a new template, or in a TFD discussion. CSD is *policy*. That's important. It refers to real people, not web sites. That's intentional. If anybody wishes to change policy, please seek changes to the WP:CSD page, and try to gain consensus first. Any use of this template is a violation of policy, regardless of this TFD's outcome, and may be summarily removed from any article. A7 has expanded in the past, and may well expand again, but only through consensus, not threw making up a template. --Rob 05:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I must respectfully disagree. A7 has been created to expedite the deletion of obvious vanity articles about unremarkable people or groups. The exact wording that was voted on in July 2005 was: "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." This wording does not mention bands or clubs in any way. The existing templates {{db-band}} or {{db-club}} are interpretations of these criteria, and are intended to address the most common types of vanity pages that people create about themselves. I would like the new {{db-web}} template to fulfill exactly the same role, and implementing exactly the same policy. Its exact wording could certainly be changed and improved—just as speedy deletion criteria A7's phrasing has been changed and improved—but I strongly believe that its core purpose and usage falls squarely within the existing policy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are ommitting history. For a significant amount of time time, A7 was strictly limited to single inviduals. Later, there was discussion and a straw poll to expand it to includes groups of people. There was very large participation in that poll, and a high level of support (well over 75%). So, it passed. Only *after* that expansion (with a changed to WP:CSD page), was {{db-band}} made. If you get the same degree of support for another expansion, then this tag would be appropriate. I can't find the relevant links at the moment, but I can look if requested. I'm not saying we can't expand A7, I'm just saying there is a process, and it must be followed, as we are talking about policy.--Rob 07:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to Wikipedia:How to create policy and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion there have been no policy changes to CSD since July 2005. All changes since then have been informal. The debate on A7 expansion happened here—and there's no straw poll in that discussion. I was also hoping to garner debate and approval for my suggestion at the Village pump, but I guess that process is happening here now. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, there was a policy change in November 2005. WP:CSD was updated here based on the poll (mentioned in the edit summary). You haven't gained this type of large-scale consensus for another expansion (ample participation in the pole, with a high percentage of support). Only after this change was {{db-band}} made. WP:CSD is a policy page, so changes in it, are policy changes. --Rob 07:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        A small point, but the diff you gave added only "or persons" to the criteria—not bands or clubs. Those were added later. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 07:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And sorry, I was wrong. There was a poll on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That poll was for the "or persons" addition to the criteria. But I'm not trying to change CSD policy! I just want to provide another tool like {{db-club}} or {{db-band}} that implements existing policy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        My diff was to illustrate when the change, based on the poll, happened. Of course, there were a few edits after that. During the discussion for the expansion of a7, bands (especially) and clubs were clearly discussed, and an intended target. Web sites were not (as I remember). This is new policy that you propose. But, regardless, why not seek support in the same manner that was use for the last a7 expansion. If consensus is behind you, you'll easily prevail. --Rob 10:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        This version in the history shows that {{db-band}} was implemented and in use well before the wording of the policy was modified to specifically cite clubs and bands. But I don't want to change the wording of A7 in any way! I just feel that a blogger is just as much a "person"—for the purposes of CSD—as a guitarist. And an internet forum is just as much a "group of people" as a debating club. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 11:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        But {{db-band}} was done *after* the poll and discussion, which discussed bands specifically. In fact, nn-bands were the *main* reason for the expansion. Again, usage of this tag, would be violation of policy, regardless of the outcome of this TFD, and the tag should be removed immediately, if anybody uses it. --Rob 17:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It would be very interesting to see a diff or a link to a version that showed what it was that people were actually voting on in November. (Unfortunately the village pump is not archived, but it still should be in the history somewhere—anyone?) I'm presuming that it was "or people" because that was the change that was made at the end of the voting period. In which case that is the policy, and everything else—including {{db-band}}— is merely an interpretation of the policy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 23:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per arguments above. Appears to provide a useful amount of additional information. -- Visviva 07:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, would be very useful to show people posting webby vanity/ads/cruft that just because stuff is on the web it isn't necessarily suitable for WP. However, deletion is a touchy subject and it needs to go through the right process first. If it gets deleted, I would encourage George to stick at it and try to get consensus for it first. Deizio 11:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but ideally adjust to incorporate the consensually accepted CSD A7 wording, with the addition of "a website of or about":

An article about a website of or about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.

... where "subject" could mean either the web content or the person(s). IMHO, this would be a valid interpretation of CSD A7: If a person or club is speediable, so should their personal website or forum be. This would include websites or fora of or about {{nn-club}}s, {{nn-band}}s and {{nn-bio}}s, as well as articles about web forums that do not assert notability, because fora are essentially groups of people. It would not, however, cover websites with non-personal content that do not assert notability, e.g websites about Star Trek characters that show up in the background of third-season TNG episodes (to paraphrase WP:DUMB). These would still have to be gotten rid of the usual way. Sandstein 11:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a helpful template, way too likely to be misused. If it's speediable, use an existing speedy template. As far as I can tell, this template doesn't really reduce work in any way unless it's used in cases that are not generally considered speediable. The debate about whether A7 covers these specific instances should be at WP:CSD, not here. There is not currently a consensus that it does, so wait until there is before making a template. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask whether you think Tranquility of Lifting (for example) should be speediable? I'm asking because that's exactly the kind of obvious vanity article that this template is intended to address. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - My thoughts on what should be policy aren't really relevant. I would support getting rid of A7 entirely, but I wouldn't vote delete on the associated templates. There is currently no consensus that A7 extends to websites about non-notable people. What "should be" policy should be discussed at the policy talk page. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irrelevant and misleading. Anything tagged with this as a reason has been incorrectly tagged. -Splash^talk 16:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reach consensus on policy elsewhere before deciding for the reasons Rob gave above. (or Delete if no attempt to do that is made) –Tifego^(t)_{06:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete -- This discussion has moved me firmly into the delete camp. I agree with many arguments made so far. At one time I was willing to entertain a rewrite but now I agree that this will never be acceptable for speedy. John Reid 15:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not policy; should not be policy. Speedy criteria should not require judgment; this does. That's what AfD is for. Septentrionalis 23:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have withdrawn the template, and have asked for it to be speedy deleted per author request. I will shortly be taking this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion as per Deizio's advice. Thank you, everyone, for your feedback and for the time you have devoted to this discussion. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 05:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DIAR proposal edit

Comment and keep (creator): It's meant to be used for guidelines that emphasise flexibility over wikilaywering, not policies. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 00:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- as nom. Please select from {{essay}} or {{proposed}}. John Reid 10:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful. Not everything is black and white, some things are more nuanced. Andre (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "Black" is {{rejected}}; "white" is {{policy}}; {{essay}}, {{guideline}}, and {{proposed}} are three available shades of gray. John Reid 17:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best this is redundant since we already have WP:IAR. To single out specific policies in this regard is unhelpful. JoshuaZ 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DIAR is the counterpoint to and opposite of WP:IAR. In fact, the acronyms mean "Don't ignore all rules" and "Ignore all rules" respectively. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm not understanding something here, could you give examples of where you think this should be used? JoshuaZ 21:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:DENY, which proposes a solution to which there are exceptions that are easily resolved through discussion, but very difficult to predict and codify. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 04:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I see what you are trying to get at with this template. Hmm, still going with delete, now per John. JoshuaZ 05:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with {{essay}}, {{proposed}}, and {{guideline}}. There's no need to have yet another sort-of-policy template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia-specific help edit

Template:Wikipedia-specific help (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created by me to help distinguish Wikipedia and help namespace pages with the same name. These pages have now been transfered to templates, merged or renamed - so the template is now no longer used. The accompanying category Category:Wikipedia-specific help should be deleted as well. See the template's talk page for more of an explanation of the (confusing) help system.Gareth Aus 08:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was a quite confusing template (among other disadvantages also kind of leading to sloppy layout on Help: namespace pages), delete would be a good thing. See also Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Project namespace#Are these a good idea?. --Francis Schonken 08:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add me - I only checked Help:Link where I also tried the <noinclude> workaround to get rid of "See also" recursion caused by the inclusion, that was already clean. I guess all other Template:Phh:name are also fine, the category is empty. -- Omniplex 05:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.