Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 November 12

< November 11	November 13 >

November 12 edit

Template:Sub-article 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 delete as a very bad precedent. --humblefool ® 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before it spreads Back-relations are not indicated in Wikipedia. they shouldbe made obvious when writing the lead instead. We have deleted several similar schemes in the past. Circeus 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of initiative should be considered community-wide first. -- Renesis (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Veinor (ヴエノル) 05:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Circeus --Francis Schonken 07:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I would appreciate a rationale for deleting, something that is founded in a policy, or a least a guideline. I have understood the polices of article spinouts such as they need to link back to the main article, and the main article needs to link forward to the sub-article. If we have Template:Main, something that is routinely used to prominently link to the sub-article, what is wrong with the sub-article doing the same, link just as prominently to the main article? I am actually surprised that this has not been implemented earlier, it makes perfect sense to use this template considering all other rules and the main template. If the rationale is that "they shouldbe made obvious when writing the lead instead.", then why is it not the same true on the opposite side, why is it not enough that the section in the main article links obviously to the sub-article? In other words, why do we need the Template:Main, when we do not need this template? In other words, the same rationale for creating and keeping Template:Main is applicable to this template. --Striver 11:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Main Is used to explain that a narrow element of the topic has an article that explains it in greater details. There is, however, no need to indicate the back relationship in such a manner when wikilinks do it just fine. To take a random example, Hadith collection is neitehr even linked from Book or an actual subarticle of hadith (it's only linked from {{Hadith}})! Circeus 15:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sub-article hierarchies are not such a good idea. (Radiant) 15:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh... but we do have them, why pretend we do not? Just take and read Wikipedia:Summary style, it uses the word "Sub-article" three times, and the entire guidline is about how to set up a main article, linking to sub-articles, does it not? --Striver 20:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - We should be discouraging further hierarchies. It's fine to consider "history of Sweden" a sub-article of "Sweden" but it really doesn't need a template pointing that out, it should be obvious from the title. (Radiant) 10:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, why do we need a template to point out that out in the main article, why to we need template:main? --Striver 10:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because it shows that this is not the only content we have on the topic. Indicating the reverse relationship is compeltely redundant and competes visually with hatnote templates Circeus 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - In many cases you can put main on both articles in their respective sections. For example, an article about mental disorders that starts to list common ones would probably have "main" links to each article on those common disorders. Then in those individual articles might have a section talking about "related disorders" where the reader finds a main link to see the over-view. We also have nav templates for directly related article series. -- Ned Scott 21:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Granted that, as said by the nom, the lead will usually contain a link to that same article. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Renesis--Redlock 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete delete delete - We've been through this. — Omegatron 01:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote 5 to keep, per Striver. ~ Flame vip e r 18:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. CloudNine 21:46, 15 November 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.

Template:Extra tracklisting/color 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 Speedy Delete per G7 Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed page. Tried to have two selectable color for the Extra tracklisting, but it only needed one definitive color. Now it's useless. Armando ^{(talk|ImgTalk|contribs)} 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G7; author requests deletion, template was a mistake. Neil916 (Talk) 20:55, 12 November 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.

Template:Puerile4 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 delete. --humblefool ® 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how vitriolic the vandalism committed by a user to whom a warning is issued, warning templates should be written in civil language. Describing a user's edits as "puerile" borders on a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and is entirely unnecessary in any case, as template:blatantvandal is quite adequate for warning users who commit serious acts of vandalism. John254 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the proposed speedy deletion of this template. It is a warning to users who have committed serious vandalism to articles that is probably "divisive and inflammatory" in itself. I understand the No Personal Attacks policy, but I don't think that describing vandalism as "puerile" constitutes a personal attack. Under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Examples that are not personal attacks it states, "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks." -- Robert ^See Hear _Speak 22:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Describing vandalism as "puerile" might not actually amount to a personal attack. Indeed, I've seen editors use stronger language in their reports on WP:AIV. However, the language employed in templates placed on user talk pages is held to a high standard of civility, since the templates will be issued to a large number of users. A description of vandalism as "puerile" could be seen involving a user's personal character, by asserting that the user is "puerile". In any case, there is no need to employ this term in a warning template, as the term "unconstructive" employed in template:blatantvandal is quite serviceable. John254 23:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete or reword. That is just going to add fuel to a fire. Chris Kreider 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain - I created this template in an attempt to indicate that vandalism concerned with bodily functions, reproductive organs, and sexuality in particular is not welcome here. The language is identical {{bv}} after substituting "puerile" for "unconstructive." I felt that perhaps by calling a spade a spade, as it were, some few vandals might take account their childishness and grow up. Idealism, perhaps, but no more so than thinking any of the other more general warning templates would have similar reformative effects. PS, Template:Puerile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was already deleted, probably also stands or falls here. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 14:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should use other templates that explain the matter better. (Radiant) 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Doesn't represent an improvement over existing vandalism warning templates, and do you really think that many of the vandals who think it's funny to post about bodily functions, reproductive organs, and sexuality are even going to know what "puerile" means, anyway? Neil916 (Talk) 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why it links to the Wiktionary entry for wikt:puerile. My thought was that maybe the use of a fancy, hyperlinked word would make some vandals wonder in a way that the more familiar "childish" or "unconstructive" would not. Following the link thus serves as an object lesson of sorts. --Fl e x (talk|contribs) 21:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Pre-existing templates are sufficient.--Redlock 17:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blam, per Redlock. ~ Flame vip e r 18:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Explain to the user as specifically as possible what they are doing wrong. If the user doesn't take "we've deleted your unconstructive edit" as a personal insult, I doubt they are going to get upset that "we deleted your edit of 'suck my ass' as puerile" to be a personal insult. Just as we differentiate between test edits, blatant vandalism, spam, and deliberately making errors of fact, pointing out to the user specifically what we didn't find acceptable about his/her edit is less discouraging and more precise than just "we didn't like your edit, try again". Gzuckier 17:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Anyone making an edit that would merit the issuance of a warning of this level almost certainly understands why their contributions are unconstructive. John254 00:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as more uncivil than necessary. Exactly the same purpose can be brought across with bv, but in a more civil tone. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:15, 19 November 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.

Template:Routeboxny 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 delete. --humblefool ® 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussions on WT:NYSR, Routeboxny was phased out by {{Infobox road}}, a three-month process that concluded last night. Now that all articles use Infobox road and Routeboxny is unused, there is no longer a need for Routeboxny and Routeboxny should be deleted. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Chris Kreider 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but thank it for all its hard work in the early days of the project. Daniel Case 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. ~ Flame vip e r 18:06, 15 November 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.

Template:Nysr box 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 delete. --humblefool ® 00:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, since Routeboxny lacked a browse, Nysr box was used as the browse. Infobox road, however, has the browse built in, making this template, now unused, unnecessary. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Daniel Case 17:53, 14 November 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.

Template:On launch pad 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 delete. --humblefool ® 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not very useful - will only ever be used on one page at a time, and content is covered by {{future spaceflight}} anyway. Redirect page Template:In launch pad should also be deleted as it redirects to the template which is listed for deletion. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 13:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - though I think {{future spaceflight}} is shaky too. My "simplify" mode has recently kicked in and makes me think {{current_event}} and {{future}} are sufficient.--3Idiot 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:On launch pad and just use template:Future spaceflight. --- RockMFR 02:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{current_event}} is sufficient. Richard Taylor 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep STS-116 now at launch pad! :EAVE THIS TEMPLATE HERE!!! Jer10 95 05:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IT should be useful.It tells if a shuttle mission is in a launch pad. No on deletion of this template.- article may be a stub —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jer10 95 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nominator's point that it will only apply to one page at a time. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. -- Renesis (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - By saying that it will only apply to one page at a time just enhances the North American point of view on everything. There are multiple countries with space programs which could all have space shuttles on the launch pad. Chris Kreider 12:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that you have conflated the terms Space Shuttle and Rocket. Excluding the long-dead Soviet Buran project, only NASA operates Space Shuttles, and only one can be launched at a time. In addition, there are only a handful of flights left before it is retired. I accept that in extreme circumstances you may get two on launch pads, but this will be limited to March 2008, if ever. Nobody else operates shuttles. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant. Use {{future spaceflight}}. Neil916 (Talk) 22:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Redundant --Redlock 17:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, adds extremely time-dependent information. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use a general "current" template. We shouldn't make a template for every single possible event. Next we'll see {{sitting on toilet}} being tagged on articles of living people. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current event template is fine. — Omegatron 01:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete {{futurespaceflight}}, too. Superfluous, use {{current event}} or {{future}}. ~ Flame vip e r 18:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Future spaceflight is worth keeping since space missions are a distinct kind of future event that follow a different pattern, like {{future product}} or {{future building}}, etc. Category:Future_spaceflights has 55 entries, so it's well used. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Nice idea, but not quite there. Sounds rather unprofessional/unencyclopedic. What about "This article is about an aircraft or spacecraft currently in the design/testing phase"? Sloverlord 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have {{future spaceflight}}, as mentioned above. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:43, 17 November 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.

Template:LSBSD 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 delete: --humblefool ® 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)unused and dupes other, better worded templates. --humblefool ® 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image "speedy" deletion template. Designed to be used when "License and Source being subject of discussion", but if we wanted to start a discussion whether the license and source are correct, we'd do that on IFD or PUI. As such the template is redundant to {{ifd}}, {{PUIdisputed}}, and {{PUInonfree}}. Lastly, its appearance is confusingly similar to image speedy deletion templates such as {{no source}} and {{no license}} even though it is not a image speedy deletion template. Kavadi carrier 12:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the template does have links to other language wikis. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:17, 19 November 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.

Template:Unsolved 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 keep. --humblefool ® 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is being used on articles. As such, when one sees its use, e.g. in Proton decay, it seems to be asking for the reader to submit an answer. In short, this template is confusing for new users, unencyclopedic and encouraging original research. Qu e ntin Smith 07:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it seems to be asking the reader a question at all. Its use is pretty unambiguous. --- RockMFR 08:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Links are part of the content and value of wikipedia. This template brings value when used to link related articles. Pcarbonn 09:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Introduces relevant information in a neat and concise format. "Mysteries of science" are definitely encyclopedic and interesting. Coming across the template on a page I was reading (for school), it was not confusing nor did I feel compelled to answer it (granted, I'm not a new user, but it doesn't look like a maintenance template). --Keitei (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mysteries of science" are definitely encyclopedic and interesting, but they belong in the article text. — Omegatron 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems fitting to where it is used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IgorSF (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with above comments. Chris Kreider 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a useful template that does no harm to anyone.--Redlock 17:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless and unencyclopedic. — Omegatron 18:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a simple way to mention major things we do not know (yet) in science. Which is very encyclopedic. It reminds me of similar infoboxes I've seen in my school books as a kid. Although I always thought the template is ugly so I think it needs to be redesigned. --David Göthberg 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what the hell is this? you've got to be joking... -- Ned Scott 04:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The information this gives is encyclopedic, but I'm not sure if it needs a template. --ais523 11:29, 14 November 2006 (U T C)
keep. The template reads like many technical books (such as the Microsoft press books) as well as many textbooks (at least from when I was in school). I think it's valid to have in articles and contributes to the utility of the articles. ... aa:talk 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as above.--Homunq 17:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, it's an unusual style that threw me off when I saw it, because it's not like anything we use anywhere else. It seems more appropriate for a physics textbook than a general encyclopedia. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This is for a textbook, not an encyclopedia. You wouldn't see anything like this in any normal encyclopedia. — Omegatron 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, belongs in a textbook, not an encyclopedia. Furthmore, it gives prominence to a small portion of the article, which is often not the central or most important thing in the article. If important known facts where highlighted in this fashion too, articles would get quite cluttered. Mairi 04:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but keep as a category. It may be useful to have an indirect method of linking article on unsolved or possibly nonexistent phenomena together.68.239.147.156 05:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, when I came across this template, it reminded me of reading a book for my 4-year-old son. This is definitely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Seriously, if someone used this template for the first time, I'd consider it vandalism. If something is questionable about an article's subject then please put it in a separate section instead of using such Mickey-Mouse-layout.--134.2.78.97 09:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the template makes Wikipedia more approachable and navigable. However, I would prefer if it was more like standard Wikipedia navigation templates, e.g. "This article is part of a series on unsolved problems in Physics". 195.173.23.111 10:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It gives an accurate impression of the state of physics research today and encourages readers to find out more about the other unresolved issues in physics. And I like it. Ewen 10:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per 195.173.23.111 ~ Flame vip e r 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep indeed it may encourage original research but that is a good thing ... provided of course it isn't included in an article!Abtract 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's useful as it sums up information about the current state of a subject. For example, I didn't know one way functions were not yet proved to exist and the template offers a quick way to finding this out. A reason why it's not in a paper encyclopedia is that what is current when it was written may not be current to the reader. CloudNine 21:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It contains useful and intersting data which promotes futher interest.Phoenixis 22:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may not be suitable to a standard encyclopedia, but I'm confused as to when this was ever a standard encyclopedia. Perhaps it can fit the Wikipedia style more, as suggested by 195.173.23.111. Alexnye 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It gives a great clue about where we are in physics! --drange
Keep: Its an interesting and efficient way of collecting some of teh more interesting bits of physics --Adjam
Delete: Textbook, not encyclopedia.
Strong keep: Perhaps for computer science the temple isn't as appropriate, however real physicists do make reference to the various "unsolved problems in physics" on many occasions. I have seen at least two articles of that sort in magazines like Popular Mechanics in the last year. The template helps to inform people to the current state of physics and let them know what information has yet to be discovered. As for the claim that it encourages original research, I hardly think the average reader is going to go out and solve problems regarding proton decay just because they've seen that template. Sloverlord 03:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It adds useful information and value. Its removal from articles needs to be discussed on a page by page basis. — jammycakes 13:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: It always points to interesting topics, encouraging users to LEARN, and shows the best part of science: It's not, and will never be a complete work. If people think it's ambiguous(Which I don't), edits should be discussed on the template talk page. --Mark the Echidna 17:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd reform the template and its usage, make it a bit like {{meta}} or the one linking to commons, which is a bit more more discreet (a simple "this article is part of blah blah" should do). Scoo 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep!!!: It tells one if there is some sort of "mystery" or unknown in the topic, and it sums up the questions that aren't answered. It does not "encourage original research" (actually, encouraging original research is not bad, it's encouraging original research to get posted here on Wikipedia that is bad. Wikipedia is not a journal.) contrary to what the nominator says. It does provide a summary however, and I think any reasonable person can see that it's not some sort of "quiz" to the reader. I sure don't see it that way. 170.215.83.212 02:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 05:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm rather shocked at the amount of editors who are supporting keep on this. Wikipedia is a source of knowledge, not the teaching method itself. If these same sentences were in the article body then they would very quickly be deleted. We don't use hooks like this anywhere else. On a List of episodes, we don't say "will Billy save the day?" It's a question in an article, people! It doesn't give any information whatsoever, and no value. We don't know why someone is reading an article, or what information they might be trying to get out of it. This is very different from a textbook situation where there is a structure to the lesson. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At least lets not format this in the form of a question. If you want to say that something has yet to be solved, then fine, but the format for this is just unprofessional. Also, how do we cite a source for some of these? -- Ned Scott 06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Sloverlord. I will also add that as a physics student, I have found the template to be very useful in navigation and in framing current issues in physics. Andromeda321 06:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - template is not any more confusing than most others, but is actually helpful. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nick Mks 12:27, 19 November 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.

Template:Resolve 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 delete. --humblefool ® 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template causes harm to the appearance of articles in excess of any benefit provided. There is already a banner-style template for self contradictory articles anyway. I resolve that this template be deleted. dryguy 03:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. dryguy 03:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. Atlantis Hawk 04:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, useless and redundant--Redlock 17:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By this rationale, then {{fact}} should be deleted, too. ~ Flame vip e r 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed - Useless. (No signature)
Keep. I've come across a few articles with the "contradict" banner, but it doesn't point out exactly what information is actually contradictory. That's why I created this template, to make finding and correcting contradictory information much easier. -- Denelson 83 02:30, 18 November 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.

Template:buzz 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 migrate to userspace (userfy) per WP:UM. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, deleting redirects. --humblefool ® 01:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless userbox template. Creator was kind enough to create at multiple locations. --- RockMFR 01:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We already have a collection of stupid userboxes anyway, deleting this would be unfair. Atlantis Hawk 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userpsace per WP:GUS. Tons of more helpful templates, like chess and computer platform, have been moved, this should be no exception. Hbdragon88 01:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:GUS, plenty of precedent. Xtifr _tälk 13:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate to userspace per Hbdragon88--Redlock 18:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy First time I've found a use for the msg: prefix, though.] Templates really shouldn't start 'subst:'. --ais523 11:32, 14 November 2006 (U T C)
Userfy. Useless. ~ Flame vip e r 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied at 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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