Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 26

< August 25	August 27 >

August 26 edit

Template:Linkimage 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. If used in mainspace, this does boil down to censoring "unpleasant" images, which is something that gets proposed and rejected almost every week. Outside of mainspace, I see no reason why people wouldn't use [[:Image links. Arguments that "Wikipedia should censor shocking images" should be made on the relevant policy pages instead; arguments like "it is used" are not compelling. >Radiant< 07:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. Only used on three pages. Mediawiki:Bad image list already blocks images excepting those pages, so why hide the image where it can be included? It won't be a shock for someone visiting pre-ejaculate to find a picture. Will ^(talk) 23:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Yes, I know it has been TFD'd twice. Hence why I'm not saying it's censorship, but I still think the template should not exist. In a case much more controversial than a picture of a guy sucking himself, there was a supermajority consensus to fully display the image. Will ^(talk) 23:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. I say "weak" because the template is used, but it's still not enough to warrant a "keep", which I would vote except that we don't have the goatse image, so there is no reason to keep. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 23:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Per WP:CD, WP:NDT, WP:CENSOR and nom. ^demon 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Right now the template is used on three articles. It's transcluded on 29 other pages outside of mainspace, not all related to sexual content. If we don't want it used in mainspace, add {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|template}} Besides this, though, I think that the issue of censorship in each individual article is better handled on the talk page of the three articles, not in one TfD nomination. If consensus here is to override consensus on these three pages, this template should at least be substed before deletion. Gracenotes^T § 16:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but this should not be used in the mainspace per WP:CENSOR. This is an established policy with consensus. --- RockMFR 17:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow use in mainspace. It has been used in the past on maggot therapy; it's useful for any potentially shocking images (and I have been shocked by the pre-ejaculate image in the past), not just sexual images. I believe at the last deletion nomination it was also being used for a movie clip that would be difficult to download for those with slower internet connections. WP:CENSOR applies to removing images from articles so readers are denied the information the images provide. This template does not remove images; it just offers readers a choice. Offering a choice is not censorship, so Wikipedia's policy of non-censorship does not apply. Whether to use this template or put images inline should be decided by consensus on individual articles, just like whether to include any pictures at all, and which pictures to use, is decided by consensus on individual articles. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're basing everything around WP:CENSOR, which actually says that such images are fine if they are relevant, and isn't even mentioned in my nomination. Also, regarding video clips, like audio, doesn't that require two clicks from an article to download? Will ^(talk) 21:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was not mentioned in the nomination, but was mentioned by one of the subsequent delete voters, and by a keep voter who wanted to code out mainspace usage. I went back and read the previous deletion discussion, and it was a memory-heavy animated GIF that was linked - animated GIFs will automatically load when a page is loaded.

I do not believe this template violates WP:NDT, either. The template doesn't say "WARNING: You may not like this picture. Click with care!" It doesn't create a content fork with a "safe article" and a "graphic article". It just offers the reader a choice. And the reader can go back and forth - when the boss comes into the office, click the image closed. When he leaves, open it back up again :þ In longer articles, this functionality of allowing the reader to quickly go to an objectionless screen can be achieved by putting the image lower in the article, and most of the articles with graphic pictures do follow this convention - see penis, for example, where the first photographic image does not appear until (on my monitor) the third screen of the article). That option is not available in shorter articles, and I think this template is a valid option there. Subject to consensus of editors working on the article, of course. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disclaimer-like, unencyclopedic and encourages violation of an established policy. Prolog 11:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maintaining that an image won’t “shock” someone who is intentionally visiting a page on the subject is a lame argument. I will admit that I didn’t know what Autofellatio was, and after being directed to it after reading WP:PR0N, I was faced with two graphic images which are most probably taken from gay pornography websites. (Would these images appear in a regular encyclopedia?) There is no need to add graphic images when a perfectly demonstrative sketch is available – WP is not a glossy sex manual. Secondly reading about a subject is not the same as seeing an image. If I want to know about pre-ejaculate I do not need to experience the indignity of having a graphic image shoved in front of me. In order to give an option to the user the link is a sound device. Can the images of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, controversial as they may be, really be compared to innate human sentiment towards concealing graphic sexuality? Chesdovi 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or add {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}|template}} as suggested by Gracenotes. Most of the arguments to keep for use in mainspace boil down to "pictures of X are icky". Some people find images of snakes and spiders icky. Some find them far more icky than pictures of penises or vulvae. Once we start down the path of censorship (and that is what is being suggested, make no mistake about it), it will be very hard to stop. "If I want to know about spiders I do not need to experience the indignity of having a graphic image shoved in front of me" is only one word different than an argument offered above, and makes every bit as much sense. I can see, perhaps, some use for this in talk page discussions, where the question of whether a controversial image should be added to an article at all is going on. But if it's going to be kept for that purpose, it should be limited to that purpose by making it do nothing on an actual article. (I should also note that at the moment I'm writing, it's only in use on one mainspace article, not three.) Xtifr _tälk 10:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus on the talk page of the spider image was that this template was appropriate, I don't see anything wrong with that. "It will be very hard to stop?" This template has existed for over two years, and usage of it has actually gone down as Wikipedia has grown. As stated above, I personally feel it's only appropriate for short articles, and that need for the template will go away as the articles in question grow. Furthermore, it's not currently in use on the other articles it was used on at the start of this deletion — including autofellatio where Jimmy Wales instituted use of this template — because the person who nominated the template removed it from these low-traffic pages, not because there was any consensus on the talk page (diff diff).

I'm also still waiting to have explained how requiring a click of a mouse to see an image constitutes "removal and/or withholding of information". The information is still there, and it's still freely available - I don't understand how this could be censorship. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gracenotes' solution Wikipedia articles are not censored; however, users should clearly have the option to censor their own comments. 17Drew 20:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Allows for reasonable use of images on MediaWiki:Bad image list (the problem was not censoring, it was vandalism). Circeus 22:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, wouldn't it be a bit hard to vandalise the page Penis with a picture of a penis? Will ^(talk) 13:22, 1 September 2007 (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 section.

Template:Latest stable release/Tkabber 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template giving the current version of a non-notable software product. — Mikeblas 22:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why the Tkabber article isn't non-notable software (in random order):

AFAIR (this can be verified), Tkabber is the third oldest Jabber client project that is *still* active today, most other projects have died since then
Tkabber won a honorable mention in a contest: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Tcl/Tk_Contest/
One of the 2 Tcl-based Jabber client projects that are still active (there were at least 4 projects)
AFAIK Tkabber supports most of the XEPs made by the XSF compared to other Jabber clients
Maybe other reasons that I don't know

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NaturalBornKiller (talk • contribs)

Delete: unused and useless template giving the current version of a specific software product of marginal notability. (And I say this as a user of the software in question.) The version number doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere besides the main article, so there's no reason to have a template. Xtifr _tälk 11:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above reasons given by Xtifr. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unused, and as above. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:35, 29 August 2007 (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 section.

Template:CurrentSingles 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. Bduke 06:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the use in this template. The release of a single does not really qualify as a current event, the only information in the article that is likely to change after release is information on its chart position or reviews. Current templates are meant to be for articles where information may change quickly and those that are being edited by many users. This will not happen with singles as there is little information to update upon release.

There is also no need to tell the reader that a single is "current", they can glean this from reading its release date in the infobox. — Dave101→talk 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The TfD for Template:Current album seems relevant here. Gracenotes^T § 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-What actually qualifies as a "Current Single". it is extra work for editor to keep articles updates with this template. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If current album was deleted than this should probably be deleted also. As, the above user said - it also needs a specific definition for "current"--daniel folsom 21:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasons for Template:Current album deletion. --Lakeyboy 01:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~Strong keep. I think that it's important to indicate that a single is current. New charts are issued every week, so chart information -- however minor it may be -- does change rather quickly (unless it's the AC charts, but I digress). And I don't think that a single can always be determined as "current" just by its release date. Some songs take a long time to climb, and some zip up the charts really fast and then drop like a rock, so a song that's only 20 weeks old may be recurrent already, but a song that's 35+ weeks old may still be climbing. The "Current singles" tag makes it clearer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 02:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can't you tell it's a recent single from the release date? Superior1 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with Ten Pound Hammer, but I don't understand how you qualify your argument as "weak keep". It seems like a pretty strong/correct evaluation to me. --Ayoleftyz 06:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Because some of the opposing arguments are at least somewhat convincing as well. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind, I'm going with a strong keep now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 17:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The 'current' series of templates are not relevant for songs. Details do not rapidly change for recorded music. - Gilliam 09:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Ten Pound Hammer on this one. Singles have a relatively short shelf life, definitely much shorter than albums, so I don't think this one should be zapped just because the "current album" one was. And trust me there are more than a few editors who patrol these weekly and add/remove the template as the charts are updated. - eo 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is IF there is a standard on what can be considered a current single. --AEMoreira042281 03:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if it's not in recurrent rotation perhaps? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 18:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the current album template, it has no real benefits to the reader or editor. In response to TenPoundHammer's arguments, the dramatic changes in chart position he alludes to are rare. While such occurrences should be documented if they do happen, it's not such a big deal that we need a temporal template. szyslak 03:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Sometimes people (especially fans of the artist) can throw a lot of stuff into an article - some of will seem a bit trivial or "breathless detail". One reason that it might make sense to tag articles with this: People wishing to do a proper cleanup on articles about singles might want to wait a couple months after release and then clean up on the article after all the current-events editing has died down, then remove the current-single tag (or at least change it to a general "cleanup" tag). This CurrentSingles tag, if categorized by date, can let editors know how far past the release a single has gotten. --Closeapple 10:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CurrentAlbum. I don't think it adds anything to our content. People will be able to see if it is currently charting based on the sales table (if there is one) and it will either be up to date or not. violet/riga (t) 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd just like to note that this template seems to be a corollary oft {{Current}}. From {{Current}} I quote, "This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors." Now, as excited as we all get every time we hear how suicidal Sean Kingston is, I don't think we're editing the article 100 times a day. Looks more like 3 or 4 to me. --JayHenry 23:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Closeapple. Scarian ^Talk 01:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The template is useful; it helps in categorization/cleanup, as well as being a practical indication to the reader of why some of these articles have incessant vandalism - new singles frequently attract unproductive edits, after all. Even if editors aren't having to change the actual song information constantly, they are still having to make 2-3 edits per day minimum just to remove mostly intentional vandalism until the single is no longer in the limelight. The template imparts more info to the reader than if it were not present (which is always a good thing). It's not bulky or in the way, and doesn't negatively impact articles it appears on. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 02:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and debate over {{current album}}. Drewcifer 03:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. As per Vendetta. You know sometimes, i think that some editors are nerds who have no lives, and what they do in their spare time is nominate useful things for deletion. i dont see any need for this to be deleted, as it provides useful information because singles can be promoted from anywhere from 2-4 mos at a time, and remain on radio playlists for longer. i come here everyday, but not nessisarily to edit, but to find information and will put my "2 cents" every once in a while when needed. Anyways.... Bigga123 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, As per Vendetta. TopopMAC1 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's a current single? Superior1 04:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A current single is a song that has been released by a record label that is used to promote an album whether it is releasing the song on radio stations, digital downloads or a CD. I hope thats cleared up for everybody.Bigga123 01:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer et al. Pretty good arguments to me. Bearian 12:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chart information changes quickly (once or twice or week, or continuously if you can find services that provide continuous info on chart positions etc. The template warns that info may be out of date or will advise editors it may need an update. Liverpool Scouse 17:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should we date these templates to help remove stray old ones? violet/riga (t) 16:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really useful to a reader of article. --Pmsyyz 13:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful--SuperHotWiki 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Singles chart much quicker than albums, so information becomes out of date or is updated in a short period of time. 17Drew 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I for one find it helpful. CillaИ X♦C [dic] 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concur with User:TenPoundHammer. Yes, a reader could try to determine, by the context of the article, whether a single is truly current, but our job on Wikipedia is (or ought to be) explaining things as simply as possible and not leave the reader guessing. User:Bigga123 defines "current single" very simply. The contributors who said "not useful" fail to explain their reasoning, IMO, and it comes off as "I don't like it". [[Briguy52748 02:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment From the Current template page, "This template was created for those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors. It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic." A single is not going to get hundreds of edits a day, therefore it does not need a current tag. For me, this is not an "I don't like it" reasoning. Most of the keep responses say that it is "useful", but this tag is not "intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic". Dave101→talk 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dave101 — Sorry to be vague about which contributors I was referring to. They were Pmsyyz and SuperHotwiki (when they say simply "not useful" but give no other reasoning). Although I disagree with the other delete votes, they do back up thier arguments and those I do not question. [[Briguy52748 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong Delete Per nomination.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 17:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I look up information on singles all of the time, and it's good to know when a single is still in current rotation without having to check the date, scroll down check when it was released, then scroll to the bottom of a page to see if it's still on the Billboard charts. Even more useful is the category automatically created by the current singles tag, which I frequently go to if I haven't listened to the radio in a while and want to see what's in rotation. In addition, Wikipedians wanting to update each single's chart trajectory can easily do so by using the template category. The thing that most people don't realize is that a) not all tracks from an album are released as singles, and b) a single's time in rotation isn't related to how long ago it was released. For example, a single released two months ago isn't considered current by some artist's standards (pop artists release singles constantly), but an Adult Contemporary artist may keep a single in rotation for months at a time. It really depends on the situation and can't be determined alone from the release date. Bottom line, if the "current singles" template is deleted, I'd like to see a replacement for it, whether it be a visible notice in the infobox, an inclusion in a new category, or some other notice that's easily accessible without me needing to scroll when the page loads. --Damae 03:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies if I'm being naive but where is this "template category"? You can see current singles by using the "what links here" link but as far as I can tell the template itself does not add the page to any categories. Dave101→talk 11:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dave101 Oh wow, you're right, there isn't one. I suppose I hallucinated or something, lol. Perhaps to make this template more useful, a current singles category would be added when the template is added. --Damae 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Damae. --Effer^AKS 21:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per prior comments. Just because it's not "hundreds of edits a day" (as one prior comment says) doesn't mean readers don't need to know the information is subject to change at least weekly. --RBBrittain 01:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one of those nonsensical info templates. --Filip (§) 07:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also don't see the need for this. Another piece of useless clutter in articles. —Moondyne 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This template shows articles which will be constant modified, so the editor could contribute on updating it. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Damae. Hit singles are a current event. This is just a special form of the current events template. If this is deleted I will replace all of its used with the general "current events" template, which isn't much of an improvement.--Funnyguy555 04:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this user has < 30 edits. >Radiant< 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and precedent. Templates like this are meant to aid editor cleanup, NOT to tell readers the difference between a "current" single and a "non-current" one. >Radiant< 07:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Decreases readability and gives almost nothing. --Biblbroks 's talk 10:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a very useful tool in determining which singles actually are current. For example, rap entertainer Chamillionaire released the single "Not A Criminal", yet after only a few weeks, it was no longer considered to be his current single, as that was changed to "Hip Hop Police", and now the single seems to have vanished entirely from the track listing of the album it was supposed to appear on ("Ultimate Victory"). That is just one example of where a current single needs to be noted. Also, I agree with TenPoundHammer in that it may take a VERY long time for a "current" single to climb up the charts, and some of these singles may NEVER climb up the charts, so it may be more useful in situations such as those where an artist releases a single that takes anywhere from 10 to 20 weeks to peak on the charts and start gaining attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.253.63 (talk)

Reply How does this template aid "in determining which singles are current"? If there were a category which was added to an article when this tag was added, then maybe. However, we already have Category:2007 singles, which serves far more use for finding current singles than this template. Dave101→talk 15:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dave101 - While the Category:2007 singles is indeed useful, an individual artist or group may already have had several singles released, in addition to their current hit. I know the process is imperfect, but if this template is deleted, can anyone suggest a better way to instantly inform the reader (aside from placing a sentence in the article) that a song is an artist's current release? [[Briguy52748 21:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Strong keep, for the myriad of reasons eloquently listed above.--Esprit15d 18:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What determines "current?" Can an artist have two "current" singles, or just one, as stated above by IP:57.____? And what about songs that were originally "current singles" but are now on "current albums?" Or songs that went from current singles to current albums to past albums but still get air time (can you say "classic rock")? I think that there are no well defined criterea for this category, and never can be. —Scouter Sig 15:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Easy -- "current" means it's on the charts right now (not the "recurrent" charts). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 11:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying if it isn't popular enough to be on the charts, then it isn't current. Sounds like this category should instead be renamed to "Songs that are currently popular." —Scouter Sig 15:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scoutersig - I think what TenPoundHammer is saying is the song is currently on the charts; I would add to that, any song that is actively being promoted by the artist to radio, or newly released song - meaning, within the past several months - that is available for consumer purchase (by means of single (compact disc or vinyl) or digital download). Indeed, an artist may have two (or several more, in theory) songs that currently are "popular" (e.g., The Beatles during their explosive run in popularity in 1964), and with the current trend in online downloading, said artist or band may have many songs available (kind of like the old days at the record store, where the artist/band had his/her/their current hit and several older titles). But I think defining the term "current' is not nor should be rocket science, IMO. TenPoundHammer said it best - "current" means "right now." [[Briguy52748 21:03, 8 September 2007 (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 section.

Template:Current-month 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one page, and can never be used on more than one page. Seems rather pointless to me, and should either be substituted, or Template:Current (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) could be used instead. — GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Hardly needed on the current month article, not useful anywhere else. / edg ☺ ★ 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above, and the fact that it will quite quickly (after 30 days approx.) need to be taken away. Pointless. people can already see that a page 'documents the current month', and if they can't then it is time to call in the chaps with the white coats. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 17:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow. Really pointless and all around just ... wow.--daniel folsom 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless of course one does not have a calendar. - eo 19:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{The sky is blue}} ... I mean, delete. szyslak 03:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Not much need for it, except for the article about the current month. I know I had stated in a previous argument that our job is to explain things as simply as possible; however, we don't have to hold their hand and say, "Now this is the current month ..." well, you get the point. [[Briguy52748 02:50, 2 September 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox Hotel 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 redirect following merge which has already been performed. IronGargoyle 02:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An duplicate of Template:Infobox hotel or vice versa - for those that are confused, Infobox Hotel (capital H) is a different template from Infobox hotel (lowercase h). Nonetheless, the later (Infobox hotel) seems to be a better collection of the intended purpose found in Infobox Hotel. We don't need two Infobox templates for notable hotel properties. Luke! 05:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and~~ redirect per WP:CAPS. I believe it is standard practice for most infobox templates to have the first word after Infobox capitalized. Therefore, it is desirable to have one redirect to the other when that is not the case. --Farix (Talk) 17:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- addendum Let just make it redirect, since there really isn't anything to merge and only one article was using this infobox. --Farix (Talk) 15:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Template:Infobox hotel - it should be brought up on the talk page how or if to implement Template:Infobox Hotel's style features.--daniel folsom 22:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. I also think that a discussion needs to take place regarding the stylistic features of the Hotel template. I believe that it is only used on the Burj Al Arab page at the moment. Woodym555 16:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I didn't realise there was an other template. I think that so no one makes this mistake again, there should be a redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan602 (talk • contribs)

Delete and move Infobox hotel to proper caps. Unnecessary duplication. Ohconfucius 23:39, 4 September 2007 (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 section.

Template:M-104 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. IronGargoyle 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Incomplete with more than a month of inactivity. Essentially a recreation for a specific in-universe ship (without article?) of Template:SW Craft. — EEMeltonIV 03:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-universe template that is not used anywhere. Template:SW Craft, should also be redesigned to include more out-of-universe information, which it currently lacks, and further remove trivial in-universe details per WP:WAF#Infoboxes and succession boxes. --Farix (Talk) 18:06, 26 August 2007 (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 section.

Template:EUAVS 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. Bduke 06:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing inherently fair-use about these images. Uploaders should be using a generic {{fairusein}} tag instead. -—Carnildo 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the second sentence on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion: "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." Xtifr _tälk 12:00, 6 September 2007 (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 section.

Template:Nokia phones 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catalog of advertising articles. Many are duplicates, most are redlinks. Precious few are notable products. — Mikeblas 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, possibly replace with categories (e.g., Category:Phones in the Nokia 3xxx series). Gracenotes^T § 05:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that the template was bloated with redirects and red links. I just cleaned it up and it is now more organized. I use this template a lot and I would hate to see it get deleted. —TigerK 69 08:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that most of the article using this template are {{orphan}}, except for the dozens of links injected by the template itself. -- Mikeblas 22:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - They make/have made a myriad of mobiles and this is a great chart that I'm sure took quite the effort to compile. It's quite useful IMHO. Kether83 02:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've just found this template invaluable in looking around at Nokia phone models looking through for a new one (and through all my old Nokias!) The red-links will hopefully be filled in the future Tphi 00:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful to understand the evolution of mobile founds, if only within Nokia products Figarema 11:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the problem is the 'advertising articles', then it's the articles that need fixing not the template. As for the non-notability of the products themselves, many gadget magazines will have reviewed the phones meaning that it meets WP:N. AlexJ 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The quality of the articles is not very relevant to the quality of this template. This is a useful template that brings the Nokia products together. I'm confused how someone can claim they're not notable - there are articles on Wikipedia for many obscure pieces of software (and rightly so), so why should phones used by millions not receive pages? Surely it's possible to fulfil notability criteria for almost any phone. Tompagenet 08:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Its also now relevant to note that the template is now ~~virtually~~ free of red-links due to Wikipedian's work creating the remaining phone articles. Tphi 15:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All red-links now gone. Tphi 11:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep still needs some cleanup, but I am working on it now. -- Petri Krohn 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a quite useful navigation tool. Pmbarros 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful template. Mgiganteus1 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very practical as an overview and for easy navigation. The Seventh Taylor 23:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find it useful to see the range of nokia phones + easy to navigate. Hectic18 11:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find it useful as well, however I guess it might still need cleanup. --Vlad|-> 10:33, 3 September 2007 (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 section.

Template:African Immigrant numbers in Metropolitan areas 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 subst and delete. IronGargoyle 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subst and delete Single use template from African immigration to the United States that is a data table. Content should not be hidden away in templates without multiple uses. Circeus 01:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregorB 22:24, 2 September 2007 (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 section.

Template:AfghanRefugeeCamp 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. matt br 20:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all redlinks, most of which of dubious notability. Jelazee Refugee Camp is a coat rack for an entirely unrelated issue. Circeus 01:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the second sentence on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion: "Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised." Xtifr _tälk 11:59, 6 September 2007 (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 section.