Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 6

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6 edit

Template:Aelffin/Sandbox 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 (not by me) per user request. Shalom ^Hello 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious test. — Old Hoss 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my test. Go ahead and delete it. Aelffin 22:32, 6 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:Infobox UK schools, Template:Infobox UK school, Template:Infobox College GB and Template:Infobox English Public School 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 and move Template:Infobox GB school to Template:Infobox UK school. — Malcolm (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Template:Infobox UK schools, Template:Infobox UK school, Template:Infobox College GB and Template:Infobox English Public School. The templates are depreciated in favour of Template:Infobox GB school and all schools/colleges using the templates have been moved to the GB School infobox. The depreciation took place in early June, so the template shouldn't be needed. I suggest that all four templates are deleted. (Sorry if I've made any mistakes with formatting here.) — CR7 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now notified all main contributors and the creators of the above templates to notify them of the deletion nomination. A notice has also been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#UK Infobox merger. CR7 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them per nom, template standardisation is good! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- and rename Infobox GB School to Infobox UK School Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom, all redundant now. Should also delete Template:Infobox UKschool which is a redirect to Template:Infobox UK school from an earlier rename. Keith D 19:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them as per nom. I am all for the standardisation of templates, there are too many of them out there. Apparently I was one of the main contributors to the development of one of the above and the development was probably because what was there was not quite fitting requirements. The new template is excellent and has a very good usage section. Kwib 20:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: per nom. Jza84 01:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but nominator should rename Template:Infobox GB school to Template:Infobox UK school. GB refers to the mainland island and minor islands while UK includes Northern Ireland. --Bill Reid | Talk 12:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rename Infobox GB School to Infobox UK School. chgallen 12:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and rename Infobox GB School to Infobox UK School, once the present template there is deleted; or perhaps simply move Infobox GB School to Infobox UK School? per User talk:Billreid & chgallen Xn4 13:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rename Infobox GB School to Infobox UK School. Tafkam 13:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 19:45, 10 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:Russian Oblast 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) 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is empty and hasn't had anything added since 2005. Template:Administrative divisions of Russia is the template in use.. Russavia 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we have Template:Administrative divisions of Russia and this template is empty and not in use since 2005 -its obvious somebody was trying ways to draw up a template and forgot about it - then delete. As long as one currently in use is not up for deletion!!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you?" Contribs} 17:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CR7 (message me) 01:33, 11 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:Mapit-Canada-cityscale 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 to the replacement Geolinks templates. Mike Peel 06:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover Mapit/Geolinks duality. And let's throw in

Note that Template:Mapit-US-cityscale and Template:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale are NOT yet ready to be deleted because of hundreds of remaining references to them.--SallyForth123 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as obsolete. Shalom ^Hello 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Shalom hike395 03:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, obsolete. –sebi 10:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 19:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Comments about templates being "ready to be deleted" on the whim of an overseas editor when the core users of them haven't been consulted or even notified are a bit premature. The four above, however, seem to be genuinely deprecated templates. Orderinchaos 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: He is referring only to Mapit-AUS-suburbscale. It's Australian thing, mate.--SallyForth123 01:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:5, Wikipedia's international policy, specifically lists consensus. Nothing parochial about that. However, the response that my comment was directed to the comments regarding "Template:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale are NOT yet ready to be deleted" alone is entirely correct, hence why I placed it as a comment and not a vote. Orderinchaos 07:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to appropriate Geolinks template. No need to remove templates that some people will try and use. :: maelgwn - talk 03:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: Again, only the Australian template and the US-cityscale templates are still in use two years after they were told: Don't use these anymore! I am not going to try to tell the Australians what to do about their template, but the US templates listed (and their talk pages, which have been consolidated) can be deleted with no negative impact.--06:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  - It would appear the comment made was specifically addressed to about 10 templates, which are listed not far below the comment. Orderinchaos 07:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as best solution per maelgwn, or delete if diffs using the old name are non-recent. I'm a little concerned about this aspect given the mad panic to change Mapit- to Geolinks- using an unapproved bot over the last 36 hours in the Australian context, and want to ensure the same has not occurred elsewhere (on a random inspection, it would thankfully appear that it's not the case). Orderinchaos 07:26, 11 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:Unsigned3 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 to {{unsigned}}. Whether or not a "please sign your posts" link should be added to the other two unsigned templates should be discussed on their talk pages. Mike Peel 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Functionally redundant with {{unsigned}} except for the explicit admonition. However it also has a bug as its missing the trailing (UTC) which the archive bots pick up on. I propose that if they passes, a bot subst the <500 uses and delete the template. KelleyCook 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template is redundant. It may be simpler to redirect to Template:Unsigned. Shalom ^Hello 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to {{unsigned}} - Redundant. Cheers, Lig hts 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the time being, after bot work delete. Carlosguitar 21:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst all current uses, then delete. ~~SpebiBot might be able to help out with the substing. –sebi 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
No, he won't be able to due to malfunctioning code. –sebi 09:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I like the linked "Please sign your posts" admonition that was in {{unsigned3}}. Many unregistered users and newbies do not know how to sign their posts. The link tells them how, and why they should. Saves a lot of editor time explaining this stuff to them. Can it be added to the {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}} templates? I prefer the date/name order of {{unsigned2}} versus the name/date order of {{unsigned}}.

{{unsigned2}} is better for copying the date/name info directly from an edit history list (with a single copy-and-paste). Because the edit history list puts the date before the name. So I hope no one deletes the {{unsigned2}} template. There is more discussion at Template talk:Unsigned2.--Timeshifter 13:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or just redirect I use it frequently but I don't see the reason why there should be more than one {{Unsigned}}. Lord Sesshomaru 17:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
redirect, deleting will make it a headache to look at old revisions of stuff. A lot of the {{user...}} need to be redirected too, i'll see if i can come up with a proposal tonight--Random832 22:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with the comment above. I use {{unsigned3}} specifically because of the "Please sign your posts!" admonition. Wouldn't mind if this template was deleted if it was added to {{unsigned}} and {{unsigned2}}. Cheers, Jacklee 20:26, 13 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:WikiProjectLace 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 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template of Wikiproject lace. The Wikiproject is inactive and the MFD is here/. SLSB talk 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove all transclusions, then delete. –sebi 00:59, 7 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:Wider attention list and Template:Wider attention 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 thanks to Betacommand who wrote an RFCbot, this is now officially moot. >Radiant< 08:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CANVASSING. These templates aren't canvassing, I'm sure everyone is well aware of that. But the previous debate got stuck on that issue for some reason.

A list of issues that require "wider attention" is a good idea. However, we already have at several such lists, to wit WP:RFC and WP:CENT. The problem with having multiple lists is that some people will watch and post at one of them, and some will watch and post at another, and people looking at one list can be quite unaware of the existence of the other. Therefore this defies the entire point of reaching out to people! Putting these issues in a single location will give them far more attention than spreading them out. >Radiant< 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

copyed my talkpage β^_command 14:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the bot were to generate the template from the subpages of WP:RFC instead, that would solve the problem (which is that people now have to look at several places to get all their news). The problem is not with the existence of the template, but with its redundancy. >Radiant< 13:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is Its not a RFC list. the purpose of the list is not to generate a list of RFC's not all issues that need wider attention need a RFC. The main reason for the template is to help avoid cross posting to many notice boards instead of posting on AN ANI VP and a few other places for input you can just add this template. β^_command 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- But that is precisely what RFC is intended to be: a list of issues that need wider attention, to avoid crossposting it. I've heard people claiming RFC is too formal, but if you look at it it really isn't (except for RFCs against a user, of course, but that's very different). How is this any different, then? >Radiant< 14:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - its different because there is no formal method, you simply add a template asking for wider input. Most of the issues that it is used for dont need a RFC or cent, they just need more input. Ive used it with a post to AN about BCBot to make sure that information got out. also it prevents forking of discussions because they can be held on talkpages or what ever board the issue is on at that time. β^_command 14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - BUT there isn't a formal method for RFC either, and there isn't a formal method for CENT either. I'm kind of curious where you got the impression that either of those is even remotely formal, because they're not. >Radiant< 14:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lets take this to the tfD instead of forking it. β^_command 14:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please simply explain HOW this is any different from RFC and CENT, and please explain why you have come to the conclusion that RFC is "formal". The solution is to fix RFC, not to fork it. >Radiant< 14:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If RFC needs fixing, fix it first then TfD this template. Andyvphil 22:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep to be clear I wrote the bot that updates these templates. The main goal of them is to get more input on informal discussions or issues that need more attention. This also reduces the need for crossposting a notice to a million different places. one perfect example is for Bot approval group nominations. Bot approval is a low traffic area, and users complain about CABALism and a clear method to avoid that is to get outside input. Also it is designed for smaller issues than RFC's and the other big issues. Radiant in regard to it hindering it, How can an automated list of discussions that have a request for outside help hinder? these templates are generated by a bot. and these templates are just links to current discussions not separate discussions. Also the fact that RFC and CENT are formal pain's and are normally avoided. Going from my BAG reference above why should a user have to file a RFC or a CENT discussion for a simple matter? instead of cross posting a notice of the discussion to multiple boards why not just use an automated listing? Most of the issues that are on the list are not RFC-able or even need a CENT they just need some outside attention. Its not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. β^_command 14:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. And likewise, RFC is not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. And CENT is also not a formal issue, just a simple request for input. The three are exactly the same! >Radiant< 14:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not RFC clearly states Before adding an entry here: followed by a set of rules. this clearly means that this is in fact formal. instead its a lot easier and cleaner to use a simple template to attract more input. β^_command 14:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Like I said, the solution is to fix RFC, not fork it. Why not have the bot list things on the RFC page instead of on the template? Problem solved. >Radiant< 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - the bot could be used to generate such a combined list on a new template. β^_command 14:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds like a reasonable idea. Note that I've fixed RFC, it had acquired too much instruction creepy cruft over the years, but it really is a simple and informal process. >Radiant< 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        all you have to do is create a template similar to this for RFC and cent and Ill add them to the bot, once we have the separate templates for the different areas we can place the output templates in a new page to make this very simple. something like {{RFCbio}} or something else. and they can all be added to a master template. β^_command 15:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible COI It appears that the person who proposed the deletion of this template closed the TfD. According to Wikipedia:Deletion process this shouldn't happen- People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest. I don't like the idea of people saying "lets scrap a discussion and start again because I dislike the way this discussion is going". Lurker (said · done) 14:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything that stops discussions from being limited to a small clique is a good idea. And a variety of ways to do this is a good idea too, as issues differ. RFC may not be appropriate for every situation. Lurker (said · done) 14:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be less vague and give a concrete example of something that RFC is inappropriate for? The issue at hand is that certain people don't seem to understand RFC, and so create a new process. New processes should have been discussed first. >Radiant< 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - RFC is a formal process, this isn't. It's just a way of gettign more people into a discussion. Oh, and you haven't addressed my concerns above regarding your closing of the previous debate, against Wikipedia policy. Lurker (said · done) 14:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - RFC is not a formal process. Whoever told you that is wrong. Also, your concerns about bureaucracy are misplaced. Strictly speaking the only people with a COI here are those that use or edit the template in question. >Radiant< 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, the policy is People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. Otherwise, people could just close discussions if too many people disagree with them on the issue. Lurker (said · done) 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        People can withdraw debates they started. But let's stick to the subject at hand, ok? RFC is not formal. I've just cut the page text in half to get rid of some of the cruft, this should clear up any doubts. >Radiant< 15:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. I already have to have a list of umpteen different "centralized discussion" links in my userspace, because they are not actually centralized. Forcing me to add another link to look in another place is bad, not good. Very, very, bad. It seems like this is being fed by a bot; probably the best thing to do is have the bot feed WP:CENT instead (e.g., merge that functionality) and get rid of the need to look in two places. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, and Comment. When Messedrocker proposed this concept for addition to the Community portal, I asked "is this redundant/mergable with any of WP:RFC, WP:CENT, or WP:3O?" but didn't explicitly get answered. He said "bringing something to community-wide attention is [now] as simple as slapping a tag on the page and then removing it when you're done. No confusing template editing, no laborious crossposting, and best of all, when you don't need the advertising anymore, simply remove the tag." That seemed a sensible intent, but I privately guessed that it would get oversized or overwhelmed and/or TfD'd eventually.
I really hope it gets merged, and RFC/others simplified, because redundancy/complexity just ends up obscuring things, but I don't have the background in code or RFC-familiarity to help. --Quiddity 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not very happy with it's inclusion in the Template:Villagepumppages. It's squashed, distracting, and usually irrelevant. --Quiddity 22:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been thinking of a method of expanding the current method that would automate RFC, and other areas. A few weeks ago a proposal came out to expand the bot for WikiProjects and other areas. I coded the bot that maintains these templates so that it could handle more templates very simply. A suggestion that would merge RFC/theses templates/ anything else that could be added. Create a pair of templates, one being the tag for a discussion, and the second one being the place where the bot outputs the list. we get one for RFC/Biographies and other areas and then create a central area where all the list templates are transcluded so that we in effect have a list of pages sorted by topic that need attention. β^_command 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely useful for gaining atttention on the community portal for topics that are controversial and need a community wide arguement and counter arguements. Marlith ^T/C 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is precisely what RFC and CENT are. >Radiant< 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very useful, and its well maintained. These have a different purpose to RfC - it's just asking that more people pay attention to it, or discuss it. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is precisely the purpose of RFC. >Radiant< 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps link to it from additional places, so it gets wider attention itself . RfC's are for questions which need outside attention, but not necessarily from the community. Most of them draw the necessary specialised participation, and then get solved without general discussion. DGG (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is false. RFC are for questions that need outside attention from the community. >Radiant< 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is absolutely useful and a very good idea. Atropos 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's such a good idea that we've had it for years already (RFC). >Radiant< 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that there should be a centralized location for centralized discussion, deleting one of the major ones won't solve anything. That said, I believe it's very useful. i ^said 03:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are already several centralized locations for centralized discussion. How is this one not redundant? >Radiant< 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, Speedy, Keep AND CLOSE - as per my previous comment on the original thread and as per clarification on the bot. It is clear this tag plays a different role than what other venues of centralized discussion provide. In fact, there is a centralized discussion itself tagged with this tag right now. This AfD is misguided, and nom should have discussed before AfD. Someone please close, as there is this is clearly WP:SNOWBALL, as reasons for nom are not reasons for AfD. Thanks!--Cerejota 13:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's far from clear. Proof by assertion isn't, there just appear to be a number of people that are unaware of what RFC is. Incidentally, this is not an AfD either. >Radiant< 13:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Radiant has thusfar given a solid counterargument for every keep "vote". That is not "WP:SNOWBALL". Mel sa ran 22:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has the potential for being used as a quick way to gather a few outside opinions on a matter that you want to discuss, and nobody is commenting on. An RfC is for when the involved editors can't resolve the matter by themselves. Right? Mel sa ran 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. I actually think this is a tough call. I, myself, tend to think that RFC should be a more general purpose forum, and not just to help resolve irreconcilable differences. But on the other hand, I notice that every time I've suggested an RFC to help with a complex (but not particularly contentious) issue, others always insist that we don't need to do anything so "drastic". So I think it may boil down to: whose view of RFC should prevail? I prefer Radiant's view myself, but.... Xtifr _tälk 00:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm sorry if the Watt system is just another brick on the wall, but I believe that automation is the future. It would be appropriate, then, to merge them and make it really centralized. MessedRocker (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per a discussion with radiant Im working on expanding & merging RFC, {{watt}} and eventually CENT. Ive created two template pairs so far, {{RFCbio}} & {{RFCbio list}} for WP:RFC/BIO and {{RFCecon}} & {{RFCecon list}} for WP:RFC/ECON. Ive moved all of RFC/BIO to the templates and Im moving RFC/ECON now. Ill move the rest of the RFC sections to templates later. β^_command 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful. RFC is a location, whereas this is a way to draw people to a location. Not sure about the overlap with CENT, but I don't think that warrants deletion. Until(1 == 2) 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, that's incorrect. RFC is a way to draw people to a location, to wit, the talk page of the relevant article. This does exactly the same. >Radiant< 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the concern about the problem of multiple lists advertising for attention. But I feel this particular template is valuable, because it fills a different function than the others. Regarding RFC: Wider attention one can attract editors who normally don't visit RFC pages. It's more vague and general, a casual way to ask for some more folks to come and see if they can help. RFC requires an issue to be identified for comment. Wider attention just wants... "Wider attention" and could bring a "wider" range of editors who don't often follow RFC pages. Also, it's less work to set up and therefore allows less experienced editors to ask for help from the community, when they might not know how to even find RFC. Regarding CENT: As I understand it, CENT is for policy matters (please correct me if I'm wrong about that). I visited CENT to consider starting discussion on a topic, and I found the page complicated. The Wider attention template is simple, which is why I like it - especially useful for less experienced editors which makes editing less intimidating. --Parsifal _Hello 00:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't get it. If you have an issue that needs more input, you go to RfC. If you really feel that many Wikipedians need to contribute, you put it on {{cent}}. What is the use of another page redundant to the others? Also, this is practically identical to RfC, and using a page few people know about causes more clique formation than any centralized location possibly could. -Amarkov moo! 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I like this system better than {{cent}}. Yes it's redundant, but if we are going to delete one lets not delete the best one. :) I don't think it has complete overlap with RfC though, that's more subject specific in my mind. - cohesion 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... if you like this better than {{cent}}, the right way to do it would be to either change the template or tie this into the same system. Not create a fork. -Amarkov moo! 01:27, 9 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:PD-Italy-new 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. Mike Peel 07:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do permission-only images any more. Only one transclusion, where I have notified the uploader. MER-C 13:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the confusing template name (it is definitely not a public domain notice). — Gavia immer (talk) 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. How exactly is the template name confusing? PD is recognised as an abbreviation for public domain, so I guess it fits. –sebi 10:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It happens that our public domain release templates make frequent use of the "PD" abbreviation, so it's possible this could be mistakenly applied by someone who thought they were tagging an image as being in the public domain. That's why it's (potentially) confusing. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:06, 7 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:Baseballcube 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. Mike Peel 07:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a template that was created a few months ago for a specific source of baseball statistics that has been swallowed up by a more general template. Deprecated and orphaned. Shoot it.--SallyForth123 09:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 17:34, 6 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.

Film Lists 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 all. The individual keep !votes below do not provide convincing rationales for any particular template below to be exempt from the overall consensus for deletion. IronGargoyle 02:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following film lists may be considered as one.

Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 09:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my listed opinion (delete) and associated reasoning for the first of these applies to all. Xtifr _tälk 10:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per precedent. PC78 11:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: I see no valid reason for deleting this template. Film directors have templates, and "Films by actor" categories have been banned by Wikipedia. Are you trying to tell me we cannot have ANY categorization or templating regaridng an actor's work? Templates can be collapsed: I do not accept the argument that it clutters up articles. Until such time that Wikipedia bans all templates and all categories, then templates for actors must rationally be kept. 23skidoo 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The connection between the film and the starring actor(s) is made by linking to that actor. The templates also become bulky as many of these starring actors have been in a lot of films. --Odie5533 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Putting aside the WP:ALLORNOTHING argument above, there is no reason to keep these templates. There are, however, two reasons to delete them. The first is to avoid clutter, whereby a single film article becomes home to who knows how many filmography templates. A film has one or two directors at most, but it has dozens of actors. I've specifically avoided nominating director templates. The second reason is related to encyclopedic professionalism. An article about a film shouldn't contain the life's work of its individual actors; such information belongs in the actor's article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: If precedent is followed and these templates are deleted, we should also delete Category:Film actor templates and its contents, and put this to bed once and for all. PC78 17:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've found that in more than a few cases, complete filmographies were replaced with templates that reflect one editor's perception of "major works". It may be worthwhile to dig into the article histories in order to restore these filmographies (check the date of creation of the template and the revision history of the article on that date). Also, if the discussion is closed as "delete", I am willing to assist with the closure (given the number of pages involved) by removing transclusions, listifying templates, restoring filmographies from article histories, and so on. One minor thing that I don't know how to do is removing the "v . d . e" links at the top of each navbox ... I'd be most grateful if someone could shed light on that. —~ Black Falcon ^(Talk)
- I'm not sure why you want to remove them, but if these nav templates are listified and deleted then it won't be a concern anyway. PC78 22:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mainly want them removed to prevent recreation. Once the templates are deleted, the v/d/e links will be redlinks that will still point back to the deleted template and someone might unknowingly recreate them. But, you're right, that won't be an issue if the templates are listified. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin, there have been some "delete"s and "keep"s, etc down on the individual sections, so please see those before closing this TFD. –sebi 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as links within an actor's article are plenty. Her Pegship (tis herself) 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all after making sure no info is lost. Redundant. --Kjoonlee 08:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Caine movies edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Michael Caine. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is already subst'ed in the actor's article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete and, if possible, remove the "v • d • e" links at the top of the navbox in the main article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard Burton Films edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Richard Burton. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is linked from the actor's article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete since a detailed filmography already exists at Richard Burton filmography. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brosnan movies edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Pierce Brosnan. It is currently transcluded in 2 film articles, a help desk archive, and the main actor article (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. So, remove all transclusions, subst into the actor article (and, if possible, remove the "v • d • e" links at the top of the navbox) and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brando movies edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Marlon Brando. It is currently transcluded in one film article and the main actor article (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. As for the actor article, a detailed filmography already exists at Marlon Brando#Filmography. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bisset movies edit

This is a filmography template for a single actress, Jacqueline Bisset. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is already subst'ed in the actress' article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete and, if possible, remove the "v • d • e" links at the top of the navbox in the main article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Candice Bergen Films edit

This is a filmography template for a single actress, Candice Bergen. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is linked from the actress' article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete since a detailed filmography already exists at Candice Bergen filmography. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ursula Andress Films edit

This is a filmography template for a single actress, Ursula Andress. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is linked from the actress' article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete since a detailed filmography already exists at Ursula Andress filmography. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. Xtifr _tälk 08:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adjani movies edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Isabelle Adjani. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere), but is linked from the actress' article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Subst into the actor article (and, if possible, remove the "v • d • e" links at the top) and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not surrounded the {{tfd}} tag with <noinclude> tags, so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:De Niro movies edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Robert De Niro. It is currently transcluded in 6 film articles and the main actor article (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. As for the actor article, a detailed filmography already exists at Robert De Niro filmography. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catherine Deneuve Films edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Catherine Deneuve. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete as unused and redundant to the filmography present in the main article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:02, 6 August 2007 (

Template:Fonda films edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Jane Fonda. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete as unused. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hackman movies edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Gene Hackman. It is currently transcluded in 10 film articles and in the article on the actor (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. As for the actor's article, single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Subst into the actor article (and, if possible, remove the "v • d • e" links at the top) and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have not surrounded the {{tfd}} tag with <noinclude> tags (so that the deletion notice shows up in any transclusions), so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A handy template, I think. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. Xtifr _tälk 08:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Corey Haim films edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Corey Haim. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A handy template, I think. And I'll put it on more articles, if that's what you want. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reconsider placing them on the film articles. Individual films have dozens of actors and separate filmography templates for each would create enormous clutter. There is a strong precedent for deleting film actor templates. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What if the man starred in the films? Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That information belongs in the article about the man, not in the film article. How is it relevant to the film Cold Mountain that Nicole Kidman starred in The Interpreter? It's a minor connection that is sufficiently made by the fact that the articles on both films link to the Nicole Kidman article, and vice versa. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. This is even worse than movie-by-actor categories, which we absolutely don't allow, see WP:OCAT#Performers by performance. Xtifr _tälk 08:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Richard Harris Films edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Richard Harris. It is currently transcluded only in the article on the actor (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete since a detailed filmography already exists at Richard Harris filmography. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A handy template, I think. I'll put it on the articles. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reconsider placing them on the film articles. Individual films have dozens of actors and separate filmography templates for each would create enormous clutter. There is a strong precedent for deleting film actor templates. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an incredibly bad idea which could result in some movies having dozens of bulky, awkward templates with minimal utility. We've deleted I-don't-know-how-many of these in the past, so there's ample precedent. This is even worse than movie-by-actor categories, which we absolutely don't allow, see WP:OCAT#Performers by performance. Xtifr _tälk 08:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Audrey Hepburn edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Audrey Hepburn. It is currently transcluded in 28 film articles and the main actor article (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. As for the actor article, it already has a detailed filmography. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see no valid reason for deleting this template. Film directors have templates, and "Films by actor" categories have already been banned by Wikipedia. Are you trying to tell me we cannot have ANY categorization or templating regaridng an actor's work? That's nuts. Plus, with the exception of a few rare films like The Ten Commandments, there would be no more than a few of these for any given film, and as it is, the ability to collapse a template has already been provided. 23skidoo 12:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A film has one or two directors at most, but it has dozens of actors. In addition, an article about a film shouldn't contain the life's work of its individual actors; such information belongs in the actor's article. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 15:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diane Keaton edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Diane Keaton. It is currently transcluded in 7 film articles (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films of Aamir Khan edit

This is a filmography template for a single actor, Aamir Khan. It is currently transcluded only on a user talk page (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a detailed filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footer Movies Ajith in 2006 edit

This is a one-year (for 2006 only) filmography template for a single actor, Ajith Kumar. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a detailed filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:43, 6 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:Wider attention list and Template:Wider attention 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 Okay, let's start again. For some reason this debate got hung up on the issue of canvassing, which is entirely irrelevant. >Radiant< 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Yes, a list of issues that require "wider attention" is a good idea. However, we already have at least two such lists, to wit WP:RFC and WP:CENT (not to mention the village pump, which is frequently used for this purpose). By definition, having multiple forums for the same purpose is confusing, and putting these issues in a single location will give them far more attention than spreading them out. >Radiant< 08:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, with which I am inclined to agree. I presume that the primary rationale for its creation was to provide something that is more visible (being stuck on all the VP pages); a link to RFC would serve that purpose while avoiding the potential for relatively minor issues being listed largely because of the public nature of the list. This system is perhaps a bit too "canvassy". Weak Delete. Adrian M. H. 08:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete, we should first discuss and propose, as the alternatives provided do not actually cover the same ground: nom didn't try first to discuss his concerns before raising the AfD. In any case, I disagree with it being too "canvasy". It in fact allows two useful things: acts as a type of warning that important issues that go beyond the topic at hand are being discussed and allows for a community-based tagging without the formality of WP:RFC or the usual banality of WP:CENT. And these in turn minimize the temptation for actual canvassing. Thanks!--Cerejota 11:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're missing the point. Spreading the word is good, that's why we have noticeboards. However, if there are two noticeboards with the same purpose, the effect is that some people will read and post at one, and others will read and post at the other - in other words, having redundant boards INTERFERES with their function. Hence we should have ONE way of spreading the word. RFC is never supposed to be formal; if it is too formal, let's fix that. CENT is not supposed to be banal; if so, we can fix that. >Radiant< 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Note the AfD notice in the template seems to have been placed incorrectly, and it breaks. Furthermore, this is a multiple page Afd but nom put both titles in header, contrary to instructions. Someone please fix this (I don't want to as I am involved). Thanks!--Cerejota 11:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anything that stops discussions from being limited to a small clique is a good idea. And a variety of ways to do this is a good idea too, as issues differ. RFC may not be appropraite for every situation. Lurker (said · done) 12:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid you're missing the point. Spreading the word is good, that's why we have noticeboards. However, if there are two noticeboards with the same purpose, the effect is that some people will read and post at one, and others will read and post at the other - in other words, having redundant boards INTERFERES with their function. Hence we should have ONE way of spreading the word. >Radiant< 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close. ... Pharrar 13:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep to be clear I wrote the bot that updates these templates. The main goal of them is to get more input on informal discussions or issues that need more attention. One cannot canvass without targeting users who support their POV. Asking for a wider input base is exactly what consensus is. This also reduces the need for crossposting a notice to a million different places. one perfect example is for Bot approval group nominations. Bot approval is a low traffic area, and users complain about CABALism and a clear method to avoid that is to get outside input. Also it is designed for smaller issues than RFC's and the other big issues. Radiant in regard to it hindering it, How can an automated list of discussions that have a request for outside help hinder? these templates are generated by a bot. and these templates are just links to current discussions not separate discussions. β^_command 13:36, 6 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:DisambigProject 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 ais523 14:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is used to tag disambiguation pages for a WikiProject. However, all disambig pages are already tagged with {{disambig}} or related templates and can be easily accessed via categories. Unneeded duplication of effort. — Renata 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep-categorization and pointing to a WikiProject are two very different things. Chris 04:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So spamming thousands of promotional banners on disambig pages is ok? Banners are supposed to help wikiprojects to keep track of stuff: quality issues related to the article. Now that they also advertise the project is just a bonus. Renata 11:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that it doesn't appear anywhere in the main article space.[1] EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris. These things are not the same. PC78 11:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Wikipedia:Spam#Wikiproject_advertisement. Renata 11:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the reason you give above for nominating this template is redundancy, not spam. PC78 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as long as it doesn't appear in the main namespace, it's fine. It is considered an unwritten guideline that a wikiproject notice(s) on the top of an article's talk page, not as an assertion of ownership, but rather a pointer to a group of editors who may be know enough about the subject to improve the article. MER-C 13:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a useful template and rather than being some kind of ownership/ad it can be very helpful when combined with templates from other projects on specific disambiguation pages: Talk:The War of the Worlds (film) and Talk:Captain Marvel - if someone has a problem with film/comic aspects they can visit that project and if there are disambiguation that can click through to the relevant project. In fact rather than delete I'd like to see it expanded as it is a handy navigational aid but it could be a useful tool for improving the entry. For example, often disambiguation pages don't conform to WP:MOSDAB and if someone doesn't have the time or confidence to get involved it'd be handy to have a "cleanup" field that could be used and people could then sweep through the associated category and address any problems. There may also other be other things that the header could be used for. (Emperor 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, although I might suggest a minor rewording to make it more clear that this is not an attempt to claim ownership. For exaample, changing, "is part of" to "falls within the scope of" (the latter taken from {{WPBiography}}) might improve things. Xtifr _tälk 00:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these matters are different and the project tag is not "ownership", there is no such thing anyway on wikipedia. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This tag is useful for participants in the WikiProject, and serves a different purpose to that of the main namespace disambig templates. enochlau (talk) 09:09, 12 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:Signed 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 as per below. MER-C 13:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would this template need to be used, with the four tildes currently standard right now? This template has become obsolete and should be deleted.. GrooveDog (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete. (Hey, that rhymes!) Shalom ^Hello 01:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yo dat's coo dawg, it does rhyme. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 01:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete too ~~~~ or to {{unsigned}} depending on context. Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is in use but was originally a redirect to the unsigned template. I have reverted to the redirect. Someone can close this. Viridae ^Talk 12:14, 6 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.