Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30 edit

Template:User thelema 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD G2) by admin Mattinbgn. Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, one red link to the same named page in mainspace.. RichardΩ6 12 20:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The above user is in all likelihood a troll. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete test page. –Pomte 00:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tagged for speedy deletion with {{db-test}}. --Farix (Talk) 03:34, 31 December 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:JollyModInorgChem 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken hard-coded cite, a template consisting of a template!. RichardΩ6 12 20:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ It's not broken (look at the includeonly code), and I substituted its only use. For those interested, see VPT for how this could be useful. For now, we can't handle organizing one template per citation though. –Pomte 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is completely unnecessary. Subseting was the correct step. --Farix (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per TheFarix. Happy‑melon 18:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am responsible for this template, obviously I made some technical error in setting up the template but I will try to fix it (unless it gets deleted). Over at the chemistry desk more people have started templates for the single purpose of generating references, there is even a category devoted to it: Category:Chemistry citation templates !. Do you people have a problem with this procedure as a whole, the fact that the template has a technical problem or that the template is used once? With respect to the last point, the reference is a general chemistry reference I have intended to use more often in response to numerous requests for references in chemistry articles. Please try to get a speedy verdict, I am not going to waste my time fact checking without the proper tools V8rik (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have an issue with creating a template to display a citation. The citation template is easy enough to type out; if you feel you will use this specific cite regularly, feel free to move it to your userspace and subst: it when you use it. Layers of unsubst:'ed [dynamic] templates put more load on the servers. ><RichardΩ6 12 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after explanation by V8rik. Can propose substitution rather than transclusion at the chemistry desk or some other appropriate place. Better in templatespace than userspace since multiple people can use it. Richard0612: don't worry about the server to the extent that other editors' work gets impeded. –Pomte 07:04, 4 January 2008 (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:I Know My Place 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 section.

The result of the debate was userfy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete as nonsense. RichardΩ6 12 19:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for User:The Last Saxon. –Pomte 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy but I would also go with delete as an unused template. --Farix (Talk) 03:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 - utter nonsense. Happy‑melon 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy & delete. SkierRMH (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!! I AM YOUR KING!!!!!! BOW DOWN TO ME!!!!!! BY THE DECREE OF THE KING OF WIKIPEDIA THIS TEMPLATE SHALL BE KEEPED!!!! The Last Saxon (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Last Saxon, please try to stop making nonsensical comments in deletion discussions, if you have a valid reason for keeping it, please say so. ><RichardΩ6 12 23:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC) _{Umm. no. You don't have a second say. The king has spoken. The Last Saxon (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2008 (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:List of CoolThreads Application Tuning Artciles published by Sun 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless list of links to PDF files that could be spammy and is useless at best, it can be subst:'ed onto the two articles it is used in. RichardΩ6 12 19:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite of useless. From brief browsing this isn't a replica of any list on Sun's website. I'll leave it to people more knowledge as to whether every link applies to both articles. If yes, keep. –Pomte 01:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a guide or web directory. Some of the documents could make good references in several articles however. --Imroy (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and Delete this one comes close to crossing the line of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. However, the template is only used twice and each list can be maintained separately. --Farix (Talk) 03:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each list can be maintained separately, but they don't have to be. Deletion just makes it more annoying for editors trying to maintain the articles, and others who may not know to ensure consistency across the two articles. –Pomte 04:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete, useless collection of links (someone knowledgeable should also check for spam). Happy‑melon 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it useless? Clearly not spam as they provide information about the subjects from the official source. It may be excessive, but by definition not spam. –Pomte 04:46, 1 January 2008 (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:LEB 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a template that inserts a [massive] image? More WP:LAZINESS. RichardΩ6 12 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect to {{LBN}} or {{LIB}} as a non-official country code. –Pomte 00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace single usage with a legitimate country code. --Farix (Talk) 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what the hell is this supposed to be for? Happy‑melon 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a flag template. –Pomte 04:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's wider than my screen!! That'll look good in an infobox :D Happy‑melon 16:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - use a flag image if needed, not this. SkierRMH (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (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:Animrophs characters 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a list of names with no links; even with them the template would be redundant. RichardΩ6 12 19:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Serves no navigational purpose. JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to {{Animorphs}}. –Pomte 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and redundant to {{Animorphs}}. --Farix (Talk) 03:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pomte. Happy‑melon 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misspelled and redundant template. Doczilla (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Pomte. SkierRMH (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (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:© 2004-2007 Glad Enterprises Co., Ltd. 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted as WP:CSD#T2 - runaround for GFDL non-compliance. SkierRMH (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless boilerplate text, possible spamming uses. RichardΩ6 12 19:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This was used on Image:Sanad,Bahrain Map.jpg, which has been deleted due to having an improper license. --- RockMFR 23:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded boiler plate. --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Use of this template would seem to imply that whatever it was applied to was being used in violation of the GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2 - blatant misrepresentation of the GDFL and Wikipedia's licensing policy. Happy‑melon 18:25, 31 December 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:Babel-7 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:Babel. RichardΩ6 12 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. I have merged its only use. –Pomte 01:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Farix (Talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only is it redundant, it's broken too. Happy‑melon 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as broken & redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2008 (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 regular person 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 section.

The result of the discussion was deleted per G3 - attack, with a bit of G1 & G2 as well. SkierRMH (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why this exists, but it definitely shouldn't. RichardΩ6 12 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Template seems to be improperly formatted article-type content. It is not in use in any mainspace article. Mouchoir le Souris (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mouchoir le Souris. JPG-GR (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 in template space. –Pomte 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible speedy, this appears to be just random nonsense. --Farix (Talk)
Delete per nom. This isn't an infobox, nor would it be used as a template, nor does it have any clear connection with "regular persons". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 - patent nonsense. Happy‑melon 18:39, 31 December 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:Pyeongtaek 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nav template in which only one link works and I doubt whether the other pages are going to be created, or meet WP:V if they ever were. RichardΩ6 12 18:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. –Pomte 01:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 18:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - redlinked to death. SkierRMH (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest prolonging this discussion until the creator (created last week) or someone knowledgeable comments. There's no need to delete if a case can be made for notability, or to waste their effort asking for recreation. Songtan certainly seems notable, and it is unclear if the other areas within the city are. Common outcomes for places at AfDs are relevant. –Pomte 07:57, 6 January 2008 (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:Euro 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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7/WP:CSD#G4 ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a template to insert an image?. RichardΩ6 12 18:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. Delete it. -

\mathrm {S}

.

\mathrm {Solberg}

\mathrm {J}

. 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted here once before, so can be speedied for recreation. However, I'm not convinced that this can't simply exist to be substituted, as it is the fastest way for me personally to type in the symbol since I've hidden the toolbox. I don't need it though, so I'm not concerned. –Pomte 01:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagged with {{db-author}} since author supports deletion above. --Farix (Talk) 03:57, 31 December 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 LBS 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary hard-coding of Template:Infobox University. Can be subst:'ed where appropriate. RichardΩ6 12 18:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single-use. I've substituted the only use. –Pomte 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete Not much more I can add. --Farix (Talk) 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 - housekeeping - as hardcoded instance of {{infobox university}}. Happy‑melon 18:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst & Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & single-use. MJCdetroit (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2008 (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:Houses 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 section.

The result of the debate was userfy and delete. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where or why this would be used but it definitely shouldn't be in the Template: namespace.. RichardΩ6 12 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why do you have a vendetta against templates. Write an article instead. Pollo9087 (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have a vendetta, I am just clearing out the rubbish that builds up. And FYI, I do contribute to articles, it is fairly uncommon for one editor to write a whole article. ><RichardΩ6 12 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for User:DuneIV. Not sure that they actually want to use it on multiple userpages, but no need to prevent them from testing. –Pomte 01:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete It may be userfied, but I don't see the advantage in use a template in it only transclusion. --Farix (Talk) 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - if this didn't seem likely I'd argue a speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G1 (patent nonsense). Happy‑melon 18:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy & delete (also name is misleading). SkierRMH (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2008 (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:Black Rock-High Rock NCA and Wilderness Map 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 section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted per G7. SkierRMH (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template masquerading as content. Very WP:LAZY.. RichardΩ6 12 17:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stop clogging up TFD with crappy nominations, all these templates do no harm by being kept. Pollo9087 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute into Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area, which I take to be the parent article, and remove from all other transcluding articles. Content should not be redundant in this way and the navbox at the bottom should better express this hierarchy so people can better get to this content, unless I'm mistaking the hierarchy altogether. –Pomte 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read this discussion and accepted the suggestion to move the template content into Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area. The other 10 wilderness area pages which used it now refer to that page and retain one relevant reference from the template each. You may now delete the template. Ikluft (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now that this is done, I'll add some feedback... Kudos to Pomte for offering good advice on a better way to do it - that was really all that was needed here. I'd like to encourage Richard0612 to try to follow that example. Remember everyone on Wikipedia is a volunteer, and many are learning their way around. Sharing your experience comes across much better. Ikluft (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author request). Happy‑melon 18:51, 31 December 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:Babel-6 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should be in userspace if it should exist at all: it is a template consisting of a template.. RichardΩ6 12 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Does no harm to keep it, not divisive or silly. Pollo9087 (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nousernamesleft^{talk and matrix?} 20:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete moved to userspace. –Pomte 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't userfy, is redundant to the {{Babel}}. --Farix (Talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already userfied; not redundant, but merely an implementation of {{Babel}}. –Pomte 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as userfied at this point. SkierRMH (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2008 (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:Troutslap 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 section.

The result of the debate was Deleted by User:Hu12 per CSD I1. Non-admin closure. ><RichardΩ6 12 18:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What... the...? Userfy or delete as nonsense.. RichardΩ6 12 17:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already deleted fucktard Pollo9087 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 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:This is the veiw of Maira Amirabad taken from Let Amirabad 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 section.

The result of the debate was Deleted by User:Anetode per CSD G2 Non-admin closure. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless template with a longer name than the wikilink it replaces! Preferably Speedy delete it as a snowball.. RichardΩ6 12 17:12, 30 December 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:Deferwps 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 section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. --- RockMFR 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This can be easily typed out manually, templates are not to be used for laziness!. RichardΩ6 12 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominations should not be made based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This was created for use on the "system administration" page MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, implemented for use by Administrators who are unfamiliar with appropriate blacklist requests/removals responses. This is designed to address listing request, that do meet blacklisting criteria, but do require attention. Because the blacklist affects every page on the English Wikipedia. Additions to this list can cause damage to wikipedia on a wide scale. Any administrator can edit the spam blacklist, however not all (1,450) admins are familiar whith the apropriate protocal. A templated option provides order and protection, while preventing wide scale disruption.--Hu12 (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. OK, I can see that a template would be useful in this instance, but I didn't make this nomination on not liking it I made it on the belief [that at the time I thought was correct] that it was redundant. ><RichardΩ6 12 18:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. thanks Richard--Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 30 December 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:Pirates of the Caribbean character 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{infobox character}}.. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and unlikely to be used. ><RichardΩ6 12 09:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard--TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is currently being used by quite a few articles, so it's obviously not "unlikely to be used". How is this redundant? It has a large number of customized parameters not present in the generic infobox. --- RockMFR 18:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The standard infobox has extra labels that can be used for customisation. Admittedly, what I should have said is 'unlikely to be used any further. ><RichardΩ6 12 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RockMFR - there is talk of further sequels, which would mean further characters. BD2412 T 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Those articles could just as easily use the generic {{infobox character}} with a couple of custom parameters, as per R0612 above. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with {{Infobox character}}. Most of the "unique" fields shouldn't be on the template to begin with and is merely in-universe trivia. --Farix (Talk) 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one - clear utility, if this makes life easier for PotC-article editors, it does no harm as encapsulation for {{infobox character}}. It still has clear versatility and flexibility - it is not a hardcoded instance, for example. Happy‑melon 18:54, 31 December 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 Kill Bill Group 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 section.

The result of the debate was subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Infobox Organization}}. Used only in two articles.. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and unlikely to be used any further. ><RichardΩ6 12 09:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My understanding is that we don't use real life templates for fictional elements. --Farix (Talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest viable alternative is {{infobox fictional secret organisation}}. These templates don't add categories or any other identifiable traits, but if the "fictional" thing is such a big deal, I don't see a reason why {{infobox organization}} can't be duped into a {{infobox fictional organization}}. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{Infobox Organization}} is not an acceptable alternative, as TheFarix notes. Weak delete as having minimal utility. Happy‑melon 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no to Infobox Org...) use; used in only two articles; fictional org seems a good replacement. SkierRMH (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2008 (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:Wayfinding 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template is used in very few articles and can easily be replaced with {{Non-free symbol}} or {{Non-free logo}}. Many of the image pages which currently use the template are double-tagged with another non-free tag, which further shows its unnecessity. — –Dream out loud (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it was the only tag on all three of the images I followed it to. Demonstrates clear utility as a tag on 20 or more similar images. While replacement with {{Non-free logo}} etc may be possible, it's not straightforward, and so this template clearly makes things easier for Nova-Scotia highway article editors, at least. I may change my mind if it can be proven that this template is redundant to Non-free logo (ie if it comes back up for TfD and there are no transclusions). Happy‑melon 18:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Happy‑melon 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. I've removed all transclusions for {{Non-free logo}}. –Pomte 05:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fair enough. Happy‑melon 16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, redundant. ><RichardΩ6 12 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to non-free logo. SkierRMH (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (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.