Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 15

< January 14	January 16 >

January 15 edit

Template:Serbia portal/Featured article edit

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

The result of the debate was delete —Cryptic 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template seems to be no longer in use; its "proper place" in Portal:Serbia seems to be occupied by Portal:Serbia/Featured article. No transclusions. —EdGl 23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, procedural. -/- Warren 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 20:51, 21 January 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 page.

Template:UODucksCoach 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. —Cryptic 23:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been duplicated by {{OregonDucksCoach}} No transclusions. -- PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 23:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--NMajdan•talk 23:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Tlmclain | Talk 12:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD G6 (housecleaning). --MECU≈talk 16:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Needs cleanup but could be good if it had all links working in it. Tellyaddict 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above 09er 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Seems to be obsolete by template:OregonDucksCoach. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:24, 20 January 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 page.

Template:Boolnand 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. —Cryptic 22:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been deprecated with the introduction of ParserFunctions, and has been marked as such since September. No active uses. --^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and it might also be time to go after some of the related templates which are likewise deprecated, and which mostly seem to be used only on user pages and talk archives at this point. Xtifr _tälk 22:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:24, 20 January 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 page.

Template:Introduction1 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. —Cryptic 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been deprecated since September, only incoming links are from talk pages. No transclusions. --^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, procedural. -/- Warren 16:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:25, 20 January 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 page.

Template:Policy2 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. —Cryptic 22:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has been deprecated since September, only incoming links are from talk pages. No transclusions. --^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under cleanup (G6). Robert A.West (Talk) 01:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:25, 20 January 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 page.

Template:Infobox Fan's Club 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. —Cryptic 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is redundant for any football club template. This user seems to be using pages as sandbox. --Obina 21:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be quite a good template and would be better if it was used more. Tellyaddict 18:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:26, 20 January 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 page.

Template:Monique (futurama / all my circuits 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a template created for a very minor character from Futurama, I feel relatively sure it is not used anywhere at all and doesn't appear to serve any purpose. --Stardust8212 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not relevant and you could only use that template on the page about that program character, simply: your not going to place a futurama character temp on an article about the sun. Tellyaddict 21:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't even an article for the one place that this template could even conceivably be used. That makes it even less than a single-purpose template. Agent 86 21:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:26, 20 January 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 page.

Template:Greene 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 no consensus. —Cryptic 22:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Wikipedia:Esperanza is now inactive, I see no reason why this needs to remain in template space. It can only serve to perpetuate the divide that existed prior to the MfD for that project. --Agent 86 20:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wasn't this here yesterday too? no notability for a template. Tellyaddict 21:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Move it to a user space willing to adopt.~ Feureau E.S.P. 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Userfy - Esperanza is now inactive, so this is pretty useless, but it does remind a history (sort of) of it. I would adopt it in my user space, if this is successful. INFORMA TION CENTE R© ^Talk ^Contribs 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/userfy. If people want to keep their green e's, might as well keep the template explaining them. Plus it's factual and non-divisive in its wording. --tjstrf talk 23:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Since Esperanza's closed down, there's no reason for this to be in official template space, but I don't see a problem with someone userfying it. Quack 688 23:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy if you must, but I'd prefer just keeping. I'm not sure how this is going to perpetuate a divide. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - will be usefull once Esperanza is active again Kamope · talk · contributions 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or userify if necessary. I like the green e in my signature, as do many others, and it provides a brief brief brief explanation of the e for Esperanza, and other "disambiguation" information for my user page/talk page/contributions. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow Up. If people want to "move" this to userspace by creating a userbox that simply says "I was a member of the now-inactive Esperanza, an association of Wikipedians", that may be a workable solution. However, such a thing does not belong in template space. Agent 86 01:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would accept it into my userspace (if needed), but I think that, if moved into the User namespace, should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyson Moore (talk • contribs) 20:34, January 16, 2007
Substitute or delete, no reason for the template to exist any longer. Userfication is a distant third preference. -- nae'blis 00:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/userfy. Deletion would have far reaching effect on sigs and space. Dfrg.ms c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone wants to userfy it, go ahead. Xiner (talk, email) 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no harm. If you must, mass-subst. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 05:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Userfy - If this is deleted, many signatures would have broken links, including my own. Scob e ll302 04:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It explains everything for newbies. Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: How does this explain anything not already at Wikipedia:Esperanza? Why do new users even need to be bothered with it? Cheers, Agent 86 00:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've removed the green e from my signature but it still exists in my old signatures, and many people still use the green e in their own signature. If someone was to click on one of those green es, the template should be there to explain what it means. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to user space. People have the right to express what think in User space. See WP:GUS Culv e rin ? ^Talk 11:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Userfy - Per above. Tyson Moore 23:02, 25 January 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 page.

Template:Madhouse Records albums 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. —Cryptic 22:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently a category mistakenly created as a template. Identical content exists at Cat:Madhouse Records albums. --Unint 15:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't we speedy delete this? Effectively unused, and pointless. The JPS ^{talk to me} 17:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need a template to point to a category. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete improper use of template space. Arjun 21:29, 23 January 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 page.

Template:'Allo 'Allo! episode 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. —Cryptic 22:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Also, as with other similar deletions, this is redundant to {{Infobox Television episode}}. We should be consistent, which is easier on the servers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 14:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need templates for every TV series, and there is no reason this series needs a specific template. Consistency is easier on the readers and editors in this case, and I am far more concerned about them than I am about the servers. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial difference in this series which would justify a different template. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The info what would go in this template would be used as a info box on an article, no need for it at all. Tellyaddict 21:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons above. Information Center 22:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Information Center, whose sig I refactored because it was too stupid big.~Crazytales (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:08, 24 January 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 page.

Template:Infobox Bottom 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. —Cryptic 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with other recent similar deletions, this is redundant to {{Infobox Television episode}}. We should be consistent, which is easier on the servers. The JPS ^{talk to me} 13:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, and what's with the name? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I spotted that. It's obviously a copy and paste from Dad's Army, but I've made similar errors -- easily done... The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly redundant, serves no useful purpose. Xtifr _tälk 10:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but substitute with {{Infobox UK Television Episode}} instead of the US parent. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 16:20, 24 January 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 page.

Template:Interwikitmp-grp 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. —Cryptic 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renominate this tempalate, as it has no use in it's current format, for example on {{tlx}} it's broken. _→AzaToth 12:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interjected out-of-timeline: based on discussion lower down

NOTICE: Now updated per well grounded complaints

I had to pull an all-nighter to free up enough time to evolve this ugly version more (see below), and while this whole scheme and system isn't perfected yet, the process will in the end result in a template which sizes dynamically by the sisters having the name equivilent.

As a matter of fact, that was a goal as early as August, but I lacked the template knowledge how to iterate it to the next level--which is one reason I put it off as tasking in mid-December when I was able to give the wiki's significant regular time again. Too, there are and were significant changes all over the place here in the three months I was 'gone', so catching up is something I'm still doing. Add in a couple of WP:AMA 'brush fires' I advocate/mediated in, and well... I can but do my best in the available hours! Should get there soon as I got some more talented HTML and template expert help, helping me now with the sticky parts. regards // FrankB 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, this template is one of a set used to autocategorize, tag and flag templates maintained here where there is a large template savvy staff with vast experience and knowledge and aggressive anti-vandalism patrolling. These are used to cross connect template spaces for tools templates useful across sister's, mainly originating here, but ported and disemenated to our sister projects using the same category scheme. Templates tagged thus and updated are supposed to have the improvements transmitted across sisters.

   (1)) It cannot be 'broken' as if the nom. hadn't seen it, on tlx, then it would have been broken by failing to deliver the links and that message.

   (2) The auto-categorizing is also working,

   (3) There did appear to be a busted link in the Meta linking sub-template, most likely introduced by a BOT--that has happened before.

   (4) If there is part of this malfunctioning, such as a link to a sister, it's more likely something not yet in place (not yet ported, which has not yet proceeded systematically, but instead at need, tagging of general tools not yet taking place pending discussion with the Meta 'Communications committee'--for cross language consideration.). The exception to that was wiktionary (which wants no uppercase first names, as offensive to their NAMCON), hence the project failed TfD as no one notified me it was in progress.

   (5) Furthering the project has been on hold, save for some time circa Christmas prepetory to shrinking and condensing the notification display, as I had very pressing real life matters to deal with last fall, and am just getting back and up to speed on wikiwork.

   (6) Prioritizing time for that continuation is currently somewhat bogged down by mediations needs, but it is on my to-do list. Best regards. // FrankB 21:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problme I see it is that it's telling us that a sister project "has" the template, but given on {{tlx}}, wikibooks and wikisource hasn't the template, and the link to a template on meta is broken. Also, what project is it you are talking about? _→AzaToth 22:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's covered by likely something not yet in place, as in not ported to that sister. The last time you tagged it for deletion coincided with the end of a major redesign and revision, which changes were limited and promulgated to only select sites and pages thereon--I was flat out of time. Then I had to disappear, but made sure the fundamental parts were functional and working before doing so... that cost me two consecutive all-nighters, which are nothing to the young, but costly to someone like me in my fifties.

Since furthering the project will take an additional big chunk of time, it's enqued, catching up on various things and mediating have priority. Feel free to copy over whatever template is not there... you'll save me the trouble. If written properly, even the help translates over without changes.

Delete. I find plastering template documentation pages with these ugly large boxes unhelpful. Clutters up template documentation (example Template:Tlx). Why bother with maintaining complicated template code like this? --Ligulem 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but unhelpful to whom, under what circumstances?

- The system has a multipurpose aim:
  
     1) Have common tools and tool categories for those of us who also donate time to the other sisterprojects. One wiki learning curve is more than enough to master, thankyou. These were inspired by trying to do quick tasks on the commons, wiktionary, and wikisource related to editing here, and then getting stuck as the familiar tools were sometimes missing--costing me time. Having familiar tools to talk about a category, template, or article (lc, lts, la, etc.) just frees more time for all of us to edit in the long run.
  
     2) By spreading our well developed tools abroad, so to speak, the system enables editors there to have the same bag of tricks. Multipying their efficiency and benefiting all the foundation projects in some measure. Moreover, they serve as a visual reminder that if one of our mature templates is improved and has been exported, the improvement ought be shared with our sisters.
  
     3) By serving up a common tools template category system, the ported tools give an indirect but quick hook into that sister's admin structure, again a time and efficiency multiplier.
  
     A) That the display is ugly, I agree with, and the most recent work was adding perameters to allow the basic individual templates to be miniturized and shrink the size of the basic array which is in fact this precise template. This in fact will be the focii of my next effort with them. My HTML is fairly weak, so wouldn't mind a hand at all.
  
     B) My programming days were in assembler and C, so forgive me if I see the characterization of Complcated code as a bit of hyperbole. The code has several #if logicals to handle multiple states (or conditions). Outside of those, they are linear and simple flow into the top and out of the bottom. Far simpler than many an template I've seen here. The main case is whether the template is not included (a self declaration in it's own page, as when viewing this one), wherein it includes the proper documentation '/doc page' links as I believe you and Conrad worked out together Ligulem for template documentation, the main use is however the case of being included, in which case the documentation is for a template being tagged as having interwiki scope, such as {{tlx}}, where such documentation has nothing to do with this basic template.
  
     C) The numerically suffixed versions (interwikitmp-grp0, ...1, ...3, etc.) have been drastically shrunk and simplified and are in fact mere shells which call this fundamental template, and concurrently handle the main types and combinations of autocategorization as this template's usage documents. This was the streamlining and simplification work finished on 12 September, the day before the previous Tfd nomination, and my break off in RL, and will be resuming soon. (Glad I missed that one! It would have been too much on top of all that revision work!)
  
     D) The first seen 'text' is mere iterim documentation, that helps me keep things straight with version numbers, file names and such. In practice, it was more pragmatic to park and upgrade all a sites versions from offline files, vice trying to single edit a whole series.
  
     [There were for example naming collisions on this site or the other, and only by putting the skelatal tagging system in place could I be sure I'd handled related issues (e.g. on many sites, the site's own prefix (like 'W:') won't work, so [[Commons:namespec]] will always give a bad link on the commons.]
  
     ... In time, that file header version will be made to vanish. It doesn't present on any tagged template, so it doesn't even add to 'ugly' in the sense used above, but is germane, since you're arguing beauty matters.
  
     E) Insofar as tagging the tool template is concerned, an immediate improvement is to move the {{Interwikitmp-grp}} tag to the end of the noinclude block, even if it means adding a second one down the end of the subject tool template. This is in fact what I have been doing in the few updates I've made since I returned to wikiediting shortly before Christmas. THIS at least cuts down the uglies influence on tagged templates, and moves the message down to where the tool template's usage is the first thing one sees on the page.

Hope that clarifies things. // FrankB 03:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Important Post dated note: Subsequent experience has shown the template to cause a server loading issue when modified since it's hooked into so many tools templates on so many pages. It is therefore imperative to hook it in using WP:DPP (Template doc page pattern) when used, in which case, the exact place it manifests in the template page documentation can be chosen to be unobtrusive and non-interfering quite easily. // FrankB 17:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Xpost: Fm {{Ut|Ligulem}... a wider perspective:

I'm open to suggestions that satisfy the basic goals of such tagging, as I just elaborated upon, but this is not a shallow 'I'm-only-interested-in-my-backyard-thing', but one which should help conserve funds for the foundation on all it's projects. The alternative to one small descendent of this iterim template is individual tagging by the individual templates for the sister's using same. That would clutter up the tools templates far more than the one small line imposed by this arrary or it's targeted autocategorization versions, so I chose the array of impliementation, though on some templates where there is a naming collision requiring a work-around (e.g. 'tl' vice 'TL', 'Cat' vs. 'Cat', etc.). CBD has been helping me focus this all along, and perhaps if my last post isn't convincing to you, you might ask his take on it. Bottom line, the tagging will have benefits on interwiki production and conserving editor's time. The benefits here are small, the benefits 'there' are important. Most sites can't spend a lot of man-hours reinventing the wheels we already have entrenched and debugged versions of, and then they haven't the personel to police anti-vandalism needs.

Even with all our personnel, our system relies on watchlists which are a very weak link if one goes away from wiki for a while. This system at least provides for a fast link to a source template where the A/V patrolling is much more vigorous and more highly manned. Best regards // FrankB 04:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but replace multiple-box displays. Suggest single box along lines of:

Regards, David Kernow (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Now that's what I'm talking about! And above and beyond the call! Thanks! // FrankB 11:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a version that isn't so ugly, that's better documented, and that actually works. --ais523 17:23, 22 January 2007 (U T C)

Updated Notification here in chronological timeline. // FrankB 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update The template has now been changed by Farbartus to be less ugly and to actually work in most cases; I've fixed it to work for the link to Commons as well. (Note that my 'replace with' !vote has now been fulfilled, so it can be taken to be a 'keep'.) --ais523 17:13, 26 January 2007 (U T C)

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

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete as a vanity template. Tijuana Brass 10:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Tenacious D fan smashman2004 edit

Your reason(s) for nominating the template. --Tenacious D Fans (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This needs deleted, its a vanity template, where a Tenacious D wikipedia userbox already exists

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

Template:ESPN Radio 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. —Cryptic 11:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserted into the page for most every ESPN Radio affiliate. Basically, its purpose is to act as a copy-and-paste for information into a mass number of articles, leading in some cases to some very disjointed and unnecessarily long articles (see Triple X ESPN Radio). --fuzzy510 06:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No, no, no, this is not what templates are for. A simple wikilink to an article that contains this information will suffice. -/- Warren 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Templates are not to build article content. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot believe that a template can look like this. It's usually a series of links. - Desmond Hobson 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Owwww! Perhaps this should be an example of what templates are not for. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after seeing what it was for, I was ready to start defending it as useful. But not when it has an article written in it. Patstuart^talk|edits 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree with Owwww! Neier 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All this text might be helpful, but it should be in a separate article on ESPN radio, not in a template that is attached to every ESPN Radio station, even those that do not carry the entire ESPN Radio program schedule. --Hillrhpc 02:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin Currently ESPN Radio contains a transclusion of the template. It should probably be subst'd before deletion. Neier 03:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note - already subst'd -- Beardo 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A wikilink will suffice. This is not what a template is for and this is making several articles look like poo. --Zpb52 20:14, 24 January 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 page.

Template:Obscene-n 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 per earlier debate. >Radiant< 10:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of {{Obscene}}, recently deleted here. It's not really a repost of deleted content, since it was created in March. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:29, 15 January 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 page.

Template:Delete summary 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. —Cryptic 11:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much per reasoning at WP:DTTR. Telling people about this using a template just comes off condescending. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Abstain I'm not quite sure what to think about this, but I would like to comment that sometimes it can be rather cryptic. I'd also like to comment that if people are being involved with this process, they should know the terminology. That's why I abstain. .V. (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nomination, it is better to write out such requests in words. In many cases a short deletion summary is sufficient enough, indeed for some pages an abbreviated summary is the best. If someone made an attack page at John Doe, the deletion summary "Attack page" is preferable to "Attack page, unsourced information about John Doe's cocaine trafficing". The place where I think more expanded deletion deletion summaries ought to be seen is with the WP:PROD process since even after deletion, the deletion can still be contended and an informative deletion summary might aid there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment short delete summaries are not a problem, but summaries that require intimate knowledge of Wikipedia processes to understand is. So "attack page" is just fine, while "G10" is less helpfull. --Sherool (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not helpful. >Radiant< 10:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unhelpful, not needed and therefore potentially inflammatory, but the nomination should have been clearer. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment inflamatory? To ask someone to please consider using more "plain english" instead of just "A7" when they delete stuff? As for how needed it is try pretending you don't know any of the Wikipedia abreviations by heart and then try to make sense of the deletion log, and keep in mind that newbies don't even know where to complain, so just because you don't see a lot of talk about it on the CSD talk page doesn't mean people are not having trouble with this (hence all the off site talk about cryptic internal workings and the "myth" that stuff get deleted on a whim) --Sherool (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete accomplished much better by prose. If I got templated by someone, even as a non-admin, I would probably just get annoyed. -Patstuart^talk|edits 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So if you uploaded a unsourced image (by accident naturaly) you would just get mad at the person notifying you if he used the standard {{nsd}} template? If the problem is "real" I don't see what kind of argument that is to delete a template. --Sherool (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People who put time and effort into participating in xfd discussions don't deserve to have impersonal templates thrown at them. If someone's delete reasons are an ongoing concern, write them a nice, friendly note asking them to use more thorough descriptions. -/- Warren 16:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but as always feel free to tweak or rewrite if you think it poorly written or condecending. Why should we admins be above recieving "canned messages" (so long as they adress a real "problem")? Sure a personal message is always nice, but when was the last time you wrote a personal message to someone who never uses edit summaries (veteran or othewise) for example? This is basicaly the same thing. The intention of the template is to remind admins that the deletion logs are recorded for posterity and not just for the benefit of CSD or *FD regulars, that's all. Each message would basicaly say the same thing, hence the template to save typing. For example most newbies won't know what "A7" or "PROD" is supposed to mean when they check on the reason for why theyr article was deleted, and an oft citet critisism of Wikipedia is the "secret language" the internal processes use. A lot of our fellow admins have picked up the bad habbit of using very brief "crypic" (for the un-initiated) delete reasons. That's not a problem for those of us who are fluent in "wpspeak", but it just takes a tiny bit of setup to provide a lot more helpfull and verbose delete reaosns (either copy & paste or using some kind of auto-completion tool/plugin/feature) that would remove some of the "mystery" of the deletion processes that it's a crying shame not to do it IMHO. So any real reasons to delete this other than "I don't like impersonal messages"? --Sherool (talk) 15:50, 24 January 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 page.

Template:Sermon 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. —Cryptic 11:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template isn't really useful. Other templates convey that an article is written in a nonencyclopedic tone, and calling the article a sermon is unnecessarily inflammatory. Also, browsing the transclusions, it's obvious that people aren't even restricting this to things which truly do sound like sermons. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was about to nominate this one for TfD when I noticed it had already been done. Adding to the above reasons for deletion, this template is redundant to other, better written (and more NPOV) templates such as {{POV}} and {{Disputed}}. Delete. Tijuana Brass 10:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We should only add new cleanup templates when they serve a distinct need. This one does not. It also is likely to be used to bite newbies, and so is inflammatory. Robert A.West (Talk) 14:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the above reasons; I can't think of a single point I'd quibble with in the delete rationales so far. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is indeed unnecessarily inflammatory, the presence of other templates as noted above makes this one a little redundant. ITAQALLAH 09:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This one always did raise my eyebrows. Accusing someone of POV is inflammatory enough I thinks. No reason to add insult. // FrankB 20:53, 20 January 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 page.

Template:Campaignbox Turkish-Armenian War 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Khoi khoi 00:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that these topics deserves their own infobox let alone their own articles (see deletion nomination on each for explanation). Most of the information covered here is already extensively covered in the Turkish-Armenian War article. -- Clevelander 03:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, on second thought, I was acting irrationally. Of course these articles can be expanded. I apologize for causing a big stir about all this. Nomination withdrawn. -- Clevelander 14:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are the battles of the Turkish-Armenian War, which each battle has its own page, some battles may be a stub, but we keep these battles and the campaign box links them to the main article. It is a POV on the Clevelander side if a battle deserves its own page or not.OttomanReference 03:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this is a standard campaignbox, just like the hundreds of others. Nominate this if the actual battle articles get deleted (which I doubt will happen); if they don't, it's a perfectly normal navigational aid. Kirill Lokshin 14:13, 15 January 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 page.

Template:Stablenotice 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. —Cryptic 11:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another template from that rejected proposal from August. --TRKtv t c e 01:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. We should really have a speedy criterion including templates created for rejected proposals. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a talk subpage of the proposal; rejected proposals are archived so everyone can see what they were, and deleting this would just lose information that ought to be archived. --ais523 11:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Um... there's no information which is really useful. All this says is that there exists a template which said to select a stable version. No discussion, so what's the point? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or, if someone is just hankering to keep it for whatever reason, userfy. It's a dead proposal. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV/controversy tags are sufficient. Xiner (talk, email) 00:38, 20 January 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 page.


Metawiki	See	{{{link}}}
Wikipedia	See	{{{link}}}
Commons	See	{{{link}}}
Wiktionary	See	{{{link}}}
Wikibooks	See	{{{link}}}
Wikiquote	See	{{{link}}}
Wikisource	See	{{{link}}}
Wikinews	See	{{{link}}}
Wikispecies	See	{{{link}}}
Wikiversity	See	{{{link}}}