Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 23

< March 22	March 24 >

March 23 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 delete. I don't want it in my userspace because it ruins the joke. >Radiant< 07:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ceci n'est pas un template edit

Joke template, used on the talk page of one Wikispace essay ~~and on an old TfD~~. A similar template was previously deleted. Serves no real purpose. Mr.Z-mantalk¢Review! 20:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may only be transcluded on one page, but it is subst'ed on a bundle of others. Suggest userfication. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's funny and harmless, useful corollary of WP:NOTAG. Also, since this by its own admission isn't a template, it shouldn't be on TFD :) >Radiant< 07:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how is this useful for the growth of the encyclopedia? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy not useful on mainspace, but on Wikipedia projectspace essays and humor user pages are fine. Note that WP:SNOW has a similar non-template box on the top. Wooyi 02:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy humerous and harmless Af648 03:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy - should not be in the template space, as this implies legit authority to use in namespace articles.

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.

Mainpage protection templates 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. I'm surprised that this hasn't been closed yet... Sr 13 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the main page now have cascading protection, these templates are no longer for any use, as pages and images included on the main page will automatically be protected. _→AzaToth 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep {{M-cropped}}, delete others. M-cropped is more than a protection template, its a CSD template too. Mprotected and C-uploaded are redundant now, but temporarily uploaded crops still need marking.--Nilf anion (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be transformed into a csd? _→AzaToth 19:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The protection text is no longer necessary, but how to recategorize it appropriately? If you just dump it into CSD people may well delete the image whilst its on the main page. In any case, that is an editorial issue and not a deletion one; discuss that further on the template talk?--Nilf anion (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps make it a subst-only template like {{prod}} that will dump another template that keeps track of date and time uploaded using parameters, and can auto-categorise the page into CAT:CSD after 24 hours? Resurgent insurgent 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards weak keep but mark as depracated; these templates definitely have historical value. Gracenotes ^T § 13:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. We haven't worked out the specifics, and the templates' continued use is harmless. Deleting them would confuse sysops and leave broken transclusions (if unnoticed) on protected pages. —David Levy 17:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has this debate been closed? Anyway, keep for now - if someone clicks through on a picture on the main page, it makes sense to have a template explaininbg why the picture is protected. I don't want to spill the WP:BEANS, but cascading protection does not propogate to Commons, so {{C-uploaded}} is still required. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:40, 5 April 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:Deletedpage 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 keep. Please see last month's TfD discussion. —David Levy 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As we now have cascading protection, and that the trich using it to salt pages, this template is no longer to any use I belive _→AzaToth 19:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The full conversion over to Wikipedia:Protected titles has not yet happened. --- RockMFR 19:53, 23 March 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:Superseded edit

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC) This template was basically created for WP:ATT so that V/NOR/RS would have a decent tag. However, with the present debate, it's no longer used for that purpose at all. It's presently in use on one image (to be deleted) and one template (to be redirected), in neither of which case it is particularly useful. >Radiant< 14:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The above claim that I created this template specifically for WP:ATT is false. As I explained at Template talk:Superseded, it's intended for use on any historical project page that has been superseded by one or more specific pages. (It contains a conditional parameter that enables the display of links to these pages.)
When I have the free time, I intend to comb through the various {{historical}}-tagged pages and pick out the ones for which it would be useful to direct users elsewhere.
This tag was never intended for use on image or template pages, so I don't know why Radiant didn't simply remove it instead of pointing out its lack of usefulness there. —David Levy 14:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very simple reason for that: if it were used on V/NOR/RS, it would need that phrasing. >Radiant< 14:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What phrasing? —David Levy 15:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That "this page is no longer policy". >Radiant< 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I disagree that such wording (which precludes the tag's use on project pages that never were policy) is necessary, but this has nothing to do with what I wrote above. —David Levy 15:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above; I'm sure that there are other pages which this would be useful on. -Amarkov moo! 14:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David. There are tens of thousands of Wikipedia space pages, and I'm sure several of them have more modern successors, which means that this template could be used for them. Picaroon 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Amarkov. Acalamari 17:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments already made. — Reinyday, 17:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Template:InkSeason 1 edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigatorbox used on only 1 article. Replaced the one usage with {{Infobox Television episode}} --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is already a replacement Af648 03:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, underused. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheDJ's replacement movement :) - grubber 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:05, 27 March 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 Metalocalypse Season 1 edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All episode articles were deleted, so template is not in use. If new articles are created they can use {{Infobox Television episode}} --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. - grubber 18:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty uncontroversial case here; useless nav box. Gracenotes ^T § 01:27, 28 March 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:MonkeesTVNavig1 edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in use apparently. replaced with {{Infobox Television episode}} around november??? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 09:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Unused. - grubber 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete since their not used. Acalamari 17:04, 27 March 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:NYC acc navbox edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation for the accessibility of the New York City transit systems is unnecessary. One article has been merged, another is in the process of merging, the rest point to article sections or are nonexistent. Tinlinkin 07:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree; there is no need for separate articles. --NE2 05:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. If there were a main article for it, I would suggest that we keep this template (and perhaps use it in individual sections as a sidebar), but there isn't a main article. Gracenotes ^T § 01:37, 28 March 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:Cleaned 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for this. Once an article has been cleaned up, the cleanup tagged should be removed and that should be the end of it. We definitely don't need another classification of cleanup pages. Unused. --- RockMFR 02:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe if this is used on Talk pages, but even then this seems unnecessary. If an editor is unsure whether they have actually cleaned up the article, they can leave the {{cleanup}} tag and seek assistance at WP:CLEANUP instead of prolonging the process with this extra template. –Pomte 05:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed- as Pomte said, once an article is cleaned up, it's cleaned. There's no need for another process afterwards. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:BOLD. --ais523 09:24, 23 March 2007 (U T C)
Delete. We don't need the implication that removing a cleanup tag requires a long discussion, especially when anyone can add them. -Amarkov moo! 14:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This serves absolutely no practical purpose. —David Levy 15:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless. Af648 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whose idea was this? What purpose could it possibly serve? Daniel Case 14:35, 25 March 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:OverClocked ReMix Site Projects edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. All the articles formerly linked from this template have been deleted. --- RockMFR 01:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now that the pages that this template links to are gone, it is redundant. Parent article OverClocked ReMix already contains all non-WP:CRYSTAL information from this template. -- Powerlord 06:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant, no links. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no links. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:18, 26 March 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 Neverwinter2PW edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and highly unlikely that it will ever be used. --- RockMFR 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unused, not necessary. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and its redirect: Template:Neverwinter2PW. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of use. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:19, 26 March 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 Neverwinter12PW edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and highly unlikely that it will ever be used. --- RockMFR 01:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Unused, not necessary. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and it's redirect: Template:Neverwinter12PW. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 01:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of use. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:20, 26 March 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:SpecialChars-section edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant and unused. Template:SpecialChars now allows article/section to be specified in a parameter. --- RockMFR 01:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and unused per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign! | review me} 07:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per lack of use and redundancy. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:21, 26 March 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:Andy Barker 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showspecific infobox and template fork, replaced with the standard one. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant. -- Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 00:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replaced. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:21, 26 March 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:Credit Card Cover 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, using {{fairuse}} instead. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need fair-use templates this specific. -—Carnildo 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, template creep. Far too specific. Picaroon 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator. Acalamari 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Kaldari 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please; this doesn't help us. Jkelly 07:15, 1 April 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:Cereal 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, using {{fairuse}} instead. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need fair-use templates this specific. -—Carnildo 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, template creep. Far too specific. Picaroon 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else. Acalamari 17:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Kaldari 18:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete please; this doesn't help us. Jkelly 07:15, 1 April 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:TVad-screenshot 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 replace all usages with {{tv-screenshot}} and delete. --ais523 15:37, 31 March 2007 (U T C)

We don't need fair-use templates this specific. -—Carnildo 00:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, template creep. Far too specific. Picaroon 01:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into {{tv-screenshot}}; we can safely fit these two functions into one template. Gracenotes ^T § 13:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Gracenotes. Acalamari 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Kaldari 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I'm not sure we need a merge. --Iamunknown 04:32, 30 March 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.