Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 2

< October 1	October 3 >

October 2 edit

Template:Infobox Govt Unit 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! 05:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate: {{Infobox Govt Unit/doc}} {{Infobox Govt Body}} {{Infobox Government}} {{Infobox Government Unit}} {{Infobox Govt Org}}. This template and subsequent documentation and redirects are depricated templates created as duplications of the pre-existing template {{Infobox Government agency}}. They were created by solely by CapitalR (talk · contribs) for the purpose of pov pushing in an edit war where he failed to enter into discussions to build consensus on changes to a key template, and has engaged in edit waring for the purpose of pushing a non-consensus view. Issue has also been reported to WP:AN for attention. – Thewinchester ^(talk) 15:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - creation of these were done in bad faith, after the creator had tried and failed to change the existing template to his liking, and failed to propose his desired changes for discussion. Seems that he decided if he couldn't have it his way with the existing template, he'd create his own and change all the articles to his (such changes have since been reverted, and the original template has been protected due to this editor's edit warring).
Speedy delete (as creator of the template) - well I'm the one who created it, and I take issue with the fact it was created in bad faith, as {{Infobox Government agency}} could not support non-agencies at the time of this one's creating. This one was then created to handle departments, bureaus, offices, commands, etc., in addition to agencies, but it seems that admins intervened on my behalf and re-instated changes that will allow {{Infobox Government agency}} to do this, so this one can go. --CapitalR 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G7, CapitalR requested. Carlosguitar 20:16, 2 October 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:Phoenix kings 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! 06:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short series of purely in-universe articles which aren't like to go anywhere. 30% are redlinks. – Chris Cunningham 12:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the articles in question are deleted. This looks like a valid and useful navigation template; if the articles it lists are indeed non-notable, then nominate those for deletion instead, and then the template could be speedied under CSD G6 (housekeeping). Melsaran (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem is the articles, not the template. Rocket000 06:45, 8 October 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:Vangel 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!

A thank you template for someone who reverted vandalism to that user's userspace. Shouldn't be in the template space. Either delete, or userfy. Same as the {{smile}} spam. CO₂ 02:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template differs from {{smile}}, because it has a purpose. The smile template was just a template meant to be given out sporadically, given out with no purpose, just for the sake of it. {{vangel}}, however, differs because it actually has a purpose, and that is to reward (somehow) users who revert vandalism to the user space (similar to what RickK's anti-vandalism barnstar does). ~ Sebi _[talk] 03:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This template serves as an easy way to thank someone for reverting vandalism. Recent Changes patrol is a community event, and vandalism reversion is a community action, as well as a vital daily function of Wikipedia. Therefore, it seems to me, that the template to thank someone for helping out in this area, similar to barnstars, is validly placed in template space. However, if this is not the case, the template should be kept, via moving to the creator's userspace. ^Ariel♥Gold 02:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator, of course I want it kept. In addition to ArielGold's comments above, it's brought a positive response from those who have received it, and has started to be used more and more (I will note that the link back to itself is relatively new, which is why so there are so few entries in "What links here"). Also, it's much easier to type {{subst:vangel}} than it would be to type {{subst:User:Timotab/vangel}}. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 03:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that as a substituted template, this template is not going to have many links back to it in the "what links here" section, just as barnstars are substituted, and not transcluded, this one is as well. ^Ariel♥Gold 03:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes it will now, because of the You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! text, but as earlier versions didn't include that, and it was subst'ed only recent uses are showing up. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim}^dagnabbit!) 03:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, okay. Interesting. I guess I learn something new every day! ^Ariel♥Gold 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this template was intended for use every time someone reverted vandalism to the user space, but just as a random "thank you" message. I fail to see how the nominator provides any rationale whatsoever. I wouldn't be suprised if someone listed the many barnstars we have in the template namespace for deletion; they do just the same job as this template. Keep. ~ Sebi _[talk] 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my reasoning in the essay Wikipedia:Editors matter. This template promotes WikiLove and community spirit (as does Template:Smile, also referred to by the nominator). If you don't want to receive this thank-you template, then put a notice at the top of your talk page telling other editors not to leave one for you. Don't ruin things for everyone else. Walton^One 07:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absent a compelling reason for deletion. This is merely a kind message to thank an editor who reverted vandalism on your user page, what's wrong with that? It's just like a barnstar, but slightly different. Melsaran (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a nice message of thanks and per all of the above, there is no reason to delete it. Phgao 19:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, editors do matter. Into The Fray ^T/C 22:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy As stated above, the template is a good, beneficial thing, and I agree. However, I am loath to have templates such as this is the template space. Just a personal opinion. i ^said 22:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Wikipedia is a community. Will ^(talk) 23:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a community and kindness is part of the spirit here. No positivity will be achieved by proposing deletion of kindness templates, barnstars, and so on. --Kudret abi^Talk 20:06, 4 October 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.