Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 7

< June 6	June 8 >

June 7 edit

Template:Index only 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another cryptic template, with no apparent use and no pages linked to it. It's been around almost as long as the one below; but, with a few edits in the interim. Neier (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The title and lead would tell what the article is about, making this template unnecessary and somewhat redundant. If there were some confusion about the list, we could type it ourselves as very few people would be confused after reading the lead, making this template useless. DA PIE EATER (talk) 21:57, 7 June 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:People by name Z 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and contains nothing but red-links to other templates. Somehow, this has survived for almost four years... — Neier (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused. I can't find other people by name X templates.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - empty and useless. Good find! Terraxos (talk) 01:06, 18 June 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:Trollshere 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Near-identical to Template:TrollWarning, which was deleted after TfD. The template is transcluded on 7 pages total, 3 of which are talk archives. dorftrottel (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I thought it was a humorous way to stop the trolls.Tourskin (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you created the template in good faith, but other people (me included) see the problem that trying to be 'funny' actually encourages trolls. Moreover, it encourages ABF in regular users; and calling someone a troll, as opposed to matter-of-factly stating that some is trolling is never useful, and it's a personal attack. We're an open encyclopedia project, and unless someone is evidently trolling, we should welcome their input. If and when someone is trolling, it's self-evident and other should then be encouraged to deny recognition. Very simple and straightforward. This template can only lead to more heat, never to more light. dorftrottel (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Dorftrottel's comment. Could cause undesirable results, and may in fact end up actually feeding the trolls. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 10:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would require modification to comply with the guidelines on talk-namespace templates; putting big, red-font templates at the top of Talk: pages does not seem like a good idea to me... (as Dorftrottel said, it may have the opposite effect). Oh, anf delete. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:35, June 8, 2008 (UTC)
Delete Not that helpful in identifying problems. Maybe userfy? MBisanz ^talk 08:52, 14 June 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:Longtitle 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not so much that there is a technical restriction than the fact that extremely long article titles would violate a style guide. I suggest we delete this template to avoid bothering the reader with notices about our style guidelines. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate delete I agree that we should keep Wikipedia's workings and the encyclopedia itself apart as much as we can, and so having things like that doesn't improve or add to the articles at all. Maybe if it were placed on talk pages it wouldn't be so bad, but as it is, it isn't terribly usefull. It's only used on a couple mainspace pages, so deleting it wouldn't have a large effect on anything. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ makes sense on a page like Clerks: The Animated Series episode five (which might need to be merged for unrelated reasons). -- Ned Scott 05:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we could put the 4-line title in the heading, the question is, would we really want to? It would look terrible. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take my example, most of the other episode articles (while having long titles) don't have one nearly as long as it could have been if they had used the original episode title. It might seem strange, but a reader might wonder why we didn't use the original title for consistency. I don't really see this as encouraging the use of long titles, but rather explaining to the reader why one wasn't used, even if it made sense (as rare as it might be). That being said, I don't feel strongly about this, and it really won't bother me if the template was deleted. I can see the use for it, but I can also see your point. -- Ned Scott 06:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify though, the reason isn't that there is a technical restriction, the reason is that it would look terrible. We don't have to explain to the reader that a four-line title would look terrible; it's rather obvious, and we don't have hatnotes like this for two- and three-line titles that would be technically permitted but aren't used for the same reason. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A good point. Consider me neutral while I ponder this. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)--Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Remember the dot made a very good point. This template is not needed. --Kildor (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to cleanup tag per Remember the dot's rationale. The template still serves a purpose, but it shouldn't be a technical restriction hatnote. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a cleanup tag??? Is there anything to cleanup? --Kildor (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, it could be repurposed to flag instances where an article should be moved to a shorter title. But as that isn't its current use, I suppose deleting it would be fine for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:29, 16 June 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:Il lupo e l'agnello (Aidone) 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 delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a story in some Italianate language (not Italian, Latin, or Corsican, as far as I can tell). Unused, and I've no idea what it would be used for. I'd have asked the creator of it, and given him notice that this was here, but his user page makes it clear that he's stopped editing WP. Any clues, anyone? If not, deletion is the only real answer, I'd think. — Grutness...wha? 02:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be established that it has a specific use. I take it that this template has something to do with the town Aidone, but its not being used there. Also, do we usually keep things like this that are not in english? — _Maggot^Syn 10:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, at a guess it looks like "The wolf and the needle", and seems to be telling some kind of folk tale. I suspect that there may be some clue in another deletion listed on the creator's user talk page. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pleasure of figuring out the story behind this does not justify any kind of keep, so delete as wrong namespace+wrong language. BTW: Is it Sicilian language maybe? The wolf and the lamb? --Qyd (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lamb makes nore sense than needle, and ties back in to the user's talk page discussion. And you're right, of course, it makes no difference as far as deleting the template is concerned. Grutness...wha? 01:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was being used in Gallo-siculo, as were several other templates with other Gallo-siculo dialects, see this diff before the user left. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 6 - discussion of Lupus et Agnus is relevant; one of the intended template series was accidentally created in main space and deleted for being purely in Latin rather than English, and also available at the Latin Wikisource [1]. I'm closing the DRV as gently as I can. GRBerry 15:21, 12 June 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.