Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 13

< September 12	September 14 >

September 13 edit

Template:Temp 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 Redirected. With the mystery solved I don't think anyone would oppose me closing this early. This is the Wikitonary version of Template:tl, and there have been users attempting to use it, so it makes for a logical redirect. Non-admin closing. --Ned Scott 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Temp (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't know what's going on here, but I certainly don't see a useful template anywhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest speedy deletion as a test page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I have never tried to delete a template before and am not familiar with the speedy policies for templates (I actually didn't even know you could speedy a template till just now), so I thought I would seek consensus since I could see no purpose for this template. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tagged it for speedy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why is this being deleted? The only thing wrong is it's been cut'n'pasted from wiktionary, and the reason the talk page has been redirected back is because the author must hate red links.--79.73.37.161 (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have the template both transcluded and substitute at User:Suntag/Test and User_talk:Suntag/Test. So if someone can indicate a purpose of the template, it would be much appreciated. -- Suntag ☼ 18:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this is Wikitonary's version of Template:tl. Now redirected. -- Ned Scott 19:21, 13 September 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:Succession box one to three 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 Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box one to three (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. Replaced with standard templates as per WP:SBS/T. Bazj (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator. --Nlu (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being unused, obsolete, so technically, a weak R3. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 10:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one more step towards the eradication of this series of highly complex and rigid templates. Let's make way for their fitter substitutes. Waltham, The Duke of 21:46, 16 September 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:Old template 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. Wizardman 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Old template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Claims to identify templates to which Criterion for speedy deletion T3 applies, but is a misrepresentation of that policy. CSD#T3 requires a better alternative template to exist as a condition for speedy deletion, while Old template is being used simply as a non-article version of PROD, contrary to established policy. Ironically, Old template could itself be speedily deleted (under WP:CSD#T2) but that would no doubt be disputed by its current users. Rumping (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Surely there are better uses of your time. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this is one of the most amusing deletion rationales I've ever come across, it's also possibly the most useless... :D (also)Happy‑melon 21:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Deleting this template would be trying to change policy using an XfD, which has been severally frowned upon in the past. While T3 is still a valid (albeit, useless) criteria this template shouldn't be listed at TfD, instead discussion should be made on WT:CSD to try and develop a consensus for T3 to be removed (or altered) as the redundant criteria that it is. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 13:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Procedural delete: Use of this template circumvents policy. As much I don't like the idea of making T3 even more useless, this should be deleted. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that comment. Template:Old template does not reflect the current policy; it is its use which is an attempt to sidestep policy. I am not proposing the deletion of Template:Db-t3, which does reflect the policy. --Rumping (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I'm an idiot. When I looked at Old_template I assumed DB-T3 must redirect to there but never bothered to check. ~ Ameliorate! _{U T C} @ 15:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As of this posts, there are about 200 pages that link to Template:Old template. -- Suntag ☼ 16:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - under Wikipedia:CSD#T2 as a blatant misrepresentations of established policy sumarized in Template:Db-t3. Template:Old template utilizes the categorization of Template:Db-t3 but replaces its text:

The TfD deletion should be speedy because deletions based on "Old template" likely have defective notice, which could cause a big deletion review problem down the road. -- Suntag ☼ 16:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been used since February 2008. See [1] for an old example --Rumping (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect/reword/ or make it a proposal Right now it doesn't match what is said on WP:CSD#T3. -- Ned Scott 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this template is a boilerplate for cases which should be considered on an individual basis, and misrepresents the CSD criterion. (also)Happy‑melon 21:39, 14 September 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.