Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zorglbot (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 2 June 2010 (BOT: Automatic archiving of daily TFD pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header

Current discussions

May 3

Template:Drake series

Template:Drake (musician) already existed when this sidebar was made. This is like a very ugly orange hat on a hat. —Rutebega (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 1

Template:Hammer Mummy

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 no consensus to merge. delldot ∇. 02:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hammer Mummy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Mummy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Hammer Mummy with Template:The Mummy.
This template is made entirely redundant by the main The Mummy template. Neelix (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge New template is more comprehensive. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no no no: the various Mummy franchises are unrelated to one another. The Mummy (franchise) is as clear a case of WP:SYN as I've seen in the a while and should probably be split up and turned into a dab page. Template:The Mummy suffers from the same problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm inclined to agree with Chris Cunningham that these templates should be kept separate. If anything, it's the other one that should be deleted, as it claims a link between these franchises which is not necessarily justified. Robofish (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominator - These are not separate franchises. Check out this source, which states that "Hammer reached an official agreement with Universal to remake their classic horror films." The following two sources also state that the Hammer films were clear remakes of the prior Universal films: [1], [2]. In many sources, the Hammer film titles are followed by "Hammer/Universal" in brackets. These films are all part of the same franchise. Neelix (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what of the 1999 series? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1999 film is another remake of the 1932 film. The Mummy (1999 film) is a featured article, and the connection between the films is made in the lede of that article. Neelix (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the two subjects are unrelated. Airplaneman ✈ 15:03, 9 June 2010 (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:Foundation planets

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, with no major objection to creating a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foundation planets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All but one of the Foundation universe planets have been merged into List of Foundation universe planets. The remaining four links (to the series, creator, planet list, and one individually notable planet) are all included on Template:Foundation series, therefore this template is redundant. This template is also no longer used on any articles. Neelix (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (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:21st-century politicians with multiple wives

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:21st-century politicians with multiple wives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

POV? This template has no more navigational value than a list of 21st-century politicians with blue eyes. Polygamy is common and completely respectable in Moslem countries. If all politicians with multiple wives in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, etc. were included, there would be tens of thousands of entries. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could arguably be a category, too minor to be a template.—Chowbok ☠ 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, not even a category; neither templates nor categories exist to facilitate trivia quizzes. Ucucha 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are very few politician in the 21st century with multiple wives.--478jjjz (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Nigeria, Christian presidents typically have Moslem Vice Presidents, and vice-versa. Since 2000 the Moslems have been Vice President Atiku Abubakar, President Umaru Yar'Adua, Vice-President Namadi Sambo. The first two had multiple wives. Not sure about the last. Taking a random look at currently serving Nigerian state governors with Moslem-sounding names we have Mahmud Shinkafi (3 wives), Isa Yuguda (4), Murtala Nyako (4), Ibrahim Shekarau (3) Usman Saidu Nasamu Dakingari (3) etc. In many Moslem countries, Politician = Powerful Alpha Male. Moslem politicians often have multiple wives. It is a meaningless grouping.
A rough calculation: Nigeria is about 50% Moslem. Assume about 50% of the Moslem politicians have multiple wives (maybe an underestimate). In the Federal government there are about 100 senators, 360 members of the Federal House of Representatives, 40 ministers etc., say about 500 total. That gives about 125 polygamist politicians currently holding office at the Federal level. There were elections in 2003 and 2007. Allowing for reelections but also for high churn among ministers gives maybe 250 entries for 21st century polygamist Nigerian politicians at the Federal level alone. Adding in state-level politicians, adding in all the other countries... who would maintain this template? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can subdivide the politicians by country.--478jjjz (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which group: politicians with blue eyes or politicians with multiple wives? I am not sure which is larger. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic where it is a societal norm. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that argument, but disagree with Ucucha. If Wikipedia can draw people in by answering trivia quiz questions, that is not a bad thing. Templates for "US politicians with blue eyes" or "Sudanese politicians with multiple wives" would be meaningless and impossible to maintain. But templates for "US politicians with multiple wives" or "Sudanese politicians with blue eyes" could be amusing if they included links to a few articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pretty indiscriminate, and unhelpful for navigation. I wouldn't support this as a category either. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (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:Frac

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 Keep, and suggest that discussion concerning improvements or restriction of the use of this template could be continued at say Template talk:Frac. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a misguided, Rube Goldberg–ian attempt to "fix" the display of vulgar fractions. It breaks their display on terminal browser such as Lynx and undoubtedly confuses speech-based browsers. If you turn off stylesheets, or save a page to a plaintext file, fractions rendered with this template also are broken. No major browser has problems anymore with displaying the proper, Unicode vulgar fraction characters, so this is a "solution" to a non-problem. We need to get rid of this and encourage people to use the correct fraction characters. —Chowbok ☠ 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. The template serves a useful purpose. While it is not ideal and Chowbok raises very valid points regarding the accessibility issues, the solution should involve the improvement of the template, not its deletion. I would also like to hear more on the Unicode fraction characters vs. accessibility—the use of Unicode fractions was shot in the past precisely because of the accessibility concerns, not to mention that the template allows showing any fractions, not just those included in the Unicode character set.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 15:29 (UTC)
    • All fractions can be depicted in Unicode; the ones that aren't specific characters are written with the superscript/subscript numbers (see [3]) and the fraction slash (Unicode U+2044). But the majority of fractions on here are halves through eighths, so usually we can just use the actual fraction characters.—Chowbok ☠ 15:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I didn't know that. However, I would still like to hear more from a third party (or, preferably, third parties) on the possible accessibility concerns related to the Unicode approach before I change my vote. Also, this template is used quite extensively. Could you elaborate on what you plan to do with all the transclusions, please? Or why this template should be deleted but not re-written to utilize the Unicode fractions to minimize cleanup?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 15:50 (UTC)
        • I assume there's a process for deleting templates in use, a bot or something. I'd be happy to do it with AWB if not. Should be a pretty straightforward substitution. I realize the WLH page is pretty long, but that's a bit misleading in that a lot of those pages aren't calling frac directly, but through another template. —Chowbok ☠ 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Such migration processes do indeed exist, but I was more interested in getting an answer to the question why you feel the template should be deleted as opposed to fixed or re-written?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 17:12 (UTC)
            • I guess I just don't see the point if we start using Unicode fractions across the board. It'd be like having a {{emdash}} template instead of just using em dashes.—Chowbok ☠ 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, there is an {{emdash}} template. Some people find it easier to type. (There is even a redirect {{—}}.) Ucucha 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't the template be edited so that it automatically displays the fraction characters when fractions like 1/2 are given? Something like {{#ifeq: {{{1}}}/{{{2}}} | 0.5 | ½ | }} should work. Ucucha 18:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could live with that, assuming we get rid of the HTML. If the denominator equals 2,3,4,5,6, or 8, use the Unicode character; otherwise, use the Unicode superscript/fraction slash/subscript characters. We could encourage it to be subst'd as well.—Chowbok ☠ 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I originally created the template back in 2005. In May 2007 I experimented successfully with automatic conversion to precomposed vulgar fractions (denominators 2, 3, 4 and 8). I was never really sure what technique (or combination of technologies) to use to get optimal results for everyone:
    1. OpenType/AAT ‘smart’ fonts can offer the feature to automatically sselect numerator and denominator digit glyphs around a slash/solidus or fraction slash, but you cannot access this via CSS yet (but soon). Not many fonts or browsers can do that, though.
    2. Unicode has several precomposed glyphs, but those may not harmonize well with constructed ones.
    3. Unicode also offers superscript and subscript digits (and most roman letters), but AFAIK these should not be used for fractions directly, although fonts may use the same glyphs for both. Their support across fonts differs and more so in 2005, when enWP still was ISO 8859-1 and IE5/6 was still in use.
    4. / (U+002F) or ⁄ (U+2044) or &‌frasl; (entity reference to U+2044), all with normal digits.
    5. simple HTML: 
      <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>
    6. presentational HTML: 
      <small><sup>1</sup><big>/</big><sub>2</sub></small>
      and variants
    7. HTML+CSS (style): 
      <sup style="font-size:x-small">1</sup>/<sub style="font-size:x-small">2</sub>
    8. HTML+CSS (class): 
      <span class="fraction"><sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub></span>

      .fraction sub, .fraction sup {font-size: x-small} .fraction {white-space: nowrap}
    9. How to deal with the part before the fraction, when styling is turned off (e.g. in copying or console browsers), i.e. 1+2/3, 1_2/3, 1 2/3, 1–2/3 or 1-2/3 for 1+2⁄3.
  • The good thing is that {{frac}} can be changed to the method of choice and all transclusions will be updated. Finally you cannot replace all use cases of the template by automatisms, e.g. 1⁄x, km⁄h. — Christoph Päper 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced. You're not addressing my points about browser support above. Where are you getting that Unicode subscript/superscript numbers should not be used for fractions? In any event, it seems like we're worrying about stuff that we shouldn't be worrying about. There's a character for one-half, for instance, and it's not even just Unicode; it's ISO-8859-1. Browsers should determine how it's displayed, not us. We shouldn't be overriding valid characters just because we think they're not "harmonizing" well. Automatic substitution should take care of most of the cases, special cases can be handled manually.—Chowbok ☠ 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Browsers do not display 1/2 (or even 1⁄2) as ½, ¹⁄₂, 1⁄2, 1⁄2, or some such, at least not yet and not without help. Editors cannot be expected to enter any vulgar fraction directly, not even halves and fourths. If I understand you correctly, much of your criticism would be moot if we reinstated my May 2007 experiment (and add ⅕, ⅖, ⅗, ⅘, ⅙, ⅚). Which “automatic substitution” do you mean, though? Unicode TR #20 suggests 
        1&‌thinsp;2&‌frasl;3
        “1 2⁄3” (thin space, fraction slash, normal digits), but does not forbid extra markup, e.g. sup = numerator. — Christoph Päper 18:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See Template talk:Convert, where this is a suggestion to replace the unicode fractions rendered by Template:Convert/and/fra1 with non-unicode versions rendered by Template:Convert/num. It sounds like a hybrid approach is preferred. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure that they're aware of the Unicode superscript and subscript digit characters from that discussion.—Chowbok ☠ 06:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template that is used in many articles. {{convert}} cannot handle fractions adequately in my opinion, thus the need for this template - I refuse to quote 1713⁄16" as 17.8125" in ship articles, it looks absurd. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (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:Group of 15 Leaders

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. The countries are members of the group, not their leaders, who can change at any moment. Ruslik_Zero 17:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Group of 15 Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over the course of time. Updates are better handled in the table which part of this article. See Talk:Group of 15/Archives/2013#Delete "leaders" templates. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain. Does it help to compare the array of similar groups and templates below? Maybe this thread is untimely? --Tenmei (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenative delete. I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't be tagging leaders with these templates - they should really be on the countries instead. However, there are several of them, so wider input should be sought before deleting. Robofish (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per the reasons above. Airplaneman ✈ 15:02, 9 June 2010 (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:G-15 leaders

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. delldot ∇. 03:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G-15 leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over the course of time. Updates are better handled in the table which part of this article. See Talk:Group of 15/Archives/2013#Delete "leaders" templates. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2010 (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:Good article

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 Keep. Obviously the overwhelming majority opinion in the discussion is for keeping, and this corresponds to the consensus from the previous discussion that was advertised on WP:CENT. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was created after an improper consensus on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Should_all_GAs_have_the_GA_symbol_on_the_article_page.3F. Furthermore since Good Articles only require a single reviewer, and not a community based discussion like Featured Articles, having such a template on Article pages may be deceptive as to the overall quality of the article. Feinoha Talk, My master 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have to be more specific about how the consensus is "improper", rather than just label it as such. I didn't contribute in any way to that discussion, but I (despite being slightly opposed myself) was more than happy to read that page and, in the words of Iridescant,"even I can see that there's an overwhelming consensus in support of it and extending the discussion isn't going to change anything". What is your concern with it? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the arguments in the opposition section of the proposal and compared them against the support !votes, and there is still some major unaddressed issues. Even if this template is kept, I would at least like a way to "opt-out" of seeing this template displayed on "Good Articles". Feinoha Talk, My master 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically? Oh, and yes, just add "#good-star{display:none;}" to your vector.css (or otherskin.css). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—consensus was reached, as even some of the more articulate opponents of the proposal agree; now let's move on and not filibuster this change. (I supported the change and created this template.) Ucucha 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Admittedly, I supported the proposal, although I personally favor a more sweeping approach to making our article assessment visible to the public. Support is very strong, and I agree with everything Ucucha said above. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm log onto Wikipedia most days, and often spend half an hour or more browsing pages that are not in the mainspace. I certainly saw no hint that this template was being proposed, and indeed only came to know of its existence when it was added by a GA reviewer to an article I was improving. Something like this surely warrants a watchlist advertisement. I am inclined to think that we should revisit this proposal with a more sizable audience. (In the interim, the template could be replaced with nul content; if the consensus is to allow the icon to remain on good articles, then we can simply revert to the icon code.) AGK 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with only nulling it, should we reach a "delete" consensus, I think that much is obvious. I knew of the discussion from WP:CENT, I don't know about where else it might have been mentioned. 74 commenting seems like quite a few (to me, anyway) for a consensus to emerge, do you think the original sample might have been biased towards one of the outcomes? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the discussion reached a consensus and had enough people opining; personally I don't care whether GA icons are used. Surely TFD is not a sensible place to discuss this. —innotata 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if you disagree with the icon, that's not all this template does. As for the consensus, this was advertised on WP:CENT, and I did see the discussion, which was closed by an admin as consensus reached with 55 for and 19 against. (~75% in favor) I have no opinion on whether the GA symbol is shown, but we must honor the consensus. As an aside, why are we nominating the documentation page for deletion?  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, consensus was clear, this is a very useful and helpful page and should be kept in existence on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus was very clear indeed. Most participants weren't biased and weren't members of WP GA. In any case, this is not the place to bring this up. This nomination only slows down the actual process. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I was brought to this discussion seeing that His Band and the Street Choir currently has this template.) First off, there have been numerous precedents regarding the GA icon in the title of GAs. Each time, the template containing the GA icon eventually gets deleted. The reasons for those deletions were pretty much similar each time (afaik). Fast forward to now: this concept is yet again brought to the table, and those same prior arguments are still being argued about. While consensus can change, some of the arguments against (listed in the poll) still have not been addressed properly. Furthermore, because of the way the original discussion worked, a more accurate consensus could not be determined due to the fact that at least some of the participants in the poll did not further contribute to the discussion. This is further complicated by the fact that a participant in the very poll turned out to be the one closing it. Until a better way of dealing with this issue can be found and acted upon, I'm going to have to go with the consensus before this came along—delete. --O (talk • edits) 00:29, 02 June 2010 (GMT)
  • Keep for being green. This is also as much as some topics will ever achieve, often after hard work; it's nice to have some kind of symbolic achievement. The unworthy GAs should stick out like a sore thumb now, too. GreenReaper (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the GA WikiProject was the best place to hold that discussion--is that going to be a representative sample of the population on the project? Or is it likely to be populated by people that think more highly of GA's than the rest of the project? I feel like with something this big the discussion should take place at the village pump or somewhere. I like AGK's idea of making it invisible until further discussion can be had. I agree with some of the Keeps that TFD probably isn't the best venue for the discussion either. delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is consensus to use the template; nominations to then delete the template are an end-run around consensus. I also still don't know what "improper consensus" means. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discussion was closed in favor of use of the icon, thus the template is dependent on that decision. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was open dialogue between those who support and oppose the idea, so attempts to discredit this proposal using polling is not a substitute for discussion doesn't hold much weight. In fact, it only shows how some people wishes to overturn the already-established consensus by putting up guidelines without checking whether such guidelines illustrate the opposite. Furthermore, even those who oppose the idea agreed that the consensus is clear.[4][5] Then we have some users here who claimed that it was not advertised enough or the poll duration was too short. It was listed on centralized discussion which serves as a gateway to discussions on major interface changes, RfC, etc. User:AGK claimed that there should be a listing on watchlist. As shown by this section on WP:CENT, watchlist or sitenotice is used for announcements and not to be used as pointers to a poll. (Have you seen any RfA/RfB being listed on watchlist and/or sitenotice? Nope...) User:H3llkn0wz summarized it perfectly on how it reached entire audience group and does not engage in selection bias. He said "out of first 20 supporters only 4 identify themselves as good article WP participants. Out of first 10 opposers 2 do so. How is this possibly not broad enough?"[6] The poll started from May 6 and ended on May 27, which lasted 21 days. If that is not enough time, then I really don't know what is an appropriate duration for a discussion. (Again, do RfA/RfB polls last 21 days? No, they last 7 days) Full disclosure: It was me who closed that poll and concluded that it reached consensus. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well there's consensus for this, so has to stay. However, will be good idea to use {{Main other}} within it for consistency with other templates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep' - the idea behing flagging GAs is a sound one which achieved consensus. It shows the casual reader that they have reached a Good Article, and is some small rewared for the editors who brought the article to GA status in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wasn't aware of any discussion leading up to the creation of this template, but I must say it's nice to see an article labeled as "good article" without having to look at the talk page to see the article's quality assessment. This is definitely something that needs to be displayed on the article itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do agree with the general concern that if that if the "Good Article" label doesn't ensure quality then this tag could be misleading. However, to me that is an argument for reviewing the Good Article process, not eliminating this template. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A consensus has been reached when this template was created. It makes the articles stand out from normal ones which have not yet achieved good article status, and allows the casual reader to Wikipedia to identify a good article without going to the talk page. - Nick C (t·c) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good idea for a template; I've no idea why consensus was against it for so long, but it clearly isn't any longer. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I !voted against this, and still don't like it. However, though I'd have preferred the discussion to take place elsewhere than on a GA page, the consensus was strong enough that a TfD seems the wrong way to go here. If someone wants to reverse the decision I'd suggest they start a discussion somewhere like the village pump, or start an RfC. Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (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.

May 31

Template:Ref harvard

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 after replacement, with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref harvard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Low use template, replaceable by {{harv}}. Need to enable |ref=harv on the {{cite xxx}} templates and ensure the authors are properly split by first and last name parameters. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to {{harv}} per nom. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't just redirect— it needs some work in the article, which I have identified. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it is not used a lot but it is used nonetheless. A redirection is also out of question. Why break numerous articles when we can simply do not break them? However, if you replace all instances of the template usage personally, perhaps the deletion may be considered. Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why you would think we would break anything. If consensus is to replace this, then I would update each article with {{harv}} and tweak the citations as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not my concern. This breaking and mending is a waste of energy and time with no gain at all. In generaal, I'm against such a waste. Of course, you are at liberty to invest your valuable time and energy on whatsoever you see fit; your decision shall be respected and appreciated but not agreed with. Fleet Command (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we would follow above reasoning we would have 100 times the current number of templates on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant; replace it using {{Harvard citation}} (which {{harv}} redirects to). Airplaneman ✈ 14:57, 9 June 2010 (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:Ref harv

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref harv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A wonderfully unique reference template used in one article— Joe McDoakes. I'm still trying to figure out how to update it. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The edit history suggests that it's just a superscripted version of {{ref harvard}}. The current version looks compatible enough that it could just be redirected there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is TfD above. I figured out how to directly replace the template, but the article isn't going to look any better. It is just weird in how it was done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Wikipedia we don't delete things just because they are used only once. (Wikipedia is not democracy.) Why should we break the one article when we can simply not break it? Please request deletion only when you have finished phasing out the template and replacing its transclusions. Fleet Command (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously we really do delete templates when only used once. There is no requirement to phase out a template before asking for deletion. The deleting admin will of course take care when deleting and replace the template or do something else so not to break the article. Garion96 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2010 (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:Footnotes

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Cite reference system has been in use since December 2005. This template was intended to help explain the system and was to be substed in the Reference section. I suspect it has been removed in most cases, and is now redundant. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The single transclusion was being used to show footnotes on a talk page. I replaced it with {{reflist-talk}} ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still see this from time to time in new articles... Is one of the article wizards or form templates also using this content? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as this looks like the template substituted into the footnotes section when one creates an article using the article wizard. As a frequent Newpage Patroller, I see this daily; therefore, it is still being used frequently and is not phased out as the nominator claims. Airplaneman ✈ 14:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard. I had left a message on Template talk:Footnotes weeks ago with no reply and this TfD has been ongoing, so no one is watching the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Article Wizard uses {{Article wizard/skeleton}} as a preload, which adds:
<!--- See [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] on how to create references using <ref></ref> tags which will then appear here automatically -->
So, it does not use the Footnotes template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:20, 9 June 2010 (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:Footnotestext

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Cite reference system has been in use since December 2005. This template was intended to help explain the system and was to be substed in the Reference section. I suspect it has been removed in most cases, and is now redundant. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused and long since redundant. Robofish (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (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:International NF-Board

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International NF-Board (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned for over 2 years. Borgarde (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused and apparently unwanted. Robofish (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (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:Scams

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 merge. There's a strong consensus for merging these, but as far as I can see no one's suggesting anything be deleted. When Scams is merged into confidence tricks, it can be redirected there. I can do the job as closer, but it looks like others have clear ideas of how it should be done so I may be making life harder for them by doing it too. So I'll leave this for a few days and then merge them if no one else has by then. delldot ∇. 21:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks to user:Penbat for carrying out the merge! delldot ∇. 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Scams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Confidence Tricks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Scams with Template:Confidence Tricks.
Similar scope, and better developed and organized. Pnm (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Items that don't at Template:Confidence Tricks could be considered for inclusion in Template:Fraud. -- Pnm (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: i happen to be working on a restructure of list of confidence tricks see User:Penbat/list of confidence tricks and i just spotted the duplication. --Penbat (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and call the new template "Scams and confidence tricks" so one looking for a template on either would know they both exist. Hellno2 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of confidence tricks makes an effort to categorise the confidence tricks (or scams) into types. List of confidence tricks and the template need to tie in with each other with a brief summary of each scam given and in many cases a link given to a separate article for each individual scam. If categorisation into types is viable then it should also be applied to the template by splitting it up into sub-sections.--Penbat (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of confidence tricks has now been restructured. See Talk:List_of_confidence_tricks#Making_individual_scams_more_visible for more info. --Penbat (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (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:The Larry Sanders Show

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. delldot ∇. 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Larry Sanders Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All characters now on "list of characters" page; this navigation template is no longer necessary. WCityMike 01:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is only actually linking two articles, not enough to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's three - the main show article, the character list and the episode list. That might be enough, but I still don't think it's really needed. Robofish (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (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.

May 30

Template:Major Indoor Soccer League

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 Wrong venue, should be nominated at RFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Indoor Soccer League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It needs to be deleted because it's a former soccer league and it's been redirected. —WayneOlajuwon (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last TFD (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 26#Template:Major Indoor Soccer League) closed as "redirect", I would say this should go to WP:RFD, or nominate the parent template instead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is probably one for RFD really, but I don't see any problems with this template as it's just a redirect from a longer name. If the destination template is the one that was meant to be nominated, that should be made clear. Robofish (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2010 (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:Class parameter

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 no consensus to delete. I haven't implemented the suggestion to add tracking code, but anyone that wants to is welcome to. delldot ∇. 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Class parameter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecated a mere five days before it was nominated. As a substituted template, it's obvious that it's not going to have any current transclusions, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "not being used". Recommend adding some temporary tracking code, waiting a couple of months to see if anyone is still using it and then relisting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:09, 31 May 2010 (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:Somewebsite

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 keep. delldot ∇. 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is currently unused and unlinked (except for one instance in an inactive user's userspace), and appears to have been generally disliked (judging from comments on its talk page). Template also has technical flaws leading to miscategorization. TheFeds 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I erred in assessing the uses of this template...that one link is the only instance of the template's talk page. The actual template is transcluded about a dozen times at present, and linked several more times. The problem with the existing transclusions is that they often duplicate a {{No license needing editor assistance}} tag—which is more appropriate anyway, given the threat of deletion—or are misplaced entirely (for example, here there's already a credible PD tag; here there's no evidence that the uploader grabbed it from a website at all). TheFeds 20:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment It is used in the "upload form", to catch uploads by those that do not know better. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As TheDJ says, this is used by the upload form, and it's a speedy deletion template, so pages transcluding it get deleted. There's no reason to delete this. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if it's used by the upload form, it's worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2010 (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:Lee DeWyze

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lee DeWyze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The singer has only released one single and it is way too early for this, since there is barely more here than the American Idol 8 template has. Aspects (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on precedent. Gage (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what precedent? Aspects (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. It's too early for a template let's for more singles and more albums. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's just wait until he has enough singles and albums. TaylorSwift14 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, not needed at this time, and basically redundant to the main American Idol template. Robofish (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (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:Kingstonian F.C. seasons

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kingstonian F.C. seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox has only one article link, plus three redlinks. Jameboy (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for a navbox at this time. Can be recreated when the articles have been created. Robofish (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2010 (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:Associated main

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Associated main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has identical functionality to Template:Main. *If* the word "associated" is required for some articles (and personally I don't think so), a parameter could be added to Template:Main to do this. Jameboy (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Unable to inform the template's creator as his talk page is protected. --Jameboy (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creator has been blocked since September 2007.
  • Delete Redundant with Template:Main, and in some article, both are used together. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess if Associated main were to be deleted, then any remaining transclusions of it should be replaced with Main?? --Jameboy (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes— we don't leave deleted templates hanging as redlinked markup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Main}} - redundant to an older and simpler template. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (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:English football league system cells

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English football league system cells (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox isn't necessary when a maximum of three links will be present. The information won't be lost by deleting the template, as it should already be covered in the article's infobox and prose. Jameboy (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I overlooked something when nominating this. Sometimes there will be three links in the navbox, but for many non-league divisions, there will be more, e.g. see usage in Midland Football Alliance#External links. I still think the template is worthy of discussion, but I'm less sure of whether it should be deleted. --Jameboy (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the links should be on the bottom line of the navbox for the relevant league; as in this edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- redundant template. There is enough information throughout league articles about promotion and relegation. --MicroX (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this should be included in the infobox or elsewhere, not in a separate template. Robofish (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2010 (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:Pakistan infobox

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been on for a while and is used on articles of the various Administrative units of Pakistan. I propose the infobox for deletion as it serves no real purpose. The Template:Infobox subdivision looks much better and standardised and caters to all of the information in this template. There is no point of having this; also, the green doesn't look very pretty. Mar4d (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2010 (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:The Gracious Few

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Gracious Few (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few links to actually navigate —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't fully understand this comment, are there too few links IN the template or do too few pages use it? Can you clarify please and I might be able to rectify the situation. Thnaks. Iangurteen (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both. The Gracious Few itself has less than a dozen inbound links, and most of those should be rolled into it as they're sub-stubs with no other claims to fame. Navboxes should be created as need requires, not pre-emptively created and then filled in as Wikipedia's coverage of a subject expands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Links a new band with no releases to an album that is not yet released. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:45, 3 June 2010 (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.

May 29


Template:Active Pricing Games

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Active Pricing Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All linked articles have been or are in the process of being merged into List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Template is no longer needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (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:Repression in the Soviet Union

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 keep. Those concerns that were brought up mostly involved the content of the template rather than its existence. Hopefully the edits that have been made address these concerns, but if not editors are more than welcome to keep improving it. delldot ∇. 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Repression in the Soviet Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see any similar templates in this category for other countries, and I feel that it's not fair in respect of the country I was born in. This template is simply a heavy POV. 213.164.124.252 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I feel that this template provides a function; grouping together similar articles on the Soviet Union, it does not have a point of view. The articles are well referenced. Templates like this do not exist for other countries because they do not have articles on the subjects. Captain n00dle\Talk 23:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I would not question the existence of this template. But it's contents are ... lame, as kids will say. It starts with global, and largely intersecting topics (political vs. ideological is a very thin distinction when both end with 9mm in the temple), and ends up with very narrow salient topics like Radio in the Soviet Union (a stub that does not even attempt to describe its topic) and Copyright law of the Soviet Union (looks good but had they no better-fitting topics at all? was it the only instance of "economic repression"?). The central core of specific campaigns (Red Terror, Collectivization etc.) is what it's all about - the history of organized murder. But why is it labelled "Political?" Millions were deported and killed without any formal charges. Is organized starvation a political or an economic act? etc. Another concern is that the list follows and reinforces the worn-out scheme of Khruschyov, Conquest, VOA and Co.: let's overrate the so-called Great Purge and forget the "lesser one" which claimed far more lives. Conclusion: I don't know if it's salvageable, too much drama on both sides of the wall. East of Borschov (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Delldot (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the topic is notable, but the template could be redone to cover it better, so I suggest a restructure. I took a look and am not sure how to go about doing it, though, so if nobody knows how, I will say delete. If it is restructured based on East of Borschov and 13.164.124.252's comments, I may go for a weak keep. Airplaneman ✈ 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See no need for it, and it included numerous of articles which are placed in the category of atrocoties and controversy, such as the forceful collectivization, which is seen by many not as a repression but as a mean socialis the Soviet economy, among others. --TIAYN (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the articles exist, and this template seems like a good way of linking them. The current content of the template is questionable, but I've made a few changes - removing the Copyright, TV and Radio articles as suggested above, and adding a couple about censorship, which I think improves it somewhat. Robofish (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2010 (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:Bad Job

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad Job (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template designed to discourage editors from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and BJAODN[sic] - WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL. Sole purpose is to attack users. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 12:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It simply isn't true that the template is designed to discourage editors from further editting. If anything, the template is designed to spur the editors of certain pages to begin editting better. The template isn't even directed at specific users but at articles, just like the Good Job template. Just as the Good Job template is used to let the editors of a specific article know that reliable sources think that they are on the right track (E.g. Xenu), the Bad Job template can (theoretically) pierce the bubbles of Wiki-group-think that can sometimes form by indicating that reliable sources think a certain article is on the wrong track (E.g. global warming). It's one more tool for helping Wikipedia become the best that it can be. Eugene (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no good reason for the template. The place to discuss a bad job is on the Discussion page. PYRRHON  talk   03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are better ways to handle this, especially through discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful, and a breach of policy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This, unlike other templates that we already have, does not state what the problem is. I don't see how it can be used for anything but non-constructive criticism. Cardamon (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • POINTier than a fakir's bed. No good can come of this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even in the very small number of cases where use of this template might be slightly helpful, the {{press}} template does a much better job without violating WP:CIVIL. — Satori Son 14:59, 1 June 2010 (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:North Gippsland Football League

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Gippsland Football League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:ORPHAN, WP:NOTE. Template only linked to once in mainspace,teams are not notable. sk8er5000 yeah? 10:53, 29 May 2010 (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.

May 28

Template:Fb event

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 subst and delete. delldot ∇. 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is trying to apply a standard format to what is effectively proseline. Encouraging or trying to standardise proseline is not useful or desirable, as such information should be converted to well-defined lists, tables or prose. I suggest substituting all existing transclusions of this template and then deleting it. Jameboy (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like a list entry to me, not a line of prose. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no need for content like this to be in a template. Can be subst as here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC}
  • Delete Simply no need for it and too trivial for a template. Digirami (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is used on football clubs' seasons which there are a begin and an end, and the timeline is relevant. As a reader, I could read this type of article as a timeline or a prose. But, if it is a prose, it should flow in a timeline way, starting from the pre-season, going throughout the season and ending up on the post-season. Here a example of a season's article in a timeline fashion: http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,25212,12038_6171221,00.html. Also, templates are useful to keep a standard and, in an eventuality of changing, all would be change in one single edit. --ClaudioMB (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to make it clear, proseline is not the same as (flowing, high quality) prose. --Jameboy (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete, it's not used very often, and it's unnecessary obfuscation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the information displayed by this template can easily be typed up without using a template. --MicroX (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete – it's better not to encourage standardizing prose. Airplaneman ✈ 16:04, 6 June 2010 (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:Tracklist custom

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 Moved to Template:Track listing/sandbox6, without redirect. The editor who created it aside, there is consensus that this template is an undesirable fork of {{Track listing}}. However, there is also a consensus that features found in the fork may be useful. To ensure that this material is available for further use, I've moved the template to a sandbox page. RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tracklist custom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Speedy T3 contested, elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep for WP:Featured articles & WP:ACCESS. The track-table formatter Template:Tracklist_custom was specially designed and developed to provide customized track-tables, such as for sound recordings listed in WP:Featured articles or formatting to support guideline WP:Accessibility, for sight-impaired users with special needs. Some users read pages with larger text-size settings, such as MS Internet Explorer textsize "Larger" or Firefox zoom-in text. Because the template allows specifying the exact width of table columns, internally it has been completely redesigned, and it is NOT a mere fork of Template:Tracklist, but rather an entirely different implementation intended to look similar for visual compatibility. Running a diff between the 2 templates reveals the extensive differences, on more than 230 lines. It also allows for automatic adding of track-length times, to calculate the total length (in minutes & seconds) of an album or song list. In terms of performance, the internal coding of the template has been optimized to speed the display (or reformatting) of frequently-read articles. Beyond those customization features, the template also checks the validity of the track-table format, to help young readers when writing about record albums (by reporting any misspelled parameters). It would be unfair not to support sight-impaired readers and younger viewers. To simplify maintenance, the template contains extensive internal documentation to explain the coding, which acts as a tutorial in understanding the formatting of track-tables, in general. Because the main purpose of the template is to allow special customization, it also provides an easy avenue for introducing new features, needed only in a few select articles, without risking changes to track-tables used in over 11,000 other articles. After months of long-term testing, such features could later be added into all articles, but "Template:Tracklist custom" frees volunteers from the risk of updating a major template when only a custom fix is needed, while allowing them the freedom to add that feature into all track-tables at a later time. Consider the template as a "lifeboat" to support WP:Featured articles, sight-impaired viewers, young readers, and allow quick customization or new features to be added by volunteers who have limited time. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate. It looks like a lot of discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Track listing. I don't understand the FA argument— if it is good for FA articles, then it is good for all. I also don't understand why a separate template is needed for accessibility— if {{Track listing}} has accessibility issues, then it needs to be fixed. I recommend that this be moved to a subpage of {{Track listing}} and the features worked into the original template with consensus. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original template is stuck in complex discussions which have paralyzed attempts to improve that template, and which have not produced any consensus in a long time. See explanation in subtopic below: "#Analysis paralysis prevented updates to related template". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and return to implementing these features into Template:Track listing. The first appearance of changes to the template by Wikid77 appeared on May 1, but that was a small change with none of the features mentioned above. At that time I noted on the talk page, "The (new) parameter has not been added to the documentation, nor was it discussed or even announced here. ... I'm not certain of the purpose of this change. Should we revert?" [7] Others agreed to revert, and Wikid77 made further improvements in testing areas, which were discussed at length, mostly to do with auto-sizing the width of columns. Work was also done on improving the "total time" row and footnotes. Over the next week, many requests were made for further changes and explanations of what was being changed, and Wikid77 did a lot of work in handling these requests. Although we were generally enthusiastic about these changes, it wasn't approaching consensus to implement, because Wikid77 was continually adding more features to his proposed version, and the examples on the talk page were continually changing. Also, a lot of the change was quite technical, and usage needed to be explained at a user's level. I (and others) tried to encourage him to create an updated version of the existing documentation in a test area, to move the process along. [8] [9] [10] [11] Wikid77's response was, "The changes are quite extensive, so it will take some weeks to fully document" [12], and I believe he is alluding to this in his reponse earlier in this section when he mentions "volunteers who have limited time".
So the result is that Wikid77 has created a forked template an announced it as basically a "free-for-all" where anyone can make changes without gaining approval or making documentation. I do realize he hasn't actually said this, but when I stated that we don't want a 3rd and 4th version of Track Listing to appear, Wikid77 agreed, suggesting his version could be the one "2nd, customized, template" for "people who do not have time" to get consensus and document what they are changing. [13] (I'm piecing several quotes together and interpreting their meaning, sorry if I'm taking anything out of context, but I believe this is what he is saying.) I disagree that it would take weeks for Wikid77 to provide user documentation for the changes he has made, although I admit nearly all of the new features he talks about in this section are new to me, so clearly he has been doing a lot more work since the discussion dried up on the talk page. But even so, documentation is always essential, and should be written as you go, to prevent it from becoming a big chore later. (I used to work as a programming project leader, and can attest that programmers who don't do this on big projects run a risk of giving themselves too much work. But I really don't think it's reached this point yet, on this template.)
The big problem is that if the custom template is indeed a "free-for-all", then it's quite probable other editors will come in and make changes for their own needs, and mess up its existing usage in articles. I have pointed out that we don't really need to have a template to make a customized table. An editor can just make a Wiki-table. Track lists can be in one of 3 forms: a text list, a custom table, or Template:Track listing (per WP:WikiProject Albums#Track listing). The template exists to establish a reliable, stable, documented table with helpful features. The same could be said for most templates. This is why custom, forked, and undocumented templates are discouraged and deleted (via this page) when they appear. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is NEITHER a fork nor undocumented: it has its own documentation subpage. Keep reading below. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, {{Tracklist custom}} is NOT a fork, but rather a total redesign that produces a track-table which appears similar. Hence, {{Track listing}} cannot be "updated" to have similar capability, but rather, would need to be re-designed to allow those new features. Again, because it is not a fork, the other template cannot be "modified" to produce the same new features: it would have to be similarly re-designed. Second, the discussion at Wikiproject WP:ALBUM was very limited, perhaps by 3 other people, and the result seemed to suggest ignoring guideline WP:ACCESS. I firmly believe that any template designed for use in album articles should not ignore a Wikipedia guideline, even if some members of a Wikiproject think WP polices or guidelines don't apply to them. Currently, {{Tracklist custom}} can be used in articles to support WP:ACCESS, until the other template is discussed to reach consensus for updating it to also support WP:ACCESS. Because the template is NOT a fork, and provides several new features (with documentation), to be used in WP:Featured articles as well as to support WP:ACCESS, there are no grounds for deleting it. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Tracklist custom}} serves exactly the same purpose as {{Track listing}} and started out in it's sandbox as {{Track listing/sandbox2}} so IMO that makes it a fork. So does other people seem to think. I hope you remember that (although it took me several days to figure out what you were talking about) I did agree that {{Track listing}} do have some display issues on narrow screens, and that both myself and A Knight Who Says Nee gave our "weak support" to /sandbox2 provided you could sort out some issues were it degrades the display on a normal sized screen and provide some documentation for all those new parameters you added [14]. Your problems started when you—behind everyones back—moved /sandbox2 to the template namespace and deployed it on Dark Side of the Moon. At this point, WP:ALBUM decided against it and no, we were not 3 but 5 people (excl. you) involved in that discussion [15]. So regarding your endless allusions to WP:ACCESS, it's an upright lie to state that we "think WP polices or guidelines don't apply to [us]". We simply believe that the template in it's current form is not mature. Personally I think that the multitude of width parameters you added is the perfect example of feature creep; we can't expect editors to think about defining column widths in numbers of pixels when they set up a track list. Neither in FA-articles nor in all other. – IbLeo(talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as multiple templates serving essentially the same purpose would result in an unnecessarily increased workload for everyone involved. People would have to learn about the differences, evaluate what variant to use for what article (obligatory squabbles included), then there would be maintainance and housekeeping for each individual template, the issue of where to hold discussions that might pertain to either one of them and so on and so forth.
    Now, I'm sure Wikid77 will readily offer rebuttals for each of these points and also promise to become the second template's keeper until kingdom come (even though it is supposedly intended to be a free-for-all effort), but lets just return to Template talk:Track listing and continue working on the consensus behind one template for one purpose. After all, it's not rocket science, just tracklists. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are numerous misconceptions:
  • First, it's not essentially the same purpose, but rather custom formatting in WP:Featured articles (& other new features, not the same).
  • 2nd, to have new features (such as summing the total length of an album), some effort is needed.
  • 3rd, this "unnecessarily increased workload" has been a lot easier than the "necessarily debated consensus" still ongoing for months.
  • 4th, for "everyone involved" is overstating the customization of a few articles, while not involving most of 11,000 other track-table articles.
  • 5th, only a few people would need to learn about new features, and the vast majority would use the original template. Not everyone works on featured articles.
  • 6th, the current "table analysis paralysis" (linked below) has paralyzed the "working on the consensus behind one template".
  • 7th, perhaps it's "not rocket science" but I think it could be called "wikitable calculus": the typesetting and auto-widening of table columns is much more complex than many people imagine, and that is why the 2nd template is a total redesign (the original template could not precisely set the width of columns: it's the wikitable issue of 2% versus 20px).
  • 8th, the resistance to a "2nd template" is unfounded; it's like saying this family can continue taking turns on the motorcycle, we don't need to have both a motorcycle & car, because then there's "increased workload" for car maintenance, and everyone in the town will have to learn how to drive the car, and riding a motorcycle is not rocket science: we can find a way to fit all 5 family members on the motorcycle at the same time, we just need "consensus" to do it, etc.
Please note that a car is "not a fork" of a motorcycle, and consensus does not solve putting 5 people on a motorcycle. The customized template is like a car for WP:Featured articles, while most articles use the motorcycle template, but some users have trouble riding the motorcycle, due to special needs. For them, there is the customized car template, to support WP:FA and special needs. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Template:Tracklist custom is a total redesign (not a fork), it can specify the width of each column as pixels ("220px") plus set a gap-width between the columns. The prior template was not designed to allow spacer-gaps between columns. An analogy is that a car is "not a fork" of a motorcycle, but the car provides new features (4 passengers, A/C, trunk, reclining seats, etc.), while a motorcycle can drive in more places (on narrow sidewalks, through a yard gate, into an apartment for storage at night), so both car & motorcycle are useful. There is a table showing some of the new features; see talk-page: "Template_talk:Tracklist custom#New features provided by redesigned template not fork". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Several editors clearly indicated the importance of gaining consensus before adding any new features to the related Template:Track listing. However, after more than a year of little progress, on 1 May 2010, I began directly addressing some new features to add. Often, when discussing one feature, someone would request another feature be added, then when discussing that feature, yet another user would object to that feature being added into the other features. In short, no new feature gained consensus, and people began complaining about too many features being considered. A feature requested by one person would be considered "useless" to other editors. The result became a typical "paralysis of analysis". Hence, creating the customized template provided several new features (something for everyone), all at the same time, but none of them would be mandated to require consensus of all concerned users for the 11,000 track-table articles. The custom template allowed some people to use new features, as documented on a new doc subpage, but only applied to a few articles, where results could be specifically tested. At that point, the overall discussion was reduced to considering only 1 new feature for the prior template: changing the width of the table to appear wider for WP:ACCESS, when users have narrow windows (800x600 pixels) or enlarged font (textsize "Larger"). The single focus quickly became mired in wanting the wider table to be the same width for multiple albums, if needed, or only auto-widen to fit the names of the songs (or writers) as actually listed. Again, even when focusing on a single new feature (setting table width), the detailed analysis of table-width with images (or infoboxes), plus auto-widening only to fit actual data, seemed to be returning to over-analyzing the situation and paralyzing any chance of near-term consensus. After another month had passed, the customized template was the only new capability to have been created, combining the ideas of several people to provide something new for each; while with the prior template, the discussion to add 1 new feature (table width) had reached a deadlock, in wanting too much automated-capability for that one feature, in preparation to ask for consensus to update. The result: after extensive discussions, the customized template is the only new capability to allow formatting album track-tables in WP:Featured articles and support for sight-impaired readers (for the articles they are most-likely to find unreadable). It also provides other new features, and helps young readers when first writing track-tables. The related template has not been able to offer those features, so that is why the customized template exists, not as a mere fork, but as an advanced redesign (with separate doc subpage), which allows new features while appearing similar to the other 11,000 track-tables. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, although I think "paralysis" and "deadlock" are unfair terms. Changes were not approved because details of how these features were to be used were not clear, and at the time it appeared you were not prepared to update user documentation, stating that in-code comments were all that would be provided. As for the many features you have added, most of them as described at the top of this section were never presented at all on the Track listing talk page. As for changes requested, there weren't all that many in comparison to the new features you kept adding; a new feature proposed by you was appearing almost daily! All of us have been saying repeatedly that we would like to see these features implemented in the existing Track listing talk page, so I disagree about resistance to change. The problem is, changes were being presented in a way that made it impossible to assess the whole package, including the problem that previous examples on the talk page kept changing, rather than adding new examples. I don't think a rewrite of the coding is a problem either, if it includes all previous features. You have just given up too easily, and have not presented your plan in an acceptable way. When you created a new template, against our advice, I think some of us were kind of shocked, so we objected to this end-run solution, and I still object. But I'm not opposed to the whole idea of overhauling the template. What I'd really like to see, is the changes going back to a user-page proposed version (not used in articles), with some stability, and an explanation of all features and changes in proposed user documentation. Give us a chance to see it, which has not been presented before. And hold off on trying to add more new features for the time being. You will undoubtably get more criticism, reported bugs, and requests for change, but I really don't think it's impossible to have it approved, and you won't know until you try it. Have you done programming as a career, and worked with program change presentations before? I presume the answer is no, but since you are really into programming, this is your chance to learn how it works. Actually, 75% of programming work is in the finalization phase, with presentation and minor fixes. It may be frustrating, but it's a waste of time commit to the first part if you're not willing to do the rest, and I've known many fellow programmers who have to learn that. Please don't take any of this personally! We're on your side, whether you appreciate it or not. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to concur with A Knight Who Says Ni, both your concerns and suggestions would benefit greatly from a more step-by-step approach. It is apparent that few editors are actually convinced of the current template's inadequacies in terms of featured article deployment and WP:ACCESS. Then there are the transparency issues; wouldn't a changelog and a list of known bugs be better suited for a template (or template talk) subpage, than comments within the actual code? General code rewrites might also fare better if presented separately from new features. In order to test and preview new code, I could indeed imagine deployment of a staging version in a predefined pool of out-in-the-wild articles, though, out of due diligence, not those of the featured kind.
    Everything A Knight Who Says Ni said about the programmer's plight has held true in my experience and within the context of the collaborative effort that is Wikipedia, that potential for frustration can go up exponentially. Some of the initial discussions surrounding the original template were no walk in the park either. Maintaining good faith and aiming low helps though. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The internal HISTORY changelog is a software technique used for decades, and it lists only major changes (not every time Bots shift a space/comma or revert a hack). On busy talk-pages, the updates get buried or archived. The 2nd template was tested on several non-FA articles, but someone removed it from all articles, giving the devious impression it had no use.
    Of course, I've done programming (and systems engineering) as a career: that is how I knew to avoid paralysis of analysis with a 2nd template. Also, I expected many people to keep suggesting new features, which is what they did. It was User:Mizery_Made who suggested adding track lengths as "mm:ss". It was User:Bread_Ninja who requested 2 templates, saying, "It would be great if we had to[2] templates, because those related to game OST, one would slightly be larger than the other. we've seen multi templates for stuff like this, why not for tracklist? i was thinking it would have two extra sections, extra and extrab." Hence, now there are 2 templates, with {{Tracklist custom}} providing new features. The further request was for 2 extra columns, such as extra1/extra2 & more1/more2 to put two additional data columns on tracks 1 & 2. So, you see, it was not me, but the other users who wanted more and more new features. I was providing something for everyone, not creating a so-called "end-run" to bypass what people wanted. Even Bread_Ninja specifically wanted this 2nd template, who had seen "multi templates for stuff like this". Indeed, forcing album track-tables to use only 1 template is severe, compared to other templates on Wikipedia. We have both {{Convert|1.85|m|ft}} & {{Height|m=1.85}} for m-to-feet conversions: 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in). So that proves my point: some people want to over-analyze and debate even the obvious: other people requested these features ("No they didn't, you invented it all" ) or other articles have Convert-&-Height ("No, they shouldn't: those are fork templates & extra maintenance"). This TfD entry is just more "paralysis of analysis" in trying to paralyze the solution to the first paralysis. It is a waste of everyone's time. Stop debating, and just work on something else. Leave this template alone, so it can make some progress. -Wikid77 08:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, we are working with the very same editors you are citing on the template talk page right now. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, "I've done programming ... that is how I knew to (address this) with a 2nd template". So if, for example, you were on a project involving a database and/or its access applications, and you or a small group had special needs that weren't being addressed by the existing system, and you didn't have time to get improvements added through normal channels, you would consider creating an unauthorized duplicate database or access system for the use of the small group? NO, DON'T ANSWER THAT... I'VE SEEN IT DONE! (The foregoing was stated for a little levity, but it makes a point: I have seen it done, an when it was found out, it wasn't allowed to stay. History repeats.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On software projects, there is typically a waiver process]] to quickly authorize changes (when no time for approval "through normal channels"), and Wikipedia does not require prior approval to create articles or templates.
    Consider essay: "WP:Redundancy is good redundancy" and the many NASA policies about when to use redundancy, versus variation. There have been several Space Shuttles, but each has been a little different from the others: the next Shuttle to fly might have a new type of computer not used earlier, or some other new features. The exact meaning of Shuttle Atlantis changed, from year to year, depending on the upgrades to the technology in the spacecraft. Multiple templates, or multiple Shuttles, offer benefits in the variation, as well as in the redundancy, and the first computer used on Shuttle Endeavour was radically different (not a fork) compared to the computer on Shuttle Columbia. Multiple templates for similar purposes can produce many benefits over a single template. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this comparison a little off? If we'd apply the same logic to what we are discussing, it would mean that with every new revision of the template, every article using it would either be stuck on the the previous version or have to be manually refitted. If anything, you could losely compare the template to space shuttle blueprints, but with the added benefit, that NASA could refit their entire fleet at zero cost or effort, once the theoretical design has been improved. I'm sure they'd have loved that. And by the way, the original template already has several options to handle different situations in different ways, that's not a novel design paradigm here. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison is how multiple Space Shuttles, like multiple templates, allowed new features (not minor fork improvements). One Shuttle could have a radically different computer to run the avionics flight software, so it would be improper to call the new computer as a "fork" of the older computer. The major new features were possible because the various Space Shuttles could be quite different: some had a large robotic arm, in the cargo bay, while others did not. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, "It was User:Mizery_Made who suggested adding track lengths as "mm:ss"." was not a feature request, but actually a request for your proposed feature to accord to the Manual of Style. – Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 04:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not inclined to believe that forking is necessary to achieve the desired effect here. Whether the template is backwards compatible or not, it's still a fork. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 4 June 2010 (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.

May 27

Template:Firewall software

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 Withdrawn by the nominator without any opposition to withdrawal. (Non-admin closure) Fleet Command (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Firewall software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Problem: This template is basically does exactly what categories do in Wikipedia and exactly in the same manner; the only difference is that there is a burden of manually maintaining it, while entries may automatically be added to categories.

Recommended course of action: Ensure all articles list on this template are in Category:Firewall software, then delete this template. Fleet Command (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've categorized the template according to operating systems. Furthermore it would be productive to enhance the template rather then just deleting it, which most lazy editors would do instead of taking time to improve the situation.--IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 18:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so, it has become very useful. Fleet Command (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2010 (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 Christian biography

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. delldot ∇. 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Christian biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to {{infobox person}}, and was only being used on a dozen pages, so I replaced it with the standard. I am happy to revert these replacements, if alternative solution is desired. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 27 May 2010 (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:Meter

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 Userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on one userpage. Previous template of the same name was deleted in 2006, but it was different. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are other wikistress things already. Further this very generic name would be better served by some other use. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace, as that's the only place it's being used. Sorafune +1 20:33, 27 May 2010 (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:Enrique Iglesias single

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Enrique Iglesias single (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template and already redundant to an already similar template. See Template:Enrique Iglesias. Magiciandude (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (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.

May 26

Template:WelcomeTemplateTable

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 01:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was being used on about four template talk pages, and (perhaps due to backend updates) was not working properly. I attempted to fix it, but found it was easier to just replace the transclusions with the equivalent wikicode using {{tlsx}}. Hence, it is no longer needed. If someone wants to fix the template, I am happy to go back to using it, but it seems to be more trouble than it is worth. Thanks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:28, 26 May 2010 (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:California business citation

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California business citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specific-source template, one use after two years -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:16, 26 May 2010 (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 Internet celebrity

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 Merge per this and discussion on the corresponding talk page Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Internet celebrity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose replacing {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} with {{Infobox person}}.
Redundant. All the IIC fields can be replicated using those of IP Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I changed the TfD parameters to avoid confusion on the many articles which transclude it - diff  Chzz  ►  20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at the transclusions, I note that some of the uses of {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} are not for individual people. I saw some groups, a rabbit, and at least one fruit. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless, the IP template can support: Birthdates(which I'm expecting it should), other names(like other names assoicated with the internet celebrity), aliases, Period Active (this one is a big concern of mine), host services, genre(s), Notable work(s), and official site. If all of these can be done with IP template, I will rescind my oppose. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant; can be covered using other templates. Airplaneman ✈ 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Infobox Person does not currently support webalias (although other_names is an alternative), host service, genre, meme, meme date and signature phrase. Would such fields be appropriate for Infobox Person, a generic biography info box? --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to add them; they can be replicated using the existing fields of {{Infobox Person}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. - The Infobox for Internet Celebrity is a necessary distinguishable system from other actors and the like in other mainstream media. If I was to say, create a Actor infobox for Peter Oakley (geriatric1927) using an actor, people might get confused. Did he act in a movie? Is he a musician? (the answer to the second question is yes, but that's another discussion). We should strive to have many different infoboxes to ensure one does not become confused with one person's main genre or media. DynamoJax (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to existing infobox templates. As for fields like 'meme', 'running gag' and 'signature phrase', we do not need them - they're entirely unencyclopaedic. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – First of all, there's no real need to merge it into Infobox person. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Second, IP is missing a bunch of parameters that Infobox Internet celebrity has. Sure we can add them into IP, but why should we? Many of these parameters are specific only to Internet celebrities, such as Meme, Hosting service(s), Genre(s), Web alias(es), Signature phrase, etc. Merging all of this into one template would inconvenience the many editors working with Infobox person. This template is not redundant because it covers specific things not mentioned in Infobox person, similarly to Infobox musical artist, Infobox writer, Infobox economist, and many others. Sorafune +1 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Merging all of this into one template would inconvenience … many editors": Since that's not being proposed; your claim is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Template talk:Infobox person for a proposal for the creation of "modules" which would facilitate merging this infobox with "infobox person", in the case that the celebrity is a person. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hold on to see if they successfully implement the module system. If they do, then I will suggest merge. ---wL<speak·check> 06:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a merge if the module system is implemented. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (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:Refbox

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. delldot ∇. 01:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Violates MOS:SCROLL; unused. If there is ever consensus to inplement scrolling or collapsing, then the feature should be added to {{reflist}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The |refs= parameter suppresses the references tag and collapses the box, thus in that mode it is redundant with {{hidden}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Hidden}} is too generic and thus unlikely to be consistently used for this purpose. – allen四names 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a {{collapse top}} {{collapse bottom}} around the reference list on the talk page in question. This is the most common method currently used on talk pages, and I see no reason why it wouldn't work here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of use, redundancy with other collapse templates, and concerns that use on content pages would violate MOS:SCROLL. --RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2010 (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.

Old discussions

May 25

Template:Copy

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 replace and redirect. I see one unequivocal keep, but the rest of the contributors agree it should not be used in article space. The suggestion to replace seems to have some support (although it was made later than a lot of the contributors here weighed in, it doesn't look like they'd have a big problem with doing so). So I'm going to replace per Plasticspork's suggestion and redirect to {{copypaste}} per OlEnglish's suggestion (this is kind of an arbitrary choice, feel free to redirect it somewhere else if there's a better target). If anyone disapproves of this, let me know and we'll work something out. delldot ∇. 16:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citation template used in one article— Louis-Auguste Bisson —where the content does not appear to be copied from the linked text. Used on a few talk pages. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does seem rather inutile, especially for a template with a common word like "copy". Maybe a redirect to something like {{copypaste}} or {{duplicate}} would put it to better use. Of course then someone would have to go and subst the 10 or so talk page uses though. -- œ™ 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and document If a source is out of copyright, and were an encyclopedia, like say EB1911, it would seem useful to use a standardized form in the references list. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly restrict to talk pages. I'm slightly uncomfortable about this being used in articles, where we really shouldn't be copying text from other sources in most cases - except when the source is in the public domain, and even then it's usually better if we rewrite it. The talk page use seems entirely benign, however, and seems like a useful way of moving a discussion from one talk page to another. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For talk page discussions, we have {{Relevant discussion}}, {{Discussion at}} and {{Discussion moved}}. For articles, where content is copied from public domain sources, we have a number of attribution templates such as {{1911}} for EB1911. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if we had attribution templates for every and all public domain sources. I think that would be an enormous amount of templates to keep around. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (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:Section:Book reference after author

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 after replacement, no obvious need for a variation in format Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section:Book reference after author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • But this has quite a few uses.. Is there a bot that goes and subst's all the uses first before it gets deleted? I don't think a simple redirect to citebook would effectively take care of some of the transclusions, it looks like it's being used in the middle of the references of a couple articles, won't deleting or redirecting it corrupt these references? -- œ™ 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't just delete templates and leave broken markup. If the consensus it to delete this, then it will be replaced with a good template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's great if you intend to do the work in replacing the various templates you flagged for TfD with an upgraded version of them, I didn't realize that's what your intentions are when you put them up for TfD. But for all other templates that go through here-and I'm just showing my ignorance of TfD process here, as I don't come here often-if consensus is for deletion, then shouldn't all its uses should be subst'd first? Could you explain if that is done manually or by a bot in cases where there are many transclusions? -- Ϫ 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would fire up AWB and replace this with {{cite book}}, replacing parameters as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:05, 29 May 2010 (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:Section:Chapter reference after author

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 after replacement, no obvious need for a variation in format Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section:Chapter reference after author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:11, 25 May 2010 (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:Cite press release v2

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 as the differences appear to be minor, and no obvious reason for a fork Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite press release v2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cite press release}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well.. the creator of the template (who's been missing since 2007) intended it to be a "fork of Template:Cite press release: this template will resemble the news template in format", Though I'm seeing little differences and it's only being used in 3 articles. I think a redirect would do fine here. -- œ™ 00:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't explain why it is a fork; I haven't examined the markup in depth, but there are no obvious differences. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:56, 26 May 2010 (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:Cleanup

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 Keep. There's no other way this is going to go; closed per WP:SNOW. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

too generic to be useful. Constantly misused where a more specific template should be used. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deprecate for new additions, and slowly delete. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is used in thousands of pages so I don't think deletion is really an option. There needs to a generic cleanup tag to handle cases where the specific issue does not exist. The tag should not be used without some explanation on the talk page, but that can be said about several cleanup tags. There is an assumption that the person adding the tag will read the documentation and do this, but any template has the potential for abuse.--RDBury (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Generic is its virtue. You can mark something without having to get into a whole lot of nitpicky bullshit hairsplitting.
    How typically Wikipedia. Take something that's working just fine and blow it the fuck away. Classic.
    Varlaam (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep: for the reasons stated above. Wikipedia does have a tendency to specialize and differentiate to microscopic levels. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate or offer rationale(?) - I agree with the nom and Stifle, it's far too generic as it is really. However... On other non-Wikimedia Wiki's I've seen templates like this used where a rationale parameter is offered to the tagger to explain what exactly needs cleaning up. Though thinking about it rationales needn't be limited to the {{cleanup}} tag. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, of course it would be better if people could say what's the problem. However, not everyone knows all those tags, so this tag makes it easier to say at least that there's some certain problem, without specifying it. So, actually it should be deleted, but currently I don't think that can be done realistically. Maybe something like stub sorting could be started, where people take a look at the articles and then try to give it better tags. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I see what you're saying, stub sorting for maintenance tags or "tag sorting" as it were, would just increase 'pedian workload unnecessarily IMO. If you're not sure what tag you should use you shouldn't be the tagging user. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Pretty much for the reasons above. There's way too many generic issues on this site to just delete this anyway. - Chevellefan11 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tidy all articles tagged with this, remove the template, and delete as unused. Then marvel at the newly-formed icicles dangling from the gates of Stygia. Alternatively, keep until it's no longer useful. --DeLarge (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the reasons for deletion, but I think that it allows users to flag something up that has general problems, without having to go through the list of templates and specify a list of them. Often these problems are quite obvious, and really just need work to be put in. I think if the template were deleted, it would firstly be quite time consuming to flag up all of the areas where this template is used with more specific ones, and may also discourage people from flagging up problem areas - now, it is simply a matter of saying 'this needs some work, lets put a template on'. I think, however, people should be encouraged to either use a more specific template, or state exactly what the problems are somewhere (edit summary/talk page/section on template), but I would rather keep both options open to people. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that users are forced to know and use wikimarkup to tag bad sections or entire pages is bad enough. Requiring that they know some esoteric template name is unacceptable. {{cleanup}} is fine; if more neurotic editors want to go around sub-specifying, more power to them. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - flawed, but better than nothing. If a user isn't familiar with our vast array of templates and doesn't know exactly which one to use on a problematic article, I'd rather they used this one than left it as it is. It can always be replaced with a better template by a more knowledgeable user. As long as this template isn't hanging on articles for years, I don't have a problem with it. Robofish (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easy to use and can always be replaced by a more-specific template, if appropriate. On pages with multiple issues, it might be better to have this than a series of templates flagging different issues, which can be offputting for editors. A space for an optional rationale to be added would be a bonus. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I pretty much concur with the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One cleanup or five other templates? And per McBride. I hate memorizing template names. —fetch·comms 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per above comments. More templates just makes things harder.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all cleanup templates. I'm in the minority on this, but I don't think I've ever seen any cleanup template have any value whatsoever. They are placed there just to express displeasure with the state of the article; rarely do they ever lead to improvements. I've seen articles which have had this template for more than three years now. They're just an eyesore, not motivation for improvement — someone who wants to cleanup and can do so will just do so. I do agree that the genericness of the template is not a problem, though. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Is it really necessary to fix something that ain't broke? The reasoning here is that it isn't specific enough, and yet I see a vast majority of users who love randomly going through cleanup tagged articles and cleaning them up, regardless of subject. No need for specifics here. MobileSnail 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I echo the words of User:Varlaam at the top. Being generic can be a good thing. And it's been in use for this many years without any major issues, all of a sudden it's up for deletion now?? -- œ™ 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Generic can be a virtue. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 00:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Snow close. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TbhotchTalk C. 03:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's too widely used. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as nsaum75 says above, generic can be a virtue. Suggest early closure of this TfD per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Echoing the points above. - ηyχαμς 08:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep dont see any reason for this template to be deleted.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (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:Non-free-unsure

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free-unsure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created by Zsero (talk · contribs) in order to get around the deprecated {{Non-free unsure}} template. At best, this template should be replaced with {{Non-free fair use in}}. — ξxplicit 06:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete why contribute to ambiguous copyright statuses? Just get a regular tag. —fetch·comms 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:11, 26 May 2010 (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:County7

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:County7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countyrow}}. It was only being used on three pages, where I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 25 May 2010 (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:TPSRM

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, but with no objection to reviving it if the admin resurfaces, or if it turns out it is of some use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for WP:RM, in no instructions, thus unlikely to be used, but if used, it doesn't collaborate with the bot as there's no {{movereq}} in it. Furthermore, no documentation and it looks extremely complicated. The Evil IP address (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh, it doesn't look like it's being used much. Its creator (an admin) seems to be missing since 2007, and it looks like this isn't the first of his templates that have recently been put up for deletion. Not that I'm saying this user's templates should be kept, I just think it sucks that he's not available himself to speak up for the usefulness of his templates. It does seem like he put in a lot of work in creating them. -- œ™ 23:40, 25 May 2010 (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.

May 24

Template:Docpng

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 No consensus. RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unneeded for any obvious purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Read Template talk:Docpng to see what this is for. Users should be substituting it, so you never will see any inlinks. It's a tool. It isn't worthless because you don't see it used. Hurts you? No. — Xiong熊talk* 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad; I had expected the documentation to be included properly in a /doc page. I've moved it there. I still don't understand why this is at all necessary; why would it be important to emphasise that an image is transparent? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be no such expectation. Any old template will have it documentation on the talk page, since these predate the "/doc" convention. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless, no argument advanced for deletion. –xenotalk 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is that it doesn't serve any practical purpose, and that it's essentially an overwrought reimplementation of the thumbnail code. From what I can see, the only reason it exists is to highlight that an image has a transparent background. Without having seen an example of a useful application for this feature I'm given to believing that it isn't actually useful. For that matter, I don't actually understand why it's intended to be substituted either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is harmless, but I don't see the real use. You could do the same thing with {{quote box}}. I'm with Chris— let's see this in use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite flightglobal

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite flightglobal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One use in four years; base on {{cite web}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:42, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite Letters to Editor David Summers Exposure Magazine Vol5

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Letters to Editor David Summers Exposure Magazine Vol5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned hard-code citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:04, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List of appendices for a book used as a references; used in two articles, including Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive where it is half the article -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:02, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite Sm

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Sm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple free-form cite template that gives the same output if you remove the braces and pipes; thus you enter more characters than it outputs -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:56, 24 May 2010 (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:Key press/Switch

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Key press/Switch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated meta-template. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite reference

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, but no objection if someone wants to recreate it as a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simply calls {{citation needed}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Not setup to pass the date parameter, and I don't think the bots are set up to recognize it. I updated this and don't think it is a useful redirect. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:18, 28 May 2010 (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:Cite paper=

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 Speedy delete, the author most likely had a typo when keying in the citation template, then clicked on the red link and filled in the citation there. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite paper= (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard coded citation; two uses; ambiguous name -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:35, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite tweet

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 Userfy until more fully developed, but even then it's not clear that this is necessary, since Twitter is probably not a reliable source, and discouraged per WP:ELNO. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite tweet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New; uses {{cite web}} as a meta-template with a hard-coded title -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - will eventually have its own guts, but I wanted something down and dirty to start off with. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you think it's complete and may be used for articles, then maybe we can use it. But for now, move to user subpage. Sorafune +1 00:31, 26 May 2010 (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:Cite web2

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cite web}} only difference I can spot is that the title is not in quotes -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:17, 24 May 2010 (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:Ecuador NFT results

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador NFT results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. All the links redirect to links in the template Template:Seasons in Ecuadorian football. Digirami (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2010 (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:Mlww

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rarely used, and there's no point in using a template to track section links. We have a working bot that tells people on the talk page about incorrect links. I agree it would be great if MediaWiki could track this, but we shouldn't use complicated templates to get this feature. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite visual

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 Keep for usage with visuals which are not videos or episodes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite visual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite video}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is also being used to cite other, non-video visual works on several pages. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Example please. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few.
There are more, but that's sufficient to prove my point. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first article cites Guns of the Crimean War— if it isn't a book, then I can't figure it. The second is a sign, the third a plaque— not strong sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first one clearly states "Interpretation board". The third one is a plaque mounted on the wall of a museum relating information about its re-opening. The reliability of the sources isn't at issue here, the use of the template is. As it is, this template is in use and should not be deleted unless an appropriate replacement is available. Cite Video is not a suitable one. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template is to allow the citation of information boards and signs in public places. It is not intended for the citation of videos / CDs / DVDs etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2010 (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:Cite web3

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; appears to be a test -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:43, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite your edits

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite your edits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant; used on one article talk page -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Although not much used, it was intended to be used to help keep articles undergoing active improvement (as opposed to incidental improvement), on track and focused on adding material demonstrated to be verifiable by the inclusion of citation, a problem still seen all over the project. Instead of deletion, I think more use of the template would be a better outcome. I see it's placement at a banner topping a call for tightening up the factuality of an article as a reasonable, productive use of the template. Finally, the comment that it is 'redundant' seems random, because no template to which it is redundant is linked, and claiming that it's redundant to the core ideas is irrelevant because we are all aware that most new editors do not stop first to read all those, and article undergoing lots of revision and improvement in short periods often attract newer editors watching the recent changes. ThuranX (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This attempts to use an article talk page banner to fix a social issue. Someone who is not citing statements is not going to read or heed this message. The proper course is to tag or delete suspect entries, add welcomes to new user pages and discuss issues on user and article talk pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have plenty of other maintenance and warning templates for dealing with these issues. This is simply redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:51, 2 June 2010 (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:Cite wolfram alpha

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite wolfram alpha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specific-source template that uses the Wolfram Alpha answer engine as a source; can't see how this could ever be considered a reliable source; two uses -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "not reliable"? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unlike other search engines, Wolfram Alpha has a great deal of content built into its search function such as mathematical functions. While I think there are probable better ways to cite information, it's not unreliable in the slightest. A better argument for deletion would be that it may be considered a primary source but even then may still be used occasionally. OlYellerTalktome 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a search engine, it is an answer engine. Where does it get the answers? What makes it reliable per WP:RS? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wolfram Alpha is a tertiary source, an knowledge aggregator that has a staff that vets its facts, like an encyclopedia or almanac. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation needs some explanation on how to obtain relevant answers. These are all articles I have worked on recently, and none get any meaningful return:
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Arthur Eldred|input=Arthur+Eldred|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Arthur Rudolph|input=Arthur+Rudolph|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Pershing missile|input=Pershing+missile|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Boy Scouts of America|input=Boy+Scouts+of+America|accessdate=2010-05-30}}

This actually gets a very short bio, but shows his real name as Green Bar Bill instead of William Hillcourt (which returns the London Stock Exchange quote for William Hill): 

* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Green Bar Bill|input=Green+Bar+Bill|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
It might be OK as a research tool, but not a source.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to vote "keep" because I think that the Wolfram search engine is great, and that this template idea is excellent. It would make citing easier. Then I ran a search for New York City population, and checked the source information. Wikipedia is listed. Using this template could mean that Wikipedia is being cited. NYCRuss ☎ 13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is an excellent search engine, and a great research tool for gathering sources, but it should not be used as a source, especially since Wikipedia is one of their sources. Using this would frequently lead to a circular citation network with no reliable sources. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, use it as a research tool, but due to the risk of circular citation of Wikipedia and possible presence of other non-reliable sources in their aggregation, I can't see how this would pass WP:RS. --RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2010 (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:CiteCat

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned; saves only a few characters if you use the pipe trick -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:22, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite-require-one-or-none

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 per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-require-one-or-none (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite-require-all (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite-require-both-or-none (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, documentation does not explain what these are useful for. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke 'em. I created them several years ago when there were too many separate implementations of citation templates, and they've been rendered obsolete in the interim. RossPatterson (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (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:Cite book3

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 Deleted by Dragons flight. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite book3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; appears to be a test, if still needed then it should be moved to userspace -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:41, 24 May 2010 (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:Poem

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is linked from pages besides the talk page. However, it is used on only one page, Wikipedia:Haiku about Wikipedia policy. It's use in that one page could easily be replaced by a header notice. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:39, 24 May 2010 (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.

May 23

Template:2009 Eastern League season by team

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, most are nearly unpopulated, and no objections to deletion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly orphaned; those that remain bluelinks will be deleted soon anyway as the result of recent AFDs. Also delete:

Template:2008 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2007 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2006 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2005 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2004 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2003 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2002 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2001 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2000 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1999 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1998 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1997 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1996 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1995 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1994 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1993 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1992 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1991 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1990 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1989 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1988 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1987 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1986 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1985 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1984 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1983 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1982 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1981 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1980 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A lot, but none are needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, lean delete. Hypothetically, the redlinks would be populated. If they aren't, I don't see a need for the templates. Also, is there a need for season articles for AA level teams? Resolute 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Season articles for minor league teams are rather silly, as most of the main articles barely have information to begin with. Anything of note from seasons could be merged in if found. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they become orphaned? Rich Farmbrough, 05:59, 2 June 2010 (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:LSY-0

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 per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LSY-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-0n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-1n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-2n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated (and orphaned) templates, which have been replaced by newer templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all per CSD G7. --GW… 22:24, 23 May 2010 (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 Einstein Family

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 (by WikiLeon). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Einstein Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used once, any point for having an own template for one family only? Can't the common person infoboxes handle this? The Evil IP address (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (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:Citation not needed

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 Deleted Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation not needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not set up, created in April. Have a really hard time imagining why we would need a template for citations not needed. WikiManOne (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2010 (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:Main Article:The Amity Affliction Discography

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 Userfied Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Article:The Amity Affliction Discography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content like this shouldn't be transcluded via a template. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved content to article space with no redirect, and merge proposal. Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 24 May 2010 (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.

Various portal templates

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 Replace all with the equivalent {{portal|name}}, any formating problems can be discussed at Template talk:Portal Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) The following portal templates were nominated for deletion by User:WOSlinker as being unused and redundant. I am grouping them together for ease of discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that most of the 24 portal linkbox templates below not be deleted. These templates were created as part of portal development. Each of these templates has functionality not available with the suggested alternative. Thank you, Buaidh (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why you did not propose your new features on Template talk:Portal? If there is a benefit to adding this functionality then it would make sense to add it to this template not create a new one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, Buidah has been very productive, and initially I saw ((all) the navflags as just another user shortcut. But on closer inspection they provide merely a layer of confused indirection (I include the inconsistency of naming to about 12 different name styles - which does not apply here - and the passing through of parameters which although unused then place a prima facie contract on {{Portal}}), also providing scope for overriding images, which is a licensing issue (fair use images are not allowed), make combining into portal boxes more difficult. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'VE BEEN CAUGHT! As Rich Farmbrough suggests, my true goal is to undermine, and ultimately destroy Wikipedia. I thought I could concealed my ulterior motives, but you have found me out.
The reason a created these portal linkbox templates was to avoid the mishmash of linkbox images and image heights that Template:Portal creates. The creation of the Template:Portal/Images files solved the first problem, but not the second. The creation of Template:Port was intended to solve the second. Without Template:Port, these templates have no utility. Please see Template:Port&oldid=363649697 for further information. --Buaidh (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the templates in Category:Wikipedia Portal navflags can be replaced by Template:Portal. The reason most of these templates are not in use is because User:WOSlinker has recently replaced their invocations with Template:Portalbox or Template:Portal. I have no time for an edit race. --Buaidh (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They only had at most a few transclusions each beforehand. I'll respond over at Template talk:Portal about my suggestions for improvements to sizes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's disingenuous to remove uses of a template, then state that a template is not used in a deletion discussion. Next time, please have the discussion first, then remove the uses if that's what the discussion determines. This is not the first time you've gone around the back of discussions in this way. You do a lot of good work, but you're also making a lot of people mad by undoing their work, then stating that what they've been doing doesn't exist. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'll be more descriptive next time and state that there were either a few transclusions and those were replaced or no transclusions at all. Rather than just say that they are not currently used. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. And btw, the whole removing uses of a template to say they are not used is just simply dishonest and dumb. WikiManOne (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, to ease maintenance and ensure a consistent formatting. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace all. Despite WOSlinker's less than honest tactics (as detailed above), I agree that it's best to keep some things, such as this, uniform to make everything easier to maintain. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the portal syntax is being changed following wide-ranging discussions on Template talk:Portal and Template talk:Portal box between several editors involved in these portal templates. Please do review those discussions. I don't think the actions are unilateral or dishonest as you suggest. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the case, but the method which WOSlinker used was less than honest. Removing all/most usages of a template, then nominating it for deletion as "unused" is not honest in the least, regardless of any previous discussion someplace else. That's what I object to. As I wrote above, I think this is a good idea, and support this proposed change; I just object to how WOSlinker did things. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep all 50 U.S. state portal templates. --Buaidh (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the associated wikiprojects should have been informed of the deletion of their portal templates... 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious concern - this is like CFD in the bad old days, 2 editors in a dark corner talking to only themselves and changing massive parts of wp - - not used and redundant in one location and projects not notified - fine for those who have a good practice or capacity to comprehend the minuitiae of portal construction - however to the outsider (average editor) this is where the process that has been used is inadequate - although template talk portal and template talk portal box might not be on everyones talk list - there could well have been something more explanatory and elaborate and forthcoming about what is going on SatuSuro 01:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as redundant and an apparent attempt (hopefully in good-faith) to circumvent consensus on {{Portal}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A walled garden consensus without informing the maintainers of various portals that a new consensus was attempting to be formed. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there a reason why we can't just redirect them all to the portals they're redundant to? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are redundant to the template {{Portal}}, not the portals themselves. They mostly transcluded {{Portal}}, but they do it in different ways and create unnecessary dependencies. Some of the names don't follow any convention ( not all in this tfd but there are or have been - xx portal, xxportal, xxPortal, xx Portal, portalxx, portal xx, yyportal, yyportalzz, zz and others, where xx is the name of the portal, yy and zz are some other string) which makes it hard to put portal flags into portal boxes. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Good point. On that basis, delete all. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: The only difference between the linkbox pairs below is that the first of the two linkboxs is of uniform height and has a centered link label. If we add these features to Template:Portal, we can delete all of these templates. --Buaidh (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as centring goes, that should be uniform and can be put in portal with no difficulty if people think it is good. Alternatively it can be removed from WPbox. And when you say "uniform size" you mean "uniform with WPbox" - all the {{Portal}} boxes are uniform with each other. Again WPbox or portal (or both) can be changed if global uniformity is wanted. Alternatively WPBox has parameters to override height and width of the image. (Portal has "size" but it is deprecated and currently unused as far as I can tell.) Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Portal/doc indicates that size= is the only image sizing parameter, although the unlisted height= and width= parameters can be used as well. By uniform height, I mean all images are set to a given height, or two pixels less if the image is given a one pixel border. Template:Port sized the images this way, but Template:Portal currently does not. Image size=32x28px yields a image height of (32 pixels/image ratio) if the image ratio is greater than 8:7, which many images are, especially flags. Most flags of British origin have an image ratio of 2:1, which yields an effective image height of 16 pixels or 18 pixels with a one pixel border. I reduced the maximum image height of Template:Port to 24 pixels and increased the maximum width to 60 pixels to accommodate these wider flags, although 28 pixels or another maximum image height would have worked as well.
I strongly recommend that the following functions from former Template:Port be added to Template:Portal:
  1. This template can add a border around the image and adjust the image size accordingly.
  2. This template can adjust the maximum image height. The default is 24 pixels or 22 pixels with a border.
  3. This template has a default maximum image width of 60 pixels or 58 pixels with a border.
  4. This template can align the link text to the left, center (default), or right.
  5. This template can display substitute link text.
  6. This template can break the link text in any way desired. (See #Template:Commonwealth realms portal below.)
--Buaidh (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Swiss Army knife we want to avoid. Portal is used on nearly 3 million pages (mostly talk) and special cases for a few pages create unnecessary overhead. Secondly the navflags should be consistant - I defer to others on whether that is centred, how tall, does it need a border etc (note there are flags with borders in the image library - and they are easy to make) and many other questions that belong in central discussion over at Template talk:Portal. Possibly we should template {{Navflag-height}} to contain a standard height for navflags - and perhaps we should constrain the aspect ratio; there are other symbols than flags - but again they are questions not for this TfD but for the central discussion of the portal template and/or other nav-flag templates. Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Alabama portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Alabama}}[reply]

Template:Alabama portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Alabama}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. --Buaidh (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This template is in use on a number of articles. - Dravecky (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:South Dakota portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{Portal|South Dakota}}[reply]

Template:South Dakota portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{Portal|South Dakota}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:South Dakota. --Buaidh (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Northern Mariana Islands}}[reply]

Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Northern Mariana Islands}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Maine portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Maine}}[reply]

Template:Maine portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Maine}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:Maine. --Buaidh (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Guam portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Guam}}[reply]

Template:Guam portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Guam}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:United States Virgin Islands portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|United States Virgin Islands}}[reply]

Template:United States Virgin Islands portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|United States Virgin Islands}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:American Samoa portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|American Samoa}}[reply]

Template:American Samoa portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|American Samoa}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Iowa portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Iowa}}[reply]

Template:Iowa portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Iowa}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:Iowa. --Buaidh (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Astronomy portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Astronomy}}[reply]

Template:Astronomy portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Astronomy}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asia portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Asia}}[reply]

Template:Asia portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Asia}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antarctica portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Antarctica}}[reply]

Template:Antarctica portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Antarctica}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth realms portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Commonwealth realms}}[reply]

Template:Commonwealth realms portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Commonwealth realms}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China portal

The result of the discussion was Delete, any tweaks to the image can be handled at {{portal}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|China}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the portal image needs to be replaced with File:Chinaimg.png - The PRC flag should be used for the PRC portal. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ecuador portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Ecuador}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cambodia Portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cambodia Portal}}
Template:Cambodia Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Cambodia}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Chicago}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is now one global template, this is a valid deletion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Mathematics portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathematics portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Mathematics}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this was used, but now it is unusued. Now it is impossible to gage the amount of use that the template had. Why was it unlinked before the TFD, without any notification to the mathematics WikiProject? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On or around 12th March 2010 this template was in use on two articles dealing with Babylonian numbering. Both have portal boxes now. The article "Mathematics" had the default "Portal" template with no arguments. 122 other articles had a link via Portal|Mathematics. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Hvportal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Hudson Valley}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Languages}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{Portal|Judaism}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it is useful if used. Just exactly where is "{{portal|Judaism}}"? -- I can't find it and until then, this one here is the only one we've got for anyone to use. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Redirect, now I see it, it works. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It works, IZAK, check it on your talk page. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here... Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Japan portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Japan}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador Wikiportal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador Wikiportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Ecuador}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HungaryPortal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Hungary}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Template:Hungary portal --Buaidh (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Iceland Portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iceland Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Iceland}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2010 (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:Lists of Greeks

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of Greeks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, 7 of the 13 links are redlinks, 2 of which have been deleted under afd, and one of the remaining blue links links to a category, not a list. EmanWilm (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (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.

May 22


Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

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 No consensus. I'm mindful of the fact that "keep" comments outnumber "deletes", but as has been noted, TFD is not a vote. What is conspicuously absent from both sides of this discussion is evidence of broader community consensus, such as references to existing guidelines, essays, prior TFDs, or anything to answer the critical question: is the copyediting of an article the sort of editorial milestone that the community would like to see recorded in a talk page template? I would encourage taking that question to a broader forum, such as the village pump, where it can be discussed without the pressures (and potentially skewed participation) of TFD. If there is a broader consensus that considers copyediting an important milestone, then presumably this template would be kept or perhaps could be merged into {{ArticleHistory}}. If the broader consensus considers copyediting to be unworthy of such a record, then this template is probably a goner. But as of now that broader consensus has not yet been made clear. RL0919 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Promoting useful Wikiprojects like this one is a noble idea, but this template isn't one. The template is added to the talk page of every article that has been touched by a member of the Wikiproject (at least that seems to be the intention), and there's no date when to remove it again. So, at Talk:Ender's Game, for instance, we're told that User:Scapler copyedited the article in January last year. Well, that's.. nice to know, I guess. But what use is that information to anyone, really? It's a cheap excuse to promote the Wikiproject, and nothing else. A message on the talk page would be a much better idea, IMHO ("Hey, I just copyedited the article, if you want to help, feel free to participate in our WikiProject!"). Such a message would eventually be archived, it wouldn't stay at the very top of the talk page for all eternity. Conti|✉ 21:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But what's the difference between the GOCE flag and an Editors typed statement saying basically the same thing ?Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quote myself: "Such a message would eventually be archived, it wouldn't stay at the very top of the talk page for all eternity." --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not just archive the template normally along with other talk page contents? Instead of putting it at the top of the page, it could be added into a normal talk section. Torchiest talk/contribs 03:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you archive a template with no date stamp? Archival bots will ignore it, and so will most people manually archiving messages. Templates on top of a talk page are supposed to stay there. --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing preventing us from making modifications that would include the use of a date stamp. Torchiest talk/contribs 21:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not topical to any article, can't go there to ask about the topic. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep is my view, the GOCE flag already in place and no worse than typing the same thing. Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 05:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe that the utility of this template is twofold. First, it provides recognition to what I believe to be one of the most critical tasks performed by Wikipedians. I performed the bulk of the work recently to get a list to FL status, but that list would not have reached that level without the GoCE's help. That recognition provides positive reinforcement to those performing copy edits. Secondly, these templates let other editors know that this service exists.

    As far as clutter goes, it can be dealt with in a few ways. A {{Skip to talk}} template can be placed at the top of the page. In addition, the existing GoCE template can be modified to be collapsable, with the default position set to collapsed. All additional work performed by the GoCE to that article can be incorporated into the collapsed template, perhaps like in the {{ArticleHistory}} template. NYCRuss ☎ 12:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the template (or the idea behind it) could be fully incorporated into the ArticleHistory template, if that's really necessary. --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coincidentally, I started working on this two days before this TfD went up. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I take exception to the "cheap excuse" comment. Its simply unnecessary in making your point. Apropos of the current discussion, I think the template shows an important landmark in the history of an article. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just don't see how a copyedit or two can possibly be considered an "important landmark" in the history of an article. It's important work, but it's something that's done all the time, all over the place, in every single article that we have. --Conti|✉ 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That tag is not used when someone corrects the spelling of a half dozen words. It is used when a major copyedit is done, improving the article to be of sufficient quality for a {{copyedit}} tag to be removed. That is not something that's done all the time, all over the place, in every single article, else there wouldn't be 7800 articles with the {{copyedit}} tag. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And if all those articles will be fixed, there will be 7800 talk pages with this template on them? I just don't think that's such a useful thing to do, is all (The template-adding, not the article-fixing, of course). If this is just about mentioning an important milestone of the article's history (and I personally don't think there really is a need for that), then the ArticleHistory template is the way to go. If this is about promoting the WikiProject, then a personal message on the talk page or in edit summaries seems like a less in-your-face way to go. --Conti|✉ 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've copy edited 172 articles this month. I've added that tag to maybe a dozen of the most massive and significant copy edits. I'm not tagging up every single tiny article, as many of them are not important enough to note. But for extremely large work, I think it's legitimate. Torchiest talk/contribs 16:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the difference between this and {{rescued}}. Whether or not an article has gone through a major revision, it doesn't need a landmark banner to be added to it by a given WikiProject. I overhaul articles quite often but I don't go sticking banners on the talk page to record it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every WikiProject is entitled to place a template on an article of interest to the project. I have copy edited articles with lots of WikiProject templates on them, however, the article is in a mess and nobody from any of the Projects have worked on the article. Now, someone from GOCE comes along, works on the article for hours or even days, remove the undesirable {{copyedit}} tag from the article page itself. Now, the person who has spent so much time getting this into shape can't put a template promoting a project that does so much good around here on the talk page, while the other WikiProjects who have done little can? I only joined GOCE because I happen to see such a banner. If not for that, I would not have known about the Project. Since then, I have worked really hard and have copyedited a lot of articles. I would not have if I was not a member of GOCE. Perhaps the wording needs to be changed, or the system in which we display details need to be looked at. We do not simply slap the banner on every single page we edit. If the edit is not substantial, or if the article is a stub, most of us do not bother to put the banner on. So, no, there will not be 7,000+ articles with the tag on it. But, we will work hard to remove the copyedit tag of the 7,000+ articles. GOCE members also work very hard to help get many articles to pass GA and FA, and a lot of recognition is given to members directly for this type of work. Many of these editors came to GOCE to request for help because they saw the template. Is the banner causing any real harm? It does so much good, and should be promoted. As I said, perhaps we need to re-look at the wording of the template, perhaps coded to some sort of class grading. I don't mind it being modified, but I am against it being deleted. — S Masters (talk) 15:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. The banner is explicitly helping to improve the project, but raising awareness for a group that does a lot of difficult work. That encourages people to join in that endeavor or seek assistance from the group. Both are positives. Torchiest talk/contribs 17:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should be added to {{ArticleHistory}} and then be orphaned and deleted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate copyeditors' work, but this is not the way to have it recognized. If kept, my preferences (in order) would be: a) place it only in the main body of the talk page with a datestamp on it for archiving; b) make it collapsible and place it lower in the talk page header section; c) not collapsible but still lower in the talk page header section. There is no way in heck that it should be the most prominent banner on any talk page. Powers T 20:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put the banner on top. Always at the bottom. If you see it at the top, most probably, the banner was placed there first and then other WikiProjects placed their banners at the bottom of that. If I see the banner at the top, I move it to the bottom. - S Masters (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do? If it should always go to the bottom, that's what the template documentation should say. --Conti|✉ 08:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do. I can't speak for anyone else. And like I've said, if I see it at the top, I will normally move it to the bottom. - S Masters (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I incorrectly characterized the standard practice. The one instance of this template I've seen was (within the past week) placed at the top above all of the other banners. The problems are mitigated somewhat by placing it at the bottom, but I would still prefer a solution that doesn't result in a permanent banner. Powers T 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is one of the most highly used templates by the Guild of Copy Editors, and if it were deleted, cleaning up the invalid template would be a big struggle, plus it would create quite the mess on copy edited articles' talk pages. The Utahraptor Talk 23:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without a concerted effort on the part of copy editors, the backlog of articles needing copy edit grows at the rate of two or three hundred per month. We need to advertise to continue to attract more people interested in performing this valuable work, or the quality of the entire encyclopedia will deteriorate. --Diannaa TALK 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 1) It provides the article's ownership (those who watch the article closely) with notification that the editing was conducted. 2) It allows the community to know that at one time this article received a thorough review. 3) Provides valuable recognition for the work provided by the Guild that would otherwise go unrecognized. 4) Assists in the self recruitment of Copy-editors who would otherwise be unaware of the Guilds presence. 5) It provides a level of legitimacy for the good faith efforts of the Guild members. I would support an expiration date. If it really bothers you individually, remove them as you cross one that you feel has out lived it's usefulness. As to the argument that many editors do not use the tag, thank them for their contributions, have they considered joining the Guild? Performing a copy-edit on a subject that you have absolutely no interest is much more difficult a task then contributing to your own areas of interest. Without the Guild, articles contributed by non-native English speakers would continue to suffer, as few native English speakers would be drawn to their subjects (i.e. international incidents, music and video programs, indigenous populations, etc.) It is easy to slap a Copy edit request on an article, but it is difficult to recruit someone to remove it. Instead of trying to defend a good thing maybe we should be working on the backlog.... Bullock ✉ 04:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion from the nominator: Would you guys be fine if the template's instructions would be changed so that it should be removed from talk pages after, say, 3 months? It depends on the article, of course, but usually after a few months the fact that an article has been copy edited is a rather pointless piece of information, since the article is likely in need of another copy edit by that time. I really don't have a problem with advertising the WikiProject (not a very big problem, anyhow), and copy editing is important work that needs to be done. But a template that stays on a talk page indefinitely like that is just a really bad idea. --Conti|✉ 08:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would support that as an excellent compromise. I do have some alternative ideas as well. I would suggest going for a six month expiration date, or perhaps saying something in the template about removing the tag if it seems out of date. I would also support trimming down the language of the template to streamline what it's trying to say. Something like, "This article was copy edited by :user:, a member of WP:GOCE, on :date:. If you feel this tag is no longer valid, or no longer applies due to subsequent changes, feel free to remove it." Torchiest talk/contribs 16:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't find the compromise to be excellent. I find it to be based on faulty logic. To wit: "a template that stays on a talk page indefinitely like that is just a really bad idea." I guess then that all WikiProject Banners are bad ideas, as is the ArticleHistory template. Also, "usually after a few months the fact that an article has been copy edited is a rather pointless piece of information, since the article is likely in need of another copy edit by that time." Go back and find me three articles that have this template that needed a new copyedit "after a few months." If you find me three that did, I'll find you a hundred that didn't. For those who think that it should be part of the ArticleHistory template, I completely agree. But every ArticleHistory item I can recall also has a standalone banner (which is partly why it isn't used on every article talk page yet). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 09:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, that wasn't quite correct. WikiProject Banners are directly related to an article, the corresponding WikiProject will always be able to improve the article somehow. The Copy Editors WikiProject can theoretically improve every single article out there, but reserving the right to add the GOCE template to every single article out there still doesn't seem like a useful thing to me. As for your second point, I guess that depends entirely on the definition of "requiring a new copy edit". I'm not sure where you get the idea from that Template:ArticleHistory is always accompanied by a standalone banner. That would defeat the purpose of that template: "This template combines all the featured content-related templates into one, to reduce clutter on talk pages (...)" (emphasis mine). The ArticleHistory replaces banners where it can. Do you still support to add this template into the ArticleHistory banner? --Conti|✉ 13:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think there was a little confusion here. Noraft wasn't saying that both the stand alone and the article history items are used simultaneously. Rather, he was saying that every item that can be put into the article history also still has a stand alone template option one can use at their discretion. So adding this as an item to the article history wouldn't necessitate deleting the original template. Torchiest talk/contribs 16:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Commnent for nominator: From the discussions on this page it would appear that a compromise is possible if GOCE: 1) reduces the size of the Banner (not as prominent) 2) sets an expiration or archive date 3) places it bellow WikiProject banners (I did not know this one, but rectified that yesterday). So if nothing else we have established that GOCE members care, need to continue to recruit members, and are verbose. If these criteria are met will you withdraw this nomination for deletion? Respectfully Bullock ✉ 20:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, I will. In the end, 2) (a fixed expiration date) is the only point that I find really important. In addition to that, it would be nice if the template would get some clear guidelines, covering 3), or when to use the template in the first place. --Conti|✉ 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • (1) Torchiest is interpreting my comment correctly. Peer Review has its own template. Former Featured Article Candidate has its own template. They also have ArticleHistory entries. Where ArticleHistory has not been implemented, such templates appear. (2) Yes, I'd like to add this to ArticleHistory, and had already started that process, which has been hampered by this TfD, because they won't add it it until it is resolved. (3) I don't support reducing the size of the banner, although the other compromise points are fine. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 22:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Alright, seems I misunderstood you. My point was that these templates are only used when the ArticleHistory template is not used instead, they're not used at the same time. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • When an ArticleHistory entry exists, individual banners are not used, so I think it goes without saying that if GOCE is added to ArticleHistory, the banner won't be necessary. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Note: This template is only used 634 times currently Articles CE by GOCE. We are significantly under utilizing this recruitment tool. Just a random thought. Bullock ✉ 01:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It is most unfortunate that this has come up right in the middle of GOCE's May 2010 Backlog elimination drive. It is a bit like being kicked right in the middle of performing of a good deed. The drive has has so far removed the {{copyedit}} tag from over 600 articles, plus another 50+ requests (most without the tag). I copyedited and removed the tag from 10 articles yesterday, and did not put the {{GOCE}} tag on any of them as they were not lengthy articles. I feel sad that we are wasting time here debating this when only 634 articles have this tag. When there was a GAN backlog elimination drive last month, they had 74 participants. GOCE has half of that. It just goes to show that GOCE needs more publicity to recruit quality members. After all, it only goes to improve Wikipedia. Otherwise, we would have to read articles like this. — S Masters (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral with comments: I've used the template only about five times or so. Here is an example of an article I templated and someone made the template small, although I think it still has too much text. In my view, it is intrusive, but it functions to indicate that copyediting has been done and could prevent further tagging of the an article on the front page. Some compromises would be to add it to article history (as has been suggested) and to create a small (userbox size), less wordy template for the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong support for documentation for the tag and for a smaller tag. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but minimized and/or able to be archived. I would have never known of the Guild of Copy Editors if I had not stumbled across the GOCE tag a few months ago. I have since joined the Guild and applied my professional skills to articles I would have never come by. It's a vital element of any article to be well-written – the GOCE tag helps to recruit new editors for this initiative, for which there are many articles in need. Noting a major copy edit is important to an article's development, especially as a response to removing the copy edit tag. I understand the concerns of intrusion and eternal existence, so let's address these concerns rather than take the extreme approach to delete a tool many find useful and/or important. dtgriffith (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The instructions on the template page are specific about how the template can be used. There are parameters to make it small, and on the side, which I've started using (I wasn't aware of them, and think they might be new). Certainly it is no less useful or invasive than the translation template. See Talk:Jan de Wit as an example. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The translation template is necessary for attribution purposes. Powers T 19:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I too would have never discovered the GOCE if not for this template. However, I concede that it may be annoyingly intrusive to some...I support the change in the wording suggested by Torchiest above; that way, other wikieditors will understand their right to remove the template at their discretion. This seems to me a better alternative than simply automatically removing the tags after an arbitrary amount of time. My second point: although in theory this tag could end up on every talk page, in reality it is used sparingly. I see it only occasionally and I myself have never used it -- though I may add it to a few articles I am a little proud of. Overuse of this template could become a nuisance, but as it is, it has mainly 1) attracted a few people to the GOCE 2) added a little clutter to the talk page. Bobnorwal (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think eventualism is the right approach here; sure, the tag isn't everything everyone wants it to be, but that doesn't mean you slap the wikiproject for tagging the article, it means you make adjustments so that people are eventually happy with how the tag works. It's been a good discussion with many good ideas suggested. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete. Awful idea. We're all copy editors, and one editor's contributions to an article are no more worthy of special documentation than another's. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the idea is not about an editor's contribution per se, it is about acknowledging the work of a WikiProject that is vital to the level of quality of articles in Wikipedia. Although theoretically, every editor is a copy editor, in reality, there are many editors who cannot copy edit to a professional level. If this was not the case, there would not be over 7,000 articles with the {{copyedit}} tag on it. Similarly, if copyediting was such an easy task, there would not have been over 60 articles on the Request page of GOCE at the beginning of May. The vast majority of these requests are made by experienced editors who are trying to go for GA or FA, and a large number of these articles fail because of copy editing issues. A very good example of the work of GOCE can be seen on the graphs and numbers here. To run thorough an article with an edit here and there is one thing, but to go through an article letter by letter, word by word, line by line, and editing it to a professional level is quite another. Editors at GOCE work on articles regardless of their personal interest in the subject. Such copy edits can takes many hours or even days. This work raises the quality of Wikipedia to a professional standard, and any efforts to raise awareness of such work should be commended, not shot down as a bad idea. — S Masters (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This would provide a useful reference for someone wishing to confirm that an article meets the B-class criteria, which Severe weather needed a copyedit to achieve. Now, if someone notices that it was bumped to B-class and remembers that it was C-class due to needing a copyedit, they can quickly verify the promotion, etc. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why can't the template, instead of being placed at the top of the talk page, be placed in its own section, signed and dated with four tildes. Auto-archived pages would lose the template in 20 to 30 days, and non-auto-archived talk pages would have the template visible for all time, until someone came along and archived it. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if only for record-keeping purposes. —fetch·comms 21:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or significantly condense. Adding this template to a talk page (as in Talk:Klaus Baudelaire) is too cluttered and also has nothing to do with talk pages. It could also simply be converted into a category. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Gage (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense: Into a smaller looking template, see Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Sandbox. mono 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, most useful in present format. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – lots of good arguments here. -Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 08:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: How long is this template going to remain in this limbo? It cannot be incorporated into Article History until this is resolved, which seems to be the biggest item everyone agrees on so far. dtgriffith (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are seventeen keeps and only four deletes. So I think it'd be safe to end this discussion now. The Utahraptor Talk 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a vote. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say it was a vote? I didn't say we were voting whether to keep the template or not. I just said that there are a lot of keeps, so we should keep it. The Utahraptor Talk 21:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Counting the number of keeps indicates that the number of keeps matters, rather than the strength of the arguments. Of course, if there are seventeen strong reasons for keeping it vs. only four reasons for deleting it, that would be another matter. However, that does not appear to be the case. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are not seventeen strong reasons to keep, but there are definitely a handful, which outweigh the delete reasoning. This should be added to article history and kept. Torchiest talk/contribs 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{ArticleHistory}} as suggested above, then delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I find it amusing that one of my copyedits was chosen as an example, but that is entirely random I suppose. The template serves a number of useful purposes: It marks the point in time when an article's prose was largely re-written, making comparison easier; it helps the Guild track its own usefulness, bringing in data that can be used to better strategize these activities; and, as others have pointed out, it labels the article as of interest to the project. Is placing a video game or history WikiProject banner on a talk page simply promoting the project out of narcissism, or is it for all the reasons any project tags? Things like how much a copyedit actually improved an article's quality can be gleaned, and onward. Certainly there can be discussion to make it collapsable or smaller, but getting rid of it entirely would take away a valuable tool. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:16, 3 June 2010 (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:FC Omniworld squad

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. delldot ∇. 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Omniworld squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Out of date "current squad" template with mostly redlinks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Underpopulated and outdated. --RL0919 (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2010 (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:F2DRow

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 per CSD T3 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:F2DRow (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:49, 22 May 2010 (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:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption

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 Userfy, with no objection to moving the talkpage elsewhere if there is a better home for it. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space and redundant to simply including an image: recommend substitute and delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Not needed Acather96 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The template is not used, and is not needed. Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption -- its talk page, is I believe, important to retain. I think the use and abuse of templates are better understood now than they were in 2006, when I created this template. I didn't understand that using templates to encapsulate images was counter-policy -- but neither did the individuals who challenged this template, and several other templates. Subsequently another individual created some templates that weren't strictly compliant with policy, and shared some elements with this one. And there were extensive discussions about those templates too. I regard the former use of this template as a kind of experiment and I think there are lessons to be learned for those thinking about future directions of the wikimedia software to be learned from this experiment. I don't care where this template and its talk page are moved. But I think it would be a mistake to delete the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, then move, for the reasons given above. Geo Swan (talk) 22:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Substitution would not be useful. None of the links to this template link through transclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2010 (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:AUS fb Preston in NSL

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AUS fb Preston in NSL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox actually links National Soccer League seasons, not Preston Lions FC seasons. There is already Template:AUS fb NSL to link the National Soccer League seasons. There do not appear to be any Preston Lions FC season articles, hence this navbox is not required. Jameboy (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2010 (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:Ikon

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only 24 transclusions in two years, so trying to nip this in the bud. Largely redundant to {{=)}}, {{icon}} and {{resolved mark}}, with many of the functions having never been used. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Never caught on. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously redundant, a shame as it could have been useful. Acather96 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2010 (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:Arain of Delhi

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 per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arain of Delhi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Arain (Delhi) already has a suitable infobox. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and delete it. I have put in a new info box.

--WALTHAM2 (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2010 (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:Hebe Camargo-stub

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hebe Camargo-stub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The scope of this template is way too small. i doubt it was even proposed at the right venue first. —fetch·comms 01:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Entry should be listed at WP:SFD.--moɳo 01:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't even proposed there, that page is backlogged, and I doubt it makes overly much of a difference. Do feel free to move it if you wish. —fetch·comms 01:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't realize that WP:SFD was semiactive.--moɳo 05:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From someone who spends alot of time in stub sorting - delete wether here or at SFD, Waacstats (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2010 (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:NoAutosign

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 Keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template (which I cannot edit due to its level of protection) and Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing allow editors to violate Wikipedia:Signatures.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 21#Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this really violates WP:SIG, as some people don't want bots following them around, and there's no real harm in the occasional memory lapse in signing. Usually, this would be rectified immediately, in the rare cases it's not, then one can always take a peek at the page hist. Unless someone is deliberately not signing his/her posts and avoiding bot sigs, or if a new user who doesn't understand the importance of signing somehow opts out, then I'd say there is an issue. —fetch·comms 02:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Between 251 and 500 pages in userspace transclude this template and there are 154 pages in Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing - it appears many people are "avoiding bot sigs".   — Jeff G. ツ 02:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bot is probably annoying them. Perhaps there should be a template:donotannoymewheniforgettosignproperly instead. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Does anyone know how the lack of a signature affects archiving especially auto archiving by the bots? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would favor this template if it made the bot simply add the signature normally (without the "previous comment unsigned by" text), as that would arguably make it less annoying. However, having this template to altogether avoid having unsigned posts automatically fixed is not in the best interests of the community, IMO. It seems to me to be much more prone to be used for deliberately and repeatedly avoiding signing posts (which goes against the WP:SIGN guideline) than for the "occasional memory lapse in signing". So I think my proposal of having the template instruct the bot to emulate real signing rather than yelling "THIS USER FORGOT TO SIGN" is a reasonable compromise solution. What do you think? --Waldir talk 09:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. But that can be discussed independently at {{unsigned}}. Amalthea 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the suggestion here. --Waldir talk 07:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to Vegaswikian's suggestion at CfD, I don't think this discussion is necessary over and above the CfD. If the CfD closes as delete then this template is useless and can be speedied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not useless. The bot uses the transclusion list of the template, the template doesn't add the category. Amalthea 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jeff, you know that every user implicitly opts out of autosigning with his 800th edit? And that's a good thing, there are many situations where an editor deliberately doesn't want to have his edit signed. Asking questions at RfA, for example, or adding talk page topmatter. Those would be legitimate purposes to opt out of autosigning, even for brand-new accounts (think of admin alternate accounts used on public computers).
    A missing signature is no big deal. If an editor refuses to sign as a matter of principle, it begins being disruptive, but I think that should be handled by talking with the editor, not by bot-signing his edits. Amalthea 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you mean that for users over the 800-edit threshold, right? We can't afford to talk to every newcomer who systematically chooses not to sign their posts. --Waldir talk 13:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Amalthea 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are users who have made >800 edits automatically excepted from the actions of SineBot (unless they opt in)? What is so special about that number 800? Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 23:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What number would you have in mind? Amalthea 10:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ∞.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a personal favor. Read my talk page archive. The category came first, then people complained about having to categorize themselves publicly, so I added the template so that it could backlink check without any real public listing. If it's deleted, people will harass me to re-create it. I'll probably get annoyed, and I won't be happy. So, as a functional and practical favor to me, please keep it so that I don't have to deal with those people yet again, otherwise I'll be too tempted to put on the rouge and re-create it just to keep the message box off my screen. If you feel you must delete something, consider replacing the category with the template, instead. Second, the bot isn't there to enforce signatures, and it's not there as a convenient way to omit them, either. It's informative enough to give a heads up to new users, but annoying enough to keep people from abusing it by lazily never signing. The bot also isn't perfect in its signature detection, so opt-out categories give users with funky signatures a way to avoid it. Finally, in case it wasn't obvious enough, the color of the bikeshed should be white, so can we get on to other things, please? --slakr\ talk / 15:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For slakr, among other reasons. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jeff why is your signature so large ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpearc (talk • contribs) 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's his signature got to do with this... at least he remembers to sign. —fetch·comms 19:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My signature as displayed (excluding the time/date string everyone has) is nine characters; yours is twenty-eight characters, when you choose to use it.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mlpearc pull my chain Trib's 00:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we'll soon move to LiquidThreats anyway, which will automatically fix this problem. Until then, there's no problem in giving people the option to not have their posts automatically signed. However, the template should be moved to "No autosign" for readability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Evil IP address (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That page does not exist. However, the page you may have meant to refer to, LiquidThreads, includes a rationale which reads in part "Comments are automatically signed and dated." Upon implementation of LiquidThreads here, SineBot, this template and category would no longer be necessary for talk pages, although I am not sure if LiquidThreads would be implemented on members of Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure he just doesn't hate LQT and wanted to poke fun at it? ;) —fetch·comms 22:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to WP:AGF. I rather like the LiquidThreads we are testing over at the Wikimedia Labs LiquidThreads Test Wiki.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep There are many instances where the bot will sign where it shouldn't and furthermore most people prefer a big brother approach (If you opt out and dont sign it will be a trout for you) over the big mother approach (Oh no opting out is far too dangerous, lets force our bot onto people).   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2010 (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.

May 21

Template:Wpnamespacemove

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. delldot ∇. 16:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned, was once created for the Wikipedia namespace, when {{subst:Requested move}} didn't work within the Wikipedia namespace, but since it now works, we should delete this template to make sure that a consistent formatting is always used, which the bot always recognizes. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (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:Move-specialized

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 Soft redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Move-specialized (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Now redundant to {{subst:Requested move}}, which is by now able to handle other namespaces than the article namespace, thus this template only hesitates the process of WP:RM in case someone uses this to request a page move, because the bot doesn't recognize it. The Evil IP address (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft delete. (Replace with an explanation that the template is obsolete and instruction to use {{subst:requested move}} instead). That would be more helpful than a red link. —David Levy 00:58, 22 May 2010 (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:Retired Pricing Games

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. delldot ∇. 16:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retired Pricing Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles that originally linked through the template have been merged and redirected to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Template is no longer needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (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:Featuredportal

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. No explanation was given for why tagging as historical would be useful, so I'm assuming this was not important. delldot ∇. 16:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer used, it's now within {{ArticleHistory}}, which fits these purposes much better than this template. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tag as historical. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Essays are historical. Dead and dusty templates are just cluttering up templatespace and making it harder for editors to find the templates they're looking for. With no current uses as designed this can be safely deleted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Only userful templates in template space.--moɳo 05:52, 22 May 2010 (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:Cite Post-World War II bombers

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. delldot ∇. 18:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Post-World War II bombers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:27, 21 May 2010 (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:Cite Poobala

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. delldot ∇. 18:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Poobala (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation; links to website that appears to fail reliable source test -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:20, 21 May 2010 (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:CiteTheAnts

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. delldot ∇. 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused specific-source template -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:25, 21 May 2010 (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:Cite4Wiki

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 userfy. No strong reason to delete, but there seems to be some reluctance to have it in the mainspace. I'm currently looking for someone to host it in their userspace, let me know if you want to. delldot ∇. 18:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite4Wiki (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in articles; subst current uses in userspace -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I created the template to publicize a very useful tool that helps generate citations for articles. The reason we use a template is that the information about the tool occasionally changes. The use of a template makes it easy to keep the info current wherever it appears. Substitution would defeat the purpose. Jehochman Talk 12:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe it has been subst'ed in various places, and thus does not show many links. Typically what happens is somebody asks "how can I create these citations" and the answer is to point out this tool, using the template. Jehochman Talk 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really needs a doc page so we know what it is for. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I don't know how to install a doc page. Jehochman Talk 22:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the documentation markup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace: quite useless.--moɳo 01:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have to be so rude? We're trying to have a rational discussion here. Jehochman Talk 03:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that keeping this in a template is appropriate; software recommendations should be tailored to the pages they're inserted into. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 22 May 2010 (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:Cite-WWT

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 Keep. If this template is going to be used in a number of articles in the future as indicated by AnakngAraw, it should be kept. Having a reference, which is used in multiple articles, placed in a special template is an appropriate use of templates, in my opinion. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-WWT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Will be using template more later on. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (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:Cite-Hammond

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 Keep. See above. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-Hammond (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Will be using template more later on. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (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:Cite-FEEF2

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 Keep. See above. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-FEEF2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Will be using template more later on. - AnakngAraw (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2010 (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:Cite manual

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 keep. Looks like some of the keeps feel like this template is useful (unlike with articles, "it's useful" is a valid argument for keeping a template). I didn't see much support for (or opposition to) the idea of changing the core or book templates here, but that can certainly be discussed outside of this TFD. delldot ∇. 21:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite manual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}}; both are based on {{citation/core}} and both give the exact same output. Update current uses and redirect. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Template:Cite book. This should automatically update the citations if the output is the same. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, they are not exactly the same. In any case, can anyone point out what parameters a manual has than no book has? —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. {{Cite manual}} uses |section= and |version=, where {{Cite book}} uses |chapter= and |edition=. Forget the redirect. I cite a lot of manuals and cite book has every field I have ever needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While manuals and books may be similar, there's the issue that manuals can be completely virtual, lack the same type of rigorous publishing information books have (eg most have no ISBN number or special publisher, and author is nearly always the game's publisher). It's important they are built off the core cite templates, but there are enough different fields that "book" expects that "manual" cannot to require us to continue to use "manual".
Manuals exist for far more than games. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--MASEM (t) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep One difference is that manuals don't have editions as books, but release versions. In addition, templates aren't just a tool for displaying formatted information, they usually carry "semantic" information attached. Think about the metadata that can be associated with citation templates, and the tools that this metadata would allow, for example a tool to infer the quality of an article based on its references (e.g. peer-reviewed papers vs. usenet forums). My feeling is the contents of a manual have different connotations than information extracted from other sources, including published books. Manuals are released by the "owner" of a "product", having both positive (official information) and negative (not independent source) implications. —surueña 21:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. There is no requirement that a book or a manual has to be available in hardcopy, nor that it have an ISBN. What is the difference between a manual and a book? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why is |version= is feeding into {{Citation/core}} |Series=? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Looks different. moɳo 05:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is a discussion about this on VG Project talk as well. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: One of the reasons for having different templates for different media is to make it easier for the editor filling the template. For example, it is usually immediately apparent to the editor citing a manual what the data for |section= should be. Manuals are often organised differently from books, and I can see no reason to ask an editor to guess which parameter from {{cite book}} is the right one when citing a manual. Anyone trying to cite the US Navy Diving Manual (6 revisions, 5 volumes, 21 chapters and 8 appendices – with page numbers restarting at each chapter) will appreciate not having to force the cite to conform with what is expected for a book. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Using the example from Decompression sickness:

using cite manual

U.S. Navy Supervisor of Diving (2008). "Chapter 20: Diagnosis and Treatment of Decompression Sickness and Arterial Gas Embolism". U.S. Navy Diving Manual (PDF). SS521-AG-PRO-010, revision 6. Vol. volume 5. U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 37. Retrieved 15 May 2010. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

using cite book to reproduce the above

U.S. Navy Supervisor of Diving (2008). "Chapter 20: Diagnosis and Treatment of Decompression Sickness and Arterial Gas Embolism". U.S. Navy Diving Manual (PDF). SS521-AG-PRO-010, revision 6. Vol. volume 5. U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command. p. 37. Retrieved 15 May 2010. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

Still no response to these questions:

What is the difference between a book and a manual?
What parameters are missing from Cite book that would be useful for manuals?

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers (1) Books and manuals often have different organisations, as the example was intended to indicate. (2) Since large manuals are often available online with different sections at different urls, |sectionurl= is helpful. Nobody is doubting that given a sufficiently complex citation template, almost any source can be shoe-horned into it. I merely disagree with the philosophy of throwing away usefully named parameters for the sake of having fewer templates. It's not impossible to produce the same output using {{cite book}}, but if I were citing an appendix of the USN Diving Manual, why would I call the appendix section a chapter (when it's not a chapter), and why would I want to call the version of the manual a series? --RexxS (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal

There are not enough difference between Cite book and Cite manual to justify separate templates. Let's compare the differences in parameters:

  • Citation/core IncludedWorkURL is fed by:
    • Cite manual sectionurl
    • Cite book chapter-url, chapterurl, and contribution-url
  • Citation/core Series is fed by:
    • Cite manual version
    • Cite book series

Regardless of the parameter name, the output is the same. Cite manual version is technically misusing Citation/core Series, as that is defined as "series of which this periodical is a part." Edition would be more appropriate, but it adds "ed." which is not appropriate.

Proposals:

  • Request that Version be added to Citation/core
  • Request that version be added to Cite book
  • Request that sectionurl be added as an alias to Cite book

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep The data for manuals that I am likely to cite are somewhat different from the data that I would normally provide for a book, although there is certainly some overlap. In particular, I would normally want to specify all of
    • Vendor
    • Title
      • Often formatted on multiple lines
    • Identifier, typically referred to as
      • Order number
      • Form number
    • Revision, sometimes imbedded in the identifier
I realize that cite manual doesn't map perfectly to those, but is it really desiable to modify cite book for the purpose? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2010 (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:ConstellationsByBartsch

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. delldot ∇. 15:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is not used, and it provides incorrect information, both the constellations listed were invented by Petrus Plancius in c:a 1593–1595. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- seems pointless and inaccurate. Reyk YO! 19:41, 24 May 2010 (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:Rope

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. delldot ∇. 15:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this template serves no constructive purpose. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is this a delete or no?  A p3rson ‽ 03:47, 28 May 2010 (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:Iw

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The effort saving here is negligible. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, having just discovered it, I might even occasionally use it. What would be the gain in deleting it?--Kotniski (talk) 06:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TMTOWTDI typically leads to user confusion over which way to do things, arguments over picking one over the other, and occasionally unwanted differences in output. The standard method of interwiki linking is no more difficult to use and is vastly more commonplace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This template seems silly to me, and I would tentatively support deleting it as a matter of good housekeeping. However, we can't measure the use of substitute-only templates by their incoming links. If the page view statistics for the template [16] also cover substitutions (I have no idea if that's the case; does anyone know?), then I would say they are consistent with this template not being used at all. Hans Adler 10:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template doesn't leave anything to identify itself when substituted, so there's no way of knowing when it's being used that way. I could add code to track that temporarily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent idea. Why don't you do that, and then we come back in a few months. Deleting the silly thing really isn't the most pressing thing on this project anyway, and this way we avoid feedback of the more furious type if it turns out that someone really loves it. How would you do the tracking? In the places where it is substituted, or is there a mechanism for leaving information in a different place? Hans Adler 15:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you want to bother? If this template annoys you so much, just delete it and wait to see if anyone objects - if they do, put it back.--Kotniski (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also true, so: delete. Hans Adler 22:17, 21 May 2010 (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:Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky) District

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 see May 16, May 12, May 5, February 25, February 4, and January 26 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Template:Érsekújvár (Nové Zámky) District (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)[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.

May 15

Template:TLS-A

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TLS-A (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, CSD G7. --GW… 18:01, 15 May 2010 (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:SJFA football league system

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 22:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SJFA football league system (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox isn't necessary when a maximum of three links will be present. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:26, 15 May 2010 (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:Usher singles

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 No consensus to delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usher singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nominating here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template:Usher singles; the nominator of which gave the following cryptic reason:

I take it to mean that that template is redundant to {{Usher}}; procedural nomination only, I am neutral. Tim Song (talk) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Enough singles to warrant own template. Candyo32 (talk) 03:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see anything significantly wrong with this template. Ive seen far worse ones. There is plenty enough albums, singles, ect... ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 03:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - With out singles and featured singles in, there is nothing in the actual Usher navbox..--L.Geee 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleGee (talk • contribs)
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:Southampton Stags staff

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southampton Stags staff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was used on single article, I have subst it into article. Article that it was used on is itself the subject of a current Afd. Pit-yacker (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2010 (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:Southampton Stags roster

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Southampton Stags roster (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was used on single article, I have subst it into article. Article that it was used on is itself the subject of a current Afd Pit-yacker (talk) 09:59, 15 May 2010 (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:Harlequins RL

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harlequins RL (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are two navboxes for the same subject. Template:Harlequins Rugby League should be retained. This template (Harlequins RL) should be deleted. Jameboy (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one pre-dates a new one, and has different information than the additional one. A possibility is to incorporate the new one into this one.86.149.209.142 (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete – {{Harlequins Rugby League}} is in the standard navbox format and contains more info (at first glance). Merge any info not found in Harlequins Rugby League into it and then delete. Airplaneman ✈ 21:30, 1 June 2010 (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:Comic-questionable-use

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 Redirect to {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}. The discussion has stalled, the template is not in use, and the reason why the standard "disputed fair use" template won't work is not clear. If there is a new compelling reason why this should be used, then that can be discussed elsewhere. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comic-questionable-use (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Such a template shouldn't be used for disputing a file's fair use. One should either use Wikipedia:Non-free content review or Wikipedia:Files for deletion, as this is much more likely to receive some attention. Not heavily used, so a deletion shouldn't create too many problems. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's also {{Comic-questionable-use-article}}, which should be a co-nomination. I agree that I'm not sure that WikiProjects should be inventing their own processes for dealing with fair use. If there's reason to believe that generalising these would be a good idea then so be it; otherwise the same process as is used elsewhere on the project should be followed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

  • A few issues:
    • The "limited use" is due to the template being project specific. It was designed to be used within WP:CMC which is a project that tends to have trouble shaking images that buck WP:NFCC points 3 and 8 as well as decoration in galleries or lists. Mostly with image being restored with an chide of "Where was the warning/reason/discussion?"
    • The template is designed to be precise on the image page. Yes, most images are only used in 1 article. It gets dicey though when looking at images used in multiple articles. FfD is a "blanket" solution that may not fit all uses of an image. Using this template at least narrows it down the the problem article(s).
    • Like most maintenance templates, the idea is for it's tranclusions to tend toward "zero". It's a tool to point to problems - ones that hopefully will go away.
    • Looking at NFCR... to be honest, that looks like a level of bureaucracy to try and avoid as an initial solution.
    • The use of this template and {{Comic-questionable-use-article}} was intended as a polite way to get either a discussion going, prod a correction/expansion of the FUR to clarify why the image is being used, or explain why the image was eventually removed.
Basically the template does have a low grade use which it should be kept for. - J Greb (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some way to merge this into the standard FFD template as a parameter to somehow categorize it with all other images with questionable use? This would solve the traffic issue. It seems like a useful template otherwise. Airplaneman ✈ 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}} could be made compatible, but is it really worth the effort when this current;y has no filespace transclusions? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 06:24, 15 May 2010 (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:Glossaries

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 no consensus to delete. delldot ∇. 21:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Glossaries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
  • Delete. An orphaned template. Also, it includes both content and project links and so it is not of use on content pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see ever using a template named "glossaries" on content pages, so how is that a problem? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 10:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not actually orphaned; it's used on Portal talk:Contents/List of glossaries. That said, there's no real reason that it can't just be substed there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a wikiproject navbox (like {{dabnav}}), and is only intended to be used on the project pages that it lists. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2010 (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 hurricane season active

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox hurricane season active (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to Template:Infobox hurricane season and is only used for the current Atlantic and Eastern Pacific seasons which means for 6 months of the year it is not transcluded on any articles Jason Rees (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2010 (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.

Completed discussions

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell. (edit | history)


If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'. Consider placing {{Being deleted}} on the template page.

Tools

There are several tools that can help when implementing TfDs. Some of these are listed below.

Closing discussions

The closing procedures are outlined at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Closing instructions.

To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

  • I see I am not supposed to use {{Wikisourcehas}} on "additional pages" so I have had to move to using {{Sister project}} because {{Wikisource}} does not have the required functionality. I shall look out for further developments because some very clever coding will be needed. Thincat (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meta

To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to some other format are put here until the conversion is completed.

To substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (e.g. the template should be merged with the article or is a wrapper for a preferred template) are put here until the substitutions are completed. After this is done, the template is deleted from template space.

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

  • None currently

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices

Current discussions

May 3

Template:Drake series

Template:Drake (musician) already existed when this sidebar was made. This is like a very ugly orange hat on a hat. —Rutebega (talk) 03:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


June 1

Template:Hammer Mummy

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 no consensus to merge. delldot ∇. 02:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hammer Mummy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:The Mummy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Hammer Mummy with Template:The Mummy.
This template is made entirely redundant by the main The Mummy template. Neelix (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge New template is more comprehensive. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, no no no: the various Mummy franchises are unrelated to one another. The Mummy (franchise) is as clear a case of WP:SYN as I've seen in the a while and should probably be split up and turned into a dab page. Template:The Mummy suffers from the same problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm inclined to agree with Chris Cunningham that these templates should be kept separate. If anything, it's the other one that should be deleted, as it claims a link between these franchises which is not necessarily justified. Robofish (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nominator - These are not separate franchises. Check out this source, which states that "Hammer reached an official agreement with Universal to remake their classic horror films." The following two sources also state that the Hammer films were clear remakes of the prior Universal films: [17], [18]. In many sources, the Hammer film titles are followed by "Hammer/Universal" in brackets. These films are all part of the same franchise. Neelix (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And what of the 1999 series? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1999 film is another remake of the 1932 film. The Mummy (1999 film) is a featured article, and the connection between the films is made in the lede of that article. Neelix (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the two subjects are unrelated. Airplaneman ✈ 15:03, 9 June 2010 (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:Foundation planets

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, with no major objection to creating a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foundation planets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All but one of the Foundation universe planets have been merged into List of Foundation universe planets. The remaining four links (to the series, creator, planet list, and one individually notable planet) are all included on Template:Foundation series, therefore this template is redundant. This template is also no longer used on any articles. Neelix (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2010 (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:21st-century politicians with multiple wives

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:21st-century politicians with multiple wives (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

POV? This template has no more navigational value than a list of 21st-century politicians with blue eyes. Polygamy is common and completely respectable in Moslem countries. If all politicians with multiple wives in Mali, Niger, Nigeria, etc. were included, there would be tens of thousands of entries. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could arguably be a category, too minor to be a template.—Chowbok ☠ 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, not even a category; neither templates nor categories exist to facilitate trivia quizzes. Ucucha 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are very few politician in the 21st century with multiple wives.--478jjjz (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Nigeria, Christian presidents typically have Moslem Vice Presidents, and vice-versa. Since 2000 the Moslems have been Vice President Atiku Abubakar, President Umaru Yar'Adua, Vice-President Namadi Sambo. The first two had multiple wives. Not sure about the last. Taking a random look at currently serving Nigerian state governors with Moslem-sounding names we have Mahmud Shinkafi (3 wives), Isa Yuguda (4), Murtala Nyako (4), Ibrahim Shekarau (3) Usman Saidu Nasamu Dakingari (3) etc. In many Moslem countries, Politician = Powerful Alpha Male. Moslem politicians often have multiple wives. It is a meaningless grouping.
A rough calculation: Nigeria is about 50% Moslem. Assume about 50% of the Moslem politicians have multiple wives (maybe an underestimate). In the Federal government there are about 100 senators, 360 members of the Federal House of Representatives, 40 ministers etc., say about 500 total. That gives about 125 polygamist politicians currently holding office at the Federal level. There were elections in 2003 and 2007. Allowing for reelections but also for high churn among ministers gives maybe 250 entries for 21st century polygamist Nigerian politicians at the Federal level alone. Adding in state-level politicians, adding in all the other countries... who would maintain this template? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We can subdivide the politicians by country.--478jjjz (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which group: politicians with blue eyes or politicians with multiple wives? I am not sure which is larger. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic where it is a societal norm. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that argument, but disagree with Ucucha. If Wikipedia can draw people in by answering trivia quiz questions, that is not a bad thing. Templates for "US politicians with blue eyes" or "Sudanese politicians with multiple wives" would be meaningless and impossible to maintain. But templates for "US politicians with multiple wives" or "Sudanese politicians with blue eyes" could be amusing if they included links to a few articles. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pretty indiscriminate, and unhelpful for navigation. I wouldn't support this as a category either. Robofish (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2010 (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:Frac

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 Keep, and suggest that discussion concerning improvements or restriction of the use of this template could be continued at say Template talk:Frac. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a misguided, Rube Goldberg–ian attempt to "fix" the display of vulgar fractions. It breaks their display on terminal browser such as Lynx and undoubtedly confuses speech-based browsers. If you turn off stylesheets, or save a page to a plaintext file, fractions rendered with this template also are broken. No major browser has problems anymore with displaying the proper, Unicode vulgar fraction characters, so this is a "solution" to a non-problem. We need to get rid of this and encourage people to use the correct fraction characters. —Chowbok ☠ 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now. The template serves a useful purpose. While it is not ideal and Chowbok raises very valid points regarding the accessibility issues, the solution should involve the improvement of the template, not its deletion. I would also like to hear more on the Unicode fraction characters vs. accessibility—the use of Unicode fractions was shot in the past precisely because of the accessibility concerns, not to mention that the template allows showing any fractions, not just those included in the Unicode character set.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 15:29 (UTC)
    • All fractions can be depicted in Unicode; the ones that aren't specific characters are written with the superscript/subscript numbers (see [19]) and the fraction slash (Unicode U+2044). But the majority of fractions on here are halves through eighths, so usually we can just use the actual fraction characters.—Chowbok ☠ 15:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I didn't know that. However, I would still like to hear more from a third party (or, preferably, third parties) on the possible accessibility concerns related to the Unicode approach before I change my vote. Also, this template is used quite extensively. Could you elaborate on what you plan to do with all the transclusions, please? Or why this template should be deleted but not re-written to utilize the Unicode fractions to minimize cleanup?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 15:50 (UTC)
        • I assume there's a process for deleting templates in use, a bot or something. I'd be happy to do it with AWB if not. Should be a pretty straightforward substitution. I realize the WLH page is pretty long, but that's a bit misleading in that a lot of those pages aren't calling frac directly, but through another template. —Chowbok ☠ 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Such migration processes do indeed exist, but I was more interested in getting an answer to the question why you feel the template should be deleted as opposed to fixed or re-written?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 1, 2010; 17:12 (UTC)
            • I guess I just don't see the point if we start using Unicode fractions across the board. It'd be like having a {{emdash}} template instead of just using em dashes.—Chowbok ☠ 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, there is an {{emdash}} template. Some people find it easier to type. (There is even a redirect {{—}}.) Ucucha 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't the template be edited so that it automatically displays the fraction characters when fractions like 1/2 are given? Something like {{#ifeq: {{{1}}}/{{{2}}} | 0.5 | ½ | }} should work. Ucucha 18:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could live with that, assuming we get rid of the HTML. If the denominator equals 2,3,4,5,6, or 8, use the Unicode character; otherwise, use the Unicode superscript/fraction slash/subscript characters. We could encourage it to be subst'd as well.—Chowbok ☠ 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I originally created the template back in 2005. In May 2007 I experimented successfully with automatic conversion to precomposed vulgar fractions (denominators 2, 3, 4 and 8). I was never really sure what technique (or combination of technologies) to use to get optimal results for everyone:
    1. OpenType/AAT ‘smart’ fonts can offer the feature to automatically sselect numerator and denominator digit glyphs around a slash/solidus or fraction slash, but you cannot access this via CSS yet (but soon). Not many fonts or browsers can do that, though.
    2. Unicode has several precomposed glyphs, but those may not harmonize well with constructed ones.
    3. Unicode also offers superscript and subscript digits (and most roman letters), but AFAIK these should not be used for fractions directly, although fonts may use the same glyphs for both. Their support across fonts differs and more so in 2005, when enWP still was ISO 8859-1 and IE5/6 was still in use.
    4. / (U+002F) or ⁄ (U+2044) or &‌frasl; (entity reference to U+2044), all with normal digits.
    5. simple HTML: 
      <sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub>
    6. presentational HTML: 
      <small><sup>1</sup><big>/</big><sub>2</sub></small>
      and variants
    7. HTML+CSS (style): 
      <sup style="font-size:x-small">1</sup>/<sub style="font-size:x-small">2</sub>
    8. HTML+CSS (class): 
      <span class="fraction"><sup>1</sup>/<sub>2</sub></span>

      .fraction sub, .fraction sup {font-size: x-small} .fraction {white-space: nowrap}
    9. How to deal with the part before the fraction, when styling is turned off (e.g. in copying or console browsers), i.e. 1+2/3, 1_2/3, 1 2/3, 1–2/3 or 1-2/3 for 1+2⁄3.
  • The good thing is that {{frac}} can be changed to the method of choice and all transclusions will be updated. Finally you cannot replace all use cases of the template by automatisms, e.g. 1⁄x, km⁄h. — Christoph Päper 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced. You're not addressing my points about browser support above. Where are you getting that Unicode subscript/superscript numbers should not be used for fractions? In any event, it seems like we're worrying about stuff that we shouldn't be worrying about. There's a character for one-half, for instance, and it's not even just Unicode; it's ISO-8859-1. Browsers should determine how it's displayed, not us. We shouldn't be overriding valid characters just because we think they're not "harmonizing" well. Automatic substitution should take care of most of the cases, special cases can be handled manually.—Chowbok ☠ 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Browsers do not display 1/2 (or even 1⁄2) as ½, ¹⁄₂, 1⁄2, 1⁄2, or some such, at least not yet and not without help. Editors cannot be expected to enter any vulgar fraction directly, not even halves and fourths. If I understand you correctly, much of your criticism would be moot if we reinstated my May 2007 experiment (and add ⅕, ⅖, ⅗, ⅘, ⅙, ⅚). Which “automatic substitution” do you mean, though? Unicode TR #20 suggests 
        1&‌thinsp;2&‌frasl;3
        “1 2⁄3” (thin space, fraction slash, normal digits), but does not forbid extra markup, e.g. sup = numerator. — Christoph Päper 18:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - See Template talk:Convert, where this is a suggestion to replace the unicode fractions rendered by Template:Convert/and/fra1 with non-unicode versions rendered by Template:Convert/num. It sounds like a hybrid approach is preferred. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure that they're aware of the Unicode superscript and subscript digit characters from that discussion.—Chowbok ☠ 06:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful template that is used in many articles. {{convert}} cannot handle fractions adequately in my opinion, thus the need for this template - I refuse to quote 1713⁄16" as 17.8125" in ship articles, it looks absurd. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (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:Group of 15 Leaders

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. The countries are members of the group, not their leaders, who can change at any moment. Ruslik_Zero 17:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Group of 15 Leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over the course of time. Updates are better handled in the table which part of this article. See Talk:Group of 15/Archives/2013#Delete "leaders" templates. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uncertain. Does it help to compare the array of similar groups and templates below? Maybe this thread is untimely? --Tenmei (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenative delete. I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't be tagging leaders with these templates - they should really be on the countries instead. However, there are several of them, so wider input should be sought before deleting. Robofish (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per the reasons above. Airplaneman ✈ 15:02, 9 June 2010 (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:G-15 leaders

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. delldot ∇. 03:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:G-15 leaders (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a poor subject for a navbox because leaders change irregularly over the course of time. Updates are better handled in the table which part of this article. See Talk:Group of 15/Archives/2013#Delete "leaders" templates. --Tenmei (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2010 (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:Good article

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 Keep. Obviously the overwhelming majority opinion in the discussion is for keeping, and this corresponds to the consensus from the previous discussion that was advertised on WP:CENT. RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template was created after an improper consensus on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Should_all_GAs_have_the_GA_symbol_on_the_article_page.3F. Furthermore since Good Articles only require a single reviewer, and not a community based discussion like Featured Articles, having such a template on Article pages may be deceptive as to the overall quality of the article. Feinoha Talk, My master 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have to be more specific about how the consensus is "improper", rather than just label it as such. I didn't contribute in any way to that discussion, but I (despite being slightly opposed myself) was more than happy to read that page and, in the words of Iridescant,"even I can see that there's an overwhelming consensus in support of it and extending the discussion isn't going to change anything". What is your concern with it? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the arguments in the opposition section of the proposal and compared them against the support !votes, and there is still some major unaddressed issues. Even if this template is kept, I would at least like a way to "opt-out" of seeing this template displayed on "Good Articles". Feinoha Talk, My master 15:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically? Oh, and yes, just add "#good-star{display:none;}" to your vector.css (or otherskin.css). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—consensus was reached, as even some of the more articulate opponents of the proposal agree; now let's move on and not filibuster this change. (I supported the change and created this template.) Ucucha 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Admittedly, I supported the proposal, although I personally favor a more sweeping approach to making our article assessment visible to the public. Support is very strong, and I agree with everything Ucucha said above. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm log onto Wikipedia most days, and often spend half an hour or more browsing pages that are not in the mainspace. I certainly saw no hint that this template was being proposed, and indeed only came to know of its existence when it was added by a GA reviewer to an article I was improving. Something like this surely warrants a watchlist advertisement. I am inclined to think that we should revisit this proposal with a more sizable audience. (In the interim, the template could be replaced with nul content; if the consensus is to allow the icon to remain on good articles, then we can simply revert to the icon code.) AGK 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with only nulling it, should we reach a "delete" consensus, I think that much is obvious. I knew of the discussion from WP:CENT, I don't know about where else it might have been mentioned. 74 commenting seems like quite a few (to me, anyway) for a consensus to emerge, do you think the original sample might have been biased towards one of the outcomes? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the discussion reached a consensus and had enough people opining; personally I don't care whether GA icons are used. Surely TFD is not a sensible place to discuss this. —innotata 18:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if you disagree with the icon, that's not all this template does. As for the consensus, this was advertised on WP:CENT, and I did see the discussion, which was closed by an admin as consensus reached with 55 for and 19 against. (~75% in favor) I have no opinion on whether the GA symbol is shown, but we must honor the consensus. As an aside, why are we nominating the documentation page for deletion?  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, consensus was clear, this is a very useful and helpful page and should be kept in existence on Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus was very clear indeed. Most participants weren't biased and weren't members of WP GA. In any case, this is not the place to bring this up. This nomination only slows down the actual process. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  23:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I was brought to this discussion seeing that His Band and the Street Choir currently has this template.) First off, there have been numerous precedents regarding the GA icon in the title of GAs. Each time, the template containing the GA icon eventually gets deleted. The reasons for those deletions were pretty much similar each time (afaik). Fast forward to now: this concept is yet again brought to the table, and those same prior arguments are still being argued about. While consensus can change, some of the arguments against (listed in the poll) still have not been addressed properly. Furthermore, because of the way the original discussion worked, a more accurate consensus could not be determined due to the fact that at least some of the participants in the poll did not further contribute to the discussion. This is further complicated by the fact that a participant in the very poll turned out to be the one closing it. Until a better way of dealing with this issue can be found and acted upon, I'm going to have to go with the consensus before this came along—delete. --O (talk • edits) 00:29, 02 June 2010 (GMT)
  • Keep for being green. This is also as much as some topics will ever achieve, often after hard work; it's nice to have some kind of symbolic achievement. The unworthy GAs should stick out like a sore thumb now, too. GreenReaper (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the GA WikiProject was the best place to hold that discussion--is that going to be a representative sample of the population on the project? Or is it likely to be populated by people that think more highly of GA's than the rest of the project? I feel like with something this big the discussion should take place at the village pump or somewhere. I like AGK's idea of making it invisible until further discussion can be had. I agree with some of the Keeps that TFD probably isn't the best venue for the discussion either. delldot ∇. 03:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is consensus to use the template; nominations to then delete the template are an end-run around consensus. I also still don't know what "improper consensus" means. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discussion was closed in favor of use of the icon, thus the template is dependent on that decision. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There was open dialogue between those who support and oppose the idea, so attempts to discredit this proposal using polling is not a substitute for discussion doesn't hold much weight. In fact, it only shows how some people wishes to overturn the already-established consensus by putting up guidelines without checking whether such guidelines illustrate the opposite. Furthermore, even those who oppose the idea agreed that the consensus is clear.[20][21] Then we have some users here who claimed that it was not advertised enough or the poll duration was too short. It was listed on centralized discussion which serves as a gateway to discussions on major interface changes, RfC, etc. User:AGK claimed that there should be a listing on watchlist. As shown by this section on WP:CENT, watchlist or sitenotice is used for announcements and not to be used as pointers to a poll. (Have you seen any RfA/RfB being listed on watchlist and/or sitenotice? Nope...) User:H3llkn0wz summarized it perfectly on how it reached entire audience group and does not engage in selection bias. He said "out of first 20 supporters only 4 identify themselves as good article WP participants. Out of first 10 opposers 2 do so. How is this possibly not broad enough?"[22] The poll started from May 6 and ended on May 27, which lasted 21 days. If that is not enough time, then I really don't know what is an appropriate duration for a discussion. (Again, do RfA/RfB polls last 21 days? No, they last 7 days) Full disclosure: It was me who closed that poll and concluded that it reached consensus. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, well there's consensus for this, so has to stay. However, will be good idea to use {{Main other}} within it for consistency with other templates. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep' - the idea behing flagging GAs is a sound one which achieved consensus. It shows the casual reader that they have reached a Good Article, and is some small rewared for the editors who brought the article to GA status in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wasn't aware of any discussion leading up to the creation of this template, but I must say it's nice to see an article labeled as "good article" without having to look at the talk page to see the article's quality assessment. This is definitely something that needs to be displayed on the article itself. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do agree with the general concern that if that if the "Good Article" label doesn't ensure quality then this tag could be misleading. However, to me that is an argument for reviewing the Good Article process, not eliminating this template. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A consensus has been reached when this template was created. It makes the articles stand out from normal ones which have not yet achieved good article status, and allows the casual reader to Wikipedia to identify a good article without going to the talk page. - Nick C (t·c) 13:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good idea for a template; I've no idea why consensus was against it for so long, but it clearly isn't any longer. Robofish (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I !voted against this, and still don't like it. However, though I'd have preferred the discussion to take place elsewhere than on a GA page, the consensus was strong enough that a TfD seems the wrong way to go here. If someone wants to reverse the decision I'd suggest they start a discussion somewhere like the village pump, or start an RfC. Mike Christie (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (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.

May 31

Template:Ref harvard

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 after replacement, with no prejudice against creation of a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref harvard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Low use template, replaceable by {{harv}}. Need to enable |ref=harv on the {{cite xxx}} templates and ensure the authors are properly split by first and last name parameters. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to {{harv}} per nom. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't just redirect— it needs some work in the article, which I have identified. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it is not used a lot but it is used nonetheless. A redirection is also out of question. Why break numerous articles when we can simply do not break them? However, if you replace all instances of the template usage personally, perhaps the deletion may be considered. Fleet Command (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure why you would think we would break anything. If consensus is to replace this, then I would update each article with {{harv}} and tweak the citations as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not my concern. This breaking and mending is a waste of energy and time with no gain at all. In generaal, I'm against such a waste. Of course, you are at liberty to invest your valuable time and energy on whatsoever you see fit; your decision shall be respected and appreciated but not agreed with. Fleet Command (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we would follow above reasoning we would have 100 times the current number of templates on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant; replace it using {{Harvard citation}} (which {{harv}} redirects to). Airplaneman ✈ 14:57, 9 June 2010 (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:Ref harv

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref harv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A wonderfully unique reference template used in one article— Joe McDoakes. I'm still trying to figure out how to update it. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The edit history suggests that it's just a superscripted version of {{ref harvard}}. The current version looks compatible enough that it could just be redirected there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is TfD above. I figured out how to directly replace the template, but the article isn't going to look any better. It is just weird in how it was done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Wikipedia we don't delete things just because they are used only once. (Wikipedia is not democracy.) Why should we break the one article when we can simply not break it? Please request deletion only when you have finished phasing out the template and replacing its transclusions. Fleet Command (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously we really do delete templates when only used once. There is no requirement to phase out a template before asking for deletion. The deleting admin will of course take care when deleting and replace the template or do something else so not to break the article. Garion96 (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2010 (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:Footnotes

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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Cite reference system has been in use since December 2005. This template was intended to help explain the system and was to be substed in the Reference section. I suspect it has been removed in most cases, and is now redundant. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The single transclusion was being used to show footnotes on a talk page. I replaced it with {{reflist-talk}} ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still see this from time to time in new articles... Is one of the article wizards or form templates also using this content? 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as this looks like the template substituted into the footnotes section when one creates an article using the article wizard. As a frequent Newpage Patroller, I see this daily; therefore, it is still being used frequently and is not phased out as the nominator claims. Airplaneman ✈ 14:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked at Wikipedia talk:Article wizard. I had left a message on Template talk:Footnotes weeks ago with no reply and this TfD has been ongoing, so no one is watching the page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Article Wizard uses {{Article wizard/skeleton}} as a preload, which adds:
<!--- See [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] on how to create references using <ref></ref> tags which will then appear here automatically -->
So, it does not use the Footnotes template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:20, 9 June 2010 (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:Footnotestext

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Cite reference system has been in use since December 2005. This template was intended to help explain the system and was to be substed in the Reference section. I suspect it has been removed in most cases, and is now redundant. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused and long since redundant. Robofish (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (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:International NF-Board

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. Courcelles (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International NF-Board (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned for over 2 years. Borgarde (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused and apparently unwanted. Robofish (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2010 (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:Scams

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 merge. There's a strong consensus for merging these, but as far as I can see no one's suggesting anything be deleted. When Scams is merged into confidence tricks, it can be redirected there. I can do the job as closer, but it looks like others have clear ideas of how it should be done so I may be making life harder for them by doing it too. So I'll leave this for a few days and then merge them if no one else has by then. delldot ∇. 21:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks to user:Penbat for carrying out the merge! delldot ∇. 02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Scams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Confidence Tricks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Scams with Template:Confidence Tricks.
Similar scope, and better developed and organized. Pnm (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Items that don't at Template:Confidence Tricks could be considered for inclusion in Template:Fraud. -- Pnm (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: i happen to be working on a restructure of list of confidence tricks see User:Penbat/list of confidence tricks and i just spotted the duplication. --Penbat (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and call the new template "Scams and confidence tricks" so one looking for a template on either would know they both exist. Hellno2 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of confidence tricks makes an effort to categorise the confidence tricks (or scams) into types. List of confidence tricks and the template need to tie in with each other with a brief summary of each scam given and in many cases a link given to a separate article for each individual scam. If categorisation into types is viable then it should also be applied to the template by splitting it up into sub-sections.--Penbat (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of confidence tricks has now been restructured. See Talk:List_of_confidence_tricks#Making_individual_scams_more_visible for more info. --Penbat (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2010 (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:The Larry Sanders Show

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. delldot ∇. 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Larry Sanders Show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All characters now on "list of characters" page; this navigation template is no longer necessary. WCityMike 01:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is only actually linking two articles, not enough to justify a navbox. Robofish (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it's three - the main show article, the character list and the episode list. That might be enough, but I still don't think it's really needed. Robofish (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (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.

May 30

Template:Major Indoor Soccer League

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 Wrong venue, should be nominated at RFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Major Indoor Soccer League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It needs to be deleted because it's a former soccer league and it's been redirected. —WayneOlajuwon (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last TFD (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 26#Template:Major Indoor Soccer League) closed as "redirect", I would say this should go to WP:RFD, or nominate the parent template instead. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is probably one for RFD really, but I don't see any problems with this template as it's just a redirect from a longer name. If the destination template is the one that was meant to be nominated, that should be made clear. Robofish (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2010 (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:Class parameter

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 no consensus to delete. I haven't implemented the suggestion to add tracking code, but anyone that wants to is welcome to. delldot ∇. 17:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Class parameter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, unused. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecated a mere five days before it was nominated. As a substituted template, it's obvious that it's not going to have any current transclusions, but that doesn't necessarily translate to "not being used". Recommend adding some temporary tracking code, waiting a couple of months to see if anyone is still using it and then relisting. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:09, 31 May 2010 (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:Somewebsite

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 keep. delldot ∇. 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is currently unused and unlinked (except for one instance in an inactive user's userspace), and appears to have been generally disliked (judging from comments on its talk page). Template also has technical flaws leading to miscategorization. TheFeds 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I erred in assessing the uses of this template...that one link is the only instance of the template's talk page. The actual template is transcluded about a dozen times at present, and linked several more times. The problem with the existing transclusions is that they often duplicate a {{No license needing editor assistance}} tag—which is more appropriate anyway, given the threat of deletion—or are misplaced entirely (for example, here there's already a credible PD tag; here there's no evidence that the uploader grabbed it from a website at all). TheFeds 20:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment It is used in the "upload form", to catch uploads by those that do not know better. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 21:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As TheDJ says, this is used by the upload form, and it's a speedy deletion template, so pages transcluding it get deleted. There's no reason to delete this. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if it's used by the upload form, it's worth keeping. Robofish (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2010 (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:Lee DeWyze

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lee DeWyze (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The singer has only released one single and it is way too early for this, since there is barely more here than the American Idol 8 template has. Aspects (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on precedent. Gage (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what precedent? Aspects (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. It's too early for a template let's for more singles and more albums. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's just wait until he has enough singles and albums. TaylorSwift14 (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, not needed at this time, and basically redundant to the main American Idol template. Robofish (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (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:Kingstonian F.C. seasons

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kingstonian F.C. seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox has only one article link, plus three redlinks. Jameboy (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for a navbox at this time. Can be recreated when the articles have been created. Robofish (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2010 (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:Associated main

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Associated main (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has identical functionality to Template:Main. *If* the word "associated" is required for some articles (and personally I don't think so), a parameter could be added to Template:Main to do this. Jameboy (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Unable to inform the template's creator as his talk page is protected. --Jameboy (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creator has been blocked since September 2007.
  • Delete Redundant with Template:Main, and in some article, both are used together. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess if Associated main were to be deleted, then any remaining transclusions of it should be replaced with Main?? --Jameboy (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes— we don't leave deleted templates hanging as redlinked markup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Main}} - redundant to an older and simpler template. Robofish (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (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:English football league system cells

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English football league system cells (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox isn't necessary when a maximum of three links will be present. The information won't be lost by deleting the template, as it should already be covered in the article's infobox and prose. Jameboy (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I overlooked something when nominating this. Sometimes there will be three links in the navbox, but for many non-league divisions, there will be more, e.g. see usage in Midland Football Alliance#External links. I still think the template is worthy of discussion, but I'm less sure of whether it should be deleted. --Jameboy (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the links should be on the bottom line of the navbox for the relevant league; as in this edit. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- redundant template. There is enough information throughout league articles about promotion and relegation. --MicroX (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this should be included in the infobox or elsewhere, not in a separate template. Robofish (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2010 (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:Pakistan infobox

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pakistan infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has been on for a while and is used on articles of the various Administrative units of Pakistan. I propose the infobox for deletion as it serves no real purpose. The Template:Infobox subdivision looks much better and standardised and caters to all of the information in this template. There is no point of having this; also, the green doesn't look very pretty. Mar4d (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2010 (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:The Gracious Few

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Gracious Few (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Too few links to actually navigate —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't fully understand this comment, are there too few links IN the template or do too few pages use it? Can you clarify please and I might be able to rectify the situation. Thnaks. Iangurteen (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Both. The Gracious Few itself has less than a dozen inbound links, and most of those should be rolled into it as they're sub-stubs with no other claims to fame. Navboxes should be created as need requires, not pre-emptively created and then filled in as Wikipedia's coverage of a subject expands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Links a new band with no releases to an album that is not yet released. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:45, 3 June 2010 (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.

May 29


Template:Active Pricing Games

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Active Pricing Games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All linked articles have been or are in the process of being merged into List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Template is no longer needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (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:Repression in the Soviet Union

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 keep. Those concerns that were brought up mostly involved the content of the template rather than its existence. Hopefully the edits that have been made address these concerns, but if not editors are more than welcome to keep improving it. delldot ∇. 17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Repression in the Soviet Union (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see any similar templates in this category for other countries, and I feel that it's not fair in respect of the country I was born in. This template is simply a heavy POV. 213.164.124.252 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I feel that this template provides a function; grouping together similar articles on the Soviet Union, it does not have a point of view. The articles are well referenced. Templates like this do not exist for other countries because they do not have articles on the subjects. Captain n00dle\Talk 23:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I would not question the existence of this template. But it's contents are ... lame, as kids will say. It starts with global, and largely intersecting topics (political vs. ideological is a very thin distinction when both end with 9mm in the temple), and ends up with very narrow salient topics like Radio in the Soviet Union (a stub that does not even attempt to describe its topic) and Copyright law of the Soviet Union (looks good but had they no better-fitting topics at all? was it the only instance of "economic repression"?). The central core of specific campaigns (Red Terror, Collectivization etc.) is what it's all about - the history of organized murder. But why is it labelled "Political?" Millions were deported and killed without any formal charges. Is organized starvation a political or an economic act? etc. Another concern is that the list follows and reinforces the worn-out scheme of Khruschyov, Conquest, VOA and Co.: let's overrate the so-called Great Purge and forget the "lesser one" which claimed far more lives. Conclusion: I don't know if it's salvageable, too much drama on both sides of the wall. East of Borschov (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Delldot (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the topic is notable, but the template could be redone to cover it better, so I suggest a restructure. I took a look and am not sure how to go about doing it, though, so if nobody knows how, I will say delete. If it is restructured based on East of Borschov and 13.164.124.252's comments, I may go for a weak keep. Airplaneman ✈ 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See no need for it, and it included numerous of articles which are placed in the category of atrocoties and controversy, such as the forceful collectivization, which is seen by many not as a repression but as a mean socialis the Soviet economy, among others. --TIAYN (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the articles exist, and this template seems like a good way of linking them. The current content of the template is questionable, but I've made a few changes - removing the Copyright, TV and Radio articles as suggested above, and adding a couple about censorship, which I think improves it somewhat. Robofish (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2010 (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:Bad Job

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bad Job (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template designed to discourage editors from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and BJAODN[sic] - WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL. Sole purpose is to attack users. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 12:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It simply isn't true that the template is designed to discourage editors from further editting. If anything, the template is designed to spur the editors of certain pages to begin editting better. The template isn't even directed at specific users but at articles, just like the Good Job template. Just as the Good Job template is used to let the editors of a specific article know that reliable sources think that they are on the right track (E.g. Xenu), the Bad Job template can (theoretically) pierce the bubbles of Wiki-group-think that can sometimes form by indicating that reliable sources think a certain article is on the wrong track (E.g. global warming). It's one more tool for helping Wikipedia become the best that it can be. Eugene (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no good reason for the template. The place to discuss a bad job is on the Discussion page. PYRRHON  talk   03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are better ways to handle this, especially through discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful, and a breach of policy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This, unlike other templates that we already have, does not state what the problem is. I don't see how it can be used for anything but non-constructive criticism. Cardamon (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • POINTier than a fakir's bed. No good can come of this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even in the very small number of cases where use of this template might be slightly helpful, the {{press}} template does a much better job without violating WP:CIVIL. — Satori Son 14:59, 1 June 2010 (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:North Gippsland Football League

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:North Gippsland Football League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:ORPHAN, WP:NOTE. Template only linked to once in mainspace,teams are not notable. sk8er5000 yeah? 10:53, 29 May 2010 (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.

May 28

Template:Fb event

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 subst and delete. delldot ∇. 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb event (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is trying to apply a standard format to what is effectively proseline. Encouraging or trying to standardise proseline is not useful or desirable, as such information should be converted to well-defined lists, tables or prose. I suggest substituting all existing transclusions of this template and then deleting it. Jameboy (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it looks like a list entry to me, not a line of prose. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no need for content like this to be in a template. Can be subst as here. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 08:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC}
  • Delete Simply no need for it and too trivial for a template. Digirami (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is used on football clubs' seasons which there are a begin and an end, and the timeline is relevant. As a reader, I could read this type of article as a timeline or a prose. But, if it is a prose, it should flow in a timeline way, starting from the pre-season, going throughout the season and ending up on the post-season. Here a example of a season's article in a timeline fashion: http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/0,25212,12038_6171221,00.html. Also, templates are useful to keep a standard and, in an eventuality of changing, all would be change in one single edit. --ClaudioMB (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to make it clear, proseline is not the same as (flowing, high quality) prose. --Jameboy (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substitute and delete, it's not used very often, and it's unnecessary obfuscation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the information displayed by this template can easily be typed up without using a template. --MicroX (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete – it's better not to encourage standardizing prose. Airplaneman ✈ 16:04, 6 June 2010 (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:Tracklist custom

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 Moved to Template:Track listing/sandbox6, without redirect. The editor who created it aside, there is consensus that this template is an undesirable fork of {{Track listing}}. However, there is also a consensus that features found in the fork may be useful. To ensure that this material is available for further use, I've moved the template to a sandbox page. RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tracklist custom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Speedy T3 contested, elevating for discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep for WP:Featured articles & WP:ACCESS. The track-table formatter Template:Tracklist_custom was specially designed and developed to provide customized track-tables, such as for sound recordings listed in WP:Featured articles or formatting to support guideline WP:Accessibility, for sight-impaired users with special needs. Some users read pages with larger text-size settings, such as MS Internet Explorer textsize "Larger" or Firefox zoom-in text. Because the template allows specifying the exact width of table columns, internally it has been completely redesigned, and it is NOT a mere fork of Template:Tracklist, but rather an entirely different implementation intended to look similar for visual compatibility. Running a diff between the 2 templates reveals the extensive differences, on more than 230 lines. It also allows for automatic adding of track-length times, to calculate the total length (in minutes & seconds) of an album or song list. In terms of performance, the internal coding of the template has been optimized to speed the display (or reformatting) of frequently-read articles. Beyond those customization features, the template also checks the validity of the track-table format, to help young readers when writing about record albums (by reporting any misspelled parameters). It would be unfair not to support sight-impaired readers and younger viewers. To simplify maintenance, the template contains extensive internal documentation to explain the coding, which acts as a tutorial in understanding the formatting of track-tables, in general. Because the main purpose of the template is to allow special customization, it also provides an easy avenue for introducing new features, needed only in a few select articles, without risking changes to track-tables used in over 11,000 other articles. After months of long-term testing, such features could later be added into all articles, but "Template:Tracklist custom" frees volunteers from the risk of updating a major template when only a custom fix is needed, while allowing them the freedom to add that feature into all track-tables at a later time. Consider the template as a "lifeboat" to support WP:Featured articles, sight-impaired viewers, young readers, and allow quick customization or new features to be added by volunteers who have limited time. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate. It looks like a lot of discussion is ongoing at Template talk:Track listing. I don't understand the FA argument— if it is good for FA articles, then it is good for all. I also don't understand why a separate template is needed for accessibility— if {{Track listing}} has accessibility issues, then it needs to be fixed. I recommend that this be moved to a subpage of {{Track listing}} and the features worked into the original template with consensus. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original template is stuck in complex discussions which have paralyzed attempts to improve that template, and which have not produced any consensus in a long time. See explanation in subtopic below: "#Analysis paralysis prevented updates to related template". -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and return to implementing these features into Template:Track listing. The first appearance of changes to the template by Wikid77 appeared on May 1, but that was a small change with none of the features mentioned above. At that time I noted on the talk page, "The (new) parameter has not been added to the documentation, nor was it discussed or even announced here. ... I'm not certain of the purpose of this change. Should we revert?" [23] Others agreed to revert, and Wikid77 made further improvements in testing areas, which were discussed at length, mostly to do with auto-sizing the width of columns. Work was also done on improving the "total time" row and footnotes. Over the next week, many requests were made for further changes and explanations of what was being changed, and Wikid77 did a lot of work in handling these requests. Although we were generally enthusiastic about these changes, it wasn't approaching consensus to implement, because Wikid77 was continually adding more features to his proposed version, and the examples on the talk page were continually changing. Also, a lot of the change was quite technical, and usage needed to be explained at a user's level. I (and others) tried to encourage him to create an updated version of the existing documentation in a test area, to move the process along. [24] [25] [26] [27] Wikid77's response was, "The changes are quite extensive, so it will take some weeks to fully document" [28], and I believe he is alluding to this in his reponse earlier in this section when he mentions "volunteers who have limited time".
So the result is that Wikid77 has created a forked template an announced it as basically a "free-for-all" where anyone can make changes without gaining approval or making documentation. I do realize he hasn't actually said this, but when I stated that we don't want a 3rd and 4th version of Track Listing to appear, Wikid77 agreed, suggesting his version could be the one "2nd, customized, template" for "people who do not have time" to get consensus and document what they are changing. [29] (I'm piecing several quotes together and interpreting their meaning, sorry if I'm taking anything out of context, but I believe this is what he is saying.) I disagree that it would take weeks for Wikid77 to provide user documentation for the changes he has made, although I admit nearly all of the new features he talks about in this section are new to me, so clearly he has been doing a lot more work since the discussion dried up on the talk page. But even so, documentation is always essential, and should be written as you go, to prevent it from becoming a big chore later. (I used to work as a programming project leader, and can attest that programmers who don't do this on big projects run a risk of giving themselves too much work. But I really don't think it's reached this point yet, on this template.)
The big problem is that if the custom template is indeed a "free-for-all", then it's quite probable other editors will come in and make changes for their own needs, and mess up its existing usage in articles. I have pointed out that we don't really need to have a template to make a customized table. An editor can just make a Wiki-table. Track lists can be in one of 3 forms: a text list, a custom table, or Template:Track listing (per WP:WikiProject Albums#Track listing). The template exists to establish a reliable, stable, documented table with helpful features. The same could be said for most templates. This is why custom, forked, and undocumented templates are discouraged and deleted (via this page) when they appear. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is NEITHER a fork nor undocumented: it has its own documentation subpage. Keep reading below. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, {{Tracklist custom}} is NOT a fork, but rather a total redesign that produces a track-table which appears similar. Hence, {{Track listing}} cannot be "updated" to have similar capability, but rather, would need to be re-designed to allow those new features. Again, because it is not a fork, the other template cannot be "modified" to produce the same new features: it would have to be similarly re-designed. Second, the discussion at Wikiproject WP:ALBUM was very limited, perhaps by 3 other people, and the result seemed to suggest ignoring guideline WP:ACCESS. I firmly believe that any template designed for use in album articles should not ignore a Wikipedia guideline, even if some members of a Wikiproject think WP polices or guidelines don't apply to them. Currently, {{Tracklist custom}} can be used in articles to support WP:ACCESS, until the other template is discussed to reach consensus for updating it to also support WP:ACCESS. Because the template is NOT a fork, and provides several new features (with documentation), to be used in WP:Featured articles as well as to support WP:ACCESS, there are no grounds for deleting it. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Tracklist custom}} serves exactly the same purpose as {{Track listing}} and started out in it's sandbox as {{Track listing/sandbox2}} so IMO that makes it a fork. So does other people seem to think. I hope you remember that (although it took me several days to figure out what you were talking about) I did agree that {{Track listing}} do have some display issues on narrow screens, and that both myself and A Knight Who Says Nee gave our "weak support" to /sandbox2 provided you could sort out some issues were it degrades the display on a normal sized screen and provide some documentation for all those new parameters you added [30]. Your problems started when you—behind everyones back—moved /sandbox2 to the template namespace and deployed it on Dark Side of the Moon. At this point, WP:ALBUM decided against it and no, we were not 3 but 5 people (excl. you) involved in that discussion [31]. So regarding your endless allusions to WP:ACCESS, it's an upright lie to state that we "think WP polices or guidelines don't apply to [us]". We simply believe that the template in it's current form is not mature. Personally I think that the multitude of width parameters you added is the perfect example of feature creep; we can't expect editors to think about defining column widths in numbers of pixels when they set up a track list. Neither in FA-articles nor in all other. – IbLeo(talk) 17:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as multiple templates serving essentially the same purpose would result in an unnecessarily increased workload for everyone involved. People would have to learn about the differences, evaluate what variant to use for what article (obligatory squabbles included), then there would be maintainance and housekeeping for each individual template, the issue of where to hold discussions that might pertain to either one of them and so on and so forth.
    Now, I'm sure Wikid77 will readily offer rebuttals for each of these points and also promise to become the second template's keeper until kingdom come (even though it is supposedly intended to be a free-for-all effort), but lets just return to Template talk:Track listing and continue working on the consensus behind one template for one purpose. After all, it's not rocket science, just tracklists. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are numerous misconceptions:
  • First, it's not essentially the same purpose, but rather custom formatting in WP:Featured articles (& other new features, not the same).
  • 2nd, to have new features (such as summing the total length of an album), some effort is needed.
  • 3rd, this "unnecessarily increased workload" has been a lot easier than the "necessarily debated consensus" still ongoing for months.
  • 4th, for "everyone involved" is overstating the customization of a few articles, while not involving most of 11,000 other track-table articles.
  • 5th, only a few people would need to learn about new features, and the vast majority would use the original template. Not everyone works on featured articles.
  • 6th, the current "table analysis paralysis" (linked below) has paralyzed the "working on the consensus behind one template".
  • 7th, perhaps it's "not rocket science" but I think it could be called "wikitable calculus": the typesetting and auto-widening of table columns is much more complex than many people imagine, and that is why the 2nd template is a total redesign (the original template could not precisely set the width of columns: it's the wikitable issue of 2% versus 20px).
  • 8th, the resistance to a "2nd template" is unfounded; it's like saying this family can continue taking turns on the motorcycle, we don't need to have both a motorcycle & car, because then there's "increased workload" for car maintenance, and everyone in the town will have to learn how to drive the car, and riding a motorcycle is not rocket science: we can find a way to fit all 5 family members on the motorcycle at the same time, we just need "consensus" to do it, etc.
Please note that a car is "not a fork" of a motorcycle, and consensus does not solve putting 5 people on a motorcycle. The customized template is like a car for WP:Featured articles, while most articles use the motorcycle template, but some users have trouble riding the motorcycle, due to special needs. For them, there is the customized car template, to support WP:FA and special needs. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Template:Tracklist custom is a total redesign (not a fork), it can specify the width of each column as pixels ("220px") plus set a gap-width between the columns. The prior template was not designed to allow spacer-gaps between columns. An analogy is that a car is "not a fork" of a motorcycle, but the car provides new features (4 passengers, A/C, trunk, reclining seats, etc.), while a motorcycle can drive in more places (on narrow sidewalks, through a yard gate, into an apartment for storage at night), so both car & motorcycle are useful. There is a table showing some of the new features; see talk-page: "Template_talk:Tracklist custom#New features provided by redesigned template not fork". -Wikid77 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Several editors clearly indicated the importance of gaining consensus before adding any new features to the related Template:Track listing. However, after more than a year of little progress, on 1 May 2010, I began directly addressing some new features to add. Often, when discussing one feature, someone would request another feature be added, then when discussing that feature, yet another user would object to that feature being added into the other features. In short, no new feature gained consensus, and people began complaining about too many features being considered. A feature requested by one person would be considered "useless" to other editors. The result became a typical "paralysis of analysis". Hence, creating the customized template provided several new features (something for everyone), all at the same time, but none of them would be mandated to require consensus of all concerned users for the 11,000 track-table articles. The custom template allowed some people to use new features, as documented on a new doc subpage, but only applied to a few articles, where results could be specifically tested. At that point, the overall discussion was reduced to considering only 1 new feature for the prior template: changing the width of the table to appear wider for WP:ACCESS, when users have narrow windows (800x600 pixels) or enlarged font (textsize "Larger"). The single focus quickly became mired in wanting the wider table to be the same width for multiple albums, if needed, or only auto-widen to fit the names of the songs (or writers) as actually listed. Again, even when focusing on a single new feature (setting table width), the detailed analysis of table-width with images (or infoboxes), plus auto-widening only to fit actual data, seemed to be returning to over-analyzing the situation and paralyzing any chance of near-term consensus. After another month had passed, the customized template was the only new capability to have been created, combining the ideas of several people to provide something new for each; while with the prior template, the discussion to add 1 new feature (table width) had reached a deadlock, in wanting too much automated-capability for that one feature, in preparation to ask for consensus to update. The result: after extensive discussions, the customized template is the only new capability to allow formatting album track-tables in WP:Featured articles and support for sight-impaired readers (for the articles they are most-likely to find unreadable). It also provides other new features, and helps young readers when first writing track-tables. The related template has not been able to offer those features, so that is why the customized template exists, not as a mere fork, but as an advanced redesign (with separate doc subpage), which allows new features while appearing similar to the other 11,000 track-tables. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, although I think "paralysis" and "deadlock" are unfair terms. Changes were not approved because details of how these features were to be used were not clear, and at the time it appeared you were not prepared to update user documentation, stating that in-code comments were all that would be provided. As for the many features you have added, most of them as described at the top of this section were never presented at all on the Track listing talk page. As for changes requested, there weren't all that many in comparison to the new features you kept adding; a new feature proposed by you was appearing almost daily! All of us have been saying repeatedly that we would like to see these features implemented in the existing Track listing talk page, so I disagree about resistance to change. The problem is, changes were being presented in a way that made it impossible to assess the whole package, including the problem that previous examples on the talk page kept changing, rather than adding new examples. I don't think a rewrite of the coding is a problem either, if it includes all previous features. You have just given up too easily, and have not presented your plan in an acceptable way. When you created a new template, against our advice, I think some of us were kind of shocked, so we objected to this end-run solution, and I still object. But I'm not opposed to the whole idea of overhauling the template. What I'd really like to see, is the changes going back to a user-page proposed version (not used in articles), with some stability, and an explanation of all features and changes in proposed user documentation. Give us a chance to see it, which has not been presented before. And hold off on trying to add more new features for the time being. You will undoubtably get more criticism, reported bugs, and requests for change, but I really don't think it's impossible to have it approved, and you won't know until you try it. Have you done programming as a career, and worked with program change presentations before? I presume the answer is no, but since you are really into programming, this is your chance to learn how it works. Actually, 75% of programming work is in the finalization phase, with presentation and minor fixes. It may be frustrating, but it's a waste of time commit to the first part if you're not willing to do the rest, and I've known many fellow programmers who have to learn that. Please don't take any of this personally! We're on your side, whether you appreciate it or not. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to concur with A Knight Who Says Ni, both your concerns and suggestions would benefit greatly from a more step-by-step approach. It is apparent that few editors are actually convinced of the current template's inadequacies in terms of featured article deployment and WP:ACCESS. Then there are the transparency issues; wouldn't a changelog and a list of known bugs be better suited for a template (or template talk) subpage, than comments within the actual code? General code rewrites might also fare better if presented separately from new features. In order to test and preview new code, I could indeed imagine deployment of a staging version in a predefined pool of out-in-the-wild articles, though, out of due diligence, not those of the featured kind.
    Everything A Knight Who Says Ni said about the programmer's plight has held true in my experience and within the context of the collaborative effort that is Wikipedia, that potential for frustration can go up exponentially. Some of the initial discussions surrounding the original template were no walk in the park either. Maintaining good faith and aiming low helps though. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The internal HISTORY changelog is a software technique used for decades, and it lists only major changes (not every time Bots shift a space/comma or revert a hack). On busy talk-pages, the updates get buried or archived. The 2nd template was tested on several non-FA articles, but someone removed it from all articles, giving the devious impression it had no use.
    Of course, I've done programming (and systems engineering) as a career: that is how I knew to avoid paralysis of analysis with a 2nd template. Also, I expected many people to keep suggesting new features, which is what they did. It was User:Mizery_Made who suggested adding track lengths as "mm:ss". It was User:Bread_Ninja who requested 2 templates, saying, "It would be great if we had to[2] templates, because those related to game OST, one would slightly be larger than the other. we've seen multi templates for stuff like this, why not for tracklist? i was thinking it would have two extra sections, extra and extrab." Hence, now there are 2 templates, with {{Tracklist custom}} providing new features. The further request was for 2 extra columns, such as extra1/extra2 & more1/more2 to put two additional data columns on tracks 1 & 2. So, you see, it was not me, but the other users who wanted more and more new features. I was providing something for everyone, not creating a so-called "end-run" to bypass what people wanted. Even Bread_Ninja specifically wanted this 2nd template, who had seen "multi templates for stuff like this". Indeed, forcing album track-tables to use only 1 template is severe, compared to other templates on Wikipedia. We have both {{Convert|1.85|m|ft}} & {{Height|m=1.85}} for m-to-feet conversions: 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in). So that proves my point: some people want to over-analyze and debate even the obvious: other people requested these features ("No they didn't, you invented it all" ) or other articles have Convert-&-Height ("No, they shouldn't: those are fork templates & extra maintenance"). This TfD entry is just more "paralysis of analysis" in trying to paralyze the solution to the first paralysis. It is a waste of everyone's time. Stop debating, and just work on something else. Leave this template alone, so it can make some progress. -Wikid77 08:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, we are working with the very same editors you are citing on the template talk page right now. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You said, "I've done programming ... that is how I knew to (address this) with a 2nd template". So if, for example, you were on a project involving a database and/or its access applications, and you or a small group had special needs that weren't being addressed by the existing system, and you didn't have time to get improvements added through normal channels, you would consider creating an unauthorized duplicate database or access system for the use of the small group? NO, DON'T ANSWER THAT... I'VE SEEN IT DONE! (The foregoing was stated for a little levity, but it makes a point: I have seen it done, an when it was found out, it wasn't allowed to stay. History repeats.) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On software projects, there is typically a waiver process]] to quickly authorize changes (when no time for approval "through normal channels"), and Wikipedia does not require prior approval to create articles or templates.
    Consider essay: "WP:Redundancy is good redundancy" and the many NASA policies about when to use redundancy, versus variation. There have been several Space Shuttles, but each has been a little different from the others: the next Shuttle to fly might have a new type of computer not used earlier, or some other new features. The exact meaning of Shuttle Atlantis changed, from year to year, depending on the upgrades to the technology in the spacecraft. Multiple templates, or multiple Shuttles, offer benefits in the variation, as well as in the redundancy, and the first computer used on Shuttle Endeavour was radically different (not a fork) compared to the computer on Shuttle Columbia. Multiple templates for similar purposes can produce many benefits over a single template. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this comparison a little off? If we'd apply the same logic to what we are discussing, it would mean that with every new revision of the template, every article using it would either be stuck on the the previous version or have to be manually refitted. If anything, you could losely compare the template to space shuttle blueprints, but with the added benefit, that NASA could refit their entire fleet at zero cost or effort, once the theoretical design has been improved. I'm sure they'd have loved that. And by the way, the original template already has several options to handle different situations in different ways, that's not a novel design paradigm here. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The comparison is how multiple Space Shuttles, like multiple templates, allowed new features (not minor fork improvements). One Shuttle could have a radically different computer to run the avionics flight software, so it would be improper to call the new computer as a "fork" of the older computer. The major new features were possible because the various Space Shuttles could be quite different: some had a large robotic arm, in the cargo bay, while others did not. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, "It was User:Mizery_Made who suggested adding track lengths as "mm:ss"." was not a feature request, but actually a request for your proposed feature to accord to the Manual of Style. – Mizery Made (talk · contribs) 04:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not inclined to believe that forking is necessary to achieve the desired effect here. Whether the template is backwards compatible or not, it's still a fork. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 4 June 2010 (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.

May 27

Template:Firewall software

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 Withdrawn by the nominator without any opposition to withdrawal. (Non-admin closure) Fleet Command (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Firewall software (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Problem: This template is basically does exactly what categories do in Wikipedia and exactly in the same manner; the only difference is that there is a burden of manually maintaining it, while entries may automatically be added to categories.

Recommended course of action: Ensure all articles list on this template are in Category:Firewall software, then delete this template. Fleet Command (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I've categorized the template according to operating systems. Furthermore it would be productive to enhance the template rather then just deleting it, which most lazy editors would do instead of taking time to improve the situation.--IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 18:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so, it has become very useful. Fleet Command (talk) 04:43, 30 May 2010 (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 Christian biography

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. delldot ∇. 01:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Christian biography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant to {{infobox person}}, and was only being used on a dozen pages, so I replaced it with the standard. I am happy to revert these replacements, if alternative solution is desired. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 27 May 2010 (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:Meter

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 Userfy Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Used on one userpage. Previous template of the same name was deleted in 2006, but it was different. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are other wikistress things already. Further this very generic name would be better served by some other use. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace, as that's the only place it's being used. Sorafune +1 20:33, 27 May 2010 (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:Enrique Iglesias single

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Enrique Iglesias single (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template and already redundant to an already similar template. See Template:Enrique Iglesias. Magiciandude (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2010 (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.

May 26

Template:WelcomeTemplateTable

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, no objections. delldot ∇. 01:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was being used on about four template talk pages, and (perhaps due to backend updates) was not working properly. I attempted to fix it, but found it was easier to just replace the transclusions with the equivalent wikicode using {{tlsx}}. Hence, it is no longer needed. If someone wants to fix the template, I am happy to go back to using it, but it seems to be more trouble than it is worth. Thanks Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:28, 26 May 2010 (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:California business citation

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California business citation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specific-source template, one use after two years -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:16, 26 May 2010 (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 Internet celebrity

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 Merge per this and discussion on the corresponding talk page Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Internet celebrity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox person (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose replacing {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} with {{Infobox person}}.
Redundant. All the IIC fields can be replicated using those of IP Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I changed the TfD parameters to avoid confusion on the many articles which transclude it - diff  Chzz  ►  20:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at the transclusions, I note that some of the uses of {{Infobox Internet celebrity}} are not for individual people. I saw some groups, a rabbit, and at least one fruit. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unless, the IP template can support: Birthdates(which I'm expecting it should), other names(like other names assoicated with the internet celebrity), aliases, Period Active (this one is a big concern of mine), host services, genre(s), Notable work(s), and official site. If all of these can be done with IP template, I will rescind my oppose. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant; can be covered using other templates. Airplaneman ✈ 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Infobox Person does not currently support webalias (although other_names is an alternative), host service, genre, meme, meme date and signature phrase. Would such fields be appropriate for Infobox Person, a generic biography info box? --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to add them; they can be replicated using the existing fields of {{Infobox Person}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. - The Infobox for Internet Celebrity is a necessary distinguishable system from other actors and the like in other mainstream media. If I was to say, create a Actor infobox for Peter Oakley (geriatric1927) using an actor, people might get confused. Did he act in a movie? Is he a musician? (the answer to the second question is yes, but that's another discussion). We should strive to have many different infoboxes to ensure one does not become confused with one person's main genre or media. DynamoJax (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redundant to existing infobox templates. As for fields like 'meme', 'running gag' and 'signature phrase', we do not need them - they're entirely unencyclopaedic. Robofish (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep – First of all, there's no real need to merge it into Infobox person. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. Second, IP is missing a bunch of parameters that Infobox Internet celebrity has. Sure we can add them into IP, but why should we? Many of these parameters are specific only to Internet celebrities, such as Meme, Hosting service(s), Genre(s), Web alias(es), Signature phrase, etc. Merging all of this into one template would inconvenience the many editors working with Infobox person. This template is not redundant because it covers specific things not mentioned in Infobox person, similarly to Infobox musical artist, Infobox writer, Infobox economist, and many others. Sorafune +1 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • " Merging all of this into one template would inconvenience … many editors": Since that's not being proposed; your claim is irrelevant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 04:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Template talk:Infobox person for a proposal for the creation of "modules" which would facilitate merging this infobox with "infobox person", in the case that the celebrity is a person. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hold on to see if they successfully implement the module system. If they do, then I will suggest merge. ---wL<speak·check> 06:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a merge if the module system is implemented. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:04, 1 June 2010 (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:Refbox

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. delldot ∇. 01:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Violates MOS:SCROLL; unused. If there is ever consensus to inplement scrolling or collapsing, then the feature should be added to {{reflist}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The |refs= parameter suppresses the references tag and collapses the box, thus in that mode it is redundant with {{hidden}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Hidden}} is too generic and thus unlikely to be consistently used for this purpose. – allen四names 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a {{collapse top}} {{collapse bottom}} around the reference list on the talk page in question. This is the most common method currently used on talk pages, and I see no reason why it wouldn't work here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of use, redundancy with other collapse templates, and concerns that use on content pages would violate MOS:SCROLL. --RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2010 (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.

Old discussions

May 25

Template:Copy

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 replace and redirect. I see one unequivocal keep, but the rest of the contributors agree it should not be used in article space. The suggestion to replace seems to have some support (although it was made later than a lot of the contributors here weighed in, it doesn't look like they'd have a big problem with doing so). So I'm going to replace per Plasticspork's suggestion and redirect to {{copypaste}} per OlEnglish's suggestion (this is kind of an arbitrary choice, feel free to redirect it somewhere else if there's a better target). If anyone disapproves of this, let me know and we'll work something out. delldot ∇. 16:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Citation template used in one article— Louis-Auguste Bisson —where the content does not appear to be copied from the linked text. Used on a few talk pages. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does seem rather inutile, especially for a template with a common word like "copy". Maybe a redirect to something like {{copypaste}} or {{duplicate}} would put it to better use. Of course then someone would have to go and subst the 10 or so talk page uses though. -- œ™ 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and document If a source is out of copyright, and were an encyclopedia, like say EB1911, it would seem useful to use a standardized form in the references list. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly restrict to talk pages. I'm slightly uncomfortable about this being used in articles, where we really shouldn't be copying text from other sources in most cases - except when the source is in the public domain, and even then it's usually better if we rewrite it. The talk page use seems entirely benign, however, and seems like a useful way of moving a discussion from one talk page to another. Robofish (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For talk page discussions, we have {{Relevant discussion}}, {{Discussion at}} and {{Discussion moved}}. For articles, where content is copied from public domain sources, we have a number of attribution templates such as {{1911}} for EB1911. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if we had attribution templates for every and all public domain sources. I think that would be an enormous amount of templates to keep around. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (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:Section:Book reference after author

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 after replacement, no obvious need for a variation in format Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section:Book reference after author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • But this has quite a few uses.. Is there a bot that goes and subst's all the uses first before it gets deleted? I don't think a simple redirect to citebook would effectively take care of some of the transclusions, it looks like it's being used in the middle of the references of a couple articles, won't deleting or redirecting it corrupt these references? -- œ™ 00:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't just delete templates and leave broken markup. If the consensus it to delete this, then it will be replaced with a good template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's great if you intend to do the work in replacing the various templates you flagged for TfD with an upgraded version of them, I didn't realize that's what your intentions are when you put them up for TfD. But for all other templates that go through here-and I'm just showing my ignorance of TfD process here, as I don't come here often-if consensus is for deletion, then shouldn't all its uses should be subst'd first? Could you explain if that is done manually or by a bot in cases where there are many transclusions? -- Ϫ 06:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would fire up AWB and replace this with {{cite book}}, replacing parameters as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:05, 29 May 2010 (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:Section:Chapter reference after author

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 after replacement, no obvious need for a variation in format Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Section:Chapter reference after author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite book}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:11, 25 May 2010 (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:Cite press release v2

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 as the differences appear to be minor, and no obvious reason for a fork Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite press release v2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cite press release}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well.. the creator of the template (who's been missing since 2007) intended it to be a "fork of Template:Cite press release: this template will resemble the news template in format", Though I'm seeing little differences and it's only being used in 3 articles. I think a redirect would do fine here. -- œ™ 00:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't explain why it is a fork; I haven't examined the markup in depth, but there are no obvious differences. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:56, 26 May 2010 (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:Cleanup

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 Keep. There's no other way this is going to go; closed per WP:SNOW. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

too generic to be useful. Constantly misused where a more specific template should be used. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deprecate for new additions, and slowly delete. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is used in thousands of pages so I don't think deletion is really an option. There needs to a generic cleanup tag to handle cases where the specific issue does not exist. The tag should not be used without some explanation on the talk page, but that can be said about several cleanup tags. There is an assumption that the person adding the tag will read the documentation and do this, but any template has the potential for abuse.--RDBury (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Generic is its virtue. You can mark something without having to get into a whole lot of nitpicky bullshit hairsplitting.
    How typically Wikipedia. Take something that's working just fine and blow it the fuck away. Classic.
    Varlaam (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep: for the reasons stated above. Wikipedia does have a tendency to specialize and differentiate to microscopic levels. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate or offer rationale(?) - I agree with the nom and Stifle, it's far too generic as it is really. However... On other non-Wikimedia Wiki's I've seen templates like this used where a rationale parameter is offered to the tagger to explain what exactly needs cleaning up. Though thinking about it rationales needn't be limited to the {{cleanup}} tag. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, of course it would be better if people could say what's the problem. However, not everyone knows all those tags, so this tag makes it easier to say at least that there's some certain problem, without specifying it. So, actually it should be deleted, but currently I don't think that can be done realistically. Maybe something like stub sorting could be started, where people take a look at the articles and then try to give it better tags. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I see what you're saying, stub sorting for maintenance tags or "tag sorting" as it were, would just increase 'pedian workload unnecessarily IMO. If you're not sure what tag you should use you shouldn't be the tagging user. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Pretty much for the reasons above. There's way too many generic issues on this site to just delete this anyway. - Chevellefan11 (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tidy all articles tagged with this, remove the template, and delete as unused. Then marvel at the newly-formed icicles dangling from the gates of Stygia. Alternatively, keep until it's no longer useful. --DeLarge (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can understand the reasons for deletion, but I think that it allows users to flag something up that has general problems, without having to go through the list of templates and specify a list of them. Often these problems are quite obvious, and really just need work to be put in. I think if the template were deleted, it would firstly be quite time consuming to flag up all of the areas where this template is used with more specific ones, and may also discourage people from flagging up problem areas - now, it is simply a matter of saying 'this needs some work, lets put a template on'. I think, however, people should be encouraged to either use a more specific template, or state exactly what the problems are somewhere (edit summary/talk page/section on template), but I would rather keep both options open to people. Fourth ventricle (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The fact that users are forced to know and use wikimarkup to tag bad sections or entire pages is bad enough. Requiring that they know some esoteric template name is unacceptable. {{cleanup}} is fine; if more neurotic editors want to go around sub-specifying, more power to them. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - flawed, but better than nothing. If a user isn't familiar with our vast array of templates and doesn't know exactly which one to use on a problematic article, I'd rather they used this one than left it as it is. It can always be replaced with a better template by a more knowledgeable user. As long as this template isn't hanging on articles for years, I don't have a problem with it. Robofish (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easy to use and can always be replaced by a more-specific template, if appropriate. On pages with multiple issues, it might be better to have this than a series of templates flagging different issues, which can be offputting for editors. A space for an optional rationale to be added would be a bonus. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I pretty much concur with the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One cleanup or five other templates? And per McBride. I hate memorizing template names. —fetch·comms 22:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per above comments. More templates just makes things harder.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all cleanup templates. I'm in the minority on this, but I don't think I've ever seen any cleanup template have any value whatsoever. They are placed there just to express displeasure with the state of the article; rarely do they ever lead to improvements. I've seen articles which have had this template for more than three years now. They're just an eyesore, not motivation for improvement — someone who wants to cleanup and can do so will just do so. I do agree that the genericness of the template is not a problem, though. Shreevatsa (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Is it really necessary to fix something that ain't broke? The reasoning here is that it isn't specific enough, and yet I see a vast majority of users who love randomly going through cleanup tagged articles and cleaning them up, regardless of subject. No need for specifics here. MobileSnail 23:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I echo the words of User:Varlaam at the top. Being generic can be a good thing. And it's been in use for this many years without any major issues, all of a sudden it's up for deletion now?? -- œ™ 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Oracleofottawa (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Generic can be a virtue. --nsaum75¡שיחת!‎ 00:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Snow close. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. TbhotchTalk C. 03:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's too widely used. Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as nsaum75 says above, generic can be a virtue. Suggest early closure of this TfD per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Echoing the points above. - ηyχαμς 08:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep dont see any reason for this template to be deleted.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (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:Non-free-unsure

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free-unsure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created by Zsero (talk · contribs) in order to get around the deprecated {{Non-free unsure}} template. At best, this template should be replaced with {{Non-free fair use in}}. — ξxplicit 06:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete why contribute to ambiguous copyright statuses? Just get a regular tag. —fetch·comms 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per above. -FASTILYsock(TALK) 05:11, 26 May 2010 (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:County7

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. RL0919 (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:County7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Countyrow}}. It was only being used on three pages, where I replaced it with the standard. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:28, 25 May 2010 (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:TPSRM

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, but with no objection to reviving it if the admin resurfaces, or if it turns out it is of some use. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template for WP:RM, in no instructions, thus unlikely to be used, but if used, it doesn't collaborate with the bot as there's no {{movereq}} in it. Furthermore, no documentation and it looks extremely complicated. The Evil IP address (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh, it doesn't look like it's being used much. Its creator (an admin) seems to be missing since 2007, and it looks like this isn't the first of his templates that have recently been put up for deletion. Not that I'm saying this user's templates should be kept, I just think it sucks that he's not available himself to speak up for the usefulness of his templates. It does seem like he put in a lot of work in creating them. -- œ™ 23:40, 25 May 2010 (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.

May 24

Template:Docpng

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 No consensus. RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused and unneeded for any obvious purpose. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Read Template talk:Docpng to see what this is for. Users should be substituting it, so you never will see any inlinks. It's a tool. It isn't worthless because you don't see it used. Hurts you? No. — Xiong熊talk* 21:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad; I had expected the documentation to be included properly in a /doc page. I've moved it there. I still don't understand why this is at all necessary; why would it be important to emphasise that an image is transparent? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be no such expectation. Any old template will have it documentation on the talk page, since these predate the "/doc" convention. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - harmless, no argument advanced for deletion. –xenotalk 03:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument is that it doesn't serve any practical purpose, and that it's essentially an overwrought reimplementation of the thumbnail code. From what I can see, the only reason it exists is to highlight that an image has a transparent background. Without having seen an example of a useful application for this feature I'm given to believing that it isn't actually useful. For that matter, I don't actually understand why it's intended to be substituted either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is harmless, but I don't see the real use. You could do the same thing with {{quote box}}. I'm with Chris— let's see this in use. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:48, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite flightglobal

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite flightglobal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

One use in four years; base on {{cite web}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:42, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite Letters to Editor David Summers Exposure Magazine Vol5

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Letters to Editor David Summers Exposure Magazine Vol5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned hard-code citation -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:04, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List of appendices for a book used as a references; used in two articles, including Plan for Completion of Combined Bomber Offensive where it is half the article -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:02, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite Sm

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite Sm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simple free-form cite template that gives the same output if you remove the braces and pipes; thus you enter more characters than it outputs -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:56, 24 May 2010 (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:Key press/Switch

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Key press/Switch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated meta-template. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite reference

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, but no objection if someone wants to recreate it as a redirect. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Simply calls {{citation needed}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Not setup to pass the date parameter, and I don't think the bots are set up to recognize it. I updated this and don't think it is a useful redirect. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:18, 28 May 2010 (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:Cite paper=

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 Speedy delete, the author most likely had a typo when keying in the citation template, then clicked on the red link and filled in the citation there. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite paper= (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Hard coded citation; two uses; ambiguous name -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:35, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite tweet

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 Userfy until more fully developed, but even then it's not clear that this is necessary, since Twitter is probably not a reliable source, and discouraged per WP:ELNO. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite tweet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New; uses {{cite web}} as a meta-template with a hard-coded title -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - will eventually have its own guts, but I wanted something down and dirty to start off with. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you think it's complete and may be used for articles, then maybe we can use it. But for now, move to user subpage. Sorafune +1 00:31, 26 May 2010 (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:Cite web2

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Cite web}} only difference I can spot is that the title is not in quotes -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:17, 24 May 2010 (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:Ecuador NFT results

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador NFT results (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant. All the links redirect to links in the template Template:Seasons in Ecuadorian football. Digirami (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2010 (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:Mlww

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rarely used, and there's no point in using a template to track section links. We have a working bot that tells people on the talk page about incorrect links. I agree it would be great if MediaWiki could track this, but we shouldn't use complicated templates to get this feature. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite visual

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 Keep for usage with visuals which are not videos or episodes. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite visual (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{cite video}} -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is also being used to cite other, non-video visual works on several pages. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 22:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Example please. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few.
There are more, but that's sufficient to prove my point. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 14:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first article cites Guns of the Crimean War— if it isn't a book, then I can't figure it. The second is a sign, the third a plaque— not strong sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first one clearly states "Interpretation board". The third one is a plaque mounted on the wall of a museum relating information about its re-opening. The reliability of the sources isn't at issue here, the use of the template is. As it is, this template is in use and should not be deleted unless an appropriate replacement is available. Cite Video is not a suitable one. Ranger Steve (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template is to allow the citation of information boards and signs in public places. It is not intended for the citation of videos / CDs / DVDs etc. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2010 (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:Cite web3

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite web3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; appears to be a test -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:43, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite your edits

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite your edits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant; used on one article talk page -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose. Although not much used, it was intended to be used to help keep articles undergoing active improvement (as opposed to incidental improvement), on track and focused on adding material demonstrated to be verifiable by the inclusion of citation, a problem still seen all over the project. Instead of deletion, I think more use of the template would be a better outcome. I see it's placement at a banner topping a call for tightening up the factuality of an article as a reasonable, productive use of the template. Finally, the comment that it is 'redundant' seems random, because no template to which it is redundant is linked, and claiming that it's redundant to the core ideas is irrelevant because we are all aware that most new editors do not stop first to read all those, and article undergoing lots of revision and improvement in short periods often attract newer editors watching the recent changes. ThuranX (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This attempts to use an article talk page banner to fix a social issue. Someone who is not citing statements is not going to read or heed this message. The proper course is to tag or delete suspect entries, add welcomes to new user pages and discuss issues on user and article talk pages. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we have plenty of other maintenance and warning templates for dealing with these issues. This is simply redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:51, 2 June 2010 (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:Cite wolfram alpha

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. JPG-GR (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite wolfram alpha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Specific-source template that uses the Wolfram Alpha answer engine as a source; can't see how this could ever be considered a reliable source; two uses -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm sorry, but what do you mean by "not reliable"? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unlike other search engines, Wolfram Alpha has a great deal of content built into its search function such as mathematical functions. While I think there are probable better ways to cite information, it's not unreliable in the slightest. A better argument for deletion would be that it may be considered a primary source but even then may still be used occasionally. OlYellerTalktome 03:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a search engine, it is an answer engine. Where does it get the answers? What makes it reliable per WP:RS? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wolfram Alpha is a tertiary source, an knowledge aggregator that has a staff that vets its facts, like an encyclopedia or almanac. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The documentation needs some explanation on how to obtain relevant answers. These are all articles I have worked on recently, and none get any meaningful return:
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Arthur Eldred|input=Arthur+Eldred|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Arthur Rudolph|input=Arthur+Rudolph|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Pershing missile|input=Pershing+missile|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Boy Scouts of America|input=Boy+Scouts+of+America|accessdate=2010-05-30}}

This actually gets a very short bio, but shows his real name as Green Bar Bill instead of William Hillcourt (which returns the London Stock Exchange quote for William Hill): 

* {{Cite wolfram alpha|title=Green Bar Bill|input=Green+Bar+Bill|accessdate=2010-05-30}}
It might be OK as a research tool, but not a source.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to vote "keep" because I think that the Wolfram search engine is great, and that this template idea is excellent. It would make citing easier. Then I ran a search for New York City population, and checked the source information. Wikipedia is listed. Using this template could mean that Wikipedia is being cited. NYCRuss ☎ 13:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is an excellent search engine, and a great research tool for gathering sources, but it should not be used as a source, especially since Wikipedia is one of their sources. Using this would frequently lead to a circular citation network with no reliable sources. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As stated above, use it as a research tool, but due to the risk of circular citation of Wikipedia and possible presence of other non-reliable sources in their aggregation, I can't see how this would pass WP:RS. --RL0919 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2010 (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:CiteCat

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned; saves only a few characters if you use the pipe trick -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:22, 24 May 2010 (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:Cite-require-one-or-none

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 per author approval Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite-require-one-or-none (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite-require-all (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cite-require-both-or-none (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned, documentation does not explain what these are useful for. -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke 'em. I created them several years ago when there were too many separate implementations of citation templates, and they've been rendered obsolete in the interim. RossPatterson (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2010 (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:Cite book3

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 Deleted by Dragons flight. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite book3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned; appears to be a test, if still needed then it should be moved to userspace -— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:41, 24 May 2010 (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:Poem

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is linked from pages besides the talk page. However, it is used on only one page, Wikipedia:Haiku about Wikipedia policy. It's use in that one page could easily be replaced by a header notice. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:39, 24 May 2010 (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.

May 23

Template:2009 Eastern League season by team

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, most are nearly unpopulated, and no objections to deletion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2009 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly orphaned; those that remain bluelinks will be deleted soon anyway as the result of recent AFDs. Also delete:

Template:2008 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2007 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2006 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2005 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2004 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2003 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2002 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2001 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:2000 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1999 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1998 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1997 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1996 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1995 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1994 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1993 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1992 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1991 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1990 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1989 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1988 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1987 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1986 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1985 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1984 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1983 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1982 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1981 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:1980 Eastern League season by team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A lot, but none are needed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, lean delete. Hypothetically, the redlinks would be populated. If they aren't, I don't see a need for the templates. Also, is there a need for season articles for AA level teams? Resolute 03:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Season articles for minor league teams are rather silly, as most of the main articles barely have information to begin with. Anything of note from seasons could be merged in if found. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as they become orphaned? Rich Farmbrough, 05:59, 2 June 2010 (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:LSY-0

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 per author approval. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LSY-0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-0n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-1n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-2n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSY-3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated (and orphaned) templates, which have been replaced by newer templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all per CSD G7. --GW… 22:24, 23 May 2010 (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 Einstein Family

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 (by WikiLeon). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Einstein Family (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used once, any point for having an own template for one family only? Can't the common person infoboxes handle this? The Evil IP address (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2010 (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:Citation not needed

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 Deleted Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Citation not needed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template not set up, created in April. Have a really hard time imagining why we would need a template for citations not needed. WikiManOne (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2010 (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:Main Article:The Amity Affliction Discography

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 Userfied Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main Article:The Amity Affliction Discography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Article content like this shouldn't be transcluded via a template. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved content to article space with no redirect, and merge proposal. Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 24 May 2010 (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.

Various portal templates

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 Replace all with the equivalent {{portal|name}}, any formating problems can be discussed at Template talk:Portal Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) The following portal templates were nominated for deletion by User:WOSlinker as being unused and redundant. I am grouping them together for ease of discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that most of the 24 portal linkbox templates below not be deleted. These templates were created as part of portal development. Each of these templates has functionality not available with the suggested alternative. Thank you, Buaidh (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why you did not propose your new features on Template talk:Portal? If there is a benefit to adding this functionality then it would make sense to add it to this template not create a new one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion, Buidah has been very productive, and initially I saw ((all) the navflags as just another user shortcut. But on closer inspection they provide merely a layer of confused indirection (I include the inconsistency of naming to about 12 different name styles - which does not apply here - and the passing through of parameters which although unused then place a prima facie contract on {{Portal}}), also providing scope for overriding images, which is a licensing issue (fair use images are not allowed), make combining into portal boxes more difficult. Rich Farmbrough, 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'VE BEEN CAUGHT! As Rich Farmbrough suggests, my true goal is to undermine, and ultimately destroy Wikipedia. I thought I could concealed my ulterior motives, but you have found me out.
The reason a created these portal linkbox templates was to avoid the mishmash of linkbox images and image heights that Template:Portal creates. The creation of the Template:Portal/Images files solved the first problem, but not the second. The creation of Template:Port was intended to solve the second. Without Template:Port, these templates have no utility. Please see Template:Port&oldid=363649697 for further information. --Buaidh (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the templates in Category:Wikipedia Portal navflags can be replaced by Template:Portal. The reason most of these templates are not in use is because User:WOSlinker has recently replaced their invocations with Template:Portalbox or Template:Portal. I have no time for an edit race. --Buaidh (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They only had at most a few transclusions each beforehand. I'll respond over at Template talk:Portal about my suggestions for improvements to sizes. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's disingenuous to remove uses of a template, then state that a template is not used in a deletion discussion. Next time, please have the discussion first, then remove the uses if that's what the discussion determines. This is not the first time you've gone around the back of discussions in this way. You do a lot of good work, but you're also making a lot of people mad by undoing their work, then stating that what they've been doing doesn't exist. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 09:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'll be more descriptive next time and state that there were either a few transclusions and those were replaced or no transclusions at all. Rather than just say that they are not currently used. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons stated above. And btw, the whole removing uses of a template to say they are not used is just simply dishonest and dumb. WikiManOne (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, to ease maintenance and ensure a consistent formatting. --The Evil IP address (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace all. Despite WOSlinker's less than honest tactics (as detailed above), I agree that it's best to keep some things, such as this, uniform to make everything easier to maintain. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the portal syntax is being changed following wide-ranging discussions on Template talk:Portal and Template talk:Portal box between several editors involved in these portal templates. Please do review those discussions. I don't think the actions are unilateral or dishonest as you suggest. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be the case, but the method which WOSlinker used was less than honest. Removing all/most usages of a template, then nominating it for deletion as "unused" is not honest in the least, regardless of any previous discussion someplace else. That's what I object to. As I wrote above, I think this is a good idea, and support this proposed change; I just object to how WOSlinker did things. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep all 50 U.S. state portal templates. --Buaidh (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the associated wikiprojects should have been informed of the deletion of their portal templates... 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious concern - this is like CFD in the bad old days, 2 editors in a dark corner talking to only themselves and changing massive parts of wp - - not used and redundant in one location and projects not notified - fine for those who have a good practice or capacity to comprehend the minuitiae of portal construction - however to the outsider (average editor) this is where the process that has been used is inadequate - although template talk portal and template talk portal box might not be on everyones talk list - there could well have been something more explanatory and elaborate and forthcoming about what is going on SatuSuro 01:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as redundant and an apparent attempt (hopefully in good-faith) to circumvent consensus on {{Portal}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A walled garden consensus without informing the maintainers of various portals that a new consensus was attempting to be formed. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is there a reason why we can't just redirect them all to the portals they're redundant to? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are redundant to the template {{Portal}}, not the portals themselves. They mostly transcluded {{Portal}}, but they do it in different ways and create unnecessary dependencies. Some of the names don't follow any convention ( not all in this tfd but there are or have been - xx portal, xxportal, xxPortal, xx Portal, portalxx, portal xx, yyportal, yyportalzz, zz and others, where xx is the name of the portal, yy and zz are some other string) which makes it hard to put portal flags into portal boxes. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Good point. On that basis, delete all. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: The only difference between the linkbox pairs below is that the first of the two linkboxs is of uniform height and has a centered link label. If we add these features to Template:Portal, we can delete all of these templates. --Buaidh (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as centring goes, that should be uniform and can be put in portal with no difficulty if people think it is good. Alternatively it can be removed from WPbox. And when you say "uniform size" you mean "uniform with WPbox" - all the {{Portal}} boxes are uniform with each other. Again WPbox or portal (or both) can be changed if global uniformity is wanted. Alternatively WPBox has parameters to override height and width of the image. (Portal has "size" but it is deprecated and currently unused as far as I can tell.) Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Portal/doc indicates that size= is the only image sizing parameter, although the unlisted height= and width= parameters can be used as well. By uniform height, I mean all images are set to a given height, or two pixels less if the image is given a one pixel border. Template:Port sized the images this way, but Template:Portal currently does not. Image size=32x28px yields a image height of (32 pixels/image ratio) if the image ratio is greater than 8:7, which many images are, especially flags. Most flags of British origin have an image ratio of 2:1, which yields an effective image height of 16 pixels or 18 pixels with a one pixel border. I reduced the maximum image height of Template:Port to 24 pixels and increased the maximum width to 60 pixels to accommodate these wider flags, although 28 pixels or another maximum image height would have worked as well.
I strongly recommend that the following functions from former Template:Port be added to Template:Portal:
  1. This template can add a border around the image and adjust the image size accordingly.
  2. This template can adjust the maximum image height. The default is 24 pixels or 22 pixels with a border.
  3. This template has a default maximum image width of 60 pixels or 58 pixels with a border.
  4. This template can align the link text to the left, center (default), or right.
  5. This template can display substitute link text.
  6. This template can break the link text in any way desired. (See #Template:Commonwealth realms portal below.)
--Buaidh (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Swiss Army knife we want to avoid. Portal is used on nearly 3 million pages (mostly talk) and special cases for a few pages create unnecessary overhead. Secondly the navflags should be consistant - I defer to others on whether that is centred, how tall, does it need a border etc (note there are flags with borders in the image library - and they are easy to make) and many other questions that belong in central discussion over at Template talk:Portal. Possibly we should template {{Navflag-height}} to contain a standard height for navflags - and perhaps we should constrain the aspect ratio; there are other symbols than flags - but again they are questions not for this TfD but for the central discussion of the portal template and/or other nav-flag templates. Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Alabama portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Alabama}}[reply]

Template:Alabama portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Alabama}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. --Buaidh (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This template is in use on a number of articles. - Dravecky (talk) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:South Dakota portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{Portal|South Dakota}}[reply]

Template:South Dakota portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{Portal|South Dakota}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:South Dakota. --Buaidh (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Northern Mariana Islands}}[reply]

Template:Northern Mariana Islands portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Northern Mariana Islands}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Maine portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Maine}}[reply]

Template:Maine portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Maine}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:Maine. --Buaidh (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Guam portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Guam}}[reply]

Template:Guam portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Guam}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:United States Virgin Islands portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|United States Virgin Islands}}[reply]

Template:United States Virgin Islands portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|United States Virgin Islands}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:American Samoa portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|American Samoa}}[reply]

Template:American Samoa portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|American Samoa}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this U.S. territory portal template. It is used at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals. --Buaidh (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Iowa portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Iowa}}[reply]

Template:Iowa portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Iowa}} , Also portal doesn't actually exist. WOSlinker (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please keep this state portal template. I created Portal:Iowa. --Buaidh (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Astronomy portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Astronomy}}[reply]

Template:Astronomy portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Astronomy}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Asia portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Asia}}[reply]

Template:Asia portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Asia}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Antarctica portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Antarctica}}[reply]

Template:Antarctica portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Antarctica}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth realms portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC) {{portal|Commonwealth realms}}[reply]

Template:Commonwealth realms portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Commonwealth realms}} WOSlinker (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China portal

The result of the discussion was Delete, any tweaks to the image can be handled at {{portal}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|China}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case the portal image needs to be replaced with File:Chinaimg.png - The PRC flag should be used for the PRC portal. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Ecuador portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Ecuador}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cambodia Portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{Cambodia Portal}}
Template:Cambodia Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Cambodia}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chicago portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Chicago}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is now one global template, this is a valid deletion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Mathematics portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mathematics portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Mathematics}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this was used, but now it is unusued. Now it is impossible to gage the amount of use that the template had. Why was it unlinked before the TFD, without any notification to the mathematics WikiProject? — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On or around 12th March 2010 this template was in use on two articles dealing with Babylonian numbering. Both have portal boxes now. The article "Mathematics" had the default "Portal" template with no arguments. 122 other articles had a link via Portal|Mathematics. Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Hvportal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Hudson Valley}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Languages portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Languages}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Judaism portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{Portal|Judaism}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it is useful if used. Just exactly where is "{{portal|Judaism}}"? -- I can't find it and until then, this one here is the only one we've got for anyone to use. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Redirect, now I see it, it works. IZAK (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 07:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It works, IZAK, check it on your talk page. Debresser (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here... Rich Farmbrough, 21:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Template:Japan portal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japan portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Japan}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador Wikiportal

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ecuador Wikiportal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Ecuador}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HungaryPortal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Hungary}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Template:Hungary portal --Buaidh (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Iceland Portal

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iceland Portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used and redundant to {{portal|Iceland}} WOSlinker (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2010 (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:Lists of Greeks

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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of Greeks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, 7 of the 13 links are redlinks, 2 of which have been deleted under afd, and one of the remaining blue links links to a category, not a list. EmanWilm (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2010 (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.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 22 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 21 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 15

Completed discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices

[[Category:Wikipedia templates|PAGENAME]]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=365536443"