Wikipedia:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:41, 2 June 2010

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header

Current discussions

April 20

April 19

Template:WikiProject_Ballet_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 delete. Garion96 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused project fork of {{Cleanup}}. Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to project banner.--mono 01:15, 20 April 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 The Sopranos season one

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. Garion96 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season one (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season two (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season three (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season four (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season five (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates which are redundant to List of The Sopranos episodes and the Prev and Next links in Template:Infobox television episode Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not fully redundant. I am not sufficiently familiar with The Sopranos to say, but there are certainly series where you are likely to want to navigate within a season (24, Dr Who, House for example). Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, but given their orphaned status, it appears as this isn't the case here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:53, 27 April 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 UK place/police

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 deleted by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK place/police (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox UK place/map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned subtemplates of Template:Infobox UK place Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - long superceded, no prospect of being used in future, history not needed as the replacement template did not use any of their material. Warofdreams talk 18:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied - Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 19 April 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:Cc-by-3.0-Kollywood

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. So Why 11:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-3.0-Kollywood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied Unused.--mono 01:15, 20 April 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:Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels

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) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since nothig within the body of the template actually links to an article, this is more of a list article than a navigation template. J Greb (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article content does not belong in template namespace. Reso lute 14:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Are you freaking kidding me? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above.--mono 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute deletion, consider WP:SNOW.--Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
move content to article space. Rich Farmbrough, 23:10, 20 April 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 Template:Day-2}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-3}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-4}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-5}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-6}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-7}}

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]

Replace with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} like this on talk pages. The usage in the article should be removed. The name of this template is somewhat confusing, and it isn't widely used. Once it is replaced, I would support redirection or deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} per Plastikspork's suggestion. Airplaneman ✈ 16:02, 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: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? -- œ ^™ 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. Tbhotch^Talk ^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. - ηyχ αμς 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}}. — ξ ^xplicit 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. -FASTILY_sock^(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]

Delete as redundant. Speedy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:09, 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: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. –xeno^talk 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. OlYeller^Talktome 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]

Delete, redundant to {{C}} and {{Cl}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly named. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (author's request) – Chuck (talk) 14:11, 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-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]

Delete Replace with {{notice}} ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:12, 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.

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? Reso lute 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. --G W… 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]

Delete and use one of those "ahnentafel" things, or Make general {{Infobox dynast}} if it is wanted for other families. Actually all that's missing from {{Infobox person}} is grandparents and generation - which is subjective anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 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: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]

Speedied. Joke template. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 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: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 Satu Suro 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]
  - If that's the case, it needs to be dealt with elsewhere, not by creating a template fork. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:37, 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:

This template can add a border around the image and adjust the image size accordingly.
This template can adjust the maximum image height. The default is 24 pixels or 22 pixels with a border.
This template has a default maximum image width of 60 pixels or 58 pixels with a border.
This template can align the link text to the left, center (default), or right.
This template can display substitute link text.
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]

Keep this was discussed recently already. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Rich Farmbrough, 06:07, 2 June 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]

Keep It is not the PRC portal. The PRC portal is Portal:People's Republic of China ; not Portal:China. {{portal|China}} is wrong. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or, more specifically, replace its content with {{portal|China}}). That creates the exact same output as this, so the two templates are redundant. rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:07, 27 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]

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]

Redirect to {{Portal|Judaism}}. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 24 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]
- Then it should be part of {{Article History}}, not a WPP banner. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:02, 25 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]
  - Yes, and your point....? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - One is a legal requirement in order to be compliant with the project's copyright license. The other is not. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please assume good faith. The editor didn't understand the point. While this may exasperate you, expressing that exasperation on this talk page is not constructive. ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 11:28, 27 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 14:32, 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]
- It breaks it. Bots archive by timestamp. This is one of the most commonly-cited reasons to insist upon proper signatures. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:53, 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]

Delete Use named refs or just copy/paste.--moɳo 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 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-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]

Delete Use named refs or just copy/paste.--moɳo 01:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 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-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]

Substitute and delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 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 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]

Delete - I agree. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inflammatory. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and unuseful. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
!Delete I was making it to show people disucssing whether or not vandals should be given leeway (per WP:ROPE). A p3rson ‽ 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essays which assume bad faith of contributors probably shouldn't be promoted from templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes A p3rson, I understood so when digging into the essays pointed to. No blame! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:09, 22 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 [1] 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]

Delete Another redundant template (created January 2010) in this case redundant to the original {{Nové Zámky District}} created May 2006. See also . Note: Hungarian names are minority/alternative names in Slovakia. iadrian (talk) 22:42, 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.

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. --G W… 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:

“

Left the {{Usher}} navbox with nothing in...--L.Geee 08:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

”

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]

Delete as redundant. Pfainuk talk 10:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not needed. Kubek15 ^write/sign 17:44, 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]

Delete as redundant. Pfainuk talk 10:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not needed. Kubek15 ^write/sign 17:45, 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]

I think Thumberward makes a good point with {{Di-disputed fair use rationale}}. Any problem in simply usiing this template? --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:11, 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: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

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.

Template linking and transclusion check – Toolforge tool to see which pages are transcluded but not linked from or to a template
WhatLinksHereSnippets.js – user script that allows for template use to be viewed from the Special:WhatLinksHere page
AutoWikiBrowser – semi-automatic editor that can replace or modify templates using regular expressions
Bots – robots editing automatically. All tasks have to be approved before operating. There are currently five bots with general approval to assist with implementing TfD outcomes:
- AnomieBOT – substituting templates via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster
- SporkBot – general TfD implementation run by Plastikspork
- PrimeBOT – general TfD implementation run by Primefac
- BsherrAWBBOT – general TfD implementation run by Bsherr
- PearBOT II – general TfD implementation run by Trialpears

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.

Template:Infobox_tropical_cyclone2024 March 10 – Infobox_tropical_cyclone ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Infobox_storm2024 March 10 – Infobox_storm ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Merge into the singular {{infobox ship}} (currently a redirect):
- Template:Infobox_ship_begin2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_career2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_characteristics2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_characteristics ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_class_overview2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_class_overview ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_ship_image2022 April 30 – Infobox_ship_image ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_service_record2022 April 30 – Infobox_service_record ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
  I have hacked Module:Infobox ship which implements ship infoboxen without the external wikitable that the above templates require. Uses Module:Infobox; {{infobox ship begin}} is no longer required; parameter names are changed from sentence- to snake-case; section header height for career, characteristics, service record sections is normalized; custom fields are supported. I chose to retain the individual section templates as subtemplates:
  - {{Infobox ship/image}}
  - {{Infobox ship/career}}
  - {{Infobox ship/characteristic}}
  - {{Infobox ship/class}}
  - {{Infobox ship/service record}} – Module:Infobox ship implements only the 'ship' portion of {{Infobox service record}}
  In the main infobox these subtemplates are called with the |section<n>= parameters (aliases of |data<n>=).
  
  Comparisons between wikitable infoboxen and Module:Infobox ship infoboxen can bee seen at my sandbox (permalink).
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Since the intent is to use Module:Infobox directly, why is Module:Infobox ship being used to generate the infobox? I can understand if there is need for a backend module to validate a value or something, but is there really a reason to have this unique code? Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The original complaint was that the ship infoboxen templates are table templates masquerading as infobox templates. None of those templates use Module:Infobox. Module:Infobox ship answers that complaint. Yeah, we still have subtemplates, but, in my opinion, that is a good thing because the appropriate parameters and their data are contained in each particular subtemplate. The container subtemplates make it relatively easy for an editor reading an article's wikitext to understand. The current ship infobox system allows sections in any order (except for the position of {{infobox ship begin}} – not needed with Module:Infobox ship); whatever the final outcome of this mess, that facility must not be lost.
  
  Module:Infobox ship does do some error checking (synonymous parameters |ship_armor= / |ship_armour=, |ship_draft= / |ship_draught=, |ship_honors= / |ship_honours=, and |ship_stricken= / |ship_struck=). Whether {{infobox ship}} directly calls Module:Infobox or whether {{infobox ship}} calls Module:Infobox ship which then calls Module:Infobox is really immaterial so long as the final rendered result is a correctly formatted infobox.
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Trappist the monk are you still interested in working on this Module? If not, I'd like to try to get it finished myself. The massive deviation I had in mind was to make one invocation of the module do everything. Each page will require individual attention to complete the merge into a proper infobox anyway, so I reason to go the extra mile to make it nicer in general. Repeatable parameters will have the normal n number appended to the end of the parameter. An alternative would be to have subboxes for repeating sections, which would be easier in general to replace and implement. SWinxy (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure, but I don't think that this page is the proper place to discuss. Choose some place more proper and let me know where that is?
  
  —Trappist the monk (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replacement with {{Infobox aircraft}}:
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_type2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_type ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_career2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_career ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_program2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_program ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_begin2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_begin ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
- Template:Infobox_aircraft_engine2023 January 22 – Infobox_aircraft_engine ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) → {{Infobox aircraft}}
  - For {{Infobox aircraft engine}}, There is an ongoing discussion about whether the aircraft engine Infobox should be merged with the Infobox aircraft or not. Except for the engine Infobox, other Infoboxes can be orphaned and there are no objection for that. Prarambh20 (talk) 22:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - This discussion is still ongoing, so I have moved it back to the "to merge" list with the others. Primefac (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - The discussion has now ended (diff), with the consensus NOT TO MERGE {{Infobox aircraft engine}} with the others. However {{infobox aircraft begin}} may or may not end up being merged into {{Infobox aircraft engine}}. The template pages should be updated accordingly. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:07, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation templates

None currently

Link templates

Template:Lx2023 October 1 – Lx ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Pagelinks2023 October 1 – Pagelinks ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Because Lx has the option to hide certain links and PageLinks itself doesn't, a direct merge is impossible. The next best thing would be to convert the transclusions to invocations of Module:PageLinks. Doesn't look too impossible at first glance. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Problem: Lx's 20,000 transclusions are kinda fake, because almost all of them are transclusions of transclusions.
  Even if we restrict it to the template namespace, most of those are transclusions of transclusions of transclusions in the doc subpage. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The more I look at this, the more it appears technically infeasible. Lx has some really bizarre arguments like tag and label which can't be replicated by Module:PageLinks. When Lx was used to link to a normal page, namespace is usually Talk and label is usually talk, but when it's used to link to a talk page, either could be anything. Also, the recursive transclusion issue means the only way to get our pages would be an insource search, which means we'd also have to deal with pages like this.
  Replacing all uses of the format \{\{[Ll]x\|1=\|2=(.*)\|3=Talk\|4=talk\}\} with {{Pagelinks|$1}} could be a start. From there, I'm totally lost. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 16:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  What if we only replaced uses matching an insource search in the template namespace, and then substed everything else? Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Template:Football_squad_player22020 February 1 – Football_squad_player2 ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases ) and Template:Football_squad_player2020 February 1 – Football_squad_player ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Note Pending Redesign RfC robertsky (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've closed the RfC. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point this is ready for large scale replacement. I said a while ago that I could do it but due to me being quite busy IRL this seems unlikely to get done in a timely manner. If you feel like doing a large scale replacement job feel free to take this one. --Trialpears (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trialpears, what large-scale replacement? I (foolishly?) jumped into this rabbit hole, and have been in it for over a day now. This is a very complex merge; I've got the documentation diff to show fewer differences, but there's still more to be done. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Auto_compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Auto_compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Compact_TOC2023 March 6 – Compact_TOC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisource author2023 July 5 – Wikisource author ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Wikisourcelang2023 July 5 – Wikisourcelang ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- Hi now that {{Wikisourcelang}} is being merged, how do I use the merge target template to point to sister language Wikisources? All the links keep incorrectly pointing to the English version and the documentation of {{Wikisource}} has not been updated about this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Folly Mox, the merge has not yet been completed, so you should use the appropriate currently-existing template to do whatever it is you are planning until the merge is complete. The existing uses will be converted appropriately at that time. Primefac (talk) 09:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oops, I forgot I had posted here. My assertion was incorrectly based on the first instance I had tested, which had been misusing parameters in such a way that it worked prior to the start of the merge process but not afterwards. The links to en.s/lang:page do properly redirect if the parameters are used correctly, but I didn't initially follow the links to check. It was quite an embarrassing hour or so of my contribution history. Folly Mox (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Wikisourcehas2023 July 5 – Wikisourcehas ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )

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]

Template:Archive2023 December 7 – Archive ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Automatic_archive_navigator2023 December 7 – Automatic_archive_navigator ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Archive_navigation2023 December 7 – Archive_navigation ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
I've ported the missing parameters from {{Archive}} to Module:Automatic archive navigator/sandbox. I'm in favor of renaming the module and changing {{Archive}} to use it, while redirecting {{Automatic_archive_navigator}} to Archive. I'd really appreciate if a template-editor could give this a look. — mw (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the discussion at Template talk:Automatic archive navigator about whether or not these parameters should be ported over. |prev= and |next= from {{archive nav}} will definitely need to be added though. --Trialpears (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of that discussion, thanks. If it turns out that they shouldn't be ported, feel free to revert my edits. I'll look into the other params later.— mw (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Facebook_page2024 February 21 – Facebook_page ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Facebook2024 February 21 – Facebook ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
- While the result was "merge" it seems that this should be moved to "convert" as looking at Craig Kilborn, the ID used there is "The-Kilborn-File/107748632605752", while the new one is at https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100082874612029. The number is different. Unless I'm missing something else there is nothing here to merge. --Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite_GREC2024 March 26 – Cite_GREC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:GEC2024 March 26 – GEC ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Jonesey95, just looking at transclusions (of both templates), neither one seems to work; only the "English version" of {{Cite GREC}} seems to amount to anything. Did the URL structure change, and if so should we only link to the English/GREG version? 14:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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.

Template:In_Crimea2023 October 3 – In_Crimea ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
Template:Systemic_bias2023 October 9 – Systemic_bias ( links | transclusions | talk | doc | sandbox | testcases )
2023 October 25
- {{R from related}}
- {{R related}}
- {{R to related}}
- Adding this from RfD as it's template related. --Gonnym (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

April 20

April 19

Template:WikiProject_Ballet_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 delete. Garion96 (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused project fork of {{Cleanup}}. Rich Farmbrough, 19:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to project banner.--mono 01:15, 20 April 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 The Sopranos season one

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. Garion96 (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season one (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season two (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season three (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season four (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox The Sopranos season five (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned templates which are redundant to List of The Sopranos episodes and the Prev and Next links in Template:Infobox television episode Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not fully redundant. I am not sufficiently familiar with The Sopranos to say, but there are certainly series where you are likely to want to navigate within a season (24, Dr Who, House for example). Rich Farmbrough, 19:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, but given their orphaned status, it appears as this isn't the case here. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:53, 27 April 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 UK place/police

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 deleted by Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs). RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox UK place/police (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox UK place/map (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned subtemplates of Template:Infobox UK place Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - long superceded, no prospect of being used in future, history not needed as the replacement template did not use any of their material. Warofdreams talk 18:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied - Rich Farmbrough, 19:33, 19 April 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:Cc-by-3.0-Kollywood

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. So Why 11:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-3.0-Kollywood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied Unused.--mono 01:15, 20 April 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:Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels

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) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dalek comic strips, illustrated annuals and graphic novels (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Since nothig within the body of the template actually links to an article, this is more of a list article than a navigation template. J Greb (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article content does not belong in template namespace. Reso lute 14:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Are you freaking kidding me? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above.--mono 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute deletion, consider WP:SNOW.--Absenteeist Ⓣ Ⓒ 19:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
move content to article space. Rich Farmbrough, 23:10, 20 April 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 Template:Day-2}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-3}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-4}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-5}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-6}} {{Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 Template:Day-7}}

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]

Replace with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} like this on talk pages. The usage in the article should be removed. The name of this template is somewhat confusing, and it isn't widely used. Once it is replaced, I would support redirection or deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} per Plastikspork's suggestion. Airplaneman ✈ 16:02, 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: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? -- œ ^™ 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. Tbhotch^Talk ^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. - ηyχ αμς 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}}. — ξ ^xplicit 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. -FASTILY_sock^(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]

Delete as redundant. Speedy? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:09, 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: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. –xeno^talk 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. OlYeller^Talktome 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]

Delete, redundant to {{C}} and {{Cl}}. --The Evil IP address (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete badly named. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (author's request) – Chuck (talk) 14:11, 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-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]

Delete Replace with {{notice}} ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:12, 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.

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? Reso lute 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. --G W… 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]

Delete and use one of those "ahnentafel" things, or Make general {{Infobox dynast}} if it is wanted for other families. Actually all that's missing from {{Infobox person}} is grandparents and generation - which is subjective anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:04, 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: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]

Speedied. Joke template. Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 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: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]