Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JPG-GR (talk | contribs) at 16:26, 14 August 2009 (→‎Old discussions: rm {{Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 5}} - day is complete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Template loop detected: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header

Current discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2024 May 30


August 13

Template:Official

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 keep Plastikspork (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason to use a template for something like this. The link text is unlikely to ever be changed. External link templates are only useful for sites that may change their link format (e.g., YouTube) while still maintaining the same identifiers. --- RockMFR 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the link is unlikely to change, the template provides a standard format for labeling links to official websites. In that regard, it's useful for consistency across the project. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep convenient short cut to having to type "Official website" every time (albeit a very minor one). Also it serves to standardize the way official sites are linked to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. MaxVeers (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per C.Fred. The Flash {talk} 02:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. Filmcom (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using templates like these provides consistent formatting across all articles. BOVINEBOY2008 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per others, this provides a standard and a easy way to format the addresses and text. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Snow Keep per above and the 6177 transclusions of this template. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - per Tothwolf and C.Fred. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - gah, stop this abomination. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly useful template, no reason to delete. Agent0042 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Japanese track list

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 05:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese track list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created a short while before the more standard {{Tracklist}}, and would not have been proposed had {{Tracklist}} existed at the time. All of the instances of the template in articles have been updated to use {{Tracklist}} instead. Based on WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template points 2 and 3, I think it should be deleted, and the template's creator User:Ned Scott has also agreed. 十八 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chronology of 2009 swine flu cases in the Philippines

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chronology of 2009 swine flu cases in the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost same case with Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_30#Template:2009_flu_pandemic_table_in_Thailand. If we need something like this we can just put it in the article. Moreover, I have serious doubts if we need to record cases day by day. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after substitution. Single use template that fits only one article. Agreed on the lack of a need for a day by day update (how long is this going to be tracked?). Monthly would be better, or at the very least, weekly until that becomes too long. Resolute 14:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Header image

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 now redundant to {{top icon}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Header image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should probably be deprecated in favor of the more widely used {{top icon}} template. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you only want it deprecated, why not mark it with {{tdeprecated}}, migrate all usages, and then redirect? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the indenting/offsets work differently... perhaps a merge of the coding is in order. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made the template at {{Header image}} before the new template existed. The {{top icon}} template seems a bit more robust and I have no issues with deprecating in its favor assuming variable width indents are supported with the new template. I would suggest making the Header image template a redirect or transclusion and replacing its use in {{header image set}} as well. I think this can move forward as I am the only user of the template. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will move both back to your userspace in case there is something to merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 12

Template:RaisingtheBar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 07:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this is inappropriate. We are dealing with: 2 articles (one of the TV series and 'one episode list, 2 creators and actors. Actors should not have nav boxes like that. They usually play in tenths of films, tv series, etc. Creators also. If simplified, this navbox will end up with 2 articles which are already good linked to each other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, navboxes for shows should not be in the articles of actors (unless perhaps the role was extremely significant in their career), only articles about characters themselves. The only place the template is used besides the actors (and creators) is the show's own article, where it duplicates links that are already there. Unnecessary and improperly used. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Macbethchar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by WP:CSD#G7 Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obsoleted by Template:Macbeth (both were used together in all instances), and this one is no longer in use. Xover (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created this template and the new one has made it obsolete. Wrad (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HWOF sentence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Plastikspork (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HWOF sentence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to substitute a sentence stating that the subject has a star on the HWOF. It is currently unused and is an unnecessary obfuscation the prose which it generates, in that, the generated prose cannot be reworded to better fit the paragraph or list in which it has been placed. Plastikspork (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Twitter

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 now. The consensus was that when the addition of a Twitter link is appropriate, achieving a uniform formatting through the use of a template is desirable (per {{YouTube}}, {{myspace}}, {{imdb}}, {{facebook}}, and others). If, in the future, it is determined that links to Twitter feeds should be banned then this template should be reconsidered for deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(I had this all written up already, but Twinkle tool ate it.) In brief, Twitter is not a valid source, and the only way it ever qualifies as an external link per WP:EL is in some theoretical situation where a Twitter page is the only official web site of a person or group notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and of course anyone that notable would no doubt have a real website too. So not only does this template serve no valid purpose, but it interferes with XLinkBot's ability to remove links to Twitter. DreamGuy (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. There is practically no reason to link to twitter, especially not using this template. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can think of a few instances in which we could use a twitter link, but those are all exceptions, and we don't need a template for that. Delete. --Conti|✉ 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'd argue that a person's twitter account could meet criterion #4 on the WP:ELMAYBE list, and I'm not entirely convinced that the assertion "of course anyone that notable would no doubt have a real website too" is correct, so, as I said: "weak keep". -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "[R]eal website" here meaning more appropriate sources of information belonging to the subject, if there is an official website 'www.subject.com', then that is of course the best, but even 'only having a myspace page' would win easily from 'only having a twitter account'. There will be exceptions, subjects that have only a twitter and still are notable, but this is not the blacklist, they can be linked in the normal way, using * [http://www.twitter.com/subject subject's official Twitter] (that would only be prohibited by blacklisting, and then there always is the whitelist for such rare cases). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way to validate that a twitter page belongs to the actual celebrity and as DreamGuy said, if they are a notable enough person, they should have their own website anyway. CTJF83Talk 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If you're going to dump this, there are also similar templates that link to Myspace and Facebook pages that are used on celebrity bio pages as external links. Seems like the same argument applies. As for whether a given Twitter account is actually that person, that's best handled on a case-by-case basis. (A link to "official web site" could just as easily be incorrectly linked to a fan site, editors can easily fix). Personally I think if its valid to link to a celebs official web site, its valid to link directly to their Twitter too. --Krelnik (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter is, just like MySpace and Facebook discouraged per our external link guideline, and that is just why they often do not meet the reason for inclusion. For official webpages, that is much less the case. However, a myspace, as an official page, contains sufficient information, and subjects with a only a myspace may easily pass our notability guidelines. For 'only a twitter' those will be significantly less. To put it in an order, official webpages should be linked before Myspace and Facebook (actually, when there is an official homepage, MySpace and Facebook should often not be included), when there is no official webpage, the MySpace or Facebook become the official pages, and one or two of those are chosen. If there are no official Myspace or Facebook, then Twitter may in the end become the official page, but I wonder in how many cases subjects with only a Twitter feed are notable enough for a Wiki article. Moreover, deleting this template does not disable the link, one has to link to it in the normal way of linking, and in quite some cases, the twitter-template is not used in accordance with the external links guideline (Britney Spears has an official webpage, and a probably a whole set of others, like MySpace and Facebook, yet, Twitter is linked in her external links section, I would say that that is not in line with 'links to be avoided in the the external links guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken on being able link anyway as needs arise. Here's an example of where I've linked to Twitter recently that I think is valid, an article I wrote about a music venue in my town: The Tabernacle (external links). The official site for this venue is a Flash site, which is a problem for some users. The operators of the venue post announcements on Twitter and Facebook, and somewhat less often on Myspace. As far as I can determine, all three are official. For some reason (probably newness) I can find none of them via the official website, and the info posted is not duplicated in any way on the official site. (I.e. the official site is more of a static brochure about the building). Now Facebook, of course, requires you to join to see content which is a problem under other guidelines, so Twitter is the only publicly available HTML way to get the latest news on this site. I think listing all three is valid simply because a given user might have a preference in what service they want to use to best find the latest news from this venue (i.e. they like Twitter but dislike Facebook, or vice versa). I admit to being relatively new, so correct me if I'm insane here. --Krelnik (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to mention, that when I loaded the Britney Spears Twitter yesterday afternoon, she just told her father on the site that she was coming to eat dessert with him. Quite an addition to Wikipedia, that part of information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Krelnik, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is explicitly named as an invalid argument in deletion discussions. Do you have any reason for keeping this template (which is different from keeping the links, an issue that is not at all affected by the decision about the template)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I'm tired of arguing at this point. I said "weak" keep, didn't I? I always assumed that templates like these existed for two reasons: (1) insulating Wikipedia against changes in the URL structure of the external site. I.e. if twitter changes user pages to be twitter.com/user/foo instead of twitter.com/foo, then this one template changes and 160+ pages are fixed; and (2) it standardizes the "look" of these external links so they are consistent from article to article, and with the other links like Myspace and Facebook. In this case "krelnik on Twitter". Again if someone says it should say "at" instead of "on", this can be altered in the template. That's all. It's just a consistency timesaver. --Krelnik (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Templates like these exist" because it is possible for anyone to make any spammy piece of crap template they want. The process is fully backwards. External link templates should only be allowed if there is a broad consensus for one, not becomes somebody decided to make one someday. This is a rogue template that goes against a broad, longstanding consensus. The Myspace and Facebook templates likewise have no consensus, but the consensus that Twitter is a lame external links is more broad. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the discussion here about avoiding Twitter, Facebook, etc., goes beyond anything stated in the external links guidelines. There is no rule saying that a subject's official pages on social networking sites are to be avoided if the subject also has an official regular website. The guidelines say to avoid such links unless they are official pages. The guidelines don't say that a subject can only have one official page or that only one of them can be linked, nor is there any hierarchy saying that, for example, Facebook is to be preferred over Twitter. So there should be plenty of opportunities to use this template. --RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous voters. I would like to remind users that it is not only people that hold Twitter accounts, organisations do too. See ITV, ITV2, GMTV, Big Brother (UK), This Morning (TV series), Britain's Got Talent... DJ 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And do any of them not have official websites to link to instead? No, so your argument has no bearing on this discussion. Wikipedia is not a web directory or all official sites of a topic. We link to *the* official site, and that site no doubt links to the official Twitter page, if there is one, so we have no reason to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see this as similar to {{Imdb name}} or {{MySpace}}—it's useful information and a place for readers to get further information. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless Facebook and Myspace are also up for deletion! These are all interesting primary sources (very changeable and useless as references but) a place that users can find out more about people they are interested in, often worth including in the external links section. As myspace and facebook are walled in if you are not willing to log in then what twitter shows publically can be quite a lot more than the others.
    Would actually be a good plan, though they at least provide some stable information about notable people, as I mention above, the Britney Spears Twitter informed me yesterday that she was going to have dessert with her father. Quite interesting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A lot of the accounts are verified, and there are ways to verify them in other ways. This is a ridiculous nomination.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they are verified or not, they still fail [[WP:EL] rules quite dramatically. What's ridiculous is that anyone who claims to be working on an encyclopedia would even for a moment think a Twitter link makes any sense at all. DreamGuy (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy "quite dramatically" at all. Read the links to be avoided section of WP:EL very carefully. The very first line says Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject and item 10 specifically mentions Twitter. Note in particular the footnote on item 10, which says: Note that under WP:External links#What should be linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is an official website for a business, organization, or person. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website, and more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. I read this to mean that if the Twitter feed is officially associated with the person, organization, business, etc. it can be linked as long as it provides useful content not otherwise accessible in other external links provided. I think my use of Twitter in The Tabernacle (which I talked about above) is an excellent example of exactly this. (I'm not using this template there right now because of this discussion) --Krelnik (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you read the External links page more carefully, because there's no justification for crap links like this under any criteria. We are not a web directory. We cannot link to every site on the long list of sites a person or group can have an official presence on. This has been very clear for ages. Trying to read that very clear language you even quoted that directly contradicts your argument as if it supports your side is just ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The language he quoted would allow for a Twitter link if it is to a subject's own official page that is "not prominently linked" from another official site that is already linked, assuming the Twitter feed provides "unique content" rather than duplicating stuff available from the other links. So it is not at all ridiculous to quote it. It's not likely that this will create some "long list of sites" because most of the time I expect the subject will either 1) link to their Twitter page from another site already linked, or 2) the Twitter feed will mostly be links to stuff the subject has posted elsewhere and thus not unique content. Either of those situations would "fail" the Twitter link. But if it passes both those tests and is verifiable as the subject's own Twitter feed, then it should be just fine under WP:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, why do we ignore the intro. The twitter can indeed be linked, if it really adds to the page. As I quoted Britney Spears above, I am really enlightened that Britney is going to have dessert with her dad. That is really the information I was waiting to hear. I am sorry, twitter does not add often to a page, and certainly not to the extend that it needs an own template, it can just be added as a link (IMHO, that also goes for myspace and facebook, they do not need an own template. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now, depending on how this RFC turns out. Personally, I do know that Twitter is starting to authenticate some of these celebrities' accounts; to what extent so far I don't know. If there is a way to verify that the account indeed belongs to said celebrity and not to some Joe Schmoe Fanboy out there, then I think it could possibly be included, which would facilitate the need for this template. MuZemike 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verification of Twitter accounts is a non-issue, as if they are authenticated they are still not at all in line with WP:EL rules.DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are times when Twitter should be linked (completely ignoring the obvious "official website" issue, it's used as a ref on occasion), but these links simply do not require the overhead of transcluding a template. This is a (small, but real) waste of resources. I hope that the template is deleted, and that someone sets a bot to convert all of the template uses to just plain links. For the supporters of the template, please note that "deleting the template" is not the same thing as "removing the links". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you are telling the supporters of the template to note this, you should also say the same thing to all those who oppose the template specifically on the stated grounds that there should be no (or virtually no) Twitter links to begin with. It's the justification given in the original TfD proposal! Moreover, it is clear from both the TfD proposal and the discussion here that this TfD was motivated by complaints that the template interferes with a bot that allows for mass removal of Twitter links without giving any prior regard to whether they meet the WP:EL guidelines or not. Not much point in creating a bot to change the templates into links if there will be another bot right behind to delete them, which is rather obviously the end result that should be expected. --RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me at a bot that is deleting external links? The only bot that I know is one that reverting the edits after addition by an unestablished or IP account. It would not even see a bot changing the template into links, as a bot is, almost by definition, an established account. The deletion of the links would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Please answer the specific question: This is not a referendum on whether Twitter feeds should be used in this or that situation. The question at Templates for Deletion is not whether Twitter should be linked in a given situation. The only question that the closing admin cares about is, "Is it better for valid links to Twitter feeds to be wrapped up in a template (which adds the processing overhead inherent in transcluding anything, and makes them invisible to XLinkBot), or should editors use plain URLs for the same, already assumed-to-be desirable link?" If plain URLs are better, then the template should be deleted. If plain URLs are not better, then the template should be kept. At the moment, there are at least five plain URLs to Twitter feeds for every version that's wrapped up in the template, so most editors are picking the plain URL, but someone might have an idea about why a template is better than a plain URL. If you have an opinion on whether plain URLs are better than the template, already assuming the feed should be linked, then please share your thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's how I see it. If consensus determines that Twitter shouldn't be allowed at all as external links, then there would obviously be no need for the template, making the TFD far less controversial. Even if we do allow said external links with the strictest of restrictions, then I feel that's a cause to discuss here (I personally happen to learn towards inclusion at this point). Perhaps this TFD as ill-timed and probably could have waited until the RFC brings some sort of closure to the general Twitter debate. MuZemike 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am afraid that the RfC was filed as a result of this deletion debate. My personal opinion: these external-links-templates are all superfluous, why not use normal links anyway? What do the templates add? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Templates add consistent formatting if nothing else. Until the template became widely used IMDB links were formatted in wildly inconsistent ways and were often given terrible link text (not quite as bad as "click here" but almost). -- Horkana (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMDb links are acceptable links. Formatting them consistently is valuable. Twitter links are prohibited links. They will never be "widely" used. Not only should they not be uniform, they should be anti-uniform links because each one that does exist should be individually justified on the talk page of the article. Having templates for prohibited links is weird even by Wiki standards. 2005 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well put. I trust that the closing admin will take account of your comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Links to Twitter feeds are not a useful external link as per WP:EL and even if it were, this is not a useful template just making a link to twitter.com/{{{1}}}. If there is a particular status link that is a good source, then it can be linked directly. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for use as a primary source since some people WP considers notable have well-publicized Twitter accounts. 68.167.191.17 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am tempted to strike out your !vote, because you clearly misunderstood the purpose of this template. --Conti|✉ 08:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Twitter links are prohibited by the external links guideline and should be removed on sight, so having a template for them is ludicrous. 2005 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Twitter links are pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement that rarely contain any WP:RS information. Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment – Having a template for Twitter legitimizes the links, i.e., it gives the impression that they are "approved" by the community … the existence of a template simply encourages their use. — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The external links guideline is a style guideline, not policy. It includes Twitter under Links normally to be avoided but they are not banned or forbidden. I would have no issues with someone linking to the twitter feed of a well known notable individual in the external links section of their BLP article and I think it might be worth considering moving Twitter feeds from item 10 to 11 in Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Considering that Twitter is effectively a micro-blog, it seems sensible that it should be included in item 11 anyway since it specifically deals with blogs of notable individuals. The issue of XLinkBot and templates is something that should be taken up with the bot operator and is not something for TfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, this is not a question if twitter links should be kept, the question is if such external links need an own template. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the reason that information can - and has - been posted on Twitter before anywhere else (see here, here). --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny, you cite here two reliable sources to state 'the information was first published on Twitter', but a) that still does not make Twitter itself a reliable source (but we are talking about external links), neither is this proof that Twitter is actually, generally providing information which is adding to a page. Such specific posts on Twitter might actually be an, albeit weak, source for something, not the whole feed. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit it's WP:WAXy, but we have {{YouTube}}, {{official}}, etc. in the same vein as this template for an acceptable reason - to reduce boilerplate slightly and make linking a bit easier. Also, in the future semantic wiki, this template would provide a way to make it easy for programs to pick out a subject's Twitter account (and possibly more; use your imagination). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, is this saying 'we should link to as many as possible off-wiki sites of (subject), so that later with semantics we can programmatically find the subjects (site) account'. Thus that would mean that (subject) should have linked here all of {{BlogSpot}}, {{Facebook}}, {{MySpace}}, {{Twitter}}, {{YouTube}}-channel, {{Digg}}, {{Delicious}}, {{NewsVine}}, {{CiteULike}}, &c.? Don't we have {{Persondata}} for that semantic work? (I must say here, yes, that is good, and I am actually doing that botwise, but .. I don't think that this is the way to go on with that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WhatamIdoing's comment, above, this is not about whether or not we should link to Twitter (though not linking to the Twitter stream of people like Stephen Fry or Jonathon Ross would be ludicrous), but how such links should be constructed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In special cases, even twitter can be a valid link--it is increasingly being used for serious purposes, and if it is the best link for a particular person instead of the more conventional blog, it may be the right one to use. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a useful template, I don't see how it violates WP:EL, for people (as said) like Stephen Fry or Ashton Kutcher a link to their twitter is a good external link in my opinion -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template. This does not mean that all links to twitter should be deleted, just that they need to be justified per WP:EL. The template makes it easy to add inappropriate links that cannot be found in any reasonable way. An argument for keeping the template could be made if it added an admin category so its use could be monitored, otherwise the template will be abused to move Wikipedia further from an encyclopedia and closer to a social networking forum. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, it is easy to find out what articles have links created using this template. Just go to the template page and use the "What links here" feature to find transclusions of the template on articles. Like this. However, adding an admin category would make it easier to monitor additions/removals. --RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a Twitter feed is notable, then it can be noted in the article but a twitter stream is not a reliable source where one would go for further information on the subject of the article as required by WP:EL. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that virtually every use of this template would be to link to an article subject's own official feed. Use of Twitter as a secondary source would be very dubious, and even as an external link a Twitter feed from anyone other than the subject is very unlikely to meet the guidelines. Doesn't mean the template itself is bad, just that it should only be used when the link itself is appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A link to a person's twitter feed is simply a list of the most recent 140-character updates posted. It is not in any way a useful link as per WP:EL for further reliable information on the subject of the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This makes spamming very, very easy and these links add little benefit to most articles that they appear on. On the rare occasion that our guidelines would accept a twitter link it can be added just as any other external link, which isn't any harder than having a template. Link templates should be for links that are generally considered useful, such as dmoz. We should not be encouraging the linkage of sites such as twitter. ThemFromSpace 02:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per DGG, RL0919, and MuZemike. Milo 10:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Snicket element

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Snicket element (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely useless. The article using it can do without it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Charmed" 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 delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charmedcharsub1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Charmedcharsub2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CharmedSeeAlso (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chrmd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ChrmdBeing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chrmdchar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ChrmdMchar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chrmdsect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cseason (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Andy Trudeau (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Book of Shadows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All these templates are used to make linking to various articles and sections "easier", by using horribly complicated templates. So instead of typing "[[List of Charmed characters#St. Claire, Leslie|Leslie St. Claire]]", you type "{{Chrmdchar|Leslie|l=1}}" and so on, which saves a few keystrokes while being quite confusing, especially to newbies. I'm pretty sure templates aren't supposed to be used like this. --Conti|✉ 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Good grief. I fully suspect that more keystrokes were spent building these templates than they can possibly have saved. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per WP:CSD#1632. This is a known mess and is highly inappropriate. The crux of this mechanism is cementing franchise spam into the project by making pruning difficult. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have joined Andy Trudeau and Book of Shadows (both orphaned in article space, just like the rest of them). Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine by me. --Conti|✉ 08:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per om.nom Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having inline navigational templates that depend on the structure of specific articles is a bad idea. As suggested by Jack Merridew above, these will make it difficult for editors to cut or restructure the related articles without breaking a lot of template-based references. --RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Simpsons character

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Infobox character, bar the crass colour scheme. Other cartoon characters manage just fine- see Fred Flintstone. DJ 02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons given here. -- Scorpion0422 02:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Per above. The Flash {talk} 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep half of the templates in Category:Fictional character infobox templates should be deleted before this one. Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to start somewhere. --Conti|✉ 10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Scorpion. Gran2 06:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above CTJF83Talk 07:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scorpion. Very useful template, especially the Tracy Ullman shorts part. Template:Infobox character has too many parameters (such as age, date of birth/death, and religion) that will lead to unnecessary edits wars. Theleftorium 14:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Rhino131 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've updated it to use {{Infobox}} as a Meta template, {{Infobox Character}} just didn't seem to fit the purpose for this one without changing the template layout. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievably Over-The-Top High Keep (Keep) Come on, who would ever want to have probably one of the most popular cartoon of America's template destroyed? It's useful, and I don't get a single speck why this template was put up for deletion. Jeremjay24 msg 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is obviously an overlap with Infobox Character, and a lot of the concerns about the additional fields in that other template are overblown, since all the fields are optional. But this template does have some fields that aren't available in Infobox Character, including 'voiceactor' and the specialized first appearance fields. If/when the generic template is expanded to include these, then deletion could be reconsidered. --RL0919 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ludicrous nomination. McJEFF (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Dvferret (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Simpsons episode

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/snow keep - This was a unanimous "keep" three weeks ago; this discussion appears to be headed down a similar path. Although consensus can change, it hasn't done so yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Infobox Television episode. The "Chalkboard" and "Couch gag" fields should be added into the articles through prose - their inclusion alone shouldn't mean we have a seperate template. Most shows have motifs, but they don't have their own templates. DJ 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The template is custom made so that the various episode lists can be included at the bottom (As far as I can tell, that parameter is not available in the generic template. -- Scorpion0422 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't mean that this show should get its own template. Other shows seem to manange this way... DJ 02:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is this a WP:POINT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom then? Whether or not the show "deserves" it is irrelevant, the infobox includes a number of unique entries and features, so it is useful and helpful. Personally, I find the various season lists (like this one) very useful and I think every series inbfobox should use them. I'd like to point out that if this one is deleted, every template in this category would have to be too, so I suggest you list them here. -- Scorpion0422 02:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those reasons (as a matter of fact, I like the show). My reason for nomination is that the generic template is there; why is The Simpsons any different? It's WP:COMMONSENSE. DJ 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that The Simpsons is not the only series with an individual template. See Category:Television episode infobox templates. -- Scorpion0422 02:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid point here. DJ 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said "My reason for nomination is that the generic template is there; why is The Simpsons any different?" I was just pointing out that you were incorrect in your assumption that The Simpsons is alone in having a sole template. -- Scorpion0422 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Not only is this used on 400-something articles (most of which are GAs) but it has barely anything included in the Television infobox, only writers, directors, prod. code and airdate/guest stars. Read the previous VFD on this to see everyone's reason. The Flash {talk} 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a sensible way to summarize information about Simpsons episodes. The chalkboard gag and the couch gag don't really fit anywhere in the body of these articles. And the main TV episode template doesn't contain space for show runners. The Simpsons has had several show runners over the years, each of whom fostered a distinct influence on the overall feel of the show. (Compare the David Mirkin era with the Mike Scully era, for example.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The template is not only used by The Simpsons, but it is an inspiration for the templates for other shows. So if you want to delete it, why not delete Family Guy's, South Park's and Malcolm in the Middle's episode template along with this???? It'll take a long and painstaking process that can take weeks, maybe months to acomplish. Think of the time that'll be used, wasted just to delete a template used over 400 articles. Bottom line: The template should NOT be deleted at all costs. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let's stop nominating templates with the apparent scope of bulking up the wp:*fd edits. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Couch gag and chalkboard make sense in the box and the seasons are incredibly useful. Wouldn't mind them in more shows. — JediRogue (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, however, I do prefer to see the episodes listed in an infobox on the bottom. Its where I look for it first and then have to think about finding it at the top. However its still keep for me. — JediRogue (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per the consensus reached in the deletion discussion, when was it? Last week?... Gran2 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep - Per all above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above - The template was nominated for deletion less than a month ago. See here. Theleftorium 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) Strong and snowball Keep Why are we doing this just weeks after the last one??? CTJF83Talk 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sympathetic to the argument given in the nomination, but the last TfD for this less than a month ago and was an overwhelming "keep." It is silly to even have it nominated again so soon, absent any concerns about how the last TfD was conducted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the arguments given above. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 11


Template:DC Supervillian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 06:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DC Supervillian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

By title and current placement by the author, this navbox covers Category:DC Comics supervillains which contains 675+ articles (692 w/ redirects) and Category:DC Comics supervillain teams which covers an additional 62 articles. I'm sorry, that way to much for a navbox. J Greb (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed the utility of such a box is questionable with such magnitude. Additiionally, this is a box with fairly wide parameters (particularly for a comics navbox), and the line between villain and hero is often gray in modern comics (should Captain Atom be included or Hal Jordan?). Finally, villain is spelled wrong in the template. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. J Greb beat me to the nomination. This template will either encompass 675 articles, making it pages long and a uselessly indiscriminate list in template format, which is already served by the category pages, of it becomes a limited list with an arbitrary determination of which characters are worthy for listing. It adds nothing to any character page that isn't already there in either format. ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though it won't stop from being deleted. If you look at it has been changed and is only stuck with more major characters. Although since the name of the template section is spelled wrong, I guess there is no way to change that unless by moving it which I did enough of that, I guess it should be deleted. But I was hoping it wouldn't. For right now I think the spelling of it on the main page is the only problem now. Maybe I could be allowed for a do over after the deletion, then it should be fine. Captain Virtue (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, the miss-spelling and the cut-and-paste moves aren't really the issue. It's the potential breadth of the 'box.
      I can appreciate that you have a specific idea about what the 'box would be, however, once it's put in place, it becomes fair game for others to add to. Right now we've got issues with characters/topics/articles that are being added to relatively narrowly defined 'boxes - {{Hulk}} is a big one where Spider-Man, X-Men, and Thor specific characters keep getting added because "Hulk fought them" - and with what constitutes a "notable" or "major" character for inclusion - {{Batman}} and the never ending "add my fave" debate. The last thing we need is a set of, at a minimum, 4 navboxes (DC and Marvel, hero and villain) that will each either run hundreds of articles in content or be a serious strain on editors fighting over which characters are "notable" or "major" enough, or actually rightly DC or Marvel characters for that matter, to be included. - J Greb (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with what you just said if there is one thing that I would put out if you notice inside the edit template it specifically says please don't add anying or delete without discussing why first. And then I would hear them out and approve or disaprove, normally if someone would argue why a character would be in there it's because he maybe does in some respects like arguing that the Ventriloquist should be in the Batman enemies section. So in a way I don't mind if they add one they just need an strong reasoning and source in the talk page before adding. Captain Virtue (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even with such request, that does not negate that the template has very broad and poorly defined inclusion criteria, which consequently diminishes the utility of it. - Sharp962 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Conti|✉ 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not as bad as Template:Lists of countries was, but still too close for comfort. Bloated to the point of harming usability. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appropriate as a category, not a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too broad to be a navbox. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Supervillians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Similar to the above TfD. Though this one looks like it was an earlier version of that template. Either it's a duplicate or it's a potentially larger navbox. J Greb (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As stated above, poor utility and confusing. Spelling errors. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete As per J Greb, it does look like this would be a clean up of the more relevant category above. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not necessary for right now. It is an original, if it stays, I do have plans for it that I have already have discussed to you J Greb. But still I just realized the spelling of the title supervillain was wrong and that's my main focus of why it should be deleted. Captain Virtue (talk)
  • Delete. Same reasoning as template immediately above, plus misnamed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too broad to be a suitable navbox. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reason as for the related template above. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:After War Gundam X mobile units

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:After War Gundam X mobile units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles have been merged to List of After War Gundam X mobile weapons. As a result, this template is no longer used and no longer needed. Farix (Talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WPCouncilRec

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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)

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

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Template:WPCouncilRec the utility and purpose of this template has become unclear. Much of the language is redundant to material already present in Template:Project and no alternate wording or usage for a project footer for WikiProjects with respect to the WikiProject Council is clear. Optigan13 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as indicated on the linked discussion, the template has outlived its usefulness. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the linked discussion. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links a few episodes out of hundreds on the grounds that they feature Sideshow Bob. See discussion for deletion of Family guy road trip. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My logic for creating the template was that users were continually adding a list to the Sideshow Bob page. Also, these episodes are unique because Bob has had so few speaking parts so it does have a well-defined and limited criteria and easily linking between episodes does have its uses (now if it was episodes featuring Homer, THEN it would be pointless). Is this a WP:POINT nomination? -- Scorpion0422 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. All episodes should be linked, within prose, from the character's article anyway. DJ 01:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what about linking from the actual episodes? Cape Feare and The Italian Bob share a direct link (Sideshow Bob's involvement), so the template is useful in tying them together without listing all similar episodes in every article. -- Scorpion0422 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template has little to no significance to articles and has no reason to be used. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the kind of navigation box I would actually use. The main Sideshow Bob doesn't have a quick-to-read list of the different episodes. Yeah, they're all mentioned in the text, but you have to scan through the whole article to find the one you want. The Sideshow Bob episodes are a significant group of episodes in that they have their own internal continuity, so it makes sense that users would start reading about one, and then want to read about the others. (By the way, I'm not familiar with the Family Guy template you mention, so a link would be helpful.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a template hidden at the bottom of the pages and links articles with a narrow and well defined scope. If this does gets deleted, I would suggest adding a collapsible table to the main article if this template is deleted. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I find it useful. Even if all these things are referenced in prose, I tend to look for infoboxes for my navigational needs. However, its not as useful on the pages for those episodes. Still its not really that much less useful than Template:Religion in The Simpsons. In general, I prefer infoboxes to scanning through the article to find the links I need. — JediRogue (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear navigational purposes for Sideshow Bob episodes. CTJF83Talk 07:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful navigation tool for the Sideshow Bob article and the episodes he appears in. Theleftorium 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above. The Flash {talk} 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful navigation tool. Rhino131 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the Family Guy template, the articles in this template are actually significantly related. Navigation helper. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sufficient articles linked to warrant a nav template, and the character is a major component of the episodes listed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Dt128 SpeakToMe 16:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HIS BIRTHDAY

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as test page. Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HIS BIRTHDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, replaceable by typing "May 9, 1980" (which actually involves less typing than using the template). Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Harris Jayaraj

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harris Jayaraj (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and inappropriate use of template, not used anywhere. Johannes003 (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Four articles is not enough to warrant a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:R from 1632 character

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per myriad of related 1632 discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009

Template:R from 1632 character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and inappropriate use of templates. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Untrue

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 06:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Untrue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Note - the template creator and several of the participants in this discussion were found to be WP:SOCK accounts. These have been collapsed or stricken. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this template because it accuses Wikipedia content (and inherently, those who added it) of containing fabrications, lies, etc. It says that there is an intent to mislead people, which is an accusation of bad faith, and further says that "such fabrication must be immediately removed." Per WP:SOFIXIT, if an article truly contained WP:BLP violations or gross untruths, any editor should simply deal with the problem, or if it is in the context of an edit war or article ownership problem, an editor should bring it up on a talk page or notice board rather than leaving a comment that the article is a bunch of lies. In practice, this kind of template simply becomes a way of registering discontent. The template is relatively new and infrequently used. Most legitimate uses of this template are better served by adding the "NPOV" or "Unreferenced" templates.

  • I'm going to pose a question here. Can anyone point to a place where the template has ever been used appropriately? I discovered it because it had been placed on a controversial article by an editor who thought the article was biased, which is clearly not a good use (good faith editors should not accuse other good faith editors of spreading lies). Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • response to your question - right now, this article is located on the page Zachlumia. without this template, the article would recquire five separate templates in order to contain the same ifnormation. I feel that having just one or two templates that re more inclusive is both more educational to editors and readers but less cluttery and less unpleasnt to look at. User:Smith Jones 17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you not see how inherently absurd it is to take the time to place a template that reads "Such references and claims must be immediately removed." ? If something is that serious of a violation, then JUST REMOVE IT. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in a prefect world, it would be easy to be bbold and simply strip things that violate policies. however, this is Wikipedia nad not a magical fairyland where everyone agrees all the time. in the spirit of collegial and cooperatiev editing, we must instead of unilaterally taking action decide to work with the users who put such information on the article and work with tem on the talk page to preven tthem from turning into a violant content dispute or a WP:3RR violatron. This article is to call attention to all passing editors that some content is in serious dispute allowing for a collegial and respectful resolution rather than the edit warring that is growing increasingly common in this dark age. User:Smith Jones 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep - This Template is just the sum of four long existing Templates that are in use - and nothing more. It was made with copy/paste, and if you think all that you said in your comment above, then you have even more job to do with half of the templates in use. If you think that something in it not comply to the rules of Wikipedia, why did you not just edited and adjust text to your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules.

I believed that one template is easier to find and add and occupies less space. So, I strongly oppose deletion of this template, maybe some editing can solve your problem with it. And nobody accuses Wikipedia of nothing !!! Hoo-boy Tarc, what a pecepcion you have, "as there are other templates that raise the point better with far less eDrama, e.g. Template:Hoax and Template:Disputed", only this template is made of these two (and other two)! --Santasa99 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect to template:disputed. Although this template could be edited to have less implication of bad faith, other templates mentioned above already do the job better. A template giving more specific reasoning should be more likely to get problems fixed (and less useful as an edit war weapon) than one with vague claims of lies or terminological inexactitudes. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!vote edited by me. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template is one of the few tools that we as Honest Wikiepdians have to warn readers against ongoing edit warring, fabricaiton fo sources and information, and outright hoax-related material that sometimes creeps onto the Wikipedia. without this template, we would have to implant 4 or 5 other templates to contain the same infromation that this SINGLE template does, and we will lose a critical tool for spurring collegial and cooperative editing instead of deceptive editing on the part fo some POV-pushers. User:Smith Jones 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were literally fraudulent sources or info in an article, then they would be removed, no question. The manner in which this template can an has been used though is nothing like that at all; it is put to use by the losing side of a content/policy dispute, hence the inflammatory rhetoric of the template text. For an actual hoax article, again, we already have Template:Hoax. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment thats a reaonable point, HOWEVER some of the cases that a source does exist but it is misrepresented by use of weasel words or even bizarre manipulations to make it seem as if they say something that the source doesnt support. alternatively, entire paragraphs have been rewirtten on some articles to deceive and manipulate readers who trust that a source says what the Wikipedia Article that cites it refers to. User:Smith Jones 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Smith Jones, I totaly agree with you.

sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • comment - Blpdispute, BLPunsourced, BLP sources, Hoax, Despute, Misleading, Conflicting were my source in making Untrue template. Untrue template does not contain anything that is not written in these that I mentioned ahead. And I was very careful about this. I wanted a template that only emphasizes this warnings, and put them in a SINGLE box, instead 4 or 5.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contrary to the representations made above that this template is just a combination of other notices, it actually contains much stronger language that actively asserts the falsehood of the article material. The other templates mentioned describe articles as disputed or poorly sourced, not false. Even the strongest of the other templates, {{Hoax}}, only says that the article might be a hoax. This template also attributes bad faith to editors, including "deliberate lies." Also, there is already a template, {{Article issues}}, available for use when an article has multiple issues, so this template would be redundant even if reworded to more civil language. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it MUST be deleted, noway it could be edited and/or adjusted. (And you talk about bad faith.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 August 2009 comment deleted as socking
It seems to me that the sentence that resulted from combining other fragments conveys a different meaning to any of the individuals, like a quote accidentally taken out of context. This would be a fixable problem, but the redundancy is not. This template could be made an alias of the closest match. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the stength of the template might be unlawful, but i have created a replica that is less potentially inflammatory yet still contains a synthesis of the four or five templates that it is intended to replace. User:Smith Jones 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The revision is more neutrally worded, which is a good improvement. But it is still redundant to other, more widely used templates, so I'm sticking with my delete vote. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep, this template is a good idea, I am strongly for keeping it. Actually, there should be made one for every other issue. Without one template that combines several templates into SINGLE, we would have to use sometime 3, 4 or 5 other temp's. And as user Smith Jones pointed, "... we will lose a critical tool for spurring collegial and cooperative editing instead of deceptive editing on the part fo some POV-pushers. I (sooooo, absolutely, positively) fully agree with him (with S.Jones)! "--Umagli (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - And I would argue that, when we stumble upon totally fabricated, falsified article that have nothing with reality and truth, we shouldn't be afraid to say that loud and clear. We shouldn't afraid of editorial wars, in the case of some nonsensical articles and deliberate lie, because the author probably relying on that fear - simply its not like that we dealing with controversy or bias and partial, onesided point of view or anything like that. If some one inventing part or whole story we should be able to respond without fear before we start deleting.--Umagli (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need a template for every possible situation. And if a template says that "such references and claims must be immediately removed", then for Pete's sake remove the claims instead of adding a template on top of them. --Conti|✉ 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template is phrased over-aggressively (/too strongly) and it duplicates other, more precise, better-phrased templates which can be used instead. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we encounter something fabricated and falsified we should remove it immediately. Not simply tag the article with a template. Garion96 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep - The strongest arguments for keeping this template are these contradictory arguments for deleting it; first you say we need more general then more precise, then we don't need a template for every possible situation (?!). "If we encounter something fabricated and falsified we should remove it immediately", well, this is not an argument, we don't do this without warning, discussion, argumentation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabeSabe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — SabeSabe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Er, yes, we do remove fabricated information in articles without warnings and discussions. Also note that the above user created an account to comment/!vote here. --Conti|✉ 18:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment For SabeSabe and ZmajeviOdBosne saying that we don't provide a valid enough argument. Actually we provide a pretty solid argument even though everybody's reason are completly different. One is that the whole template is presented in a very forceful tone like it was actually written by Adolf Hitler. It suggests that Wikipedia is a democracy, which it is not. I also feel turned off by the phrase "In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research." and "Please see the article's talk page for making any controversial decisions regarding this article.", which doesn't seem helpful at all and seems very conflicting from the readers point of view. Two, there are templates like {{unrefrenced}}, {{disputed}}, {{hoax}}, {{misleading}}, and {{update}}. Some of these are listed on the Template page, which questions why we need this template in the first place. You might of also forgotten about {{citationneeded}}, {{who}}, and {{whom}}, which are very important parts of marking questionable content in articles. Three, as I am siding with the other people here. WP:SOFIXIT renders {{untrue}} inerit as we remove unsouced content if we can't find sources, we find sources for content that happened but hasn't properly source and we fix gramatical, spelling and posture errors, there's also WP:BLP which describes the way a biography should be written and also implements certain rules pertaining to sources, notability and prose so what's the use for {{untrue}} if there isn't going to be an article that's going to require it. That's all. --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the smear tactics being used to discredit people who want ot keep this article. just because this is the first articel they've made while logged in doesn't mean that they are a WP:SPA and as far as ic an tell there isn't a restriction on how old your acount must be before you are allowed to ahve an opinion here. Quite frankly, this debate has become unnecessarily ugly. i havenothing but respect for the people who want to delete this template; I disagree with them but I dont think thtat they are being dishonest or tendentionus in their reasons. Likewise, the people who want to keep this article are acting in the best of intentions and please let's tone down the rhetoric and focus on the template and not on what other people have in their heads. User:Smith Jones 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actual new users of the wikipedia are likely to be pretty unaware of the arcanery of article deletions, reviews, arbcoms, etc... When new accounts make their first edits to such pages, it is almost always a red flag of past involvement. This is what the template is for, all it does is provide a tag to the closing admin that there may be more to an account's "vote" than appears at first glance. There's no reason to whip up the eDrama about it, so please, chill. Tarc (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's not all it does. I was resently subjected to CheckUser as a result of this very discussion and it was found that I did not operate sockpuppets. The problem with this tag is the same one that people say that is the problem with the template Untrue; it appears to assume bad faith inadvertently and creates the impression that disagreeing users are playing unfairly or dishonestly. The tag should be used only before a CheckUser has been enacted and it shouldn't really remain after the alleged sockpuppets have been proven not to be sockpuppets. My argument remains the same that it's possible for someone to edit extensively before registering, and only feel the need to register when they see something like this. I can understand your suspicions and concerns; I am not saying that they're unreasonable, only that instead of lashing at out at me the Checkuser complaints should be filed only against the two suspicious accounts instead of at me since I didn't do anything wrong by having a contrary opinion. User:Smith Jones 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suggestion that any checkusers should be filed here. Perhaps you are confused regarding the difference between a single-purpose account and a sock-puppet? Tarc (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser already has been filed. Smith Jones has nothing to do with this, but ZmajeviOdBosne (talk · contribs), SabeSabe (talk · contribs), Santasa99 (talk · contribs) and Umagli (talk · contribs) are of course the same person. Garion96 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, had no idea about that. It was fairly obvious those 4 were either socks or meats, but Taylor Karras' lumping smith-jones in with em was ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I thought that he was the sockpuppeteer due to an over dramaticly comment he posted about SPA's. And I didn't know that Umagi or Santasa99 were sockpuppets either, just skipped my mind. No offense Smith Jones. Anyways, this has gone too far, this is just a discussion on whether to delete the template, not some flame war. So please, let's just drop this. --Taylor Karras (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. anyway, how long do templates_for_deletio discussions are supposed to last? This one seems to have run 8 days and I am not seeing any new arguments from either side. due to the fact that most of the people saying keep apart from I were sockpuppets, I think that there is strong consensus at this point for delete even though I feel that I have reformed this article to avoid being too WP:ABF and incivil. Is there an administrator in charge of handling deletion for this template? User:Smith Jones 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seven days is the standard, but sometimes there is a backlog, particularly for cases like this one, where there is a lengthy discussion that an administrator needs to read before closing it out. I imagine someone will be along to close it within the next day or two. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the quick reply. I understand about the backlog but I didnt know if templates followed the same rough timeframe (7 days) as articles for deletion. User:Smith Jones 23:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 10


Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 03:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless template. There is unlikely to ever be more than two articles in this "series". B (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Delete. I recently untranscluded this from its two members. No need when mutual internal links to eachother do the job just as well. –xenotalk 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also gives undue weight to the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident in Mr. Gates' bio. –xenotalk 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template is adequately designed for its purpose of informing the reader that an article series exists. Since article series navigation templates are to assist our readers find subarticles that are not blessed with intuitive sounding names (which article viewership stats clearly indicate are comparatively rarely accessed, in comparison to a main article) and since it is not disputed that this template works just as well for this purpose whether a series has two articles in it or three-or-more articles in it, unless a new rule is instituted that there needs to be more than two articles in a series, I say let's keep it. ↜Just M E here , now 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two articles don't make a "series". --Conti|✉ 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could define a series as having two articles, but that's a stretch. Regardless, there's no use to this template. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful, seems to highlight a controversy in a WP:BLP article. I don't oppose to re-creating the navbox when more articles about Prof Gates are created (maybe about his academic research) --Jmundo (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've carbon copied the following "!vote" (such as it is) from the Gatesgate article talk page, with permission of its author.

    Either way is fine A few quick reverts on adding and removing a navbox template for Gates-related articles, all two of them. It's nicely done and I'm normally a fan of navboxes but I do think it's a little unnecessary to have a navigation system for just two articles. I don't see the harm if everyone agrees, but we have two editors with good faith objections so I wouldn't push it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    ↜Just M E here , now 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Xeno and Jmundo hit on the main point here, aside from the template's lack of usefulness. If we dump the template into Henry Louis Gates (as in this version) we create a problem in terms of undue weight. The text of that article reflects the fact that the arrest incident, despite the flurry of coverage, is a minor incident in a long career. A nav box that highlights Gates' arrest will tend to direct readers to a fairly trivial aspect of his life (one which many will have forgotten a year or two from now). If we had sub-articles about his scholarship, his work for public television, etc. then that would be different, but we don't and we almost certainly won't. The situation here is quite analogous to having a nax box at the top of Mel Gibson that directs readers to the main bio article and to Mel Gibson DUI incident (which was obviously a lot worse than the Gates situation). The DUI article seems to be the only sub-article dealing directly with an aspect of Gibson's life, but I don't think many would argue for including in in a nav box at the top of the main bio page, and therefore implicitly giving it more weight than his entire film career. Templates are just as capable of violating our core NPOV policies as article text, and I think that's what's going on here which is why we need to delete it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, BigTimePeace, strong, well-reasoned points. (But since I'm the one who filled in and saved the navigation template -- and have already "!voted" to keep, I'll just leave my !"vote" alone. Embarrassin' ta vote against "my own" template!) ↜Just M E here , now 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing embarrassing about accepting a well-reasoned counter-point and putting a {{db-g7}} on an unnecessary template that was created in good faith. It will allow a speedy closure of this TFD as well. –xenotalk 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Humanx Commonwealth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Humanx Commonwealth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All linked articles similarly nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets. Lack notability. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment see similar nomination for remaining articles related to fictional planets (and species) in this book series here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets
  • Oppose. Remove the entire template because of the possibility that some of the linked articles within it be deleted? No. Modify the template if some of the linked articles are deleted? Yes. Zotdragon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is clearly a step or two ahead of itself. First let's see if any or all of the nominated deletes pass, then we can make an assessment about whether enough of the template remains viable for preservation. RandomCritic (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps this is a bit premature but it's starting to snow over in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets.--RadioFan (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better not rush things. The template can be deleted only if the articles are deleted or redirected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have notices is not snowing in the Afd. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Zotdragon. And I've read most of the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely Delete—most of the stuff linked in this template will either be deleted or merged somewhere and this will render the template moot. Let this drift until the AfDs close and sort it appropriately then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Family guy road trip

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family guy road trip (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need this template? All it lists is five or six out of a multitude of Family Guy episodes which are only linked by their title. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I think I was probably disrupting Wikipedia to make a joke there. It's just, well, some things I am sad to see gone because they're just sweet, or cool, even if they're not encyclopedic. But in my heart I do know this template should be deleted. Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Disney character

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Disney character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stripped down duplicate of Template:Infobox character. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wait even worse, hardcoded duplicate of said template. Speedyable? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Heavily used on several articles and useful for categorization as under the scope of the Disney WikiProject. The Flash {talk} 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also would like to note that the main template has too many fields that would lead inevitably to edit wars. The Flash {talk} 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, should be a speedy delete. Hardcoded instance of an existing character. Really pointless. Templates are not just for adding categories. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Categorization can be done through, well, categories. --Conti|✉ 09:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: Some characters that are major yet not be allowed into their own articles have to be allowed their own existance on this site, and the Character Lists is the only method possible. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. And Template:Infobox Lost character? -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete We really do need to consolidate the series specific templates into the main template. There is no need to have 500 templates when one does the job admirably. And since this is just a pass-through for {{Infobox character}}, replacing it via template substitution is trivial. --Farix (Talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Characters that are notable yet not notable enough to have their own category need to be placed in a larger category i.e., Disney character Infobox. Ardavu 19:09, 11 August 2009. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.71.185 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template does not put any character into a category. The objections to deletion citing categorization are just red herring arguments. --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the meaning is that a search for pages that transclude this template provides a list of articles that should be tagged as part of the WikiProject. Flimsy, but not a red herring. Powers T 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is already in use across a cast array of articles. For many of the reasons already stated, and also the plain and the simple, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", I say we keep it. Bigvinu (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Standarisarion is a reason to replace it with a more generic one. Categorisition is not a reason to keep an infobox. --Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since {{Infobox Disney character}} is merely a pass through for {{Infobox character}} and can therefore be easily replace by using template substitution, the number of times it is currently in use is a poor reason to keep the template. --Farix (Talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete seems like a perfect solution here. The Disney WikiProject can set standards if such are necessary (such as for the color of the infobox title). I would encourage anyone who thinks this template should be kept to be much clearer about why, because right now most of the objections are rather muddled and hard to understand. Powers T 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delet per above. BOVINEBOY2008 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete solves the problem. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:YouTube show

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, as replaced by {{YouTube}}. JPG-GR (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTube show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely inappropriate linking template for making it easier to link to YouTube videos. Whether official or not, such links violate WP:EL and should not be encouraged through such a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This new template is in the spirit of {{YouTube user}} but it is an improvement. The content index by these "show" pages is high-quality and copyright but clearly available with permission. These "show" indexes often correspond closely to their many corresponding WP entries. It is at a more encyclopedic level in the style of {{Imdb title}} and {{TV.com show}}--Writelabor (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB and TV.com do not fail WP:EL; YouTube does. And the existence of another bad template is not a valid keep reason for this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are simply grouping this "show" content with the bulk of amateur videos on YouTube. That is not fair. The "show" content is clearly much more in the spirit of a quality encyclopedia. One of the most complete (and iconic) examples is http://www.youtube.com/show/startrek as compared to [List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes]. Just like the IMDb and TV.com templates, there is a simple id within the URL that is associated with the entity. This linking style is efficiently and neatly handled with the template. Spock would approve.--Writelabor (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube links almost always fail WP:EL and duplicates {{YouTube}} as well. I would also suggest adding {{YouTube showid}} to the nomination as it is another duplicate. --Farix (Talk) 11:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The links don't belong, and template should not be made to support them being added. Besides the IP user has already posted so many links to youtube it's impossible to remove them all.Deus257 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this show system seems to only be for "official" shows and partners. I see no issue here, WP:EL only prohibits linking to copyvios. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EL prohibits linking to many sites, not just copyright issues (which is covered by WP:COPYRIGHT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above, YouTube is developing new features like the "show" feature whose content is distinct from the bulk of the amateur videos. The show content deserves a separate review rather than just being lumped together with the rest of the site.--Writelabor (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in beta? Then delete. If not, then merge it into {{youtube}} and then delete it. --213.168.121.154 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube "show" feature, while fairly new, does not label itself as beta, so I guess you mean merge. It is not clear to me that merging the template makes sense. I am not a fan of merging because such efforts do not seem to always include repairing the references. For example, look at the references to {{AMG}}. That was merged but many of the artist references were never updated and even to review the situation requires that you examine redirects such as {{AMG Artist}}.--Writelabor (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. AMG is not the same sort of site as YouTube or any other video. Again, YouTube links, official or not, are not encouraged in articles except in very rare cases. There is no valid reason to have a template for linking to these shows. Rather than arguing why other templates exist (and attempting to edit EL to support this template), please actually argue why you feel that these show links should be encouraged through this template, and how this template is not encouraging EL violations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to keep this template, but I'm pretty sure that official youtube links are often perfectly acceptable per WP:EL. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this template's creator is a banned user and was just blocked and many of his contribs deleted. Presuming this template will also now be speedied? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and an attempt at a guideline end run. 2005 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with {{YouTube}}. I can attest, as I have just checked, that none of the articles using this template or {{YouTube showid}}, which was just speedily deleted, are copyvio links. This template is not redundant as it links to YouTube shows instead of individual videos. Most of the links are like the one on Sherlock Hound where it links to the officially uploaded series. Also YouTube does not fail WP:EL: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". It also says under the Links normally to be avoided section that "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking [not copyvio]—one should avoid:...[criteria]", from what I can tell this is exactly the way this template is used, for linking to officially uploaded videos and series associated with the subject. Deleting this template is not going to stop copyvio links as one can just use a standard external link, and I do not see how having this template is going to encourage it. If anything it would a convenient way to check YouTube links to ensure that they are not copyvio and "If the url format of the database ever changes, it is sometimes possible to quickly fix all links by rewriting the template." RP9 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that {{YouTube showid}} was mentioned as a duplicate of this template, it is not, it is for linking to shows that use IDs instead of names. But that could probably be merged into this template using a parameter. RP9 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With what? I suppose that show and show id links could be added as a parameter to the {{YouTube}} template but that has not happened yet. RP9 (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with merging as long as it gets done. I have actually already suggested this before here, although before I knew the show and showid templates existed. RP9 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RP9 and I have been working on a possible merger solution here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed Resolution – Now that a "show" option has been added to {{YouTube}}, all calls to this template, {{YouTube show|foo|bar}} can be replaced by {{YouTube|show=foo|bar}}, making this template redundant. Thanks for RP9's help in making this possible. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which bears the question of why is that template anymore appropriate than this one? It has the same problems as this one - it promotes the violation of EL and YouTube links should be far and few in-between, not something that warrants a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought YouTube shows were authorized by the copyright holder? For example see http://www.youtube.com/show/2020 for 20/20. This is certainly different from a random YouTube video clip. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status doesn't really matter for this discussion (and many of the show pages do not actually show anywhere that they do have permission). The issue is that even if they are "legal", the links still go against EL the same as links to Hulu, Voeh, Crunchyroll, or any other video sharing site would be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". If the links are entirely legal, the only problem I see is that some of the videos/shows can only be watched from inside the US. But when the shows are uploaded by the copyright holder and are viewable worldwide, I don't see how they violate WP:EL. --Conti|✉ 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and replace all transclusions with {{cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was originally nominated by ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs), but a deletion discussion never got posted as far as I can tell.

I'm re-nominating because (while IANAL) I don't think this template is interpreting the licenses correctly. GFDL 1.3 (particularly section 11) says nothing about custom warranty disclaimers (which GFDL does allow) carrying over to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA has its own disclaimer section built in, which would always apply. But the special "subject to disclaimers" never transfers, and thus this template should be deleted in favor of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. Superm401 - Talk 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TFD was on hold because we were waiting from a response from Mousier Godwin. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieur, I think, not mousier. :-) —Bkell (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when/where was Monsieur Godwin invoked? Should we remind him? Superm401 - Talk 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 16. —Bkell (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bkell. I missed it, since it was moved from July 8. Superm401 - Talk 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dragons flight (talk · contribs), who was contacting Mike Godwin, is on Wikibreak, so he's not available for followup. I'm leaving a request at User talk:MGodwin that he comment here. --B (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear folks, I am flattered to be invited to resolve a question of nuance about integrating GFDL and CC-BY-SA, but my experience has been that the best resolutions come not from resort to authority (me), but instead from consensus. I can say with assurance that the FSF, Creative Commons, and the Wikimedia Foundation were aiming very much to create smooth transitioning and compatibility going forward. This generally means trying to avoid a focus on formalism and formalities if the right outcome (interoperable freely licensed content) is achieved. I ask that you continue your discussions here in that light , and allow my to continue my practice of letting consensus evolve without my imposing my own reading on the issue.MikeGodwin (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ... I guess that means we get to settle itself. My contention on the previous TFD was that although both licenses require maintaining disclaimers, because we are the original publisher for the limited, one-time, case of license migration, there aren't disclaimers unless we put them there. So we are free to delete the template. If any content creator feels strongly about it and really wants the disclaimers there, they are welcome to fix it, but it was only there to begin with because of a dumb mistake and not any affirmative choice on the part of content creators, so I doubt very many people will care. --B (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but re-tag all uses with the "real" CC-BY-SA 3.0 migrated tag), the license migrtion allow the content to be re-licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, there is no such thing as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 + disclaimers" as far as I know (the license come with a "built in" disclaimer insead), it's either GDFL + disclaimers or vanilla CC-BY-SA 3.0. The disclaimers in question apply to all of Wikipedia so it's kinda moot I guess, but the disclaimers are not attached to the CC license when it's used elsewhere. --Sherool (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to my point. {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} was basicaly a mistake that unintentionaly added an extra restriction to re-use, and it could not be removed from existing images once added because the GFDL license firbid the removal of disclaimer sections. See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for background. If we are not actualy legaly compelled' to copy the "subject to disclaimers" stuff to the CC-By-SA-3.0 license when re-licensing we should absolutely not do it, it's an extra burden on re-use for absolutely no good reason. --Sherool (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 9

More redundant conversion 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 delete per discussion and consensus in similar discussions Magioladitis (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ha to acre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kmbot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Htbot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C to K (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of these are used. All of them are redundant to convert. {{Ha to acre}} automatically llinks. The two "bot" templates have an auto-rounding system based on the magnitude of the input number. We should use its precision not magnitude. {{Convert}} uses precision. JIMp talk·cont 10:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Economy of Pakistan infobox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge by subst on Economy of Pakistan. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is only useful in one article (Economy of Pakistan). The same text can be managed better within that article (as evidenced by the thousands of other articles that don't do this) Green Giant (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea in making this template was to save the article of Economy of Pakistan from excess load; as done in the article Economy of India. If more users think that the information in the Template:Economy of Pakistan infobox could be managed better within the article of Economy of Pakistan, only then I would recommend it for deletion. nomi887 (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that the Economy of India article and about 70 other economy articles use a similar style but the work of these templates is done by the {{Infobox Economy}} template which they transclude. This forces the database to call up more templates than necessary. The main article transcludes 52 templates without an infobox, the Infobox Economy template transcludes 9 templates, and the Economy of Pakistan infobox template transcludes 14 templates. If we transclude Infobox Economy directly, we can avoid the extra strain without affecting the actual functionality of the article. As for managing editing within the article, there are literally tens of thousands of other articles that transclude relevant templates directly. Green Giant (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree entirely with Green Giant. What are all these national economy templates providing that isn't in the generic template? If there are no necessary additions, then the generic template should be used. If there are additional elements that are commonly added on top of {{Infobox Economy}} to create the national templates, then these should be standardized and added to {{Infobox Economy}}. The whole idea of templates is to standardize across multiple articles, not for every article to have its own special template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Malta-Christian Doctrine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malta-Christian Doctrine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles linked by the template have been deleted. uKER (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pointless. As far as I can tell, most of the linked articles never even existed. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A template of all redlinks? Good grief. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 8

Template:Me

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

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

Orphaned, practically blank, not modified since March 2008 EmanWilm (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user tried to nominate this template but didn't finish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit to being unclear on what this template is supposed to do, but it's obviously an orphan. Barring some defense of its usefulness, delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RL0919 (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.

More unit display 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 delete per previous discussions and consensus. Magioladitis (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit m (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit metre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are the three remaining unit display templates. Like the others deleted before them, they not are used in the main space nor employed in any other useful fashion. They are all redundant to {{convert}} without anything close to {{convert}}'s functionality. They can all be deleted as the other unit display templates have been.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Iras

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per WP:CSD#G8 Plastikspork (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iras was deleted a while ago, this template is totally useless. Karppinen (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AFL Win Loss Table

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G7. JPG-GR (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFL Win Loss Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer required as table will be edited within the main article. Nick carson (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Objectivist philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objectivist philosophers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This recently created template is redundant to the list of theorists on the {{Objectivist movement}} template, which is used on all the relevant pages. Based on consensus both on the template's talk page and on the Objectivism cross-talk page, it has been removed from all articles due to this redundancy. RL0919 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I agree it was redundant and potentially confusing.-RLCampbell (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 7


Unit display 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 speedy delete per prior consensus Plastikspork (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit display/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit display/tests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit cu km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit cbkm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit cu mi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit foot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit ft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit ha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit kilometre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit lb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit lbs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit pound (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit meter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit mi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit mile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit oz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit sq km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit sqkm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit °C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit °F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fahrenheit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of these templates are used in the main space nor employed in any other useful fashion. They are all redundant to {{convert}} without anything close to {{convert}}'s functionality. Many of them are hardcoded instances {{convert}} and those which are not might as well be. Hence they meet criterion T3 for speedy deletion. They can all be deleted as the other Unit display templates have been.

JIMp talk·cont 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Forest Whitaker

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forest Whitaker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Films-by-director templates are acceptable, but I don't think they are when said director only has three films to their credit. This is far too small of a template to be useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough articles (yet) to justify a nav template. Can always be recreated if/when he's got more. --RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree, I think it remains a useful navigational aid to remind readers once they've reached the end of the article. It also has much potential for expansion to include Whitaker's other (i.e. acting) projects.  Skomorokh  15:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough articles to warrant this template. Acting credits should not be included. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Conti|✉ 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is slanted towards recent events. The pages of MPs this is intended for will gain little benefit from such a detailed navigation bar (to all other MPs involved) when a link to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal in the body of the article would be more appropriate, sufficient and as far as I can see has already been done. Ash (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: very notable political event in the United Kingdom which has recieved reels of media coverage and much political debate in the UK. Useful to have a template specifically on the topic to link the relevent articles together in an ordered and compact manner. IMO the objection of "recentism" doesn't stand up very well, since this could apply to the Template:2008 economic crisis too or basically any event which has happened in recent times. In fact it seems to be a misreading of the guideline on recentism, which would apply, for an instance; if an article on the history of Austria had ten paragraphs for the time period after 1950, but only three paragraphs for the entire history before that. Rather than topics which are specifically about contemporary events. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: from WP:RECENT: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists." Agree with the reasoning of Yorkshirian above. Beganlocal (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only issue in the nomination, the fact that the template is made irrelevant as all articles that might include this template already link to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal should be considered.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a list of people who died by hanging would be in unrelated cirumstances. This is a specific case in politics and the media, where a group of people; British politicans are involved in a major expenses scandal. It isn't a list of everybody who was ever implicated in a scandal. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alright, so pick another example with a specific circumstance -- the list & category of people who died in the titanic, say. They all share that attribute, so having a category and a list is appropriate. But they also have in common that, with few exceptions, they're not on Wikipedia purely because they died in the Titanic; that wouldn't be enough to make them notable. So any templates they have are about whatever makes them notable. E.g. Sir Duff-Cordon in on WP because he was a baronet, so has that template; he also happened to be a fencer, but he doesn't have a template for that to navigate between all the people on WP who happened to like fencing, because that would be silly; that's not what they're notable for. The fencing template (if there is one) is for people who are notable because they like fencing. Similarly, the politicians here aren't notable because they were implicated in some scandal, they're notable because they're MPs; hence delete. -- simxp (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having this at the bottom of all these politician articles is completely unsuitable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? --h2g2bob (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A link the scandal page is sufficient. As said above, to have this template on all these article is incorrect. Garion96 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in modified form. This is a bit broad at the moment: "implicated" is very vague (if we include local newspapers, "implicated" means almost all MPs). I think the template should become more narrowly defined if it's to be useful. I fully support this template if it is just MPs who resigned or are standing down next election due to the expenses crisis. I'd also support it if "implicated" had some firm criteria. I'd like to suggest MPs overclaiming and paying back more than £1,000 (29 MPs) or £10,000 (10 MPs) catches the most interesting cases.[1] I don't accept the recentism argument - this is likely to have political consequences for years to come. Nor do I accept the "there's a link in the body of the text" argument, as that applies to almost every template I can think of. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A criterion of MPS resigning due to the expenses crises would not be well-defined: hundreds of MPs have said they're standing down at the next election, and in most, the expenses crisis will have played a large factor; no-one knows how large in each case. Using MPs who've payed back more than £X would be an incredibly unfair criterion: It would penalise those who did decide to pay it back over those who stuck to their "I didn't break the law" guns and decided to keep it. Which is not what we want. I don't think there's any set of criteria that would be both fair and well-defined, whilst also not including pretty much every MP there is. And no, "which ones the Telegraph decided to run with" is not a fair criterion. NPOV != Telegraph's POV. -- simxp (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no clear definition of who has been "implicated" (who the newspapers choose to highlight is as much about what headlines grab the most attention as anything else and some of the implications have been silly, such as the lambasting of one MP for claiming for accommodation in his constituency when it's very rural and has many islands with limited ferries so when touring it it's not possible to nip back to the constituency home at night) and it's hard to objectively assess every MP standing down as to whether it's because of expenses (some were likely to retire anyway). This is the sort of thing best handled by an article not by a template. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would this be appropriate on Wikipedia in 100 years time? No, it would be massive undue weight towards a particular event in a person's life. Article link suffices.  Skomorokh  15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. "Implicated" is far too subjective, and the template places far too much weight on a recent single event. It is sufficient that any related articles contain a link to the primary subject. PC78 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The article about the scandal, which is linked to for all those members involved, is enough. Bnynms (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old discussions

August 6

Template:FC Barcelona Atlètic 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 keep User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Squad template for Barcelona Atlétic, FC Barcelona reserve team, currently playing in Segunda Division B. Since the league is not fully professional, the listed players usually fail WP:ATHLETE (unless they already played in a higher tier, of course) and being part of such team (or even playing games on it) does not confer any sort of notability. Therefore, I am proposing to delete it, as already happened with similar squad templates for teams not playing in a fully professional league. Angelo (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there are many squad templates for teams playing in non-fully-pro leagues (eg every team in England's Conference National and some from Conference South, etc. As long as the links aren't all red, I don't see a problem with templates like this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful navigation template with 10 blue links. Jafeluv (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rockferry

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 11:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This album template is full of non-wikilinks and the album/singles are already covered by Template:Duffy. This template is only used on one article that Template:Duffy is not on, Please Stay (song), that is a non-single cover. Aspects (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentAs the creator of {{Rockferry}}, I realise that it is a bit excessive for the album to have its own template at this stage, although it does link to other associated articles. Dt128SpeakToMe 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unnecessary- a navbox is for linking and there's nothing to link there except was it already covered by the Duffy navbox. Imperatore (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Famitsu perfect scores

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famitsu perfect scores (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be a very awkward form of navigation - while in the gaming community, recognizition of a game by having a 40 or 39 from Famitsu is something of an honor, it is of trivial nature to the encyclopedic function. This may be better as a category but even then that's questionable and putting one source over all others MASEM (t) 13:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. I'm not particularly experienced at it. I just presumed it would be a good thing to do, considering each article in the template talks of its Famitsu status as a perfect or near-perfect score, and being able to navigate between each article from each article would make things easier. Your call, obviously :) AarnKrry Talk to me, babycakes! 13:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The problem is that there's no inherent relation between the various games. A nav template is supposed to group pages that are related somehow, under a single topic or whatnot; furthermore, every game on the template is in the list at Famitsu which even MORE so reders this one unneeded. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't a strong relationship between the articles in the navigation. Navigation templates are intended to allow users to find similar articles to the one they are reading; this template uses such an arbitrary criterion that at best, it can be used to explore other articles, but it won't be clear to users what they will find in the template, making it difficult to use for navigation purposes. Gary King (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Provided full titles are used instead of abbreviations (for example "MGS4:GotP" replaced by "Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots"), this is a useful template to navigate through all of the games that are considered to be "perfect" by the biggest Japanese gaming magazine in existence... even though they seem to have gotten a bit soft as of late. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps this could be a category, but even that is questionable. Definitely not a navbox. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was clearly made in good faith, but if too many templates are made like that then it gets very cluttered, very quickly.--Remurmur (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Games are unrelated to each other. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could also be an example of journalistic bias.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quoted straight out of Famitsu: "Several recent Famitsū scores have been subject to controversy, with accusations that the magazine is raising scores to appease advertisers and the gaming industry(...)" which renders the list inherently biased. --bitterMan.lha 12:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the template is rather helpful, and it's pretty cool to see what other games are considered 'Perfect' or 'Near-Perfect' by Famitsu, without having to leave the page. 72.191.111.95 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:La Liga 2006-07

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 09:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:La Liga 2006-07 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template superfluous. There are no season templates for superior competitions like UEFA Champions League 2006-07 or UEFA Cup 2006-07. League season articles should only carry a teamlist for the most recent season. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 07:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template is useful for team season's articles like FC Barcelona season 2006–07, Valencia CF season 2006–07 and Real Madrid C.F. season 2006–07. This template allows readers easy go to the other teams' articles.--ClaudioMB (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they can't do that by clicking on the team names in the league fixtures section? Don't be silly. – PeeJay 09:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no league fixtures section, there is a fixtures section with all competitions. Not easy to find the other teams on La Liga 2006-07.--ClaudioMB (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There would be if you followed the accepted format for club season articles. – PeeJay 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not needed. GiantSnowman 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it may only used in La Liga 2006–07.--KSAconnect 10:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it will only be used in one article, why keep it? – PeeJay 11:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - superflouous template, can't see any substantive use for it. - fchd (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless, only teamlist needed. - SonjiCeli (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Completed discussions

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


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

Tools

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

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

Meta

To convert

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

To substitute

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

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

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2024 May 30


August 13

Template:Official

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 keep Plastikspork (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason to use a template for something like this. The link text is unlikely to ever be changed. External link templates are only useful for sites that may change their link format (e.g., YouTube) while still maintaining the same identifiers. --- RockMFR 23:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the link is unlikely to change, the template provides a standard format for labeling links to official websites. In that regard, it's useful for consistency across the project. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep convenient short cut to having to type "Official website" every time (albeit a very minor one). Also it serves to standardize the way official sites are linked to. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. MaxVeers (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per C.Fred. The Flash {talk} 02:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per C.Fred. Filmcom (talk) 03:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using templates like these provides consistent formatting across all articles. BOVINEBOY2008 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per others, this provides a standard and a easy way to format the addresses and text. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 03:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Snow Keep per above and the 6177 transclusions of this template. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - per Tothwolf and C.Fred. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - gah, stop this abomination. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly useful template, no reason to delete. Agent0042 (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Japanese track list

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 05:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Japanese track list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was created a short while before the more standard {{Tracklist}}, and would not have been proposed had {{Tracklist}} existed at the time. All of the instances of the template in articles have been updated to use {{Tracklist}} instead. Based on WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template points 2 and 3, I think it should be deleted, and the template's creator User:Ned Scott has also agreed. 十八 21:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Chronology of 2009 swine flu cases in the Philippines

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 05:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chronology of 2009 swine flu cases in the Philippines (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Almost same case with Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_30#Template:2009_flu_pandemic_table_in_Thailand. If we need something like this we can just put it in the article. Moreover, I have serious doubts if we need to record cases day by day. Magioladitis (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete after substitution. Single use template that fits only one article. Agreed on the lack of a need for a day by day update (how long is this going to be tracked?). Monthly would be better, or at the very least, weekly until that becomes too long. Resolute 14:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Header image

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 now redundant to {{top icon}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Header image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should probably be deprecated in favor of the more widely used {{top icon}} template. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you only want it deprecated, why not mark it with {{tdeprecated}}, migrate all usages, and then redirect? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the indenting/offsets work differently... perhaps a merge of the coding is in order. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made the template at {{Header image}} before the new template existed. The {{top icon}} template seems a bit more robust and I have no issues with deprecating in its favor assuming variable width indents are supported with the new template. I would suggest making the Header image template a redirect or transclusion and replacing its use in {{header image set}} as well. I think this can move forward as I am the only user of the template. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will move both back to your userspace in case there is something to merge. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 08:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 12

Template:RaisingtheBar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 07:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this is inappropriate. We are dealing with: 2 articles (one of the TV series and 'one episode list, 2 creators and actors. Actors should not have nav boxes like that. They usually play in tenths of films, tv series, etc. Creators also. If simplified, this navbox will end up with 2 articles which are already good linked to each other. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, navboxes for shows should not be in the articles of actors (unless perhaps the role was extremely significant in their career), only articles about characters themselves. The only place the template is used besides the actors (and creators) is the show's own article, where it duplicates links that are already there. Unnecessary and improperly used. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Macbethchar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by WP:CSD#G7 Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obsoleted by Template:Macbeth (both were used together in all instances), and this one is no longer in use. Xover (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I created this template and the new one has made it obsolete. Wrad (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HWOF sentence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per WP:CSD#G7. Plastikspork (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HWOF sentence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is used to substitute a sentence stating that the subject has a star on the HWOF. It is currently unused and is an unnecessary obfuscation the prose which it generates, in that, the generated prose cannot be reworded to better fit the paragraph or list in which it has been placed. Plastikspork (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Twitter

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 now. The consensus was that when the addition of a Twitter link is appropriate, achieving a uniform formatting through the use of a template is desirable (per {{YouTube}}, {{myspace}}, {{imdb}}, {{facebook}}, and others). If, in the future, it is determined that links to Twitter feeds should be banned then this template should be reconsidered for deletion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(I had this all written up already, but Twinkle tool ate it.) In brief, Twitter is not a valid source, and the only way it ever qualifies as an external link per WP:EL is in some theoretical situation where a Twitter page is the only official web site of a person or group notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and of course anyone that notable would no doubt have a real website too. So not only does this template serve no valid purpose, but it interferes with XLinkBot's ability to remove links to Twitter. DreamGuy (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. There is practically no reason to link to twitter, especially not using this template. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can think of a few instances in which we could use a twitter link, but those are all exceptions, and we don't need a template for that. Delete. --Conti|✉ 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'd argue that a person's twitter account could meet criterion #4 on the WP:ELMAYBE list, and I'm not entirely convinced that the assertion "of course anyone that notable would no doubt have a real website too" is correct, so, as I said: "weak keep". -- Bobyllib (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "[R]eal website" here meaning more appropriate sources of information belonging to the subject, if there is an official website 'www.subject.com', then that is of course the best, but even 'only having a myspace page' would win easily from 'only having a twitter account'. There will be exceptions, subjects that have only a twitter and still are notable, but this is not the blacklist, they can be linked in the normal way, using * [http://www.twitter.com/subject subject's official Twitter] (that would only be prohibited by blacklisting, and then there always is the whitelist for such rare cases). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no way to validate that a twitter page belongs to the actual celebrity and as DreamGuy said, if they are a notable enough person, they should have their own website anyway. CTJF83Talk 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If you're going to dump this, there are also similar templates that link to Myspace and Facebook pages that are used on celebrity bio pages as external links. Seems like the same argument applies. As for whether a given Twitter account is actually that person, that's best handled on a case-by-case basis. (A link to "official web site" could just as easily be incorrectly linked to a fan site, editors can easily fix). Personally I think if its valid to link to a celebs official web site, its valid to link directly to their Twitter too. --Krelnik (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Twitter is, just like MySpace and Facebook discouraged per our external link guideline, and that is just why they often do not meet the reason for inclusion. For official webpages, that is much less the case. However, a myspace, as an official page, contains sufficient information, and subjects with a only a myspace may easily pass our notability guidelines. For 'only a twitter' those will be significantly less. To put it in an order, official webpages should be linked before Myspace and Facebook (actually, when there is an official homepage, MySpace and Facebook should often not be included), when there is no official webpage, the MySpace or Facebook become the official pages, and one or two of those are chosen. If there are no official Myspace or Facebook, then Twitter may in the end become the official page, but I wonder in how many cases subjects with only a Twitter feed are notable enough for a Wiki article. Moreover, deleting this template does not disable the link, one has to link to it in the normal way of linking, and in quite some cases, the twitter-template is not used in accordance with the external links guideline (Britney Spears has an official webpage, and a probably a whole set of others, like MySpace and Facebook, yet, Twitter is linked in her external links section, I would say that that is not in line with 'links to be avoided in the the external links guideline). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken on being able link anyway as needs arise. Here's an example of where I've linked to Twitter recently that I think is valid, an article I wrote about a music venue in my town: The Tabernacle (external links). The official site for this venue is a Flash site, which is a problem for some users. The operators of the venue post announcements on Twitter and Facebook, and somewhat less often on Myspace. As far as I can determine, all three are official. For some reason (probably newness) I can find none of them via the official website, and the info posted is not duplicated in any way on the official site. (I.e. the official site is more of a static brochure about the building). Now Facebook, of course, requires you to join to see content which is a problem under other guidelines, so Twitter is the only publicly available HTML way to get the latest news on this site. I think listing all three is valid simply because a given user might have a preference in what service they want to use to best find the latest news from this venue (i.e. they like Twitter but dislike Facebook, or vice versa). I admit to being relatively new, so correct me if I'm insane here. --Krelnik (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to mention, that when I loaded the Britney Spears Twitter yesterday afternoon, she just told her father on the site that she was coming to eat dessert with him. Quite an addition to Wikipedia, that part of information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Krelnik, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is explicitly named as an invalid argument in deletion discussions. Do you have any reason for keeping this template (which is different from keeping the links, an issue that is not at all affected by the decision about the template)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly I'm tired of arguing at this point. I said "weak" keep, didn't I? I always assumed that templates like these existed for two reasons: (1) insulating Wikipedia against changes in the URL structure of the external site. I.e. if twitter changes user pages to be twitter.com/user/foo instead of twitter.com/foo, then this one template changes and 160+ pages are fixed; and (2) it standardizes the "look" of these external links so they are consistent from article to article, and with the other links like Myspace and Facebook. In this case "krelnik on Twitter". Again if someone says it should say "at" instead of "on", this can be altered in the template. That's all. It's just a consistency timesaver. --Krelnik (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Templates like these exist" because it is possible for anyone to make any spammy piece of crap template they want. The process is fully backwards. External link templates should only be allowed if there is a broad consensus for one, not becomes somebody decided to make one someday. This is a rogue template that goes against a broad, longstanding consensus. The Myspace and Facebook templates likewise have no consensus, but the consensus that Twitter is a lame external links is more broad. 2005 (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of the discussion here about avoiding Twitter, Facebook, etc., goes beyond anything stated in the external links guidelines. There is no rule saying that a subject's official pages on social networking sites are to be avoided if the subject also has an official regular website. The guidelines say to avoid such links unless they are official pages. The guidelines don't say that a subject can only have one official page or that only one of them can be linked, nor is there any hierarchy saying that, for example, Facebook is to be preferred over Twitter. So there should be plenty of opportunities to use this template. --RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous voters. I would like to remind users that it is not only people that hold Twitter accounts, organisations do too. See ITV, ITV2, GMTV, Big Brother (UK), This Morning (TV series), Britain's Got Talent... DJ 20:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And do any of them not have official websites to link to instead? No, so your argument has no bearing on this discussion. Wikipedia is not a web directory or all official sites of a topic. We link to *the* official site, and that site no doubt links to the official Twitter page, if there is one, so we have no reason to do so. DreamGuy (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see this as similar to {{Imdb name}} or {{MySpace}}—it's useful information and a place for readers to get further information. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless Facebook and Myspace are also up for deletion! These are all interesting primary sources (very changeable and useless as references but) a place that users can find out more about people they are interested in, often worth including in the external links section. As myspace and facebook are walled in if you are not willing to log in then what twitter shows publically can be quite a lot more than the others.
    Would actually be a good plan, though they at least provide some stable information about notable people, as I mention above, the Britney Spears Twitter informed me yesterday that she was going to have dessert with her father. Quite interesting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A lot of the accounts are verified, and there are ways to verify them in other ways. This is a ridiculous nomination.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if they are verified or not, they still fail [[WP:EL] rules quite dramatically. What's ridiculous is that anyone who claims to be working on an encyclopedia would even for a moment think a Twitter link makes any sense at all. DreamGuy (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy "quite dramatically" at all. Read the links to be avoided section of WP:EL very carefully. The very first line says Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject and item 10 specifically mentions Twitter. Note in particular the footnote on item 10, which says: Note that under WP:External links#What should be linked, a link to a social networking site may be included when it is an official website for a business, organization, or person. However, Wikipedia does not provide a comprehensive web directory to every official website, and more than one official website should be listed only when the additional links provide unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. I read this to mean that if the Twitter feed is officially associated with the person, organization, business, etc. it can be linked as long as it provides useful content not otherwise accessible in other external links provided. I think my use of Twitter in The Tabernacle (which I talked about above) is an excellent example of exactly this. (I'm not using this template there right now because of this discussion) --Krelnik (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you read the External links page more carefully, because there's no justification for crap links like this under any criteria. We are not a web directory. We cannot link to every site on the long list of sites a person or group can have an official presence on. This has been very clear for ages. Trying to read that very clear language you even quoted that directly contradicts your argument as if it supports your side is just ridiculous. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The language he quoted would allow for a Twitter link if it is to a subject's own official page that is "not prominently linked" from another official site that is already linked, assuming the Twitter feed provides "unique content" rather than duplicating stuff available from the other links. So it is not at all ridiculous to quote it. It's not likely that this will create some "long list of sites" because most of the time I expect the subject will either 1) link to their Twitter page from another site already linked, or 2) the Twitter feed will mostly be links to stuff the subject has posted elsewhere and thus not unique content. Either of those situations would "fail" the Twitter link. But if it passes both those tests and is verifiable as the subject's own Twitter feed, then it should be just fine under WP:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, why do we ignore the intro. The twitter can indeed be linked, if it really adds to the page. As I quoted Britney Spears above, I am really enlightened that Britney is going to have dessert with her dad. That is really the information I was waiting to hear. I am sorry, twitter does not add often to a page, and certainly not to the extend that it needs an own template, it can just be added as a link (IMHO, that also goes for myspace and facebook, they do not need an own template. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now, depending on how this RFC turns out. Personally, I do know that Twitter is starting to authenticate some of these celebrities' accounts; to what extent so far I don't know. If there is a way to verify that the account indeed belongs to said celebrity and not to some Joe Schmoe Fanboy out there, then I think it could possibly be included, which would facilitate the need for this template. MuZemike 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verification of Twitter accounts is a non-issue, as if they are authenticated they are still not at all in line with WP:EL rules.DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are times when Twitter should be linked (completely ignoring the obvious "official website" issue, it's used as a ref on occasion), but these links simply do not require the overhead of transcluding a template. This is a (small, but real) waste of resources. I hope that the template is deleted, and that someone sets a bot to convert all of the template uses to just plain links. For the supporters of the template, please note that "deleting the template" is not the same thing as "removing the links". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you are telling the supporters of the template to note this, you should also say the same thing to all those who oppose the template specifically on the stated grounds that there should be no (or virtually no) Twitter links to begin with. It's the justification given in the original TfD proposal! Moreover, it is clear from both the TfD proposal and the discussion here that this TfD was motivated by complaints that the template interferes with a bot that allows for mass removal of Twitter links without giving any prior regard to whether they meet the WP:EL guidelines or not. Not much point in creating a bot to change the templates into links if there will be another bot right behind to delete them, which is rather obviously the end result that should be expected. --RL0919 (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point me at a bot that is deleting external links? The only bot that I know is one that reverting the edits after addition by an unestablished or IP account. It would not even see a bot changing the template into links, as a bot is, almost by definition, an established account. The deletion of the links would have to be done on a case-by-case basis. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Please answer the specific question: This is not a referendum on whether Twitter feeds should be used in this or that situation. The question at Templates for Deletion is not whether Twitter should be linked in a given situation. The only question that the closing admin cares about is, "Is it better for valid links to Twitter feeds to be wrapped up in a template (which adds the processing overhead inherent in transcluding anything, and makes them invisible to XLinkBot), or should editors use plain URLs for the same, already assumed-to-be desirable link?" If plain URLs are better, then the template should be deleted. If plain URLs are not better, then the template should be kept. At the moment, there are at least five plain URLs to Twitter feeds for every version that's wrapped up in the template, so most editors are picking the plain URL, but someone might have an idea about why a template is better than a plain URL. If you have an opinion on whether plain URLs are better than the template, already assuming the feed should be linked, then please share your thoughts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's how I see it. If consensus determines that Twitter shouldn't be allowed at all as external links, then there would obviously be no need for the template, making the TFD far less controversial. Even if we do allow said external links with the strictest of restrictions, then I feel that's a cause to discuss here (I personally happen to learn towards inclusion at this point). Perhaps this TFD as ill-timed and probably could have waited until the RFC brings some sort of closure to the general Twitter debate. MuZemike 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am afraid that the RfC was filed as a result of this deletion debate. My personal opinion: these external-links-templates are all superfluous, why not use normal links anyway? What do the templates add? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Templates add consistent formatting if nothing else. Until the template became widely used IMDB links were formatted in wildly inconsistent ways and were often given terrible link text (not quite as bad as "click here" but almost). -- Horkana (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • IMDb links are acceptable links. Formatting them consistently is valuable. Twitter links are prohibited links. They will never be "widely" used. Not only should they not be uniform, they should be anti-uniform links because each one that does exist should be individually justified on the talk page of the article. Having templates for prohibited links is weird even by Wiki standards. 2005 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well put. I trust that the closing admin will take account of your comment. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Links to Twitter feeds are not a useful external link as per WP:EL and even if it were, this is not a useful template just making a link to twitter.com/{{{1}}}. If there is a particular status link that is a good source, then it can be linked directly. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for use as a primary source since some people WP considers notable have well-publicized Twitter accounts. 68.167.191.17 (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am tempted to strike out your !vote, because you clearly misunderstood the purpose of this template. --Conti|✉ 08:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Twitter links are prohibited by the external links guideline and should be removed on sight, so having a template for them is ludicrous. 2005 (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Twitter links are pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement that rarely contain any WP:RS information. Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) 19:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment – Having a template for Twitter legitimizes the links, i.e., it gives the impression that they are "approved" by the community … the existence of a template simply encourages their use. — 141.156.175.125 (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The external links guideline is a style guideline, not policy. It includes Twitter under Links normally to be avoided but they are not banned or forbidden. I would have no issues with someone linking to the twitter feed of a well known notable individual in the external links section of their BLP article and I think it might be worth considering moving Twitter feeds from item 10 to 11 in Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Considering that Twitter is effectively a micro-blog, it seems sensible that it should be included in item 11 anyway since it specifically deals with blogs of notable individuals. The issue of XLinkBot and templates is something that should be taken up with the bot operator and is not something for TfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, this is not a question if twitter links should be kept, the question is if such external links need an own template. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the reason that information can - and has - been posted on Twitter before anywhere else (see here, here). --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 04:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny, you cite here two reliable sources to state 'the information was first published on Twitter', but a) that still does not make Twitter itself a reliable source (but we are talking about external links), neither is this proof that Twitter is actually, generally providing information which is adding to a page. Such specific posts on Twitter might actually be an, albeit weak, source for something, not the whole feed. We are writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I admit it's WP:WAXy, but we have {{YouTube}}, {{official}}, etc. in the same vein as this template for an acceptable reason - to reduce boilerplate slightly and make linking a bit easier. Also, in the future semantic wiki, this template would provide a way to make it easy for programs to pick out a subject's Twitter account (and possibly more; use your imagination). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, is this saying 'we should link to as many as possible off-wiki sites of (subject), so that later with semantics we can programmatically find the subjects (site) account'. Thus that would mean that (subject) should have linked here all of {{BlogSpot}}, {{Facebook}}, {{MySpace}}, {{Twitter}}, {{YouTube}}-channel, {{Digg}}, {{Delicious}}, {{NewsVine}}, {{CiteULike}}, &c.? Don't we have {{Persondata}} for that semantic work? (I must say here, yes, that is good, and I am actually doing that botwise, but .. I don't think that this is the way to go on with that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WhatamIdoing's comment, above, this is not about whether or not we should link to Twitter (though not linking to the Twitter stream of people like Stephen Fry or Jonathon Ross would be ludicrous), but how such links should be constructed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In special cases, even twitter can be a valid link--it is increasingly being used for serious purposes, and if it is the best link for a particular person instead of the more conventional blog, it may be the right one to use. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a useful template, I don't see how it violates WP:EL, for people (as said) like Stephen Fry or Ashton Kutcher a link to their twitter is a good external link in my opinion -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the template. This does not mean that all links to twitter should be deleted, just that they need to be justified per WP:EL. The template makes it easy to add inappropriate links that cannot be found in any reasonable way. An argument for keeping the template could be made if it added an admin category so its use could be monitored, otherwise the template will be abused to move Wikipedia further from an encyclopedia and closer to a social networking forum. Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth, it is easy to find out what articles have links created using this template. Just go to the template page and use the "What links here" feature to find transclusions of the template on articles. Like this. However, adding an admin category would make it easier to monitor additions/removals. --RL0919 (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If a Twitter feed is notable, then it can be noted in the article but a twitter stream is not a reliable source where one would go for further information on the subject of the article as required by WP:EL. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that virtually every use of this template would be to link to an article subject's own official feed. Use of Twitter as a secondary source would be very dubious, and even as an external link a Twitter feed from anyone other than the subject is very unlikely to meet the guidelines. Doesn't mean the template itself is bad, just that it should only be used when the link itself is appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A link to a person's twitter feed is simply a list of the most recent 140-character updates posted. It is not in any way a useful link as per WP:EL for further reliable information on the subject of the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This makes spamming very, very easy and these links add little benefit to most articles that they appear on. On the rare occasion that our guidelines would accept a twitter link it can be added just as any other external link, which isn't any harder than having a template. Link templates should be for links that are generally considered useful, such as dmoz. We should not be encouraging the linkage of sites such as twitter. ThemFromSpace 02:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, per DGG, RL0919, and MuZemike. Milo 10:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Snicket element

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 07:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Snicket element (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely useless. The article using it can do without it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Charmed" 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 delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Charmedcharsub1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Charmedcharsub2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:CharmedSeeAlso (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chrmd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ChrmdBeing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chrmdchar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:ChrmdMchar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Chrmdsect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cseason (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Andy Trudeau (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Book of Shadows (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All these templates are used to make linking to various articles and sections "easier", by using horribly complicated templates. So instead of typing "[[List of Charmed characters#St. Claire, Leslie|Leslie St. Claire]]", you type "{{Chrmdchar|Leslie|l=1}}" and so on, which saves a few keystrokes while being quite confusing, especially to newbies. I'm pretty sure templates aren't supposed to be used like this. --Conti|✉ 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Good grief. I fully suspect that more keystrokes were spent building these templates than they can possibly have saved. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All per WP:CSD#1632. This is a known mess and is highly inappropriate. The crux of this mechanism is cementing franchise spam into the project by making pruning difficult. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have joined Andy Trudeau and Book of Shadows (both orphaned in article space, just like the rest of them). Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine by me. --Conti|✉ 08:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per om.nom Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having inline navigational templates that depend on the structure of specific articles is a bad idea. As suggested by Jack Merridew above, these will make it difficult for editors to cut or restructure the related articles without breaking a lot of template-based references. --RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Simpsons character

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Infobox character, bar the crass colour scheme. Other cartoon characters manage just fine- see Fred Flintstone. DJ 02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasons given here. -- Scorpion0422 02:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Per above. The Flash {talk} 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep half of the templates in Category:Fictional character infobox templates should be deleted before this one. Nergaal (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to start somewhere. --Conti|✉ 10:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Scorpion. Gran2 06:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above CTJF83Talk 07:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scorpion. Very useful template, especially the Tracy Ullman shorts part. Template:Infobox character has too many parameters (such as age, date of birth/death, and religion) that will lead to unnecessary edits wars. Theleftorium 14:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Rhino131 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've updated it to use {{Infobox}} as a Meta template, {{Infobox Character}} just didn't seem to fit the purpose for this one without changing the template layout. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 05:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievably Over-The-Top High Keep (Keep) Come on, who would ever want to have probably one of the most popular cartoon of America's template destroyed? It's useful, and I don't get a single speck why this template was put up for deletion. Jeremjay24 msg 16:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is obviously an overlap with Infobox Character, and a lot of the concerns about the additional fields in that other template are overblown, since all the fields are optional. But this template does have some fields that aren't available in Infobox Character, including 'voiceactor' and the specialized first appearance fields. If/when the generic template is expanded to include these, then deletion could be reconsidered. --RL0919 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ludicrous nomination. McJEFF (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep? --Cybercobra (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above Dvferret (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Simpsons episode

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/snow keep - This was a unanimous "keep" three weeks ago; this discussion appears to be headed down a similar path. Although consensus can change, it hasn't done so yet. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Simpsons episode (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicate of Template:Infobox Television episode. The "Chalkboard" and "Couch gag" fields should be added into the articles through prose - their inclusion alone shouldn't mean we have a seperate template. Most shows have motifs, but they don't have their own templates. DJ 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The template is custom made so that the various episode lists can be included at the bottom (As far as I can tell, that parameter is not available in the generic template. -- Scorpion0422 01:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't mean that this show should get its own template. Other shows seem to manange this way... DJ 02:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is this a WP:POINT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT nom then? Whether or not the show "deserves" it is irrelevant, the infobox includes a number of unique entries and features, so it is useful and helpful. Personally, I find the various season lists (like this one) very useful and I think every series inbfobox should use them. I'd like to point out that if this one is deleted, every template in this category would have to be too, so I suggest you list them here. -- Scorpion0422 02:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those reasons (as a matter of fact, I like the show). My reason for nomination is that the generic template is there; why is The Simpsons any different? It's WP:COMMONSENSE. DJ 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out that The Simpsons is not the only series with an individual template. See Category:Television episode infobox templates. -- Scorpion0422 02:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid point here. DJ 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You said "My reason for nomination is that the generic template is there; why is The Simpsons any different?" I was just pointing out that you were incorrect in your assumption that The Simpsons is alone in having a sole template. -- Scorpion0422 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Not only is this used on 400-something articles (most of which are GAs) but it has barely anything included in the Television infobox, only writers, directors, prod. code and airdate/guest stars. Read the previous VFD on this to see everyone's reason. The Flash {talk} 03:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a sensible way to summarize information about Simpsons episodes. The chalkboard gag and the couch gag don't really fit anywhere in the body of these articles. And the main TV episode template doesn't contain space for show runners. The Simpsons has had several show runners over the years, each of whom fostered a distinct influence on the overall feel of the show. (Compare the David Mirkin era with the Mike Scully era, for example.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The template is not only used by The Simpsons, but it is an inspiration for the templates for other shows. So if you want to delete it, why not delete Family Guy's, South Park's and Malcolm in the Middle's episode template along with this???? It'll take a long and painstaking process that can take weeks, maybe months to acomplish. Think of the time that'll be used, wasted just to delete a template used over 400 articles. Bottom line: The template should NOT be deleted at all costs. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let's stop nominating templates with the apparent scope of bulking up the wp:*fd edits. Nergaal (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Couch gag and chalkboard make sense in the box and the seasons are incredibly useful. Wouldn't mind them in more shows. — JediRogue (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, however, I do prefer to see the episodes listed in an infobox on the bottom. Its where I look for it first and then have to think about finding it at the top. However its still keep for me. — JediRogue (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Per the consensus reached in the deletion discussion, when was it? Last week?... Gran2 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep - Per all above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above - The template was nominated for deletion less than a month ago. See here. Theleftorium 07:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) Strong and snowball Keep Why are we doing this just weeks after the last one??? CTJF83Talk 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sympathetic to the argument given in the nomination, but the last TfD for this less than a month ago and was an overwhelming "keep." It is silly to even have it nominated again so soon, absent any concerns about how the last TfD was conducted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per the arguments given above. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 11


Template:DC Supervillian

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 06:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DC Supervillian (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

By title and current placement by the author, this navbox covers Category:DC Comics supervillains which contains 675+ articles (692 w/ redirects) and Category:DC Comics supervillain teams which covers an additional 62 articles. I'm sorry, that way to much for a navbox. J Greb (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed the utility of such a box is questionable with such magnitude. Additiionally, this is a box with fairly wide parameters (particularly for a comics navbox), and the line between villain and hero is often gray in modern comics (should Captain Atom be included or Hal Jordan?). Finally, villain is spelled wrong in the template. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. J Greb beat me to the nomination. This template will either encompass 675 articles, making it pages long and a uselessly indiscriminate list in template format, which is already served by the category pages, of it becomes a limited list with an arbitrary determination of which characters are worthy for listing. It adds nothing to any character page that isn't already there in either format. ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though it won't stop from being deleted. If you look at it has been changed and is only stuck with more major characters. Although since the name of the template section is spelled wrong, I guess there is no way to change that unless by moving it which I did enough of that, I guess it should be deleted. But I was hoping it wouldn't. For right now I think the spelling of it on the main page is the only problem now. Maybe I could be allowed for a do over after the deletion, then it should be fine. Captain Virtue (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, the miss-spelling and the cut-and-paste moves aren't really the issue. It's the potential breadth of the 'box.
      I can appreciate that you have a specific idea about what the 'box would be, however, once it's put in place, it becomes fair game for others to add to. Right now we've got issues with characters/topics/articles that are being added to relatively narrowly defined 'boxes - {{Hulk}} is a big one where Spider-Man, X-Men, and Thor specific characters keep getting added because "Hulk fought them" - and with what constitutes a "notable" or "major" character for inclusion - {{Batman}} and the never ending "add my fave" debate. The last thing we need is a set of, at a minimum, 4 navboxes (DC and Marvel, hero and villain) that will each either run hundreds of articles in content or be a serious strain on editors fighting over which characters are "notable" or "major" enough, or actually rightly DC or Marvel characters for that matter, to be included. - J Greb (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with what you just said if there is one thing that I would put out if you notice inside the edit template it specifically says please don't add anying or delete without discussing why first. And then I would hear them out and approve or disaprove, normally if someone would argue why a character would be in there it's because he maybe does in some respects like arguing that the Ventriloquist should be in the Batman enemies section. So in a way I don't mind if they add one they just need an strong reasoning and source in the talk page before adding. Captain Virtue (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even with such request, that does not negate that the template has very broad and poorly defined inclusion criteria, which consequently diminishes the utility of it. - Sharp962 (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Conti|✉ 15:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not as bad as Template:Lists of countries was, but still too close for comfort. Bloated to the point of harming usability. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appropriate as a category, not a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too broad to be a navbox. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Supervillians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Similar to the above TfD. Though this one looks like it was an earlier version of that template. Either it's a duplicate or it's a potentially larger navbox. J Greb (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As stated above, poor utility and confusing. Spelling errors. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete As per J Greb, it does look like this would be a clean up of the more relevant category above. ThuranX (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not necessary for right now. It is an original, if it stays, I do have plans for it that I have already have discussed to you J Greb. But still I just realized the spelling of the title supervillain was wrong and that's my main focus of why it should be deleted. Captain Virtue (talk)
  • Delete. Same reasoning as template immediately above, plus misnamed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too broad to be a suitable navbox. Nutiketaiel (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same reason as for the related template above. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:After War Gundam X mobile units

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:After War Gundam X mobile units (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles have been merged to List of After War Gundam X mobile weapons. As a result, this template is no longer used and no longer needed. Farix (Talk) 20:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WPCouncilRec

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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)

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

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Template:WPCouncilRec the utility and purpose of this template has become unclear. Much of the language is redundant to material already present in Template:Project and no alternate wording or usage for a project footer for WikiProjects with respect to the WikiProject Council is clear. Optigan13 (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as indicated on the linked discussion, the template has outlived its usefulness. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the linked discussion. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Simpsons Sideshow Bob (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links a few episodes out of hundreds on the grounds that they feature Sideshow Bob. See discussion for deletion of Family guy road trip. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My logic for creating the template was that users were continually adding a list to the Sideshow Bob page. Also, these episodes are unique because Bob has had so few speaking parts so it does have a well-defined and limited criteria and easily linking between episodes does have its uses (now if it was episodes featuring Homer, THEN it would be pointless). Is this a WP:POINT nomination? -- Scorpion0422 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed. All episodes should be linked, within prose, from the character's article anyway. DJ 01:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what about linking from the actual episodes? Cape Feare and The Italian Bob share a direct link (Sideshow Bob's involvement), so the template is useful in tying them together without listing all similar episodes in every article. -- Scorpion0422 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template has little to no significance to articles and has no reason to be used. Secret Saturdays (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the kind of navigation box I would actually use. The main Sideshow Bob doesn't have a quick-to-read list of the different episodes. Yeah, they're all mentioned in the text, but you have to scan through the whole article to find the one you want. The Sideshow Bob episodes are a significant group of episodes in that they have their own internal continuity, so it makes sense that users would start reading about one, and then want to read about the others. (By the way, I'm not familiar with the Family Guy template you mention, so a link would be helpful.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a template hidden at the bottom of the pages and links articles with a narrow and well defined scope. If this does gets deleted, I would suggest adding a collapsible table to the main article if this template is deleted. Nergaal (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I find it useful. Even if all these things are referenced in prose, I tend to look for infoboxes for my navigational needs. However, its not as useful on the pages for those episodes. Still its not really that much less useful than Template:Religion in The Simpsons. In general, I prefer infoboxes to scanning through the article to find the links I need. — JediRogue (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clear navigational purposes for Sideshow Bob episodes. CTJF83Talk 07:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful navigation tool for the Sideshow Bob article and the episodes he appears in. Theleftorium 14:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per above. The Flash {talk} 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful navigation tool. Rhino131 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike the Family Guy template, the articles in this template are actually significantly related. Navigation helper. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sufficient articles linked to warrant a nav template, and the character is a major component of the episodes listed. --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Dt128 SpeakToMe 16:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HIS BIRTHDAY

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as test page. Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HIS BIRTHDAY (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, replaceable by typing "May 9, 1980" (which actually involves less typing than using the template). Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Harris Jayaraj

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 17:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Harris Jayaraj (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and inappropriate use of template, not used anywhere. Johannes003 (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Four articles is not enough to warrant a navigation template. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:R from 1632 character

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per myriad of related 1632 discussions Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:05, 11 August 2009

Template:R from 1632 character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary and inappropriate use of templates. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Untrue

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 06:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Untrue (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Note - the template creator and several of the participants in this discussion were found to be WP:SOCK accounts. These have been collapsed or stricken. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated this template because it accuses Wikipedia content (and inherently, those who added it) of containing fabrications, lies, etc. It says that there is an intent to mislead people, which is an accusation of bad faith, and further says that "such fabrication must be immediately removed." Per WP:SOFIXIT, if an article truly contained WP:BLP violations or gross untruths, any editor should simply deal with the problem, or if it is in the context of an edit war or article ownership problem, an editor should bring it up on a talk page or notice board rather than leaving a comment that the article is a bunch of lies. In practice, this kind of template simply becomes a way of registering discontent. The template is relatively new and infrequently used. Most legitimate uses of this template are better served by adding the "NPOV" or "Unreferenced" templates.

  • I'm going to pose a question here. Can anyone point to a place where the template has ever been used appropriately? I discovered it because it had been placed on a controversial article by an editor who thought the article was biased, which is clearly not a good use (good faith editors should not accuse other good faith editors of spreading lies). Wikidemon (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • response to your question - right now, this article is located on the page Zachlumia. without this template, the article would recquire five separate templates in order to contain the same ifnormation. I feel that having just one or two templates that re more inclusive is both more educational to editors and readers but less cluttery and less unpleasnt to look at. User:Smith Jones 17:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you not see how inherently absurd it is to take the time to place a template that reads "Such references and claims must be immediately removed." ? If something is that serious of a violation, then JUST REMOVE IT. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
in a prefect world, it would be easy to be bbold and simply strip things that violate policies. however, this is Wikipedia nad not a magical fairyland where everyone agrees all the time. in the spirit of collegial and cooperatiev editing, we must instead of unilaterally taking action decide to work with the users who put such information on the article and work with tem on the talk page to preven tthem from turning into a violant content dispute or a WP:3RR violatron. This article is to call attention to all passing editors that some content is in serious dispute allowing for a collegial and respectful resolution rather than the edit warring that is growing increasingly common in this dark age. User:Smith Jones 18:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep - This Template is just the sum of four long existing Templates that are in use - and nothing more. It was made with copy/paste, and if you think all that you said in your comment above, then you have even more job to do with half of the templates in use. If you think that something in it not comply to the rules of Wikipedia, why did you not just edited and adjust text to your interpretation of the Wikipedia rules.

I believed that one template is easier to find and add and occupies less space. So, I strongly oppose deletion of this template, maybe some editing can solve your problem with it. And nobody accuses Wikipedia of nothing !!! Hoo-boy Tarc, what a pecepcion you have, "as there are other templates that raise the point better with far less eDrama, e.g. Template:Hoax and Template:Disputed", only this template is made of these two (and other two)! --Santasa99 (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Redirect to template:disputed. Although this template could be edited to have less implication of bad faith, other templates mentioned above already do the job better. A template giving more specific reasoning should be more likely to get problems fixed (and less useful as an edit war weapon) than one with vague claims of lies or terminological inexactitudes. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
!vote edited by me. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this template is one of the few tools that we as Honest Wikiepdians have to warn readers against ongoing edit warring, fabricaiton fo sources and information, and outright hoax-related material that sometimes creeps onto the Wikipedia. without this template, we would have to implant 4 or 5 other templates to contain the same infromation that this SINGLE template does, and we will lose a critical tool for spurring collegial and cooperative editing instead of deceptive editing on the part fo some POV-pushers. User:Smith Jones 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were literally fraudulent sources or info in an article, then they would be removed, no question. The manner in which this template can an has been used though is nothing like that at all; it is put to use by the losing side of a content/policy dispute, hence the inflammatory rhetoric of the template text. For an actual hoax article, again, we already have Template:Hoax. Tarc (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment thats a reaonable point, HOWEVER some of the cases that a source does exist but it is misrepresented by use of weasel words or even bizarre manipulations to make it seem as if they say something that the source doesnt support. alternatively, entire paragraphs have been rewirtten on some articles to deceive and manipulate readers who trust that a source says what the Wikipedia Article that cites it refers to. User:Smith Jones 15:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Smith Jones, I totaly agree with you.

sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • comment - Blpdispute, BLPunsourced, BLP sources, Hoax, Despute, Misleading, Conflicting were my source in making Untrue template. Untrue template does not contain anything that is not written in these that I mentioned ahead. And I was very careful about this. I wanted a template that only emphasizes this warnings, and put them in a SINGLE box, instead 4 or 5.--Santasa99 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contrary to the representations made above that this template is just a combination of other notices, it actually contains much stronger language that actively asserts the falsehood of the article material. The other templates mentioned describe articles as disputed or poorly sourced, not false. Even the strongest of the other templates, {{Hoax}}, only says that the article might be a hoax. This template also attributes bad faith to editors, including "deliberate lies." Also, there is already a template, {{Article issues}}, available for use when an article has multiple issues, so this template would be redundant even if reworded to more civil language. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it MUST be deleted, noway it could be edited and/or adjusted. (And you talk about bad faith.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 August 2009 comment deleted as socking
It seems to me that the sentence that resulted from combining other fragments conveys a different meaning to any of the individuals, like a quote accidentally taken out of context. This would be a fixable problem, but the redundancy is not. This template could be made an alias of the closest match. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the stength of the template might be unlawful, but i have created a replica that is less potentially inflammatory yet still contains a synthesis of the four or five templates that it is intended to replace. User:Smith Jones 21:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The revision is more neutrally worded, which is a good improvement. But it is still redundant to other, more widely used templates, so I'm sticking with my delete vote. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep, this template is a good idea, I am strongly for keeping it. Actually, there should be made one for every other issue. Without one template that combines several templates into SINGLE, we would have to use sometime 3, 4 or 5 other temp's. And as user Smith Jones pointed, "... we will lose a critical tool for spurring collegial and cooperative editing instead of deceptive editing on the part fo some POV-pushers. I (sooooo, absolutely, positively) fully agree with him (with S.Jones)! "--Umagli (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - And I would argue that, when we stumble upon totally fabricated, falsified article that have nothing with reality and truth, we shouldn't be afraid to say that loud and clear. We shouldn't afraid of editorial wars, in the case of some nonsensical articles and deliberate lie, because the author probably relying on that fear - simply its not like that we dealing with controversy or bias and partial, onesided point of view or anything like that. If some one inventing part or whole story we should be able to respond without fear before we start deleting.--Umagli (talk) 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not need a template for every possible situation. And if a template says that "such references and claims must be immediately removed", then for Pete's sake remove the claims instead of adding a template on top of them. --Conti|✉ 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template is phrased over-aggressively (/too strongly) and it duplicates other, more precise, better-phrased templates which can be used instead. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we encounter something fabricated and falsified we should remove it immediately. Not simply tag the article with a template. Garion96 (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep - The strongest arguments for keeping this template are these contradictory arguments for deleting it; first you say we need more general then more precise, then we don't need a template for every possible situation (?!). "If we encounter something fabricated and falsified we should remove it immediately", well, this is not an argument, we don't do this without warning, discussion, argumentation, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SabeSabe (talk • contribs) 18:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — SabeSabe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Er, yes, we do remove fabricated information in articles without warnings and discussions. Also note that the above user created an account to comment/!vote here. --Conti|✉ 18:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sock vote
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comment For SabeSabe and ZmajeviOdBosne saying that we don't provide a valid enough argument. Actually we provide a pretty solid argument even though everybody's reason are completly different. One is that the whole template is presented in a very forceful tone like it was actually written by Adolf Hitler. It suggests that Wikipedia is a democracy, which it is not. I also feel turned off by the phrase "In addition, all articles must be neutral, verifiable, encyclopedic, and free of original research." and "Please see the article's talk page for making any controversial decisions regarding this article.", which doesn't seem helpful at all and seems very conflicting from the readers point of view. Two, there are templates like {{unrefrenced}}, {{disputed}}, {{hoax}}, {{misleading}}, and {{update}}. Some of these are listed on the Template page, which questions why we need this template in the first place. You might of also forgotten about {{citationneeded}}, {{who}}, and {{whom}}, which are very important parts of marking questionable content in articles. Three, as I am siding with the other people here. WP:SOFIXIT renders {{untrue}} inerit as we remove unsouced content if we can't find sources, we find sources for content that happened but hasn't properly source and we fix gramatical, spelling and posture errors, there's also WP:BLP which describes the way a biography should be written and also implements certain rules pertaining to sources, notability and prose so what's the use for {{untrue}} if there isn't going to be an article that's going to require it. That's all. --Taylor Karras (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the smear tactics being used to discredit people who want ot keep this article. just because this is the first articel they've made while logged in doesn't mean that they are a WP:SPA and as far as ic an tell there isn't a restriction on how old your acount must be before you are allowed to ahve an opinion here. Quite frankly, this debate has become unnecessarily ugly. i havenothing but respect for the people who want to delete this template; I disagree with them but I dont think thtat they are being dishonest or tendentionus in their reasons. Likewise, the people who want to keep this article are acting in the best of intentions and please let's tone down the rhetoric and focus on the template and not on what other people have in their heads. User:Smith Jones 20:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actual new users of the wikipedia are likely to be pretty unaware of the arcanery of article deletions, reviews, arbcoms, etc... When new accounts make their first edits to such pages, it is almost always a red flag of past involvement. This is what the template is for, all it does is provide a tag to the closing admin that there may be more to an account's "vote" than appears at first glance. There's no reason to whip up the eDrama about it, so please, chill. Tarc (talk) 22:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's not all it does. I was resently subjected to CheckUser as a result of this very discussion and it was found that I did not operate sockpuppets. The problem with this tag is the same one that people say that is the problem with the template Untrue; it appears to assume bad faith inadvertently and creates the impression that disagreeing users are playing unfairly or dishonestly. The tag should be used only before a CheckUser has been enacted and it shouldn't really remain after the alleged sockpuppets have been proven not to be sockpuppets. My argument remains the same that it's possible for someone to edit extensively before registering, and only feel the need to register when they see something like this. I can understand your suspicions and concerns; I am not saying that they're unreasonable, only that instead of lashing at out at me the Checkuser complaints should be filed only against the two suspicious accounts instead of at me since I didn't do anything wrong by having a contrary opinion. User:Smith Jones 13:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no suggestion that any checkusers should be filed here. Perhaps you are confused regarding the difference between a single-purpose account and a sock-puppet? Tarc (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser already has been filed. Smith Jones has nothing to do with this, but ZmajeviOdBosne (talk · contribs), SabeSabe (talk · contribs), Santasa99 (talk · contribs) and Umagli (talk · contribs) are of course the same person. Garion96 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, had no idea about that. It was fairly obvious those 4 were either socks or meats, but Taylor Karras' lumping smith-jones in with em was ridiculous. Tarc (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I thought that he was the sockpuppeteer due to an over dramaticly comment he posted about SPA's. And I didn't know that Umagi or Santasa99 were sockpuppets either, just skipped my mind. No offense Smith Jones. Anyways, this has gone too far, this is just a discussion on whether to delete the template, not some flame war. So please, let's just drop this. --Taylor Karras (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough. anyway, how long do templates_for_deletio discussions are supposed to last? This one seems to have run 8 days and I am not seeing any new arguments from either side. due to the fact that most of the people saying keep apart from I were sockpuppets, I think that there is strong consensus at this point for delete even though I feel that I have reformed this article to avoid being too WP:ABF and incivil. Is there an administrator in charge of handling deletion for this template? User:Smith Jones 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seven days is the standard, but sometimes there is a backlog, particularly for cases like this one, where there is a lengthy discussion that an administrator needs to read before closing it out. I imagine someone will be along to close it within the next day or two. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the quick reply. I understand about the backlog but I didnt know if templates followed the same rough timeframe (7 days) as articles for deletion. User:Smith Jones 23:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 10


Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 03:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Henry Louis Gates nav box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless template. There is unlikely to ever be more than two articles in this "series". B (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Delete. I recently untranscluded this from its two members. No need when mutual internal links to eachother do the job just as well. –xenotalk 17:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also gives undue weight to the Henry Louis Gates arrest incident in Mr. Gates' bio. –xenotalk 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Template is adequately designed for its purpose of informing the reader that an article series exists. Since article series navigation templates are to assist our readers find subarticles that are not blessed with intuitive sounding names (which article viewership stats clearly indicate are comparatively rarely accessed, in comparison to a main article) and since it is not disputed that this template works just as well for this purpose whether a series has two articles in it or three-or-more articles in it, unless a new rule is instituted that there needs to be more than two articles in a series, I say let's keep it. ↜Just M E here , now 18:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two articles don't make a "series". --Conti|✉ 18:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could define a series as having two articles, but that's a stretch. Regardless, there's no use to this template. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not useful, seems to highlight a controversy in a WP:BLP article. I don't oppose to re-creating the navbox when more articles about Prof Gates are created (maybe about his academic research) --Jmundo (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've carbon copied the following "!vote" (such as it is) from the Gatesgate article talk page, with permission of its author.

    Either way is fine A few quick reverts on adding and removing a navbox template for Gates-related articles, all two of them. It's nicely done and I'm normally a fan of navboxes but I do think it's a little unnecessary to have a navigation system for just two articles. I don't see the harm if everyone agrees, but we have two editors with good faith objections so I wouldn't push it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

    ↜Just M E here , now 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Xeno and Jmundo hit on the main point here, aside from the template's lack of usefulness. If we dump the template into Henry Louis Gates (as in this version) we create a problem in terms of undue weight. The text of that article reflects the fact that the arrest incident, despite the flurry of coverage, is a minor incident in a long career. A nav box that highlights Gates' arrest will tend to direct readers to a fairly trivial aspect of his life (one which many will have forgotten a year or two from now). If we had sub-articles about his scholarship, his work for public television, etc. then that would be different, but we don't and we almost certainly won't. The situation here is quite analogous to having a nax box at the top of Mel Gibson that directs readers to the main bio article and to Mel Gibson DUI incident (which was obviously a lot worse than the Gates situation). The DUI article seems to be the only sub-article dealing directly with an aspect of Gibson's life, but I don't think many would argue for including in in a nav box at the top of the main bio page, and therefore implicitly giving it more weight than his entire film career. Templates are just as capable of violating our core NPOV policies as article text, and I think that's what's going on here which is why we need to delete it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, BigTimePeace, strong, well-reasoned points. (But since I'm the one who filled in and saved the navigation template -- and have already "!voted" to keep, I'll just leave my !"vote" alone. Embarrassin' ta vote against "my own" template!) ↜Just M E here , now 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing embarrassing about accepting a well-reasoned counter-point and putting a {{db-g7}} on an unnecessary template that was created in good faith. It will allow a speedy closure of this TFD as well. –xenotalk 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:The Humanx Commonwealth

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 03:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Humanx Commonwealth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All linked articles similarly nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets. Lack notability. RadioFan (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment see similar nomination for remaining articles related to fictional planets (and species) in this book series here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets
  • Oppose. Remove the entire template because of the possibility that some of the linked articles within it be deleted? No. Modify the template if some of the linked articles are deleted? Yes. Zotdragon (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is clearly a step or two ahead of itself. First let's see if any or all of the nominated deletes pass, then we can make an assessment about whether enough of the template remains viable for preservation. RandomCritic (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps this is a bit premature but it's starting to snow over in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Humanx Commonwealth planets.--RadioFan (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Better not rush things. The template can be deleted only if the articles are deleted or redirected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have notices is not snowing in the Afd. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Zotdragon. And I've read most of the books.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likely Delete—most of the stuff linked in this template will either be deleted or merged somewhere and this will render the template moot. Let this drift until the AfDs close and sort it appropriately then. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Family guy road trip

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 03:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Family guy road trip (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Do we really need this template? All it lists is five or six out of a multitude of Family Guy episodes which are only linked by their title. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I think I was probably disrupting Wikipedia to make a joke there. It's just, well, some things I am sad to see gone because they're just sweet, or cool, even if they're not encyclopedic. But in my heart I do know this template should be deleted. Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Disney character

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Disney character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stripped down duplicate of Template:Infobox character. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wait even worse, hardcoded duplicate of said template. Speedyable? ViperSnake151  Talk  01:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose: Heavily used on several articles and useful for categorization as under the scope of the Disney WikiProject. The Flash {talk} 05:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also would like to note that the main template has too many fields that would lead inevitably to edit wars. The Flash {talk} 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, should be a speedy delete. Hardcoded instance of an existing character. Really pointless. Templates are not just for adding categories. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Categorization can be done through, well, categories. --Conti|✉ 09:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose: Some characters that are major yet not be allowed into their own articles have to be allowed their own existance on this site, and the Character Lists is the only method possible. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. And Template:Infobox Lost character? -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete We really do need to consolidate the series specific templates into the main template. There is no need to have 500 templates when one does the job admirably. And since this is just a pass-through for {{Infobox character}}, replacing it via template substitution is trivial. --Farix (Talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Characters that are notable yet not notable enough to have their own category need to be placed in a larger category i.e., Disney character Infobox. Ardavu 19:09, 11 August 2009. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.71.185 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template does not put any character into a category. The objections to deletion citing categorization are just red herring arguments. --Farix (Talk) 11:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the meaning is that a search for pages that transclude this template provides a list of articles that should be tagged as part of the WikiProject. Flimsy, but not a red herring. Powers T 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This template is already in use across a cast array of articles. For many of the reasons already stated, and also the plain and the simple, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", I say we keep it. Bigvinu (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Standarisarion is a reason to replace it with a more generic one. Categorisition is not a reason to keep an infobox. --Magioladitis (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since {{Infobox Disney character}} is merely a pass through for {{Infobox character}} and can therefore be easily replace by using template substitution, the number of times it is currently in use is a poor reason to keep the template. --Farix (Talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete seems like a perfect solution here. The Disney WikiProject can set standards if such are necessary (such as for the color of the infobox title). I would encourage anyone who thinks this template should be kept to be much clearer about why, because right now most of the objections are rather muddled and hard to understand. Powers T 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delet per above. BOVINEBOY2008 00:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete solves the problem. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:YouTube show

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, as replaced by {{YouTube}}. JPG-GR (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTube show (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Completely inappropriate linking template for making it easier to link to YouTube videos. Whether official or not, such links violate WP:EL and should not be encouraged through such a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This new template is in the spirit of {{YouTube user}} but it is an improvement. The content index by these "show" pages is high-quality and copyright but clearly available with permission. These "show" indexes often correspond closely to their many corresponding WP entries. It is at a more encyclopedic level in the style of {{Imdb title}} and {{TV.com show}}--Writelabor (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB and TV.com do not fail WP:EL; YouTube does. And the existence of another bad template is not a valid keep reason for this one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are simply grouping this "show" content with the bulk of amateur videos on YouTube. That is not fair. The "show" content is clearly much more in the spirit of a quality encyclopedia. One of the most complete (and iconic) examples is http://www.youtube.com/show/startrek as compared to [List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes]. Just like the IMDb and TV.com templates, there is a simple id within the URL that is associated with the entity. This linking style is efficiently and neatly handled with the template. Spock would approve.--Writelabor (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube links almost always fail WP:EL and duplicates {{YouTube}} as well. I would also suggest adding {{YouTube showid}} to the nomination as it is another duplicate. --Farix (Talk) 11:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The links don't belong, and template should not be made to support them being added. Besides the IP user has already posted so many links to youtube it's impossible to remove them all.Deus257 (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this show system seems to only be for "official" shows and partners. I see no issue here, WP:EL only prohibits linking to copyvios. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EL prohibits linking to many sites, not just copyright issues (which is covered by WP:COPYRIGHT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above, YouTube is developing new features like the "show" feature whose content is distinct from the bulk of the amateur videos. The show content deserves a separate review rather than just being lumped together with the rest of the site.--Writelabor (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still in beta? Then delete. If not, then merge it into {{youtube}} and then delete it. --213.168.121.154 (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube "show" feature, while fairly new, does not label itself as beta, so I guess you mean merge. It is not clear to me that merging the template makes sense. I am not a fan of merging because such efforts do not seem to always include repairing the references. For example, look at the references to {{AMG}}. That was merged but many of the artist references were never updated and even to review the situation requires that you examine redirects such as {{AMG Artist}}.--Writelabor (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are comparing apples and oranges. AMG is not the same sort of site as YouTube or any other video. Again, YouTube links, official or not, are not encouraged in articles except in very rare cases. There is no valid reason to have a template for linking to these shows. Rather than arguing why other templates exist (and attempting to edit EL to support this template), please actually argue why you feel that these show links should be encouraged through this template, and how this template is not encouraging EL violations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing to keep this template, but I'm pretty sure that official youtube links are often perfectly acceptable per WP:EL. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently this template's creator is a banned user and was just blocked and many of his contribs deleted. Presuming this template will also now be speedied? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redundant and an attempt at a guideline end run. 2005 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge with {{YouTube}}. I can attest, as I have just checked, that none of the articles using this template or {{YouTube showid}}, which was just speedily deleted, are copyvio links. This template is not redundant as it links to YouTube shows instead of individual videos. Most of the links are like the one on Sherlock Hound where it links to the officially uploaded series. Also YouTube does not fail WP:EL: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". It also says under the Links normally to be avoided section that "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking [not copyvio]—one should avoid:...[criteria]", from what I can tell this is exactly the way this template is used, for linking to officially uploaded videos and series associated with the subject. Deleting this template is not going to stop copyvio links as one can just use a standard external link, and I do not see how having this template is going to encourage it. If anything it would a convenient way to check YouTube links to ensure that they are not copyvio and "If the url format of the database ever changes, it is sometimes possible to quickly fix all links by rewriting the template." RP9 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I noticed that {{YouTube showid}} was mentioned as a duplicate of this template, it is not, it is for linking to shows that use IDs instead of names. But that could probably be merged into this template using a parameter. RP9 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With what? I suppose that show and show id links could be added as a parameter to the {{YouTube}} template but that has not happened yet. RP9 (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with merging as long as it gets done. I have actually already suggested this before here, although before I knew the show and showid templates existed. RP9 (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RP9 and I have been working on a possible merger solution here. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed Resolution – Now that a "show" option has been added to {{YouTube}}, all calls to this template, {{YouTube show|foo|bar}} can be replaced by {{YouTube|show=foo|bar}}, making this template redundant. Thanks for RP9's help in making this possible. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which bears the question of why is that template anymore appropriate than this one? It has the same problems as this one - it promotes the violation of EL and YouTube links should be far and few in-between, not something that warrants a template. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought YouTube shows were authorized by the copyright holder? For example see http://www.youtube.com/show/2020 for 20/20. This is certainly different from a random YouTube video clip. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 06:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright status doesn't really matter for this discussion (and many of the show pages do not actually show anywhere that they do have permission). The issue is that even if they are "legal", the links still go against EL the same as links to Hulu, Voeh, Crunchyroll, or any other video sharing site would be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page". If the links are entirely legal, the only problem I see is that some of the videos/shows can only be watched from inside the US. But when the shows are uploaded by the copyright holder and are viewable worldwide, I don't see how they violate WP:EL. --Conti|✉ 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and replace all transclusions with {{cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This was originally nominated by ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs), but a deletion discussion never got posted as far as I can tell.

I'm re-nominating because (while IANAL) I don't think this template is interpreting the licenses correctly. GFDL 1.3 (particularly section 11) says nothing about custom warranty disclaimers (which GFDL does allow) carrying over to CC-BY-SA. CC-BY-SA has its own disclaimer section built in, which would always apply. But the special "subject to disclaimers" never transfers, and thus this template should be deleted in favor of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated}}. Superm401 - Talk 21:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The TFD was on hold because we were waiting from a response from Mousier Godwin. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Monsieur, I think, not mousier. :-) —Bkell (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when/where was Monsieur Godwin invoked? Should we remind him? Superm401 - Talk 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 16. —Bkell (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bkell. I missed it, since it was moved from July 8. Superm401 - Talk 23:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 00:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Dragons flight (talk · contribs), who was contacting Mike Godwin, is on Wikibreak, so he's not available for followup. I'm leaving a request at User talk:MGodwin that he comment here. --B (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear folks, I am flattered to be invited to resolve a question of nuance about integrating GFDL and CC-BY-SA, but my experience has been that the best resolutions come not from resort to authority (me), but instead from consensus. I can say with assurance that the FSF, Creative Commons, and the Wikimedia Foundation were aiming very much to create smooth transitioning and compatibility going forward. This generally means trying to avoid a focus on formalism and formalities if the right outcome (interoperable freely licensed content) is achieved. I ask that you continue your discussions here in that light , and allow my to continue my practice of letting consensus evolve without my imposing my own reading on the issue.MikeGodwin (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok ... I guess that means we get to settle itself. My contention on the previous TFD was that although both licenses require maintaining disclaimers, because we are the original publisher for the limited, one-time, case of license migration, there aren't disclaimers unless we put them there. So we are free to delete the template. If any content creator feels strongly about it and really wants the disclaimers there, they are welcome to fix it, but it was only there to begin with because of a dumb mistake and not any affirmative choice on the part of content creators, so I doubt very many people will care. --B (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but re-tag all uses with the "real" CC-BY-SA 3.0 migrated tag), the license migrtion allow the content to be re-licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, there is no such thing as "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 + disclaimers" as far as I know (the license come with a "built in" disclaimer insead), it's either GDFL + disclaimers or vanilla CC-BY-SA 3.0. The disclaimers in question apply to all of Wikipedia so it's kinda moot I guess, but the disclaimers are not attached to the CC license when it's used elsewhere. --Sherool (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further to my point. {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} was basicaly a mistake that unintentionaly added an extra restriction to re-use, and it could not be removed from existing images once added because the GFDL license firbid the removal of disclaimer sections. See Wikipedia:GFDL standardization for background. If we are not actualy legaly compelled' to copy the "subject to disclaimers" stuff to the CC-By-SA-3.0 license when re-licensing we should absolutely not do it, it's an extra burden on re-use for absolutely no good reason. --Sherool (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 9

More redundant conversion 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 delete per discussion and consensus in similar discussions Magioladitis (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ha to acre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Kmbot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Htbot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:C to K (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of these are used. All of them are redundant to convert. {{Ha to acre}} automatically llinks. The two "bot" templates have an auto-rounding system based on the magnitude of the input number. We should use its precision not magnitude. {{Convert}} uses precision. JIMp talk·cont 10:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Economy of Pakistan infobox

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge by subst on Economy of Pakistan. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is only useful in one article (Economy of Pakistan). The same text can be managed better within that article (as evidenced by the thousands of other articles that don't do this) Green Giant (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic idea in making this template was to save the article of Economy of Pakistan from excess load; as done in the article Economy of India. If more users think that the information in the Template:Economy of Pakistan infobox could be managed better within the article of Economy of Pakistan, only then I would recommend it for deletion. nomi887 (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that the Economy of India article and about 70 other economy articles use a similar style but the work of these templates is done by the {{Infobox Economy}} template which they transclude. This forces the database to call up more templates than necessary. The main article transcludes 52 templates without an infobox, the Infobox Economy template transcludes 9 templates, and the Economy of Pakistan infobox template transcludes 14 templates. If we transclude Infobox Economy directly, we can avoid the extra strain without affecting the actual functionality of the article. As for managing editing within the article, there are literally tens of thousands of other articles that transclude relevant templates directly. Green Giant (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree entirely with Green Giant. What are all these national economy templates providing that isn't in the generic template? If there are no necessary additions, then the generic template should be used. If there are additional elements that are commonly added on top of {{Infobox Economy}} to create the national templates, then these should be standardized and added to {{Infobox Economy}}. The whole idea of templates is to standardize across multiple articles, not for every article to have its own special template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Malta-Christian Doctrine

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Magioladitis (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malta-Christian Doctrine (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles linked by the template have been deleted. uKER (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Pointless. As far as I can tell, most of the linked articles never even existed. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A template of all redlinks? Good grief. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 8

Template:Me

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

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

Orphaned, practically blank, not modified since March 2008 EmanWilm (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another user tried to nominate this template but didn't finish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit to being unclear on what this template is supposed to do, but it's obviously an orphan. Barring some defense of its usefulness, delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RL0919 (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.

More unit display 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 delete per previous discussions and consensus. Magioladitis (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit m (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit metre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are the three remaining unit display templates. Like the others deleted before them, they not are used in the main space nor employed in any other useful fashion. They are all redundant to {{convert}} without anything close to {{convert}}'s functionality. They can all be deleted as the other unit display templates have been.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Iras

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per WP:CSD#G8 Plastikspork (talk) 19:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iras was deleted a while ago, this template is totally useless. Karppinen (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AFL Win Loss Table

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 G7. JPG-GR (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFL Win Loss Table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer required as table will be edited within the main article. Nick carson (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Objectivist philosophers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 22:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Objectivist philosophers (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This recently created template is redundant to the list of theorists on the {{Objectivist movement}} template, which is used on all the relevant pages. Based on consensus both on the template's talk page and on the Objectivism cross-talk page, it has been removed from all articles due to this redundancy. RL0919 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I agree it was redundant and potentially confusing.-RLCampbell (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

August 7


Unit display 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 speedy delete per prior consensus Plastikspork (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit display/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit display/tests (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit cu km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit cbkm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit cu mi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit foot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit ft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit ha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit in (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit kilometre (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit lb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit lbs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit pound (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit meter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit mi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit mile (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit oz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit sq km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit sqkm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit °C (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Unit °F (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fahrenheit (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

None of these templates are used in the main space nor employed in any other useful fashion. They are all redundant to {{convert}} without anything close to {{convert}}'s functionality. Many of them are hardcoded instances {{convert}} and those which are not might as well be. Hence they meet criterion T3 for speedy deletion. They can all be deleted as the other Unit display templates have been.

JIMp talk·cont 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Forest Whitaker

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Forest Whitaker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Films-by-director templates are acceptable, but I don't think they are when said director only has three films to their credit. This is far too small of a template to be useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough articles (yet) to justify a nav template. Can always be recreated if/when he's got more. --RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Disagree, I think it remains a useful navigational aid to remind readers once they've reached the end of the article. It also has much potential for expansion to include Whitaker's other (i.e. acting) projects.  Skomorokh  15:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not enough articles to warrant this template. Acting credits should not be included. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Conti|✉ 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is slanted towards recent events. The pages of MPs this is intended for will gain little benefit from such a detailed navigation bar (to all other MPs involved) when a link to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal in the body of the article would be more appropriate, sufficient and as far as I can see has already been done. Ash (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: very notable political event in the United Kingdom which has recieved reels of media coverage and much political debate in the UK. Useful to have a template specifically on the topic to link the relevent articles together in an ordered and compact manner. IMO the objection of "recentism" doesn't stand up very well, since this could apply to the Template:2008 economic crisis too or basically any event which has happened in recent times. In fact it seems to be a misreading of the guideline on recentism, which would apply, for an instance; if an article on the history of Austria had ten paragraphs for the time period after 1950, but only three paragraphs for the entire history before that. Rather than topics which are specifically about contemporary events. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: from WP:RECENT: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists." Agree with the reasoning of Yorkshirian above. Beganlocal (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the only issue in the nomination, the fact that the template is made irrelevant as all articles that might include this template already link to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal should be considered.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a list of people who died by hanging would be in unrelated cirumstances. This is a specific case in politics and the media, where a group of people; British politicans are involved in a major expenses scandal. It isn't a list of everybody who was ever implicated in a scandal. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alright, so pick another example with a specific circumstance -- the list & category of people who died in the titanic, say. They all share that attribute, so having a category and a list is appropriate. But they also have in common that, with few exceptions, they're not on Wikipedia purely because they died in the Titanic; that wouldn't be enough to make them notable. So any templates they have are about whatever makes them notable. E.g. Sir Duff-Cordon in on WP because he was a baronet, so has that template; he also happened to be a fencer, but he doesn't have a template for that to navigate between all the people on WP who happened to like fencing, because that would be silly; that's not what they're notable for. The fencing template (if there is one) is for people who are notable because they like fencing. Similarly, the politicians here aren't notable because they were implicated in some scandal, they're notable because they're MPs; hence delete. -- simxp (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Having this at the bottom of all these politician articles is completely unsuitable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? --h2g2bob (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A link the scandal page is sufficient. As said above, to have this template on all these article is incorrect. Garion96 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in modified form. This is a bit broad at the moment: "implicated" is very vague (if we include local newspapers, "implicated" means almost all MPs). I think the template should become more narrowly defined if it's to be useful. I fully support this template if it is just MPs who resigned or are standing down next election due to the expenses crisis. I'd also support it if "implicated" had some firm criteria. I'd like to suggest MPs overclaiming and paying back more than £1,000 (29 MPs) or £10,000 (10 MPs) catches the most interesting cases.[2] I don't accept the recentism argument - this is likely to have political consequences for years to come. Nor do I accept the "there's a link in the body of the text" argument, as that applies to almost every template I can think of. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A criterion of MPS resigning due to the expenses crises would not be well-defined: hundreds of MPs have said they're standing down at the next election, and in most, the expenses crisis will have played a large factor; no-one knows how large in each case. Using MPs who've payed back more than £X would be an incredibly unfair criterion: It would penalise those who did decide to pay it back over those who stuck to their "I didn't break the law" guns and decided to keep it. Which is not what we want. I don't think there's any set of criteria that would be both fair and well-defined, whilst also not including pretty much every MP there is. And no, "which ones the Telegraph decided to run with" is not a fair criterion. NPOV != Telegraph's POV. -- simxp (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no clear definition of who has been "implicated" (who the newspapers choose to highlight is as much about what headlines grab the most attention as anything else and some of the implications have been silly, such as the lambasting of one MP for claiming for accommodation in his constituency when it's very rural and has many islands with limited ferries so when touring it it's not possible to nip back to the constituency home at night) and it's hard to objectively assess every MP standing down as to whether it's because of expenses (some were likely to retire anyway). This is the sort of thing best handled by an article not by a template. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would this be appropriate on Wikipedia in 100 years time? No, it would be massive undue weight towards a particular event in a person's life. Article link suffices.  Skomorokh  15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. "Implicated" is far too subjective, and the template places far too much weight on a recent single event. It is sufficient that any related articles contain a link to the primary subject. PC78 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The article about the scandal, which is linked to for all those members involved, is enough. Bnynms (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Old discussions

August 6

Template:FC Barcelona Atlètic 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 keep User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 04:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Squad template for Barcelona Atlétic, FC Barcelona reserve team, currently playing in Segunda Division B. Since the league is not fully professional, the listed players usually fail WP:ATHLETE (unless they already played in a higher tier, of course) and being part of such team (or even playing games on it) does not confer any sort of notability. Therefore, I am proposing to delete it, as already happened with similar squad templates for teams not playing in a fully professional league. Angelo (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - there are many squad templates for teams playing in non-fully-pro leagues (eg every team in England's Conference National and some from Conference South, etc. As long as the links aren't all red, I don't see a problem with templates like this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a useful navigation template with 10 blue links. Jafeluv (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rockferry

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 11:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This album template is full of non-wikilinks and the album/singles are already covered by Template:Duffy. This template is only used on one article that Template:Duffy is not on, Please Stay (song), that is a non-single cover. Aspects (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentAs the creator of {{Rockferry}}, I realise that it is a bit excessive for the album to have its own template at this stage, although it does link to other associated articles. Dt128SpeakToMe 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unnecessary- a navbox is for linking and there's nothing to link there except was it already covered by the Duffy navbox. Imperatore (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Famitsu perfect scores

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famitsu perfect scores (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be a very awkward form of navigation - while in the gaming community, recognizition of a game by having a 40 or 39 from Famitsu is something of an honor, it is of trivial nature to the encyclopedic function. This may be better as a category but even then that's questionable and putting one source over all others MASEM (t) 13:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. I'm not particularly experienced at it. I just presumed it would be a good thing to do, considering each article in the template talks of its Famitsu status as a perfect or near-perfect score, and being able to navigate between each article from each article would make things easier. Your call, obviously :) AarnKrry Talk to me, babycakes! 13:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The problem is that there's no inherent relation between the various games. A nav template is supposed to group pages that are related somehow, under a single topic or whatnot; furthermore, every game on the template is in the list at Famitsu which even MORE so reders this one unneeded. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't a strong relationship between the articles in the navigation. Navigation templates are intended to allow users to find similar articles to the one they are reading; this template uses such an arbitrary criterion that at best, it can be used to explore other articles, but it won't be clear to users what they will find in the template, making it difficult to use for navigation purposes. Gary King (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Provided full titles are used instead of abbreviations (for example "MGS4:GotP" replaced by "Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots"), this is a useful template to navigate through all of the games that are considered to be "perfect" by the biggest Japanese gaming magazine in existence... even though they seem to have gotten a bit soft as of late. 76.107.137.39 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps this could be a category, but even that is questionable. Definitely not a navbox. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It was clearly made in good faith, but if too many templates are made like that then it gets very cluttered, very quickly.--Remurmur (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Games are unrelated to each other. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could also be an example of journalistic bias.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Quoted straight out of Famitsu: "Several recent Famitsū scores have been subject to controversy, with accusations that the magazine is raising scores to appease advertisers and the gaming industry(...)" which renders the list inherently biased. --bitterMan.lha 12:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that the template is rather helpful, and it's pretty cool to see what other games are considered 'Perfect' or 'Near-Perfect' by Famitsu, without having to leave the page. 72.191.111.95 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:La Liga 2006-07

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 09:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:La Liga 2006-07 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template superfluous. There are no season templates for superior competitions like UEFA Champions League 2006-07 or UEFA Cup 2006-07. League season articles should only carry a teamlist for the most recent season. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 07:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – PeeJay 08:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This template is useful for team season's articles like FC Barcelona season 2006–07, Valencia CF season 2006–07 and Real Madrid C.F. season 2006–07. This template allows readers easy go to the other teams' articles.--ClaudioMB (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they can't do that by clicking on the team names in the league fixtures section? Don't be silly. – PeeJay 09:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no league fixtures section, there is a fixtures section with all competitions. Not easy to find the other teams on La Liga 2006-07.--ClaudioMB (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There would be if you followed the accepted format for club season articles. – PeeJay 17:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not needed. GiantSnowman 09:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it may only used in La Liga 2006–07.--KSAconnect 10:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it will only be used in one article, why keep it? – PeeJay 11:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - superflouous template, can't see any substantive use for it. - fchd (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - useless, only teamlist needed. - SonjiCeli (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Completed discussions

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


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

Tools

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

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

Meta

To convert

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

To substitute

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion&oldid=307961616"