Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 10

< June 9	June 11 >

June 10

Template:View all arch 02

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:View all arch 02 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Test template. Thetrick (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - pity there isn't a speedy criterion for this. Terraxos (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Jtdirl

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

The result of the debate was delete. If the user was actively using this signature then I would keep it. However, since it's not in use, there is no need to have it. I'll restore upon the user's request. Wizardman 21:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Entirely unused template that might have been a user sig. Thetrick (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was his/her signature for a long time. This was a very prolific and highly respected editor and the signature was heavily used, though it probably would not show up via whatlinkshere since signatures are automatically substituted. The user is now on wikibreak but is expected to return. Keep until he/she has a chance to tell us whether the template can be safely obsoleted. Rossami (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Places in Bedfordshire/small

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 21:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Places in Bedfordshire/small (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Test template with 3 instances. Thetrick (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not remotely useful as a template. Terraxos (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Sjtestpurpose

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Test template in use on one user page. Thetrick (talk) 22:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:AFC ribbon

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AFC ribbon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to have been a test template. It currently exists only on one user's talk page. Thetrick (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Uwc2007

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 21:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In consequence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart, these little-used templates seem to have become rather pointless. — Sandstein 18:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - if we don't consider the chart itself notable enough for an article, templates like these are surely unnecessary. Terraxos (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Not-censored

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 21:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a maintanence template, nor is it a talk page template. By contrast, template:censor is for talk pages. But Not-censored is designed to sit on articles that might be censored - forever. Templates in articles are for fixable problems; finished articles should be free of all these. The template thus has no valid use, and tricks misguided editors into slapping it into articles where it doesn't belong (which is how I found it.) — Wily D 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Templates in articles are for fixable problems - exactly. --- RockMFR 19:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete. I think it's important to be vigilant about preventing the censorship of ceratin articles, but your reasoning is pretty hard to dispute. Weygander (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, it's a sectional template like the sectional neutrality template. There are articles where only a particular section would attract censorship and it is important to remind the prudes that they are not to be removing content for censorship reasons (they don't always look on the talk page). --Dragon695 (talk) 07:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notes in the articles should address our readers, not other editors. That's what the talk page is for. If editors are causing problems, then the article can be protected. kwami (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep i see no reason to delete it as it clearly might be appropriate for some articles and section of articles. SUVx (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete I found the tag added to the UFO article by the previous editor (SUVx), an account opened today to create the illusion of support for deleting the dictionary definition of "UFO" from the lead of the article. SUVx claims to be a newbie, but shows remarkable hostility and knows where to find templates like this! I think this shows the potential for abuse—ironically slapping "censorship" on any article where the editors don't allow POV pushers to censor things they don't like. kwami (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

everybody can use the help and search function to find appropiate tags. right?! right! and you still fail to provide evidence for your hostile claims against me! STOP it already! i'm now here and disagree on a few issues with you. take it as it is! do you always treat newbies like that?! what sort of communitey is this?! SUVx (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: SUVx has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor. kwami (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Jordan Blogs

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused spamy template. Thetrick (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems intended for spam/advertising rather than any helpful use. Terraxos (talk) 01:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Seth Rogen

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Wizardman 18:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actor templates are not needed and have been deleted in the past per precedent set with Matthew McConaughy and others and Nicole Kidman — Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rogen has also written films, although many of these do overlap with Judd Apatow and Evan Goldberg. Alientraveller (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:John Smith Quintet

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template created on non-notable topic by a sockpuppet of blocked sockpuppeteer User:Chris funk bass. All links are redlinks other than those that point to terms that should be disambiguated. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No use as all the links are redlinked. I can't find anything notable about the subject. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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