Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WP:TFD

Deletion Debates Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellaneous Deletion review policy - log - tools

edit

Purge the cache to refresh this page

On this page, deletion of templates (pages in the Template namespace) is discussed. Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes.

Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised.

Template undeletion is not discussed on this page, but on Deletion review. Please note that stub templates should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Contents 1 What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD 2 How to use this page 3 Discussion 4 Current discussions 4.1 December 16 4.1.1 Template:Seven Network schedule 4.1.2 Template:Advert 4.1.3 Various Template:User:COMPFUNK2 templates 4.1.4 Template:Infobox Philippine High School 4.1.5 Template:Needimage 4.2 December 15 4.2.1 Template:Project U.S. Roads/NC 4.2.2 Template:energy 4.2.3 Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Structure 4.2.4 Template:Infobox GA State Route 4.2.5 Template:Dmoz 4.2.6 Template:USFBullsCoach 4.3 December 14 4.3.1 Template:See 4.3.2 Template:Main4 4.3.3 Template:Main2 4.3.4 Template:Main3 4.3.5 Template:Meter 4.3.6 Template:WikiProject Space/Categories 4.3.7 Template:Infobox CityRail Line 4.3.8 Template:Infobox FL State Road small 4.3.9 Template:CityRailSydney 4.3.10 Template:Bruchim 4.4 December 13 4.4.1 Template:airport 4.4.2 Template:Welcome-anon-vandal 4.4.3 Template:Copypaste 4.4.4 Template:Db-bookauthor 4.4.5 Template:Roaddis, Template:Roadis, Template:Schooldis, Template:Shipindex, Template:Songdis 4.4.6 Template:titled-click 4.4.7 Template:Berkshire Hathaway 4.4.8 Template:RPG-artwork 4.4.9 Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archives 4.5 December 12 4.5.1 Template:Long-article-committee 4.5.2 Template:Wet noodle award 4.5.3 Template:Cquote 4.5.4 Template:Arbitration 4.5.5 Template:StarStruck Final 14 4.5.6 Template:USSR Squad 1988 European Football Championship 4.5.7 Template:Computer Magazines 4.6 December 11 4.6.1 Template:Painting2 4.6.2 Template:Noteworthy bulletin board system software 4.6.3 Template:Msg 4.7 December 10 4.7.1 Template:Zoo logos and other 4.7.2 Template:South Australia 4.7.3 Template:Infobox Regency of Bengkalis 4.7.4 Template:Test8 4.7.5 Template:Pokerefs 4.7.6 Template:Istanbul Stock Exchange companies 4.7.7 Template:Clearleft 4.7.8 Template:Clearright 4.7.9 Template:Clear 4.7.10 Template:Reporting marks 4.7.11 Template:WikiFur 4.7.12 Template:TOC-right 4.7.13 Template:TOC-left 4.8 December 9 4.8.1 Template:Db-school 4.8.2 Template:Speedrun articles external links 4.8.3 Template:Stones_Throw_Records 4.8.4 Template:FamilyTree_TimeSharingOS 5 Old discussions 5.1 December 7 5.1.1 Template:User NoCredit 5.1.2 Template:North Auckland Line 5.1.3 Template:TOC float right 5.1.4 Template:TOC float left 5.1.5 Template:Henderson State Alumni 5.1.6 Template:Infobox LA Highway business 5.1.7 Template:MNTV West Virginia 6 Completed discussions 6.1 Closing discussions 6.2 To convert 6.3 To orphan 6.4 Ready for deletion

[edit] What (and what not) to propose for deletion at TfD

Proposal of a template for deletion may be appropriate whenever:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used (note that this cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks, it may be used with "subst:");
4. The template isn't NPOV (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement);
5. The template does not clearly satisfy a criterion for speedy deletion (if it does, tag it with a {{db|reason}} and ask an admin to delete it - these do not require consensus).

Nominating stub templates for deletion should instead be done at the WP:SFD page. Templates that reside in userspace or other non-article namespaces should instead be nominated on the WP:MFD page, but please note that Wikipedia is very lenient about userspace. Templates that reside in mainspace should go on WP:TFD.

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place.

[edit] How to use this page

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName (do not include the namespace identifier "Template:") & template with the name of the template to be deleted)

I	Edit the template. Enter the following text in the top of the template or inside the box (where applicable): {{tfd|TemplateName}} or {{tfd-inline|TemplateName}} Please include "nominated for deletion" or similar in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. If the page is heavily in use and/or protected, consider putting the notice on its talk page instead. Also, try to minimise page disruption by using the Preview button to check the revised template, as its new look will be visible on all pages that use it. Do not blank the template.
II	Create its TfD subsection. Click on THIS LINK to edit the section of TfD for today's entries. Add this text to the section, at the top: {{ subst:tfd2|template name|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. --~~~~ }} Suggest what action should be taken for the template.
III	Give due notice. Please consider adding {{ subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName }} --~~~~ on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that your TfD tag is not removed.

[edit] Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," or "I find it useful," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to vote "keep until orphaned" or similar. Please instead phrase it as "delete" or "delete after orphaning".

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] December 16

[edit] Template:Seven Network schedule

Template:Seven Network schedule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

WP is not a TV guide. Requires updating or becomes misleading. More appropriate to link to network's website for a tv guide. Precedent exists with Australian tv schedule templates (see deletion logs June 20, 2006 and July 4, 2006), all of which have resulted in deletion. Tntnnbltn 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Advert

Template:Advert (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I fail to see how this template does anything useful. Rather, it seems to introduce additional POV. Other than that, it is just another poor excuse for negative editors to criticise the work of others rather than fixing things themselves. I urge you to delete this. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been put at Maroochydore, Queensland - the language there is supposed to prove that it is notable - i.e. say what's important and significant about the place. Zephyr103 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't get why Millsberry is tagged, it dosen't read like an advertisement to me. User:Cmputer
  • Disagreeing with it being placed on one article is hardly a reason to completely remove the tag. Koweja 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. That's one strange discussion. Advertising is in violation of numerous policies (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV etc.), and marking it for cleanup with this template is certainly not "negative", "criticism" or "additional POV" - please remember to assume good faith. And what's an article on an Australian locality got to do with this? Sandstein 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep While it may be used as a criticism, it is valid criticism--there's a difference between being non-neutral (accidentally or otherwise) and sounding like a full-blown ad. Ideally, such articles would be hacked down to neutral/factual stubs or put up for deletion immediately, but if the editor doesn't want to be hasty (or doesn't have time), this template can help draw attention from more experienced/available anti-ad patrollers to offer second opinions or deal with the article appropriately. --Arvedui 12:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at how this template is currently being used, it tends to be put on articles whose wording is felt to be favourable to the subject. Have a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Advert. The intent may be good, but it's absolutely not working. It's just one more annoying template anyone could stick on an article. As for your experienced anti-ad patrollers, I wonder what they're doing most of the time, because they don't seem to be fixing wording as required by the template. Utterly useless. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Specific issue useful template to alert editors that an article is written as an advertisement, but is notable and can be salvaged by making it conform to neutral point of view. It is also worth noting that the template has been nominated for deletion before here: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/July 2005#Template:Advert. The result was keep. --tgheretford (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a useful template to tag articles that appear to be promos for a product or service. I've seen the template misused as a POV device (tagging it to mean "this article isn't negative enough to suit my POV about the topic") but the answer in that case is to remove the template and replace it with a more appropriate one if needed. Too useful a template to delete. Dragomiloff 13:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you going to be doing this job on a daily basis? Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It's up to anyone who sees this to fix it. You can too. Dragomiloff 14:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone uses this template to push POV and suppress other viewpoints, then one might argue that {{npov}} is used to push POV and suppress other viewpoints, too. Or {{hoax}} too. Or any other cleanup/dispute tag for that matter. The fact is, these tags are not Holy Word; It's not nice to remove them from the articles if they are valid and haven't been addressed properly, but if they're clearly misused, it's appropriate to remove them. This issue is not serious enough to warrant deletion of an otherwise useful template. With the new spam speedy deletion criterion, this tag is as relevant as ever, and even more so. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a good template and I dont see any that can completely replace it. --Natl1 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a very good, useful template that helps keep wiki-polices like WP:NOT enforced. dposse 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - There is nothing wrong with taging articles that violate guidelines as needing cleanup. Koweja 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Various Template:User:COMPFUNK2 templates

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox short-sleeves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox bbw (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox atheism-xmas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User punk-billboard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User dmb (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User halloates (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User beck (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox arctic-monkeys (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox orange-julius (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These templates are all orphans and all duplicates of ones on User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes. Presumably, it was not intentional to create them in template space. Please note: despite the name, these pages are in template space. --BigDT 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy? Delete obviously created by mistake and already userfied. Koweja 16:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Philippine High School

Template:Infobox Philippine High School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Duplicate of Template:Infobox Secondary School. ----Howard the Duck 06:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a duplicate. See content. If duplicate, then delete other secondary schools templates as well (eg. Singapore, etc). Pmgomez 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: Currently, only Xavier School uses this template. Another Philippine school, De La Salle Santiago Zobel School, uses Template:Infobox Secondary School. --Howard the Duck 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

DLS-Z can then use the Philippine Secondary School template. 209.8.41.106 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Needimage

Template:Needimage (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

That template isn't used very much yet, but the few articles show already what's wrong:

• Yeast - templatitis: People who want to read the article have to search for the article text.
• Thracian language - It looks like the template was dropped randomly. A comment at the talk page mentiones "for obvious reasons". Well, I had a look at other language articles and most of them don't have any images at all.
• Alyssa Alps - the template is mostly used on pages of porn stars or nude models. Hmm ...
• Template format: it's big, it gives redundant information (no or only a few pictures (I actually see that myself), a link to the "upload file" function, ...) a corresponding category is missing.
• Redundancy: see template:reqphoto ("talk pages only" - that's how it should be. Don't bug the reader .) --32X 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nominator. This template is very annoying. --orlady 16:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I would recommend using {{Diagram needed}}, which allows placing the requested image in the article. Someone was "bold" and replaced it with a redirect. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No opinion. Not bothered what happens (anything else would be a bit daft as I created the template originally) but the usage in the Yeast article is hellish, and raises further concerns about placing templates in article space and not article-talk space. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 17:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 15

[edit] Template:Project U.S. Roads/NC

Template:Project U.S. Roads/NC (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The massive debate is over and the template is no longer needed to be in {{Project U.S. Roads}}. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. It feels good to be shedding this template. =) --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:energy

Template:Energy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems a very detailed template for order of magnitude comparison. May be replaced with a template which covers larger steps, i.e. 1-10, 11-10, 21-30 Inwind 18:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Convert to article. This template is very interesting and potentially very useful, but I think it is about 2 orders of magnitude too complicated to be treated as a template. --orlady 16:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Structure

Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Structure (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - This template was once an information box on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. The WikiProject page is currently being revised, and the template is no longer needed. Dr. Submillimeter 12:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox GA State Route

Template:Infobox GA State Route (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Per WT:GASH, all uses of this template have been replaced with {{Infobox road}}, making Infobox GA State Route redundant. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 01:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dmoz

Template:Dmoz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is little use providing links to external web directories on articles, this template is therefore not useful and is skating very close to link spam. Peta 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per many, many, other templates like this. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the new Wikipedia:External links will encourage people to put their external links in web directories instead of Wikipedia. Having {{dmoz}} will greatly reduce the amount of spam we receive. Curiously (for me), out of the many, many templates similar to this one we have (I can think about {{Nintendo.com}}, {{GameFAQs}}, {{moby game}}, {{IMDB}}, and Category:External link templates in general) this is the most useful. -- ReyBrujo 02:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Not spam. In fact, probably the best tool for combating spam here. It's a free, open-content, volunteer-edited directory. I don't see how it could be considered spam. (Disclosure: I am a dmoz editor.) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 03:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep not spam at all, especially since guidelines tell people to use the ODP instead of creating pages/external links here. Koweja 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but take into account that i'm not an expert on templates. Someone recently added this dmoz template to an article I watch and I immediately thought it was a good idea. Having investigated the issue more, with the rewrites to WP:EL and such, I still think it is a good idea. WP is not a directory, but links to a directory like dmoz could solve a lot of problems. Wrs1864 04:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wrathchild and Koweja. -R. S. Shaw 04:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the one DMOZ link is an effective way of keeping out the link farm. I've used it several times to achieve pruning of link farms. Sandy (Talk) 04:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above "keep" comments. We should be encouraging its use! --A. B. ^(talk) 04:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons given by others. I recently added this template to a bunch of categories where I thought it could reduce a spam problem and/or could be a useful supplementary resource. (I must disclose that I am a dmoz editor.) --orlady 04:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - serves an useful purpose esp. as links are formatted consistently. Of course like other tags the existence of this tag is not an universal endorsement of linking - must always be a judgement call on whether the dmoz category in question has enough content - e.g. I would not add a link to http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Germany/States/Baden-W%c3%bcrttemberg/Localities/T%c3%bcbingen/ to the Tübingen article as the link to the 4-sites category would not add significant value. (Disclosure: I am a dmoz editor) Tschild 09:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep please. The TfD template being displayed on articles is to the detriment of Wikipedia's image. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it seems to be useful. - Deathrocker 13:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is a great tool for all to use, I don't see any reason why is it linked to spam. Simple reasoning, if there weren't for this Dmoz in most External Links, people will just simply dunk every link into every article's External Links. I had enough of that problem in many articles. Like someone above said, this Dmoz does really have an effect on Spam Reduction. I Stroungly agree to everyone's opinion of keeping it, I find no fault, nor fraud in it. Same analogy, if there weren't sign boards on highways, people will just simply drive and lead to their destination to nowhere.Someformofhuman 13:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Probably one of the best link spam deterents, as others above have noted. Putting this as well as "NoMoreLinks" template in External links that references dmoz has really helped discourage spam on some articles. Calltech 14:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Very useful when pruning external links sections that are becoming long lists. FreplySpang 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is used on nearly 1000 articles. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong/Speedy Keep This template keeps a lot of trash external links off Wikipedia. Roguegeek (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - pretty much per all of the above - one of the best tools for combating linkspam. I encourage the nom. to review WikiProject Spam to see how useful this tool is in the fight against spam. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - for the reasons listed above. Speedy since it is currently malforming around 1000 articles with the TFD notice. Kuru ^talk 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've moved the deletion template to the template's talk page for now. I have no particular opinion on whether or not this should be kept. (Radiant) 01:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Dropped the speedy off. Kuru ^talk 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Almost 20 Keep !votes in one day, so Speedy Keep, please. --Conti|✉ 01:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I think we can easily consider this a consensus, so please change back. Roguegeek (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USFBullsCoach

Template:USFBullsCoach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a frivolous template. I can understand having football coach templates for teams with more illustrious football histories, but the University of South Florida has only had a football team for 10 years, and only one head coach (you can see his name is the only one in the template). Delete. --Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 02:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There is absolutely no use to navigation templates with one name. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The template is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. One of the stated goals of the project was to create a set of standardized templates for coaches, teams, etc. Please see chart for complete list of 1A. FIU also only has one coach listed but will be getting a new coach in the next couple of weeks or months. 09er 13:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per comments of 09er. --Tlmclain | Talk 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is an unusual case because it contains only one entry, but it does complete the series of standardized templates created by the associated WikiProject. Johntex\^talk 16:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 09er. --PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 17:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. This is more than a navigational tool, it's information. It's impressive to see a school with one coach for the history of the school, compared to others than have had 50 in 100 years and then there are some with 13 for 100+ years. There is a school that had one coach, but they just fired him and now there will be two on the template. It is definite that they will have another head coach at this school and the template will already be there, instead of needing to recreate the identical material. Eventualism should take precedent here. --MECU≈talk 17:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep? This is not a bad faith nomination. I don't think "speedy" is in order here. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 23:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No one said it was bad faith. --MECU≈talk 04:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If it isn't, WP:SK doesn't cover it. -Amarkov

^blah_edits 04:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • I don't see "Bad faith" anywhere on that page. I even searched. However, this doesn't meet speedy keep since there was another delete vote other than the nominator. I have changed my recommendation accordingly. --MECU≈talk 14:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. VegaDark 21:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as also stated by Mecu. CJC47 15:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 14

[edit] Template:See

[edit] Template:Main4

Template:Main4 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deprecated.100110100 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:Deprecated.100110100 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 10:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Main2

Template:Main2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deprecated.100110100 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:Deprecated.100110100 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Main3

Template:Main3 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Deprecated.100110100 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:Deprecated.100110100 21:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Meter

Template:Meter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Gram (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Kilogram (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Newton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), Template:Joule (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I'm basically raising for deletion all of Category:Unit templates. All are completely unused except for template:Meter, which occurs in Åre (ski area). The templates are pointless; all they produce is the unit symbol for that unit (indeed, in the case of metre, even that was wrong (M not m)), and have virtually no use, as well as going against WP:MOSNUM, which states that units should be spelled out in text. If unit symbols are really needed, then the conversion templates such as template:feet should be used, as at least they do something useful. --Laïka 18:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I really don't see the reason for making it into a template. It isn't like the name changes constantly. Koweja 03:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Space/Categories

Template:WikiProject Space/Categories (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a list of space-related categories that is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Space. The WikiProject in general does not look like it is currently active. This category list itself is difficult to maintain, especially given recent activity in renaming categories of astronomical objects. I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Space asking if anyone would object to this template's deletion. I received no responses, so I assume that I will not offend anyone by deleting this list. --Dr. Submillimeter 12:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox CityRail Line

Template:Infobox CityRail Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Replaced by newer template, no page links here. --Joestella 09:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Userfy (to me) - the newer template is contentious: this one may still serve a useful purpose for the future. JROBBO 12:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox FL State Road small

Template:Infobox FL State Road small (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Recent upgrades to {{Infobox FL State Road}} have made this template redundant, as the appearance of this template can now be produced using Infobox FL State Road. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant -- Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CityRailSydney

Template:CityRailSydney (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Superceded by Template:List of public transport infrastructure in Sydney. --Joestella 09:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You've edited the template to change its content to be identical to the new one before bringing it to TFD. The two look identical now, but the old version had a distinct purpose. This isn't the proper way to do things. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above; and the fact that deleting this template will delete all the links where the new template should be; and the fact that the old template still had useful information in its history which will not be available if it is deleted. There's no reason to delete this even if it has been superceded. JROBBO 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Of course it's redundant now, you transcluded the other template onto it... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This TfD is a waste of time. John Dalton 04:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 13

[edit] Template:airport

Template:Airport (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

seems to be an obsolete template with nothing linking there Inwind 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, obsoleted (before it was created) by {{Airport infobox}} Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but someone needs to work on that infobox. Ugliest syntax ever. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Welcome-anon-vandal

Template:Welcome-anon-vandal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Mostly strange imo, some people tells me it's not AGF. _→AzaToth 18:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename but keep. The template has a good use - a potential welcome message for an IP where the vandalism was some time ago and only noticed long after the fact or where the individual who reverted the vandalism did not leave a warning message. That said, the name is obviously not a good one since the template itself recognizes that the vandal may not be using this IP any more. BigDT 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Rename and re-write. Re-write the first bit so it's not so blatantly calling the IP a vandal- make it a bit more like the {{subst:test}} warning. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the salutation of "Welcome-anon-vandal", that's because it uses the name of the page it's currently on to determine the salutation. If it was on my talk page, it would be "68.39.174.238". Since most people wont understand that anyway, I'm going to remove it. 68.39.174.238 07:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Rename and Keep with minor changes. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Copypaste

Template:Copypaste (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A weasel template (a la "weasel words"). Basically it is saying "This feels like it's a copyvio, but I can't be bothered to find out whether it is or not." It attempts to assert something (cut-and-pasting) without proof; a guilty-until-proven-innocent sentiment. The correct template for an article that has uncharacteristic style is {{cleanup}} or {{wikify}} or etc. The correct template for an article that is (definitely) a copyvio is {{copyvio}}. Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not at all a big fan of the "someone else ought to take care of this" templates, but honestly, I don't mind this one too much because it allows someone who may not be very skilled with locating the source of a copyvio to alert other users that something doesn't look right. I looked at this template's links and found that Charles W. Steger was tagged. Upon looking at it, it was obviously a copyvio from Dr. Steger's official bio and I was able to revert the change. I then looked at the next linked article, Hanging Gardens of Babylon and found a section that was copied from [5]. Considering that the two and only two articles I examined tagged with this template were both blatant copyvios, I'm thinking the template is useful. ;) BigDT 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. When it would take 10 seconds to do it yourself, you have a good argument, but this takes longer. What happens without things like these is that nobody checks for copyvio. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigDT. It'd be nice if we didn't need the template, but it'd be nice if we were all millionaires, too. :-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Comment The problem is that there is never a reason to remove this tag, because it is not possible to prove that a work is not a copyvio. See Absence of evidence. The best one can typically do is Google on various snippets of the work and see if they get a match (that is not a WP clone). But just because that search fails, doesn't mean the work is not a copyvio. So the assertion gets to stick, even though it is made with absolutely no proof. I guess I'll have to take this discussion to WP:CV talk, because no one here seems to mind a template based on speculation that never gets removed. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

This tag is highly usefull. Example: Seattle Police Department was BLATANTLY copied from the official copyrighted site. I removed the text (Most of the articel), at which point I removed the tag as it was no longer a copyandpaste job. The tag fulfilled its purpose completely. The argument presented above seems to be on a more legalo-technical plane, which at this point I'm not to interested in, mainly because it just works! ;D!! 68.39.174.238 07:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You did the incorrect thing. The correct thing is to blank the page and put {{copyvio}}. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. More evidence that this tpl is redundant. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- Googling snippets to check copyvio status is not difficult. Users should make the effort to investigate and correct copyvios rather than slap a suspicion tag on the article for someone else to follow up on. As has been said, {{copypaste}} could burden an article with a "stuck" template because of absence of evidence. Caveat: there are some cases where a search returns a match visible on the search screen, but the underlying link cannot be reached. Example. In those cases it would be nice to have somewhere we could ask others to investigate (e.g. if I don't subscribe to a certain news service, someone else might). As it stands now, this template will create more issues than it solves. Either delete it or modify it so that it can only be used in the case of visible matches that can't be immediately verified, as in the example above. SWAdair 09:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I might also add there's a similar, if stronger {{cv-unsure}}. Also, while most people (myself included) will immediately read "copyed as pasted" as "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!!!!", sometimes the copys are from PD sources like Gutenburg, USGov, etc. These aren't copyright problems, but are definate stylistic ones as they are frequently written in a completely inappropriate tone. 68.39.174.238 21:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Another important point. The fact that content is copied and pasted does not mean it is copyvio. So this template makes a double presumption: 1. presumption that it is a C&P and 2. presumption that it is a copyvio. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Also. Please edit this article to be an original source... -- I am not aware of a policy that requires this of articles. ...following the Guide to layout and the Manual of Style. This implies that the MoS has something to do with article origin, or method of contribution, which it doesn't. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 22:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I completely agree with the nomination, if something seems like it was cut and pasted but is not copyvio, the answer is "clean up" or "wikify", and you can specify on the talk page (if necessary) that you feel it looks like a ctrl-V job. Otherwise, this just duplicates "copyvio" but without the thrust.--Dmz5 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
• Well, three articles have already been pointed out where this template has allowed a more experienced user to take a look and find a copyright violation. Res ipsa loquitur. As for when to remove the tag, I would think that any experienced user can examine the tagged articles and either (1) confirm that it is a CV and tag it for deletion appropriately or (2) google older versions of the page and find no evidence of a CV, then either switch the tag to cleanup or remove it completely. BigDT 05:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Db-bookauthor

Template:Db-bookauthor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A CSD template for deleting "an article about a biographer or an author that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject." I may be pretty dense, but if the article asserts that the subject has authored a book, that in and of itself is an assertion of importance or significance and the article should not be speedied. Obviously, we're not talking about, "John is a naughty student and he wrote the book on being a bad boy." At any rate, even if there is a case where someone is a bonafide author and their article should be speedied, we don't really need another template - {{db-a7}} is fine. We don't need to have {{db-computerprogrammer}}, {{db-schoolkid}}, {{db-teacher}}, {{db-walmartemployee}}, and every other imaginable class of non-notable biography. --BigDT 16:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, redundant and inconsistent with actual CSD. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- {{db-a7}} is fine. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 02:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per inconsistency with the CSD. And why is there both book and author? That seems redundant. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Roaddis, Template:Roadis, Template:Schooldis, Template:Shipindex, Template:Songdis

Template:Roaddis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Roadis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Schooldis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Shipindex (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template:Songdis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

All of the above are unnecessary disambiguation templates, consistent with previous discussions. ({{Roadis}} is a redirect to {{Roaddis}}.) I propose that all instances of them be replaced by {{Disambig}} and then deleted. --Russ (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I can kind of see the usefulness of a more specific template, but couldn't that functionality just be built into the standard disambig template with a parameter? — Omegatron 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • An intriguing idea. I'm not really a template parameter guru by any means, but I'd be willing to try and see if it can be done. --Russ (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Update- for testing purposes, I have created User:R'n'B/Template:Disambig in my user namespace; see User:R'n'B/Sandbox for examples. The last example is to show what happens if an unsupported parameter is used. (All the templates currently are in my user-space but this would have to be changed if they were adopted for general use.) I would welcome any comments or improvements, and will post on WP:D for further input. I am not withdrawing this nomination, but will request that it be deferred until the possible change to the base template is resolved. --Russ (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the ship template at least has its own special uses, for listing all the USS Enterprises and such. That's not exactly a standard disambig page. Each of these is associated with a particular wikiproject with its own standards, and the templates help keep the pages to the standards. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, the School template. There are tons of high schools and colleges with the same name that I am always running into. (Cardsplayer4life 21:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC))
  • Deleting the template wouldn't stop you from disambiguating school articles; you could still do it with the regular {{disambig}} template. --Russ (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I feel the ship template is nessicary and apropriate for ships that share the same name. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep They all have their own special purposes I;m sure, but the road one especially does. This clarifies between the different types of routes with the same number. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (as per Rschen7754) and create more. In fact I'm responsible for creating two of these. Category:Disambiguation currently has thousands of entries, is unlikely to be useful to anyone, and should probably be broken up somehow. —freak(talk) 06:49, Dec. 14, 2006 (UTC)
• Keep find them very useful, especially when there are many different classes of things with similar names. DuncanHill 23:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As others have said. What's the cost of having multiple templates after all? —wwoods 00:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason that a broad class of disambiguation pages should be stuck with a generic template when they could use a more readable explanation of the purpose of the page. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:titled-click

Template:Titled-click (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

In addition to being a CSS hack that breaks accessibility and web standards, the talk page also says it's now redundant with {{click}}. Delete and replace all instances with {{click}}. (And then we'll try to delete that...) — Omegatron 15:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Far too many instances of the template to replace, the collateral is too great. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 17:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • They would be replaced by {{click}}, which is supposed to be perfectly compatible. Please actually read what you are opposing. — Omegatron 18:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You understand the word "collateral" right? Go and check just how many instances this template occurs. They're too many to be reliably changed by hand. If you have a bot that can do that, then fine, but it's still a case of "what good can it do to delete this?" Now, if you suggested a redirect to {{click}} then I would fully support that. No collateral, and a good replacement. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge aka "Wiz" ^{(Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality)} 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
      • How is a redirect different from deletion and replacement? — Omegatron 20:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'll replace them personally. Redundant. ~ Flameviper 17:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support yeah there would be a lot of replacing to do but it won't be impossible. There is no need to have redundancy here. — Seadog 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per the nom. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support if someone replaces them; it's on my userpage, and it was chiefly designed by another user. — Deckiller 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support deletion. Bad hack. -Quiddity 20:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. "Titled-click" looks terrible. "Click" works. We can have a bot change "tilted-click" to "click," can't we? Jecowa 22:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep {{click}} notes that it doesn't work in Safari. Perhaps a COI, but as a Safari user, that sucks pretty badly for me. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  Well, perhaps the samples I picked for {{click}} were coded improperly, since I'm still in Safari and was able to get it to work. I suppose I'm now in the Delete camp. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. As EVula mentioned, {{click}} doesn't work in Safari.--TBCΦtalk? 02:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question for EVula and TBC, have you tested them both? I use Safari too. Titled click doesn't work for me, but click does. Jecowa 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Hmm, I did check out a couple of examples, and didn't have it work. However, when I changed Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat/head img to use {{click}}, it worked just fine. Perhaps the examples I checked were coded improperly... or maybe its just a Festivus miracle. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It has long been known that both templates do not work under some circumstances in some browsers, so there's little point in keeping this one on the grounds that the other doesn't work. Chick Bowen 05:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Vote changed; if {{click}} works just fine for me, that pretty much addresses my only concern. Self-centered? You bet. ;-) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both. And, for that matter, other templates that only work in some cases. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree. If these things are this inconsistent, then we probably should get something else or do away with the image link idea completely. New users of Wikipedia will soon learn how image links work here. These templates will continue to look crappy for some time. Jecowa 06:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree, too. After we get rid of this one, we can put click up for deletion, but I have a feeling that one will be a major battle with some defenders who don't care about accessibility or the fact that it doesn't work for some people. This one is easy because it's redundant. — Omegatron 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, preferably both (although I understand {{click}} isn't in the nom, and I wouldn't suggest adding it). Hides licencing information for pictures, and breaks badly in some circumstances (normally it's just a 'doesn't work', but sometimes it causes strange layout problems; I've had a situation before where the entire page scrolled except for the click/titled-click regions, which stayed in place (and that happened on the Main Page)!). Besides, kludgy JavaScript generally works better for such situations than kludgy CSS. --ais523 13:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed about javascript > CSS hack. I hadn't thought of that. — Omegatron 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • True. Javascript will just fail if it doesn't work, while with CSS, you have the problem that it can fail piecewise, killing off any accesibility. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Last TfD is here. There were some interesting comments made (especially the rendering of the Main Page in Lynx given at the end). --ais523 18:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Berkshire Hathaway

Template:Berkshire Hathaway (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Redundant to Category:Berkshire Hathaway, bordering on promotional material. --Argyriou (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm not sure what makes it promotional... if you look at Category:Business navigational boxes, you'll see that the navboxes for other major companies have exactly the same information. That's because part of WikiProject:Business and Economics is to add these boxes for companies with revenues in excess of US$100m. --Crocodile Punter 21:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding these boxes is linkcruft. They take up too much space for what are often short articles. There's no value provided by these boxes which can not be obtained by using categories. If, after reading that See's Candies is a Berkshire Hathaway company, a reader wants to find out what else is owned by Berkshire Hathaway, they can click the Category:Berkshire Hathaway link at the bottom of the article. All the navboxes in Category:Business navigational boxes ought to be deleted, as they are redundant with categories. Argyriou (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Am I correct in understanding that your issue is not with this template, but with all 137 of the Business navigational boxes, that you just happened to pick this one to make an example? Or is there something particularly bad about this one? --Crocodile Punter 13:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: This is not promotional, but rather informational...and actually incomplete at that. This helps for better navigation than the Category section...and based on guidelines for this category, it should be kept without question. AEMoreira042281 14:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:RPG-artwork

Template:RPG-artwork (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This fair use justification message is deceptive. The listed uses do not appear to be restricted to proper fair use (and, indeed, have changed dramatically over the life of the template. All images currently licensed using this template are, at best, questionable (the www.wizards.com source of these images licenses for non-commercial use only). The images themselves are currently in the WP:CP backlog, but the template should probably go to avoid any further use. --Serpent's Choice 13:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can say that the listed uses have changed dramatically over the life of the template; it seems that it has only changed once, and that was an attempt to remove a use that would be questionable at best, and replace the uses with less-questionable ones. I haven't looked at where and how the template's being used; but the template itself looks sound and useful. Keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that WP:CP has rejected this justification as fair use previously. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 July 6/Images removed a large number of game-content images derived from the wizards.com art galleries on the grounds that they failed 3 of 4 fair use test components. The current population of this template are from the same location; the arguments in the 6 July discussion may not apply to art gallery images of figurines from the D&D Miniatures game (WP:CP is backlogged atm and has not addressed it), but the rest of the template's membership are substantively identical to the deleted images. Serpent's Choice 06:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at some of the images tagged with this, those images would not fall under fair use. However, the images are not up for deletion here (though you might want to take them to IFD), the template is. Reading the template I was picturing someone sitting down at their scanner and scanning a card from Magic the Gathering to demonstrate the distinctive look of the game components. That, theoretically would be fair use, and this would be a good tag for such an image. Just because the tag is currently being mis-used does not mean that it is an inappropriate tag and should be deleted. Delete the inappropriate images, keep the tag. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the tag used for the cardback on Magic the Gathering is {{Boardgamecover}}, but that's not quite accurate as Magic is not a board game; it's a card game, it's a role playing game; but not exactly a board game. Is there a more generic {{gamecover}} template? Perhaps Boardgamecover should be modified and moved to be more generic and then this template could be deleted as any appropriate use it covers would be covered by the new template. Sound good? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Game-cover is apparently limited to video games. Do we really need seperate fair use tags for different types of game? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put merge tags on all the game-related fair use templates; and I'd like to centralize discussion on merging them at Template_talk:Game-cover#Merge. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 19:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archives

Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Archives (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Delete - The template was used as a small information box within the WikiProject Astronomical objects page. I am beginning to clean up the page at this time, and I have removed this box. The template can now be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 10:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unused. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review}

[edit] December 12

[edit] Template:Long-article-committee

Template:Long-article-committee (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rude, officious language, created by WP:ELAC. Redundant with {{Verylong}} --Dr Zak 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC) }}

• Delete Redundant and threatening. TimVickers 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Misguided, redundant, and threatening. Sandy (Talk) 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (or failing that, redirect to {{Verylong}}) and MFD the committee. The talk page, along with this page makes an interesting case for deletion. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, I could definitely see how this could be threatening. After reading the committee's conduct page, I have absolutely no problem with MFDing the committee. --Coredesat 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary hostile duplicate of {{Long}} Koweja 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Question Why are {{long}}, {{Verylong}} and {{Long-article-committee}} placed in articles? Shouldn't they go on the talk page as metadata (or note to the editors)? They appear to be addressed to readers when they are in the article itself. ·maclean 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment good point. It was brought up at Long, but there aren't really that many people who monitor that talk page so there is no real discussion. Perhaps bring it up at Wikipedia:Community Portal Wikipedia:Village Pump. Koweja 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen! Dr Zak 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Village Pump would be more appropriate. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it would. My mistake. Koweja 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I didn't really see a way the wording could be changed and still produce a different message from {{Verylong}}. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I did try to tone it down a little, but that version is almost the same as {{Long}} and {{Verylong}}. Incidentally, do we need both of them? Surely we only need one template saying "this article is rather long, perhaps it should be split up"? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Quite threatening, saying in essence, "Give up your long articles or we'll invade you!" SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Move "Zig", for great justice. Sorry, had to do that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - agree that the tone is threatening and authoritarian. I can't see that it would create anything but ill feeling from editors who see it slapped on an article that they have worked on. Also saying a page is "too long to read" is POV. Too long for some readers, not too long for others. Situation is much better addressed by {{long}} and {{Verylong}}Rossrs 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia's version of the Gestapo sound real threatening - perhaps they should discuss such issues with the individual article's main contributors? LuciferMorgan 04:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • In its formation stage, \the coordinator decided to make a post on WP:ANI asking for admins to help prevent the main contributors from reverting the committee's actions. Make of that what you will. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wet noodle award

• Keep until a better solution is in place, possibly redirect. It wouldn't serve Wikipedia to delete this wholesale. ekantiK ^talk 18:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Arbitration

Falsely implies that an article should not be edited while related arbitration is ongoing. Arbitration does not make content decisions; arbitration evidence uses history links and diffs, rather than links to the current version of a page. If arbiters really want a page not to be modified, they can protect it or make an "emergency injunction" against it, but this is extremely rare. Simply put, arbitration does not mean all related issues should be frozen. (Radiant) 12:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It doesn't say that a page should not be edited, it says that you should read relevant discussions before making major edits. I think the template should be changed to say what those issues are and link to the discussions, but it is an acceptable template. Koweja 22:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant with such templates as {{Controversial}} or {{Calm talk}} Dr Zak 01:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment neither of those template are the same as this one. Those just remind everyone to behave themselves, but in no way involve Arbcom. This one is for when Arbcom is already involved. Koweja 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeat after me: "Arbcom deals with editor behavior. Arbcom does not deal with content issues." Seriously, there is any number of tags out there to say that an article is controversial, disputed, a source of conflict, a POV magnet, and whatnot. Arbcom on the other hand, gets called in when someone becomes sufficiently disruptive to make editing impossible. We don't need a tag saying effectively "Don't try to edit here fruitfully, please wait until we are done". Dr Zak 04:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I could see a mediation tag; but if ArbCom wishes a page frozen, they can protect it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment What does this template have to do with locking a page? All it does is alert the readers that there is a dispute in progress, something that is relevant to them. Koweja 03:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The only articles which this tag would ever be relevant to always have a dispute in progress, or will the instant someone makes a major edit. Besides, if the arbitration is about, say, the "History of X" section, why should I be discouraged from editing some other section? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:StarStruck Final 14

Template:StarStruck Final 14 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

For starters, this would include a lot more entries (season five begins in earnest in a few weeks' time, and this could be better divided into finalists per season, although not all of the finalists currently pass the notability criteria. ----Howard the Duck 08:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:USSR Squad 1988 European Football Championship

Template:USSR Squad 1988 European Football Championship (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Similar to Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_21#Template:Turkey Squad Euro 2000. Chanheigeorge 01:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Computer Magazines

Template:Computer Magazines (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Template purpose unclear, no obvious benefit. It's an incomplete list of computer magazines. If we included every computer magazine article that exists on WP, it would be massive, its size outweighing its benefit. Since there seem to be no criteria for inclusion/exclusion, leaving it as it is at present would result in an arbitrary list, and what's the point of that?

I appreciate that this is supposed to be a template version of Computer magazines, but I just don't see the benefit. I raised the issue at Template_talk:Computer_Magazines previously, but no-one replied. --Fourohfour 13:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Nominator): I vote Delete unless someone can provide a good case in favour of keeping it. Fourohfour 13:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I vote keep. It can help in linking computer magazines. Not everyone may know about a computer magazine other than the a limited no. of. Note: Preceding comment was unsigned, and it's unclear who made it. Fourohfour sorry for not signing --seXie^♭♭_c 18:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a benefit/bloat tradeoff. As I said, making this complete would result in it being far too large; keeping it as is would make it arbitrary and pointless. Fourohfour 16:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete Due to the sheer number of articles this list is more easily handed by a category. Sockatume 20:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, better for categories. I'm gonna fix the {{tfd}} tag, it's breaking layout on pages with it transcluded. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Huge template, would be better served by a category. --*Spark* 23:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Of little use if incomplete, and if complete, would be far too large. A catagory would be a much more sensible option. Hyperspacey 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Put as a category.--HereToHelp 00:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Replace with {{otherarticles}}; or a small template based on it, which provides a link to a list page. There's nothing wrong with a navtemplate; but this one is excessive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 11

[edit] Template:Painting2

Template:Painting2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I created this template some time ago as an alternative for Template:Painting, because that template treated every field automatically as a link and I was working on some articles where that was not very practical. Recently other editors have decided to change Template:Painting and now this one is no longer necessary. (And no longer used.) --Skarioffszky 20:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused, creator requests deletion. --- RockMFR 05:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Noteworthy bulletin board system software

Template:Noteworthy bulletin board system software (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is either unwieldy or POV. By definition, all BBS software listed on Wikipedia is noteworthy, so what makes the ones listed in this template special? Unless there is some objective and verifiable criteria for which software goes in the list (such as confirmed sales or usage figures), there's no way of knowing if any one BBS package is more "noteworthy" than any other. The template also seems biased towards MS-DOS software. Keep in mind that for each major microcomputer brand, there were thriving BBS communities, each with dozens of different BBS software packages. —Psychonaut 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Category:Bulletin board system software handles the job nicely. --- RockMFR 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. By definition, all BBS software is noteworthy, and judging which is more noteworthy than others is POV. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Msg

Template:Msg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Pointless template. According to the log, its original content was "Monosodium glutamate". Was deleted and replaced with current text which makes no sense. All the current tranclusions of the template seem to be cases where the user was trying to show the {{msg:template_name}} shortcut. --- RockMFR 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Template for a template not needed. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 10

[edit] Template:Zoo logos and other

Template:Commercial logo, Template:Computer hardware logo, Template:DisneyLogo, Template:Event logo, Template:Game-logo, Template:Govt-logo, Template:MPAA-logo, Template:OFLCA-logo, Template:PreK12-logo, Template:Political party trademark, Template:Radiologo, Template:Schoolboard-logo, Template:Scoutlogo, Template:Sports-logo, Template:Tv-program-logo, Template:Univ-logo, Template:Zoo logos

They are redundant and should be redirected to Template:Logo. They all have almost the same text, usually, the only difference being that they have replaced the generic "organization" with "foo", something more specific. bogdan 21:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Useful for automatic categorization, despite text similarities. -Drdisque 22:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep if for no other reason than that they split out the categories, which is handy for bad image patrol. I wouldn't see a problem with condensing them down to {{logo|radio}}, {{logo|scout}}, {{logo|disney}}, etc, for purposes of only having to maintain the text in one place ... but really, that's a solution looking for a problem and if someone wants to take that on, they don't need TFD to do it. But really, we need the categories. BigDT 04:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete All of these templates are redundant. - Francis Tyers · 18:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete total template creep - crz crztalk 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that really a problem? We have eleventy billion stub templates and accompanying stub categories. They serve the same purpose - allowing someone to quickly patrol for one kind of thing. Personally, I would think we would want to subdivide fair use images as MUCH as possible so that if, as has happened with promo photos, the community decides one class of image is no longer appropriate, we can quickly patrol that class and tag them for deletion. As long as we can still categorize everything (meaning, that we modify logo to take parameters like {{logo|radio}}, {{logo|scout}}, {{logo|disney}}, etc), I'm not going to lose too much sleep over it. I just think it's pointless change for the sake of change. If we lose the ability to categorize, though, that's a real problem. BigDT 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: I think they are useful for categorization, but perhaps could be streamlined/condensed. Jogurney 20:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Is there some problem with the way they are now? I think BigDT has adequately explained why it's good to keep them. I think this is really a solution looking for a problem. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep This kind of organisation is an important part of keeping fair use managable.Geni 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: They are useful for distinct categorization, in that they split out the categories, but perhaps they could be streamlined/condensed.--Evb-wiki 04:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Some of them can be occasionally useful, and even for the ones that haven't been yet, they don't hurt that much. I wouldn't be opposed to merging some that had a very small number of members though. - cohesion 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, Sigh. Auto-cating feature is certainly a reason to have a template, albeit with minor diffs. // FrankB 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Categorizations are helpful - so long as we're not talking about a category of one or two images, I don't see the problem here. --Chancemichaels 18:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Keep. Specificity, with regard to legal matters, is a good thing. Cribcage 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:South Australia

Template:South Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Un-necessary and redudant with {{LGASA}} and other more specialised navigational templates.cj | talk 21:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the two templates are different enough, as each has different information. Also, the template can be used on a number of South Australia articles- CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Diff information set albeit some overlap, different articles. No brainer. // FrankB 18:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, modified The Adelaide section is redundant with {{LGASA}}, but the regions etc are different. There may be other things of state-wide significance that could be added (haven't thought what yet). --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or maybe merge they're used on different types of articles Gnangarra 05:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per reasons given above. JROBBO 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Regency of Bengkalis

Template:Infobox Regency of Bengkalis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Has been replaced by Template:Infobox Regency of Indonesia. MichaelJLowe 16:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Move to User page -- New user (ALERT!!!), stubbing article, which some admin needs to look into per WP:BITE. Ditto for the Article stub by same See Me iwan where Bupati and Head of Regency (Bupati) were apparently speedy-D'd...
  
  Knowledge of template creation, image upload (self-created), and such factors 'Smells' of a foreign language user with experience on another language's sisterpedia trying to expand our coverage with inadequate language skills, or a translation problem with alternative forms of wording. Strong Suggest both those articles be made available on his user pages as subpages while in rough form, along with this template. It would be basic courtesy. // FrankB 20:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but the Regency of Bengkalis template was created before we had a Regency of Indonesia template, so it is now redundant. I don't see how it would be of any use to anyone, including the author. (MichaelJLowe 16:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Template:Test8

[edit] Template:Pokerefs

Template:Pokerefs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a bad idea. Lists of references used should not be built by template. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an unnecessary template and was used back then to fix notability problems. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you serious? People actually used a template listing of sources to "fix" notability problems? That's stupid. -Amarkov ^blah
    • _{Comment. Yup, when numerous Pokémon articles (mostly B-class or stubs) were on grounds of deletion for not being notable, the template was originally template-linked (and not even subst like it's used for now) to show that they were. Most Pokémon articles have advanced since then, and so the template is rather useless. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)}

edits 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ delete delete delete delete delete per Amarkov - ∅ (∅), 17:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Is Jesus an admin on Wikipedia? BigDT 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete from template space, but if these are common references that people use when writing Pokemon articles, I'd suggest copying the contents to somewhere at Wikipedia:Pokémon Collaborative Project so that they have them available as needed. BigDT 04:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- this template is not needed, sources are ever changing, and there should (generally) be different sources for different articles. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Now worthless. —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Ditto to all of the above. Delete.--Evb-wiki 16:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Istanbul Stock Exchange companies

Template:Istanbul Stock Exchange companies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This should be a category, not a template. If we created a template with every company on the LSE or NYSE it would be larger than many pages in Wikipedia. --DB (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Assuming the other 306 companies actually were added, we'd get a huge template for no apparent reason. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This should be a larger category. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- This is a data template transcluded into many (16) articles... the purpose of a template for Pete's sake!
       2.) Since when were titles of templates necessarily reflective of their utility, or overall content? There is no guideline that I know of that would require any template to be expanded to add all of something. These sorts of decisions are the right and proper province of the editors working on a project and utilizing the template, not this ad hoc body with floating membership! In sum, this should not have been considered for nomination at all, much less nominated.
       3.) Consider the discussions around Template:Groundbreaking submarines (edit talk links history) back in July, which was a fight where I had a direct pov. Were the above logic to be applied, the discussions (And much deliberatively measured and considered work by many!!!) as evidenced on that talk and would also be subject to deletion as being a 'larger category'. If you want an larger one, add a two on the end, and compose a second template for when and if it's applicable. Don't nominate a tool in use in ten sixteen or so articles—that's a perfect example of using templates well and wisely! Sheesh! // FrankB 16:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A couple of things: first and foremost, try to remain calm. Second of all, no article is the "right and proper province" of any person or group. All users own all pages equally. Third, every article, project, and group has a floating membership. Fourth, all rules and standards apply equally everywhere so if someone finds a page needs to be deleted they can nominate it regardless of their contribution history. There are no walled gardens on this site. Koweja 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now. Should the template get too large renominate and we'll deal with it then. A hypothetical situation is not a reason to delete. Koweja 03:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, when the template is not complete until said situation is achieved. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're assuming that all 306 companies will eventually have articles. Koweja 14:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for now per Koweja, personally I think you can delete on hypothetical grounds, but don't see any rush here. At the moment the template is functional and in due course it can be upgraded to a category... Addhoc 17:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Clearleft

Template:Clearleft (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Useless, covered by the syntax.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, what do you mean "covered by the syntax"? It's a useful snippet of code that not everyone can remember. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an obviously useful shortcut for lengthy HTML syntax. Any template could be replaced by its contents; that's not an argument against templates. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep anything that makes code easier for the code challenged.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gavia immer. --- RockMFR 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gavia immer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep, templates are easier than HTML syntax. Kusma (討論) 10:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the point of the wiki markup is so we don't have to use HTML/CSS syntax. This is very useful and not covered by any other template. Koweja 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful workaround template to get under images and the like. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Clearright

Template:Clearright (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template is protected so I have not {{tfd}}ed it, but it's covered by the syntax.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as an obviously useful shortcut for lengthy HTML syntax. Any template could be replaced by its contents; that's not an argument against templates. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep anything that makes wiki-markup easy.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gavia immer. --- RockMFR 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gavia immer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. CattleGirl ^{talk | e@} 07:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the point of the wiki markup is so we don't have to use HTML/CSS syntax. This is very useful and not covered by any other template. Koweja 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep useful workaround template to get under images and the like. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Clear

Template:Clear (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template is protected so I have not {{tfd}}ed it, but it's covered by the syntax.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.100110100 04:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: this is the vote of the creater of the tfd → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{-}}, redundant.Keep per below. And I'd appreciate it if I weren't TOLD IN ALL CAPS WHAT I MEANT. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean, REDIRECT, ORPHAN, THEN DELETE.100110100 06:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I believe he means Redirect → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because according to discussion here, this is not always the same as {{-}} in practice. They are similar, but not identical. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • We do not need the templates, the by typing a few keystrokes, we can clear it.100110100 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. {{-}} and {{Clear}} are not the same. --- RockMFR 00:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

**We do not need the templates, the by typing a few keystrokes, we can clear it.100110100 17:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Repeat Comment User:Poorleno

• Keep per Gavia immer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Keeps edit screen nicer than

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This, while avoiding issues on the article's main screen. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • That is not what the template does.100110100
• Brainless nomination, No Brainer Keep -- This is an important template and used in a lot in problematic work arounds when wiki-markup is misbehaving on one browser or another, and especially as a debuging and isolation tool.
  
  It may not included directly in a lot of pages when used in the later way, but it is utilized for that a lot in iterim development of graphics heavy templates. Even some not so graphics heavy--tables too!
     Please stop wasting everyone's time by nominating protected templates. A little forthought would suggest that anything which is protected probably has a good reason for being. 100110100 needs to find somethings to edit instead of attacking the work of others. // FrankB 18:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the point of the wiki markup is so we don't have to use HTML/CSS syntax. This is very useful and not covered by any other template. Koweja 03:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Useful workaround for getting under an image or similar. It's much more useful than <br>. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Royalguard11. Agree per FrankB that 100110100 should write a featured article before nominating any other templates that work ok for deletion on purely technical grounds... Addhoc 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Reporting marks

Template:Reporting marks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Do we really need this one along with Template:Reporting mark? The only difference appears to be an 's', which could possibly be added to the other one. Jason McHuff 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and replace usages with Template:Reporting mark
• Redirect No need for two identical ones, but might as well set it up so that it works either with or without the s. Shimeru 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect I will work on integrating the functionality into {{reporting mark}}. Slambo (Speak) 14:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm trying a couple things in my test area to get an optional pluralizing "s" character, but until then, I don't see any reason not to use the plural form on {{reporting mark}} (so I've added it there for now). I've seen the plural form used in the rail transport industry press to describe a single reporting mark, so this isn't all that far off common English grammar. Slambo (Speak) 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC) All uses are now switched to {{reporting mark}}. Slambo (Speak) 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect--with proper Category:Redirects '{{R from plural}}' or '{{R from singular}}' whatever. This stuff doesn't need a nomination. Just one editor with some common sense and knowledge of the system!!! Crap, it's not even tagged properly, which nullifies the nomination for not following proper procedure! Suggest we just let Slambo take care of it. // FrankB 18:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:WikiFur

Template:WikiFur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Why does this exist when WikiFur has been deleted four times. - ∅ (∅), 03:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It exists as a template to cite a source. If we incorporate the information, we need the link to the history to meet the GNU license, and the template serves that purpose more easily than manually linking would. Whether Wikifur should be used as a source is another question, but one that has nothing to do with whether or not it has a Wikipedia article. Shimeru 05:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, information required under the license. Delete when there is a consensus that we should never use content from WikiFun, rather than just having an article on it. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but shrink, it's far too big for what it does; we only need a couple of lines of italic text, not a box with an icon. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps similar to {{Wookieepedia}}? GreenReaper 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Two times, not four times. :-) GreenReaper 13:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Too elaborate just for an outside link. Just cuz it's a wiki doesn't mean it deserves a templated.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - That template has ZERO uses in article space ... and just in case it was substed, I looked for occurances of the image, too. I looked at WikiFur briefly and I'm having trouble imagining any possible encyclopedic use for copying and pasting content from that site. BigDT 04:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not used in any article. bogdan 18:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per Bogdan and Esprit15d. → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, and any articles using material from WikiFur need to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb. --Cyde Weys 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Why the fine-tooth comb? Just because "zomg lol furries?" - ∅ (∅), 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but modify to standards similar to Template:Commonscat (edit talk links history), and others in Category:Interwiki link templates like {{Wiktionarycat1}} etc. That is if and only if, this is a new member of Wikipedia:Sister projects.
  
       If not, it's use needs restricted to External links, and I see no reason for a template larger than the self-standard we use for the commons and other sister links. In this case, change vote to Weak keep, as is not part of Wikimedia Foundation umbrella'd projects, but a foreign wiki. Does anyone know if they are trying for experimental status at Meta??? Would make a difference too. Many sisters began that way.
  
  This just in. Full response on fabartus Here
       Thank you for your concern. Honestly, I am not too bothered whether or not the template is kept. As noted by another contributor, there are currently no articles which make use of it. There appears to be some confusion about its intended use - the template is intended for the talk page, as an indicator of the original source in compliance with the GFDL. It is not intended to go on the article page as an "advert" like the sister projects templates. While this might actually be a good idea in a few restricted cases (there was a similar one on the furry fandom article in the past) that is not the purpose of this template.
  
  So the question is whether or not this can be tolerated on a Talk page.
  
  Weak Delete -- simply because it's unused. Otherwise, same as any link to webpages external so far as I'm concerned. Best regards // FrankB 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as useful for citing things moved across wikis. It needs to be clean up a bit, but that's not a reason to delete. Koweja 03:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC-right

Template:TOC-right (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Only user pages link to this template, & obviously since this is a redirct, that means this is a redundant template.100110100 02:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:The purpose was already filled by the offical {{tocright}} template; another redundant template.100110100 06:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Template redirects are useful. Much easier than having to look up the exact title. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No, they are not.100110100 02:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You can not use that arguement, otherwise, this would be a search engine; people would argue that there should be a redirect for every possible spelling mistake for every article that we could come up with, the list would never end.100110100 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Every possible misspelling, no, but a dash in place of nothing is hardly uncommon. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • You are wrong again, that is arbitrary anyways.68.148.165.213 04:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hagerman^(talk) 02:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. There are plenty of convenience redirects for widely used templates, and the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Many users forget exactly what a given template is called and such redirects help them out.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But we can't have a redirect for everything, like we can't have a redirect for {{toc--right}}. & {{toc---right}}, etc.100110100 17:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gavia immer. --- RockMFR 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Gavia immer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- It's a tool! Sheesh! Equivilent does not equal redundant! // FrankB 18:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's useless.100110100 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as with the other TOC templates up, keep as a redirect since it causes no harm but is useful. Koweja 03:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Has been marked by 100110100 for RfD: [6], [7]. This is getting a bit silly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Has anyone noticed that no article links to it anyway? Only three user pages link to it, so it's not like it's being used. Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:TOC-right Neonumbers 22:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC-left

Template:TOC-left (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Orphaned template.100110100 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete:Unused, & the purpose is filled by the offical {{tocleft}} template; another redundant template.100110100 02:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. There are plenty of convenience redirects for widely used templates, and the nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep as redirect. Many users forget the exact title of a template, and such redirects help them out. Saves time and engery.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 01:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • But we can't have a redirect for everything, like we can't have a redirect for {{toc--right}}. & {{toc---right}}, etc.100110100 17:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Gavia immer. --- RockMFR 17:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Gavia immer. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- It's a tool! Sheesh! Equivilent does not equal redundant! // FrankB 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It's useless.100110100 22:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect keep as redirect. Koweja 03:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Has been marked by 100110100 for RfD: [8], [9]. This is getting a bit silly. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as no page links to it at all (in case no-one noticed). There may be convenience redirects that are widely used, but this isn't one of them. This template is orphaned and a redirect anyway; it's not exactly used, is it? If it was actually being used, I'd be a bit more sympathetic. Neonumbers 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 9

[edit] Template:Db-school

Template:Db-school (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

While it would be a good idea, this currently is not a speedy deletion criterion. --Stifle (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, it is. A school is most certainly a group of people, and it could be considered a corporation, too. Thus, A7 applies. And for full disclosure, I am the author. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per MrDarcy. I was under the impression that it was only high schools considered inherently notable, which is why I explicitly made it not apply. But if it won't apply to any school... -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: A school is not a group of people, it is a building or collection of buildings. Very few are corporations. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Seriously. No need for this extra template. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Let's not invent new csd criteria. --JJay 15:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• SuperMegaUltraWTFAreYouStupidKeep seriously wtf people... if you actually BOTHERED to look at the template you'd see the reasoning is CSD:A7 thats NOT A NEW CRITERIA!... all "votes" who claim this is a "new criteria" should be stricken from this commentary for being just flat out wrong. As for "extra template"... WP:NOT#PAPER learn it ... love it...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a little rude. I'm pretty sure everyone who's chimed in thus far is very aware of our deletion policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I have to say that I don't see a school qualifying as "people, groups, companies (or) web content." As such, this is not a valid CSD criterion. I agree with Stifle that the idea is good, but this stuff has to be covered at WP:CSD first. There's an active proposal of a guideline on the notability of schools, in fact, and you can see there that many Wikipedians consider all schools inherently notable. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Really? I thought it was just high schools. In that case, I'm going to go tag it for speedy. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - nn schools are not speedyable. Personally, I'm in agreement with those who feel that all schools are notable. Heck, if a little five-mile stretch of road gets its own article ... WP:PTEST and all that. Anyway, schools can't be speedied, so they don't need a tag. BigDT 04:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Author has requested deletion.--TBCΦtalk? 01:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Speedrun articles external links

Template:Speedrun articles external links (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Orphaned template consisting of external links only. I would have speedy deleted it, but apparently there is no criteria for this situation. -- ReyBrujo 15:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - link-spamming. —Mets501 (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Stones_Throw_Records

Template:Stones_Throw_Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Huge template, rife with redlinks and redirects, for a minor U.S. record label. Mr. Darcy talk 03:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Yanksox 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Implied keep It is a big template, but it's convenient. It's also being worked on by myself. And Stones Throw is NOT a minor record label. Famous underground rappers like Madlib, J Dilla, MF Doom, Madvillain, and Peanut Butter Wolf are all signed to Stones Throw. Help finishing this template would be appreciated, and I'm working hard on it. I'd appreciate it if you could let me finish this template as it could be finished in a couple months.--Xxplosive 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Prune but keep, having every album isn't very useful, but having the rappers interlinked is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE, Stones Throw's discography is too varied and still growing rapidly - thus, the template is a complicated eyesore to every page is appears on. Every page that has a mention of Stones Throw has a link to their wikipedia page, and usually to their website, which has an extensive, complete discography posted. MarcelloRubini 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] December 7

[edit] Template:User NoCredit

[edit] Template:North Auckland Line

Template:North Auckland Line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I've brought this template here once before, and strangely the four comments of "delete", two of "reformat" and zero of "keep as is" led to a conclusion of "no consensus". The template hasn't changed since then (and neither has the number of redlinks) - it's still mammoth and unnecessary, and dwarfs many of the articles on which it is placed (such as Kamo, New Zealand and Maungaturoto). For many of these places simply being on the rail line is not a major feature of the town (it's not even mentioned in several of the articles, such as the aforementioned Maugaturoto). And yes, before anyone mentions it, it is dynamic, but dynamic templates don't hide on all browsers, so a lot of readers won't have the option of hiding this thing. I'd say reformat and keep, but it's very patchily used (many of the articles listed don't use it at all), and as such I question whether it's worth keeping at all. Delete. Grutness...wha? 09:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but someone should replace locale links with red-links to the stations that serve the towns, instead of the towns. The distances are also a little distracting. Neier 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Such templates serve no useful purpose. They dominate small articles with information almost entirely irrelevant to that article. The appropriate replacement would be to place a single sentence in the article saying that it is on the North Auckland Line. That allows those who are interested to go to the appropriate article.-gadfium 03:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC float right

Template:TOC float right (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Useless, redundent, as there is already TOCright.100110100 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE: Outright delete.
• delete: According to the creator, "This one was created as I was unable to find anything about the other one after hunting around for about an hour." So they knew the other existed and just couldn't get a handle on how to use it. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the creator asked anyone on Template talk:TOCright for assistance. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, no. When I created the template, I couldn't find anything about the other one after hunting around for something like it for over an hour. So I created these. Only months after they were created did I become aware of the other templates. I'f I'd been able to find the other templates, I wouldn't have created these. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Keep as redirects: I have no problem with either of these deletions, but isn't there any procedure requiring that templates be orphaned before deletion, or at least marked for deletion in a way that doesn't totally break them? These templates have been replaced with redirects to TOCleft and TOCright, with deletion notices added so the redirects don't work, which means there are currently a couple of hundred broken pages all over Wikipedia. I'll try to fix this in a way that at least makes these pages usable for the duration of the debate. TSP 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: It doesn't look like this particular template is redirected right now and the template doesn't seem broken in the couple of instances I've just looked at. Redirection and Orphaning takes place after the decision to delete has been accepted and before actual deletion takes place. Orphaning before nomination is not a good thing. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • It was redirecting before 100110100 changed that and marked it for deletion. He's not acting in very good faith in this whole situation. After discussing it for a couple days, I changed them to redirects, but 100110100 won;t be satisfied until they are deleted. He thinks that they are "wasting server space" despite them being less than 1K in size as redirects. 100110100 refuses to be reasonable and just drop the issue once I had changed them to redirects. Instead, he'd rather break several hundred pages by deleting them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I can accuse you of vandalism. You could have made this absolutly pointless template to disrupt wikipedia. If we let EVERYONE make a permutation of a TOCright template, & then redirect, that would be the point of wikipedia, would it? A playground for vandals? That doesn't sound like fun.100110100 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Is what you are suggesting that certain templates should be, due to technical constraints, immune from being brought to TfD? I don't think that's what you mean, is it? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: What technical constraints? All I'm saying is that they were made into redirects (which functioned perfectly well), and still 100110100 wants to delete them, despite this causing hundreds of articles to be broken. If someone has a bot that can go through all of them and replace the templates, I'm fine with that, but deletion without doing that is not acceptable. There are many, many templates all across Wikipedia which redirect to other templates. Why are these two any different than those? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment I don't think you're fully understanding the TfD process. The templates won't be deleted prior to their being orphaned, meaning that all of the articles that transclude the to-be-deleted templates will be edited so that the equivalent surviving templates are transcluded instead. That is the accepted procedure, so don't worry about page breakage from the template suddenly disappearing. (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Completed_discussions for the 'holding pen') By 'technical constraints' I meant the 'breaking the redirection' which you had mentioned. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment: That's not what I understood 100110100 wanted, so therein lies the confusion. All of his comments on this issue so far have been "Just delete them" with no indication that any effort would be put into fixing any problems caused by that. I guess my main concern, then, is why not just leave them as redirects? Redirected templates are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, and are frequently employed. Any server load caused by them is below negligible. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
              • Comment: Just because 100110100 wants to delete them without orphaning them doesn't mean that's what's going to happen. If that user is an admin and violates process in that manner, there's a problem there; if that user is not an admin, they can't delete the template themselves and process will take place as outlined on the main page. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed it isn't redirecting any more; I fixed it. It would have been preferable if those 200 pages hadn't been broken for the 7 hours before I did, though. I don't really know what's lost by leaving them as redirects.... TSP 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Suggestion To clarify, you might want to change your comment above from Comment to Keep as Redirects. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Fair enough, that's probably an accurate representation of my views. TSP 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Change to redirects, like they were before 100110100 messed with them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Change back to a redirect. People are able to remember some names for templates easier than others. What is the harm in having a redirect? older ≠ wiser 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Cbrown1023 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. —David618 ^t e 03:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as they were before. Redirects cause no harm and this is a reasonably valid name for it. Koweja 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: 100110100 has now marked the redirect templates for deletion: [10], [11]. I guess having one XfD discussion going on at once isn't good enough. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:TOC float left

Template:TOC float left (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Useless, redundent, as there is already TOCleft.100110100 09:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• DELETE: Outright delete.100110100 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete: same argument as for the 'float right' template ... the talk pages for both templates bear the same discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per my comments above. This is a bad faith nomination on 100110100's part as he's refusing to accept anything other than deletion and breaking hundreds of pages which use these templates. This was a redirect (so those hundreds of pages wouldn't be broken) until 100110100 messed with them. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. Cbrown1023 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. —David618 ^t e 03:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as they were before. Redirects cause no harm and this is a reasonably valid name for it. Koweja 03:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: 100110100 has now marked the redirect templates for deletion: [12], [13]. I guess having one XfD discussion going on at once isn't good enough. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Henderson State Alumni

[edit] Template:Infobox LA Highway business

Template:Infobox LA Highway business (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Orphaned, made obsolete by recent upgrades to {{Infobox LA Highway}}. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep It doesn't seem to me that the new template actually makes this one obsolete. The new template has red links in it that make the new template seem like it's malfunctioning. I'd change this to delete if you could demonstrate to me how the new template renders this one obsolete. Diez2 03:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • U.S. Route 90 Business (New Orleans, Louisiana). Compare [14] with [15]. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The only reason the red links are there is because there's no shields created yet for those articles. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Cbrown1023 23:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:MNTV West Virginia

Template:MNTV West Virginia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There is no need for this template because Template:My Network TV West Virginia is updated and is linked to other templates. Example: See also: ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, NBC, PBS and Other stations in West Virginia. -- Alucard 16 02:07 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Diez2 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 23:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell (edit)

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, by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(inclusion)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

Closing procedures:

• Wikipedia:Deletion process#Templates for Deletion page

Closing in progress:

• None Currently.

[edit] To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals get put here until the conversion is completed.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_19

  • Template:Infobox Football club2 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) needs merging into Template:Infobox Football club (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), to allow parser functions to conditionally display a third colour set.

[edit] 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 they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached and have been orphaned can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• None currently

Archive and Indices