Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 26

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

The result of the debate was Delete. IceKarmaॐ 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Quantum-theory

Template:Quantum-theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Very long and only used in one page. Seems much better to have only in Quantum mechanics.Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 00:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. It is far too long to go anywhere else and it also has problems, surprisingly, of incompleteness, at least in the quantum chemistry area. --Bduke 00:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. It's bigger than some of the articles it links to. -- Zawersh 06:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that it is way too long. However, parts of it could be very useful in linking related articles. Perhaps we could make components of this into separate templates. -MrFizyx 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment that seems fair but I think that there are almost too many article and linking to List of mathematical topics in quantum theory might be better. If you want a template for, say, Schrödinger equation, then copy and paste the stuff into another template. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 11:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Just realised I never added tfd sign so maybe this should be kept open for a bit longer. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 20:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Does its presence do harm? The template was added after it was a Featured Article. Who knows, perhaps that was cause for its deletion from the list of FAs. But it might be useful elsewhere. When a list is long, does that make it bad? --Ancheta Wis 14:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Perhaps a subst if deleted?
    • Comment Presence does no/little harm but it is too big and is only used on one page. I think that if it were used on another page then it would dwarf it. I think the list page I mentioned before would be a far better thing to link to. Rex the first ^{talk | contribs} 11:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. IceKarmaॐ 03:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Mangalist

Resurrected and renamed template that was deleted last year. The reason I give for re-delete comes from the original deletion proposal and a subsequent comment: Category scheme in a box. Very pretty, but it doesn't even have any content specifically related to any given article that it's put on. It does not follow the policy for navigational templates because it is more like a combination of TOC templates for the following: List of manga, Mangaka, and Manga. Secondly, the links for List of manga and List of Manga-ka are in alphabetical order, thus making it redundant to categories. --Kunzite 23:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per everything you just said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvrum (talk • contribs) .
• Delete--Dangerous-Boy 00:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User tlh

lo'wI'vam Sung Hol 'oH tlhIngan Hol’e'. (meaning This user is a native speaker of Klingon.) is a bad joke. I am proposing it's deletion and BJAODNing. Computerjoe's talk 19:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Used, harmless, and we do actually have Klingon speakers (there was even a Klingon Wikipedia a while back, but it was locked). --Rory096 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Rory, I speak Klingon. But you can't speak Klingon natively, surely! Computerjoe's talk 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh right, good point... In that case, subst and delete. --Rory096 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, sigh. --Cyde↔Weys 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; subst if deleted. Unlike much of Wikipedia, this is entirely harmless. Septentrionalis 20:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep perfectly valid if odd babel box. Klingon is an officially recognized language in several countries. JohnnyBGood t c 22:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Pol (keep) - jIH rur 'oH vaj pol 'oH --Disavian 22:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • jIH Sov tlhIngan Hol 'ach ghobe' wa' 'oH tlhIngan. Computerjoe's talk 20:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
    • wIj neH meQ 'oH vetlh jIH ghaj wa' yIn Daq nob. 'oH DaHjaj QaQ jaj vaD SoH Daq Hegh? --Disavian 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment On a serious note, while there may or may not be any native speakers, there will be trekkies as long as the franchise lasts, and as long as there are trekkies, someone will try to teach their kid(s) Klingon-- what I'm trying to say, is that whether or not there are currently any native speakers, it is only a matter of time before they DO exist; the nature of languages demands the possibility. As Angr pointed out, someone's already tried, and I bet that kid still knows it. Since it's bound to happen, it's only a matter of time until one of them edits wikipedia and honestly uses the userbox. --Disavian 02:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. Hope folks are raising Klingon speakers. -MrFizyx 23:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as one cannot be a native speaker of Klingon. But keep other Klingon templates (like we have for the other languages). Sophy's Duckling 23:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep perhaps there is a reason to delete this, but it has not been advanced here. --My Spandex Heaven 02:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • jIH Sov tlhIngan Hol 'ach ghobe' wa' 'oH tlhIngan. (I know Klingon, but you can't be Klingon!) Computerjoe's talk 20:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Subst and delete Since when are there native speakers of Klingon? —MiraLuka 04:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not your playground. Ral315 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

  Delete; I think this is funny and completely harmless, but I'm forced to agree with the fact that there are no native Klingon speakers. 24.85.210.146 04:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. While I'm impressed with all the Klingon used on this vote, I agree that in any case, even if there are people raised to speak Klingon, they could not make up a large enough number of users to warrant a userbox. And I don't think anons can vote; 24.85.210.146, if you are a user, please log in to vote. – Xolatron 14:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Log in not needed to vote. Unless you are asserting that anons are not users? --70.218.3.206 05:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, typically, votes cast by anons are discard. But, you're in luck! This isn't a vote, so feel free to express whatever reasonable opinion and reasoning you like. One hopes that the closing admin won't just count heads. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• KeepAre you questioning my Martianality?--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 23:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, completely harmless. --Sippel2707 07:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no such thing as a native Klingon speaker. And it does do "harm" since it is on Wikipedia's servers and generates some load every time it is loaded.
  • Oops, this was me, and I forgot to sign it when i wrote it a couple hours ago. Copysan 00:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless, weird, valid. - RPIRED 01:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There was almost a native speaker of Klingon. According to Klingon language, "D'Armond Speers and his wife began raising a child bilingually in English and Klingon; Speers spoke in Klingon and his wife in English. A few years into his life, the child began rejecting Klingon and gravitating towards English, as he could use English with many more speakers. ... The experiment ultimately failed when the child refused to use Klingon when he got older." Angr (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you look at the templates for Klingon, this one is under the wrong name. This one is supposed to simply say "This user speaks Klingon" -- the native one has an -N extension, right? If I'm right, just change it to "this user speaks Klingon" and we're done here. No issues about whether or not you can be a native speaker, as this isn't the template for that. (That template doesn't exist). See Userboxes:Non-ISO Languages:Klingon for what I'm talking about. --Disavian 21:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or get rid of all language-identifying user boxes. Rob 13:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User iamafish-en

Template:User iamafish-en (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Humorous template restored by DRV because the previous listing was closed prematurely. Xoloz 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, orphaned, non-encyclopedic template. This isn't Uncyclopedia ... "humor value" isn't a valid criterion for a second DRV. --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete as very silly template. Please don't waste our time by undeleting crap templates and bringing them here. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Tony. (Did I really say that?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per the Tfd rulings of last week. --D-Day ^{on WHEELS!!!} 18:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• In fairness last week would have only been a no consensus keep. It is right to debate these again. Sorry that some of the above folks feel that process is wasting their time. Hmmm... how did this all get started? -MrFizyx 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, subst if deleted. Harmless; the only effect this has on Wikipedia is to allow one bunch of users to pointlessly annoy another. Septentrionalis 20:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It amuses me. Sophy's Duckling 23:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until more convincing reason than "I don't think its funny," is found. I'm not buying, "UBX's are evil", "Template space is sacred," "This will only allow the fish to rise up against us all." I have taken the transclusion issue seriously enough to subst my own boxes, but I need more evidence. -MrFizyx 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason advanced for deletion. --My Spandex Heaven 02:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, since no valid reasons are provided to delete it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not your playground. Ral315 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and change the rules so templates cant be continually renominated just so a few people can get their way (and yes, im following suit by just pasting the exact same answer like everyone else in this TfD is)- • The Giant Puffin • 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Perhaps we should wait to see what happen with userbox policy (see here) before we delete every userbox that people don't like. I think it would be wise for users of this box to subst it, but I don't think it's necessary to be deleted, at least until a final conclusion on the userbox issue is reached. I encourage people to voice their opinion on the latest proposal here. – Xolatron 14:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• (bubbles) Keep per above. Freddie 00:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the point of stuff like this? WarpstarRider 09:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per above. --Disavian 02:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or get rid of all ancestry user boxes. Rob 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User iamalemming-en

Template:User iamalemming-en (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Humorous template restored by DRV because the previous listing was closed prematurely. Xoloz 17:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, orphaned, non-encyclopedic template. This isn't Uncyclopedia ... "humor value" isn't a valid criterion for a second DRV. --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete as very silly template. Please don't waste our time by undeleting crap templates and bringing them here. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Tony. (Did I really say that?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per the Tfd rulings of last week. --D-Day ^{on WHEELS!!!} 18:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• In fairness last week would have been a no consensus keep -MrFizyx 23:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; subst if deleted. Those who think this silly don't have to use it. Septentrionalis 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pmanderson Sophy's Duckling 23:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until more convincing reason than "I don't think its funny," is found. I'm not buying, "UBX's are evil", "Template space is sacred," "This will only allow the lemmings to rise up against us all." I have taken the transclusion issue seriously enough to subst my own boxes, but I need more evidence. -MrFizyx 23:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason advanced for deletion. --My Spandex Heaven 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, since no valid reasons are provided to delete it. --Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not your playground. Ral315 (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and change the rules so templates cant be continually renominated just so a few people can get their way (and yes, im following suit by just pasting the exact same answer like everyone else in this TfD is)- • The Giant Puffin • 19:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• SQUEEEEEK!!! Keep per above. Freddie 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the point of stuff like this? WarpstarRider 09:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or get rid of all ancestry user boxes. Rob 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User iamamonarch-en

Template:User iamamonarch-en (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Humorous template restored by DRV because the previous listing was closed prematurely. Xoloz 17:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, orphaned, non-encyclopedic template. This isn't Uncyclopedia ... "humor value" isn't a valid criterion for a second DRV. --Cyde↔Weys 17:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete as very silly template. Please don't waste our time by undeleting crap templates and bringing them here. --Tony Sidaway 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Tony. (Did I really say that?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per the Tfd rulings of last week. --D-Day ^{on WHEELS!!!} 18:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Silliness is harmless, as long as it is kept out of articles. Septentrionalis 21:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy strong keep Harmless. Sophy's Duckling 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until more convincing reason than "I don't think its funny," is found. I'm not buying, "UBX's are evil", "Template space is sacred," "This will only allow the evil monarchs to organize." I have taken the transclusion issue seriously enough to subst my own boxes, but I need more evidence. -MrFizyx 23:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason advanced for deletion. --My Spandex Heaven 02:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, since no valid reasons are provided to delete it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not your playground. Ral315 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and change the rules so templates cant be continually renominated just so a few people can get their way - • The Giant Puffin • 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• I hereby declare that my vote on this issue is Keep per above. Freddie 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the point of stuff like this? WarpstarRider 09:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User iamanaeroplane-en

Template:User iamanaeroplane-en (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Humorous template restored by DRV because the previous listing was closed prematurely. Xoloz 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, orphaned, non-encyclopedic template. This isn't Uncyclopedia ... "humor value" isn't a valid criterion for a second DRV. --Cyde↔Weys 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete as very silly template. Please don't waste our time by undeleting crap templates and bringing them here. --Tony Sidaway 17:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete per Tony. (Did I really say that?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Speedy Keep per the Tfd rulings of last week. --D-Day ^{on WHEELS!!!} 18:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Harmless, and campaign to delete it pointless. Septentrionalis 21:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Pmanderson. Sophy's Duckling 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep until more convincing reason than "I don't think its funny," is found. I'm not buying, "UBX's are evil", "Template space is sacred," "This may cause an aeroplane uprising." I have taken the transclusion issue seriously enough to subst my own boxes, but I need more evidence. -MrFizyx 23:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no reason offered for deletion. --My Spandex Heaven 02:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, since no valid reasons are provided to delete it. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 10:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not your playground. Ral315 (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and change the rules so templates cant be continually renominated just so a few people can get their way (and yes, im following suit by just pasting the exact same answer like everyone else in this TfD is)- • The Giant Puffin • 19:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• (really loud takeoff noises) Keep per above. Freddie 00:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What is the point of stuff like this? WarpstarRider 09:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PDFlink

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

• What is the point in this? What makes a link to a PDF file so special that it needs to be distinguished from any other links? I don't think it makes sense to have this. — Timwi 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have updated the docs to be a little clearer about this. Admittedly, pdf files are not the only ones to be considered "special" in the sense specified there; the same (more or less) holds for Outlook presentations, Word documents, movie files(!) and many others. What I would like is a Wikimedia extension working similarly to the TargetAlert extension for Firefox (which I would be happy with, if it didn't continuously leak objects :-/). In the meantime... —Gennaro Prota^•Talk 23:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, there is something special about PDF files, many peoples internet browers don't display them but rather they get downloaded. The template needs fixing though as currently it seems to cause a line breck.--JK the unwise 15:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So the browser pops up a "Save As" dialog. So what? Why does the user need advance warning of that? — Timwi 00:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • We can't presume that everyone who visits Wikipedia is completely computer-savvy. There are many, many many novice users who are intimidated by computer technology. Should we '"dumb down" the Internet to accomodate this? No, of course not - but this template doesn't do that. It's a simple, thoughtful advisory that a link requires something other than a standard browser. --Ckatz 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, useful as per JK the unwise. I think I fixed the linebreak issue. Kusma (討論) 15:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - usefull Agathoclea 21:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JK -MrFizyx 23:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It would be nice to be warned if my computer is going to stall for the next three minutes. Sophy's Duckling 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to warn you if your computer locks up on any particular file type. Use TargetAlert (google for it) or any other viable alternative. Don't push it on users of systems that works properly. — Timwi 00:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not a question of Wikipedia's "responsibility", but more a matter of common courtesy. I would hardly consider this to be a major inconvenience to "users of systems that works properly." What impression do we create if we take the alternate approach, and expect all computer users to have the same comfort level and technical expertise as those of us who enjoy building the things? --Ckatz 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sophy's duckling. TheGrappler 05:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment All of the above Keep comments are based on arguments I have refuted. — Timwi 00:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe this is made unnecessary by the inclusion of the 'Format' parameter in {{cite_web}}, which allows inclusion in a citation a note indicating that the link leads to a particular format of file, such as 'PDF'. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is common courtesy on the web to alert users to "PDFHell". To Ceyockey: not all external links are in the CITET format. Copysan 05:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Argumentum ad populum fallacy. — Timwi 21:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Misuse of argument fallacy. We are not determining fact here, so popular usage is indeed valid. If we applied this argument to other WP policies, then say goodbye to "common name" naming of articles, among other things. Copysan 22:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: What happens when you click on a PDF in most browsers is a program pops up, downloads the document, while your computer locks up for a few secondes, so a PDF template is indeed useful for the greater good of the comunity. Deathawk 02:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nicely shows if a link is a PDF, which is important, especially when they take way longer to download and are akward to view for some people. PDFs also have a strange affinity to crashing on some computers. – Xolatron 04:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Users should not be bounced to non-HTML pages without warning. PDF's do all manners of undesireable things on some systems. However, I'm not a huge fan of its current implementation. I think superscript would be better, perhaps even without the image; for example: PDF link ^PDF. More ideally, the Wiki software could be modified so that it could somehow be instructed to change the external link icon to indicate that it is a PDF (no idea where such a software suggestion would be made though). -- Zawersh 06:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is a useful feature, and - perhaps most importantly - it makes the user experience easier for novice computer users. Ideally, it would be nice to have a single template that can display appropriate icons for different file formats, such as .DOC and .PDF, but until someone codes that... --Ckatz 19:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I personally always hesitate to open a PDF-link, because it opens to slow. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:User Singularitarian

Template:User Singularitarian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Granted, I realize this is a userbox, and blahblahblahkeep/deletealluserboxes, yeah, I know. Userbox, schmuserbox, this template is almost wholly unused, to the point where the accompanying category was speedied for a lack of members. However you feel about userboxes, this is not a useful or used userbox. (This was AFDed, by me, several months ago, and that AFD ended up being a mostly-ignored no consensus, with most users voting a variation of "Foo all userboxes!") - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

For reference the previous NO CONSENSUS debate can be found here -MrFizyx 22:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as unused. —MiraLuka 07:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to keep because it is actually being used. —MiraLuka 04:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete But NOT as CSD T1. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?, on WHEELS?!}) 14:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Who was arguing about T1? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire |

past ops) 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• • • Nobody was, but I didn't want to see it used as an argument for deletion. --D-Day ^{What up? Am I cool, or what?} 14:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; subst if deleted; two users are actually transcluding this, and some others may well have substed it. Septentrionalis 21:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The image is only being used on the two pages this template appears on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and subst if deleted per Pmanderson Sophy's Duckling 23:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep This box just led me to an article I would not have read otherwise. Keep unless you can show singularitanism to be non-notable. -MrFizyx 23:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• weak subst and delete per nom after further review. Only two editors use this and neither has taken up the cause here. Seems a fair enough reason to delete. -MrFizyx 22:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and restore category. No reason for deletion. Foo or anti-Foo. --My Spandex Heaven 01:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Nearly wholly unused" is a long-standing reason to delete a template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep → Wombdpsw - @ ← 06:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep no need for deletion - • The Giant Puffin • 19:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  • "Nearly wholly unused" is a long-standing reason to delete a template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
    • "Nearly" is it still being used - • The Giant Puffin • 09:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
      • On two pages, a number which has not increased since the last TFD, three months ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
        • If nothing has changed, why is it being nominated again? - • The Giant Puffin • 22:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
          • that AFD ended up being a mostly-ignored no consensus, with most users voting a variation of "Foo all userboxes!"
            I am again reminded that nobody read the nomination. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace ☢✍☎☺) 23:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I wonder if anyone actually read my nomination. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
• Technical Keep per above. Freddie 00:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. --StuffOfInterest 02:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pokémon Criminal Masterminds

Template:Pokémon Criminal Masterminds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Go-nowhere navbox. Unused, and three of the four links go to redirects. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not used and to small to be of much use.--JK the unwise 15:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 20:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because of uselessness. Sophy's Duckling 23:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to a more general Pokemon template (if wanted). per nom (missed the go-nowhere bit). -MrFizyx 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Freddie 00:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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