Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 14

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. —Cryptic 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Day of Defeat series (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Navigation template with just two links, and unlikely to expand in the near future. Included articles already link to each other elsewhere. --Joshuapaquin 23:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - no transcludes and (per nominator) unlikely to expand in near future. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 19:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--Duplicates the look/see/feel of other similar articles, and tightly integrates two notable[1] Software games. Looks to me most of the articles in Category:Half-Life_2_mods and Category:Half-Life_mods probably ought to be including this set of templates. Even without that aspect, this has a lot in common with some author/book templates covering short series, and we hardly need worry about space or server loading. These two present a nice professional look to the terminal end of two fairly developed niche articles, and just because the game is more popular in europe and unheralded here, is no reason to act predjudicially toward a product which is by any measure a hit, or the articles citing the system and linking per WP:Btw. // FrankB 22:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, if this template is removed the whole system has to be reworked for *all* of the Half-life related articles and the old system was horrid. BJ^Talk 00:54, 25 January 2007 (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. —Cryptic 10:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Names in world cultures (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template duplicates Category:Names by culture, which is located close to it at the bottom of the articles. It also includes fewer entries than the category which means that to keep the template up to date someone would have to periodically check the category, thus limiting the template's usefulness. (On a subjective note it also seems to me that people looking up an article on Arabic names are specifically looking for info on Arabic names, and thus wouldn't find a quick link to Hawaiian names all that useful.) Tocharianne 18:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - The template serves little purpose. Also, who decides which countries come on there?Bakaman 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - could be useful and interesting. Patstuart^talk|edits 02:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - This template is similar to Template:Poetry of different cultures and languages, which is in fact periodically updated to include new cultures. They should probably both be deleted or kept, as the same arguments could be made either way. The subjective note in the nomination is not followed much in any articles here, it seems: to take one example, when someone wants to look up Hawaii, the template at the bottom will provide quick links to any other state in the U.S., island group in Polynesia, or country/territory in Oceania. This seems equally relevant/irrelevant to the person wondering about Hawaii in particular. For that matter, they are all categorized in a way like the names. It does seem well established, though, to have such templates on Wikipedia. Rigadoun (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Struck out my note. It was only related to my perceived usefulness of the template, but I don't want to distract people from my main argument which is the template's redundancy. Tocharianne

• Firm Keep--wikifun stuff--I added a use disclaimer and autocategory. Whomever is writing such articles will naturally add and update the specific cultural category to the same articles, and some people really get into 'names' research and browsing--just have a couple kids and see if you don't too!
  
     As is, this is useful cross connect between main culture oriented articles on such names and their cultural baggage, which is an interesting read all it's own. Dead tree pedias can only do this as a specialized pedia, so this is encyclopediac topic, we can just do it digitally now. // FrankB 21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your reasoning and the change you made to the template [2]. Are you saying this template should go on the Hawaii article instead of Hawaiian name article? Tocharianne 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Firm Keep very usefull template. Sasha l 05:04, 23 January 2007 (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. —Cryptic 10:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jewish Communist Organisations in Revolutionary Russia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

1. There is no particularly Jewish concept of Communism.
2. Intentionally or not, the name repeats an allegation promoted by antisemitic elements in the White movement and later by the Nazis, see Jewish Bolshevism.
3. The groups listed there (4 total, 2 of which are red links) are not related to each other and short-lived. No need for the template other than to promote a POV. --←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per 3 reasons above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. For the record: I do not allege any intentional wrongdoing on Soman's side. Simply a bad template. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The template was created for organizations fullfilling 3 criteria: 1) in Russia 1917-1928, 2) explicitly Communist and 3) explicitly Jewish. These were are grouping of organizations that moved in the political space between the official Bolshevik line and the old Jewish left tendencies (Bund/Poalei Zion). Of course I want to differentiate it from general antisemitic allegations (and thus not in any means opening to include a list of personalities of Jewish descent in the Communist Party, etc.). These organizations were not marginal, but played an important role in Jewish political life in the early Soviet Russia. The four listed organizations did have relations with each other, they competed with each other over the same political space and in the end, they all winded up together in Yevsektsiya. Lastly, as the creator of the template, I don't see exactly which POV i'm pushing? --Soman 11:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Can we have {{African Fascist Organisations in Rennaisance Italy}} next? I don't know how more overly specific you could get. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator, though I'm not convinced it's POV-pushing. (hmmm... how about {{Tuvalese Marxist Organisations in Post-War Zaire}}?) -/- Warren 21:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  I'm all in favor of {{San Marinese Zoroastrinian Organizations in the Anglo-Zanzibar War}}. Picaroon 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Jokes aside, these were significant organizations in the own time. --Soman 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  Yes Soman, I agree - they were more significant than the San Marinese commandos who preached Zoroastrinianism during the Anglo-Zanzibar War.</silliness> But the thing is, I just don't see enough of a connection between the groups to actually warrant or necessitate this template. Political parties need not be grouped by their members' religious backgrounds on a template. Picaroon 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain myself more indept. This is not an issue of categorization of religion, it was a distinct political tendency. These four organizations (of course it is not good that there are 2 red links in the template, but I haven't time right now to create good articles on those) competed over a certain political space but also had a common standpoint it that they chosed to emphazise the Jewish identity as a secular and political identity, as opposed to a religious one. In the ambit of the Russian Revolution, they adopted a communist identity. These organizations had somewhat different backgrounds, but as time went by became centered in the same structure (EKRP somewhat later though) in Yevsektsiya. See for example [3]. --Soman 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. — coelacan talk — 23:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete Suman's explanation of the template convinces me that it serves no really useful purpose. Since it will certainly be abused - the anti-semites may be expected to apply it to the CPSU - this argues that it should be gone.

  I can only judge from what Wikipedia says; and on that basis I must conclude that the argument that the organizations are both "Communist" uses Communist in two different senses: Yevsektsiya was a section of the CPSU; the other organizations were all organized by a fraction of Poale Zion, a different party. That fraction was allied to the Communists (as it must have been to survive in Russia to 1928); but not identical; Poale Zion, as a whole, wasn't even allied. That members of the fraction became members of Yevsektsiya for the year until it was itself dissolved is not surprising, nor I think important. If the redlinks existed, I might see things differently, but I doubt it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Humus. They don't seem related/connected enough to warrant a template grouping them. Picaroon 03:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

  I should specify, however, that I don't think Soman's goal was to push a POV. Picaroon 00:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not really related, looks like a POV push as it is very specific. -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Humus sapiens own POV, however, is clarified in his comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism ('not related to Judaism per se, but most of these groups were busy actively destroying Judaism'). For me, who btw is repeatedly accused of being a communist at wikipedia, an important intention is that these organizations highlight an important aspect of jewish political history, namely that a significant part of the radical jewry prior to WWII was in favour of a secular, Yiddish-based, political identity. This is what Humus sapiens seeks to obscure. --Soman 13:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Renaming and remodeling to Template:Marxist Jewish organizations would be different. This would include all of Poale Zion, for example. The order of the adjectives is intentional, to avoid sounding like the anti-Semites. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per all three rationales given by nominator.--Jersey Devil 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Humus sapiens.Bakaman 22:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Soman has outlined the legitimate usage of the template. That someone might misuse it is not a good reason to delete a valid template, just deal with misuse as vandalism. Humus sapiens first reason is a straw man, no one is saying there's a "Jewish concept of Communism" just that there were communist groups in the Jewish community at the time, groups that were specifically oriented to the Jewish community by means of their membership, language (Yiddish) and the fact that their political work was targeted at the Jewish community. There were also Jewish labor unions in various parts of Europe and North America in the early 20th century. This doesn't mean there was a "Jewish concept" of trade unionism, just that there were unions that were developed by and for Jewish workers. Along the same lines, you could probably also have a template (if articles were developed) for Ukrainian Communist groups in North America since there were a number of those in the early 20th century. General Idea 00:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Soman's defense convinces me that the linkage it too tenuous to need either a template or a category. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it violates WP:NEO. IZAK 08:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems like political correctness run amok, as it's a legitimate encyclopedic topic describing a particular historical milieu (even if short lived). It's certainly not a neologism; a quick journal database search turns up dozens of articles using the stock phrase "Jewish communist organizations", in both non-sectarian journals and in journals of Jewish thought. --Delirium 15:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  That doesn't mean that the groups actually have anything to do with one another. Here's the thing to consider. If you couldn't reasonably weave a wikilink to Yevsektsiya into the Jewish Communist Party (Poalei Zion) article, then there's no reason to have a template that suggests a connection between the two. — coelacan talk — 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• keep - could be very useful for someone who is researching such topics. Helps for searching and finding more specific information. --Mista-X 17:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  I doubt that, considering that the groups are not related to one another. — coelacan talk — 17:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - communism = Jewish POV drivel Kuratowski's Ghost 22:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete since these articles are not directly related, and the template only serves to promote some novel point of view in that regard. Tewfik^Talk 22:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research category of un-useful and unrelated concepts. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the template only exists to single out Jews as promoters of communism. Beit Or 18:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--The issue can be revisited when the articles are populated. AGF is violated when something this young is deleted without giving a few weeks for the author to set related matters straight. // FrankB 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  I don't think AGF has anything to do with it. If somebody made a template about giraffes and I-beams, we wouldn't need to wait a few weeks to see if the connection is made. We can simply see that there is no connection, and there never will be, so there's no reason to waste time. — coelacan talk — 10:49, 22 January 2007 (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. —Cryptic 10:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:16-32bit (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This template is a list of things which have little or nothing in common with each other. — A.M. 08:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The fact that something is 16 or 32 bit does not relate it to other things which are, and if this template actually had everything it should, it would be hundreds of entries. Also, how in the world does it not include the SNES? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This template will, if widely used, become unwieldy in no time. Will this list all the hundreds of conversions from PDP-11 to VAX? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Too loose an association between the items in this navigation template. -/- Warren 21:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hardware and software? The list would be gi-normous! And the inclusion criteria are hopelessly vague. In many cases, 16-32 turned out to be a subset of the more general problem of abstraction (as where C99 added types like "ptrdiff t" and "time t"). One could argue that Fortran belongs on the list! (And if not, why not, and where do you draw the line?) An article might make sense. A list article might make sense. A template...is just hopeless. Xtifr _tälk 22:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per xtifr.Bakaman 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- at most rename to {{16-32bit video games}} Come on folks, check the links! Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games this late date.
  
      This used in more than half a dozen computer && Computer history articles. HAS NOTHING TO DO with VAX/PDP-8/PDP-11 and other minicomputers. If deleted, those need subst'd FIRST! As is, the comparision bitched about by the nom is exactly the point the template is revealing... generational differences and advances in computer gaming tech. Yikes. Why must some people tear down the work of others. What happened to WP:AGF? This has much in common with {{Groundbreaking submarines}} and other such templates which span several articles, most things listed in Category:navigational templates, for example. What the hell, let's delete all those too! // FrankB 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obviously, the template does not make its purpose clear. Also, I am not sure what this does that a category wouldn't do as well, if not better. The fact that the same can be said for some other navigation boxes is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not obliged to repeat its mistakes for the sake of a foolish consistency. Robert A.West (Talk) 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Why must some people tear down the work of others." Because this template "is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic)". It is not helpful to have a navigation template when the inclusion criteria allows for things with very little in common with each other to be included. For example:

• • — A.M. 05:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: User:Fabartus left [4] this comment on my talk page: "Suggest you reconsider this. You folks were sniffing up the wrong tree. Best regards". Fabartus is cordially invited to explain himself here in the TfD discussion. -/- Warren 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Asserting that my earlier comment still holds. No good reason to reconsider. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Answer-- The way the template is USED seems to overlooked above. I could support renaming it which would cancel the objections listed above. The Right Thing is not deletion, so while not my fight, nor interest, I do see it my duty to point that out.
  
     The template is used as a navigational template to related articles on and about the same technology. This is editorial priviledge I will and we all should cede to the workers on those articles. Those article talks are the proper pages for disposing or using this, not this page, where a deletion will leave a hole in the articles.
  
     A template in such a case focusing the reader on related articles is superiour and directs the reader to said articles by standing out from the more muted bulleted see also lists, which to frequently, do not convey such membership or grouping of related matters; such connections get lost in the clutter of a bland list. See the many history articles using similar templates.
  
     In summation, so unless we are working on that project, it is a mutual courtesy to let them decide, not us with our distance from their task. I contacted you as I consider overlooking that purpose as a travesty and mistake--editorial judgements are the province of the editors working said projects. Not that of someone not liking the name, nor unfamilar enough with the interrelations to judiciously consider the way the template is used. In fact, deleting such is a slap in the face to the many working on that group, and I do not cede that authority or propriety to those who happen by here, especially as I find it likely that no one notified anyone on that project that it was up here, else there would have been a defense of it. Courtesy demands more leeway on this one, not notifying interested parties makes sense only on Afd cruft crap, not on any other matter on these XfD pages. So take a walk in their shoes. // FrankB 19:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Well, there are now two responses on the project talk page, neither of which thinks the template is worth saving. 16-bit is not a technology -- it is a pretty random grouping of technologies. My opinion stands. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • (responding to Fabartus) I am not unfamiliar with these technologies--I have used several of them, and am familiar with all except SuperFX. Three out of five have nothing to do with video games per se—they are simply general purpose software development tools. And there are tons of other technologies which do similar things. I have reviewed the six (!) articles this template appears on, and as a qualified expert in the field, I strongly disagree that this template adds any real benefits. In fact, it seems more confusing than helpful. And as for your claims that only members of a certain project should be allowed to comment or decide about this template, that is a violation of WP:OWN. And you are violating WP:AGF by assuming that we don't have the 'pedia's best interests at heart here, and/or aren't qualified to comment on this topic! In passing, I would note that 16-bit (the only article using this template which is not on this template) is far too focussed on video games, to the exclusion of the entire rest of the software industry. What I see going on here is borderline POV pushing, emphasizing technology's use in video games over its use in the whole rest of the software industry. I am willing to concede that this template was well-intentioned, but I am not willing to concede that it is useful or well-thought-out, or that any particular group has any special privileges to control its fate. I stand by my original statement. DOS/4GW has nothing to do with Sega 32X, and linking them in this way is wrong. I also oppose in the strongest terms possible a rename to {{16-32bit video games}}, as three out of five of these technologies have nothing particular to do with video games at all. Xtifr _tälk 21:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. A nav template for such disparate items makes no sense. -R. S. Shaw 22:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the analysis Xtifr, but WP:OWN comment missed the point--those working those articles saw merit in their inclusion, and professionalism, courtesy, and common sense ALL strongly suggest they be consulted.
  
     That is good job, but one thing that no one ever seems to cover (except negatively as in Wikipedia Humanity) is why something used in so many articles for a lengthy time is suddenly a bad idea because someone else comes along later and doesn't understand it, or at least address it with the people on the Project FIRST.
  
     A Discussion page link with a conversation in the proper main page context like that with some plan and resolution followed by appropriate unlinking ahead of a discussion here should usually, I think, be the more professional standard we should be striving for. By the same token and measure, not involving the users and creators in any such discussion HERE is frankly, rude and uncivil. Whether or not the template has a net benefit to the project seems a non-starter—it's already used on those pages and deleting it will leave a hole in main space—as such, your delete votes are in effect demanding that others fix up. (Geee... how do you know which closing Admin you are picking on? What's s/he done to you? <G>)
  
     I say "Pick up your own dirty socks"!!! <G>It's not mature to expect others to do for your preferences (which is all this case is). THIS is not AFD, and there is no reason at all, at all to rush on any deletion decision outside main space. Unlike you, I have little direct experience with those techs save having seen A SEGA system at my kids Pediatric Dentist's offices, but had good faith that the people on that project were and are doing the best they can. The solution, if the technical points above have merit, is obvious--improve the articles so there is no need for the template. In which case, then and only then, imho, is there is cause to finally delete it--such then makes sense as it's no longer transcluded in however a misguided manner it might have been used by whomever. More to the point, as one who knows what he's doing, imho, you have a obligation to lend your expertise in overcoming whatever fuzzy thinking lead to it's inclusion in those articles. A lay editor doesn't have the tech background, and if you guys are on point, those articles obviously need your help.
  
     In the initial deletion comments above, none of those Humanity and courtesy issues were addressed, nor was the fact reported that anyone had intervened and fixed up the misguided articles, and so they were not longer needed. So I smelled a Lynching, a Railroad Job—at least this way, I hope going forward, you guys will put the cart before the horse then nominate after that henceforth. Thanks for giving it a mature reconsideration. Please let me know when the Socks are picked up... I'd like to see the diffs and see how your version handles the tech points. Best regards // FrankB 15:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That is entirely irrelevant. What do you mean, improve the articles? This template does nothing that should be in the articles, period. -Amark moo! 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Editors I respect have said that they respect User:Fabartus, so I hope he will take off his Spiderman costume and step away from the Reichstag. I checked to see if anyone notified the author of the template. It would be hard, as the author has been blocked indefinitely. Unfortunately, some of FrankB's comments ("socks are picked up") above look like veiled accusations, which are one of my pet peeves. If someone has an accusation to make, he should make it, or else hold his peace. In the meantime, I believe that eliminating links of no particular relevance improves articles. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can do worse feet in mouth than socks. <G> Sorry if my championing respect for another's contributions and time is offensive—what?!! Did I say that. Okay, NOT!. I'll always champion respect for another's time, including the waste of time using WP:POINT makes on the time of tens of others coming along later to judge such nominations. Were the articles cured of the template before nomination, I'd say good work, no brainer, delete it.
  
     I'm sorry you took my attempts to be somewhat humorous wrongly for any action to change the status quo ante automatically necessitates a drag on someone's time, and in such a forum as this, that drag and demand is an multiple-- an aggregate of many peoples discretionary time. Given the criticisms and the knowledge some claimed above, I'm merely trying to make the point that commons sense is to fix the articles, after which when there is no uses of the template then it can be nominated. I'm further saying in general, that nominating the template in this way is a lazy way out—a cop out putting the fix ups onto someone else--yes, just like my teens not picking up their socks. It is in fact a disruption of wikipedia to not fix the problem first —a selfish use of WP:POINT, for the MAIN SPACE isnt fixed first.
  
     Overall, I simply do not understand why some of us mistake activity (deleting things which are in use that, assuming good faith, others of us have found useful enough on their collective beats.) with useful productivity furthering the project. If that mature pov means I'm spiderman, it's a cross I'll bear in defense of principles. All such Xfd talk-talk is a distraction from improvements to articles in some degree, and I'd rather be about that rather than trying to figure out why someone has a bee in their bonnet over a harmless template satisfactory to the editors involved on that set of pages.
  
     Last I looked, a template took up a trivial amount of foundation storage capacity, so unless one is unused or very ill advised like this (I said I can do worse than sox--that should convince you! But do give points on consistency wrt to my views on one's actions affecting the time impact on others.). There simply is no reason to ever hurry on deleting templates that are in use on a handful of articles or more. It's a corrallary to WP:CIV and WP:AGF to me. Lastly, don't take it personally, this is wikibusiness, and some stuff just don't travel well in text. But do recognize that any time anything is nominated for deletion, it is negating someone else's time and (usually) good faith efforts. (I'll allow much of the crap in AfD gets an exception, but this isn't AfD.)
  
     Some of us are more talented in various ways than some others. I see no reason to unnecessarily cause hurt and rejection when the fix is (from what you all are arguing above) almost trivial. Better, I would urge you to lend a hand when your talents can fix up something being done poorly. That's a Right Thing that gives no little satisfaction, when all is said and done.
  
     So fix the articles, and there's nothing procedurally for me to question on principle. If not, some poor overworked sap of an Admin will have to do that as well—and they have enough on their plates, as there is always too much in most backlogs. They are all too often our better technical editors to do anything less, we need them upgrading quality as much as possible. Best regards // Spiderfrank errrr... FrankB 22:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• "The solution, if the technical points above have merit, is obvious--improve the articles so there is no need for the template. In which case, then and only then, imho, is there is cause to finally delete it" There is already no need for the template in the articles; no improvements to the articles are required for them to have no need of the template. Also, the template should not be removed from the articles while the TfD is in progress, because doing so would prevent people from seeing the link to the TfD discussion. — A.M. 05:56, 21 January 2007 (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.