Misplaced Pages

:Templates for discussion - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zorglbot (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 26 December 2007 (BOT: Automatic archiving of daily TFD pages). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:00, 26 December 2007 by Zorglbot (talk | contribs) (BOT: Automatic archiving of daily TFD pages)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to current discussions

Skip to current discussions

Template loop detected: Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header

Current discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2025 January 9

December 25

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this template is empty. 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' original them is 0. — AaMcaa (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting first edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:10, 25 December 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 section.

Template:STLmedia

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:STLmedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 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 section.

Template:PHLmedia

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:PHLmedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting first edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
delete - Redundancies abound. KansasCity (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I was not directed to this discussion. It just happened to be next to the one above to which I was directed. Call it serendipity. - Dravecky (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (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 section.

Template:MBHighways

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The template is a red link farm, only few articles exist. Seeing that no article on this has been made in a while, this thing needs to go. 32 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. This template is huge, and WP:FA will never accept any article that has it. WP:GA might not either. The categories and lists system is much preferred across Misplaced Pages. WP:USRD (the United States road project) deleted its templates a while back at debates such as those listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents#State highway system templates. CRWP needs to delete its templates, among other things, in order to be successful project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I agree with Rschen7754. The GA and FA projects probably wouldn't pass articles with such a large template on them. The fact that it is a red link farm doesn't bother me; what bothers me is that this template has existed for some time, and those red links were never filled in. It's time to let go of the template. A category also works much better. --Son (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rschen7754  — master son 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Red Link Farm? I don't see any red links on there. Also, there is stuff you can do with infoboxes that you can't do with categories. It's easier for the users. Also, where does it say that large templates automatically fail FA/GA? You can make it hidden by default and make it pop out if you need it you know. ViperSnake151 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Its been an ongoing war - the original version of this was a redlink farm.32 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Permalink is here. --Phirazo 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. while the template was huge and ugly, that is a reason to fix it, not a valid reason for deletion. It has been cleaded up in the meantime (although I suggest all secondary road links go). Also, if this gets deleted, please don't consider it as a precedent for other better maintained provincial road navboxes. --Qyd (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and I disagree. --Qyd (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why did people say that lists and categories are better when we were having similar TFDs in the US? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, don't care. But it sounds extreme. I suppose this is not the right place to discuss that. --Qyd (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I would consider creating 20 different "small" templates for browsing extreme. That is definitely how it is viewed at WP:USRD, which has been more successful than WP:CRWP. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:45, 26 December 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 section.

Template:Jay email

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

The result of the debate was delete per creator's request. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jay email (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is unencyclopedic, and will not be used within the context of the encyclopedia. The template namespace doesn't exist for the convenience of an editor. This was moved to the userspace by Edmundwoods (talk · contribs), but was moved back by Whjayg (talk · contribs). — Aecis·(away) 17:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added Template:Jay Archive box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to this discussion as it has the same issue. ~ Paul/T+ 04:52, 27 December 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 section.


Template:Maayan

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be useful in any way. It's supposed to be a nav template, but it is only used on one article. Most of the people and groups mentioned there are not linked, because they don't have articles, and aren't notable (some of the articles were deleted as NN). Putting the template on existing articles about people who are mentioned there wouldn't be useful either, as they are pretty loosely related. — Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - not a particularly useful template. Some of these articles don't even mention how they're linked to Maayan; others are only linked pretty loosely. If it's necessary to connect these articles together, the better way to do it would be with a category. Terraxos (talk) 04:59, 28 December 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 section.

WB & UPN Templates

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

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template is obsolete. It has been since the UPN-WB to CW merger. Please delete. Thanks. MaidService (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that these are the only edits of MaidService (talk · contribs), and ThaCleaningLady (talk · contribs) proceeded to redirect all of the templates to their CW counterparts.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits have been to redirect these templates to the corresponding CW templates and to conduct this TFD and related CFDs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:MaidService. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the sock puppetry page has been archived and confirmed please see instead Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/MaidService. Thank you. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Swiss town/upd

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Swiss town/upd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merry Christmas! Here's an orphan infobox template that, for some inexplicable reason, is 338 kb. — BD2412 T 04:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wow. That is a whole lotta code. Orphaned and of questionable usefulness in this form. JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like this was an attempt to create an "updater" template that could be rolled out extremely quickly when changes are made to the neighboring_municipalities parameter (whether it be the style of presentation or the actual content). Each town could be updated by simply changing the infobox used in the article to subst:Infobox Swiss town/upd. Very good idea, in my opinion. --- RockMFR 06:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but it is unused in practise, and is about ten times larger than Misplaced Pages's recommended page limit. There must be a more efficient way to do this. BD2412 T 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unneeded. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - clever, but this could be done so much easier with a bot or elbow grease. Happy‑melon 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - echoing Happy Melon as well. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was used in the last update by bot and can serve as a sample template for future updates. If it's considered too long, the neighboring municipalities can be cut as they are now in the article. -- User:Docu
    • Was it used by a bot in a way that could not be accomplished in a different namespace (e.g. Misplaced Pages wikiproject space)? BD2412 T 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • RockMFR explained in his post on Dec 25 how it was used. It doesn't matter which namespace it's in, but as it relates to Infobox Swiss town, it should be fine where it is, as is Template:Infobox Swiss town/testcases -- User:Docu
  • Keep. No good reason has been given for deletion. Its usefulness has been shown. Size is not a good reason for deletion. Neither is a subjective measurement of how easy a bot could make such updates. --- RockMFR 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it take more of the Misplaced Pages servers' elbow grease to transclude larger templates? This is, after all, hundreds of kilobytes (of which the end user only sees a minute fraction), so I think in this case that size does matter. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't worry about performance. 3 kb has been wasted on this discussion, and many more are being wasted on things much less useful. You're free to collaborate on a more efficient method, but do not delete until this is completely useless. –Pomte 10:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The footnote at the bottom of that page would seem to indicate otherwise, with something of this size. BD2412 T 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to the addendum, the example of images involves images being viewed multiple times. This template is used only once in a very long while, and sparingly. Furthermore, this is not a client-side issue. –Pomte 23:57, 2 January 2008 (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 section.

December 24

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (West)

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (West) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

too large and can be done with category. Makes more sense to do at state level.— PorchME (talk) 22:43, 24 December 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 section.

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (East)

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Classic Rock Radio stations (East) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

too large and can be done with category. Makes more sense to do at state level.— PorchME (talk) 22:43, 24 December 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 section.

Template:History of the Chinese

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

The result of the discussion was delete --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:History of the Chinese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplication of Template:History of China. Creator appears to have created it simply for the purpose of pushing the use of AD/BC year labels rather than CE/BCE, thus making it really just a POV fork. (For what it's worth, I use AD/BC usually when writing articles; the use of CE/BCE, however, is not a good reason to simply create a POV fork of the template without discussion.) Delete. — Nlu (talk) 22:42, 24 December 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 section.

Template:Classic Rock Radio Stations in Delaware

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Classic Rock Radio Stations in Delaware (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not very useful, especially in a state as small as Delaware. Categorization by format is normally done on a nationwide basis, not at the state level. See Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Radio_Stations#format_specific_navboxes. Rtphokie (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. A template which links to only two articles in three different ways does not qualify as a template. JPG-GR (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; "see also" would work just as well here. SkierRMH (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, although this runs exactly counter to PorcheME's argument above (he argues that categorisation should be done at state level). I feel that whatever system is considered preferable, categories are the prefered solution rather than an awkward, maintenance-intensive, redlink-filled category. Happy‑melon 22:30, 28 December 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 section.

Template:Pokeanime

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

The result of the debate was mark as historical. This cannot be deleted per GFDL reasons. If proof that this template has not been substituted into articles can be provided, then it can be deleted. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Pokecruft template for copy+pasting cookie-cutter text. Delete per precedent of Pokestart — TheBilly (talk) 22:32, 24 December 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 section.

Template:Rescue

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

The result of the debate was to keep, reversing mainspace usage restrictions. If this turns out to be a bad decision, have another TfD. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Template was intended for mainpage usage and per last TfD has been targeted for banishment from its intended use. Thus the project using it has lost momentum for rescuing (improving articles) and the entire project is stalling. Either the template (and likely the Rescue project itself) should be dismissed as not improving Misplaced Pages or the template should be freely used on mainpage AfDs as intended so the related project(s) can go about their work.. — Benjiboi 21:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not vandalized, since restriction to talk page was the consensus on previous TfD.Taemyr (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:VAN and vandalism both seem to disagree with that and there was hardly consensus on the last TfD; it was quite split. Benjiboi 21:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Clearly not vandalized, and, although I'm not sure there was consensus on the last TfD, the proper resolution would be Deletion Review or trying to obtain consensus on the template talk page, rather than ignoring the result. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as at least a few folks have mention here that they couldn't see the template when looking for it and instead saw the subtle message added by detractors that the template is for talk page usage only. Seems vandalistic to me. The project has been in ongoing discussion as the best way to deal with the concerns raised and then the template was repeatedly altered without consensus or project input. Hard to AGF when the project's template is being sabotaged. Benjiboi 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Athough I agree that it is problematic that users can not see what a template looks like without actually placing it somewhere the template does work as intended. It displays the message you object to only when it is placed outside of the talk: namespace. Per WP:Vandalism vandalism is acts intended to hamper wikipedia. I have difficulty seeing how an editor going along with what was the stated consensus on the previous TfD can be construed to fit. I have even greater difficulty seeing how WP:V applies, or how WP:V can be used to brand anything as vandalism.Taemyr (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I meant WP:VAN and have corrected my comment as such (apologies for the confusion) and sabotage might be more precise although I still think altering a template in such a manner seems to fly in the spirit of consensus building and collaboration. And there was not a stated or other consensus on the last TfD so you can stop reiterating that now. Opinion was quite split with the project left to deal with resolving the issues which has mostly been done. However concerns that the project no longer exists would seem to be hard to satisfy wouldn't it? Benjiboi 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Previous TfD clkosure included the caveat; This template should be applied to talk or (perhaps even better) AFD pages only. Whilst a template saying "I think this AFD candidate could be encyclopedic if researched - please urgently help" is a good one, mainspace is the wrong space for it. That's one of the main concern of the "Delete" views. Appropriate use would meet template namespace criteria, support improvement over deletion where possible per deletion policy, and not give the incorrect appearance of warring or excessive article tagging.Taemyr (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Indent reset. Well if we wish to accurately characterize the last TfD and its implications presently...
“ the "Rescue Squadron" are absolutely correct in their interpretation of AFD. Indeed, AFD anticipates and hopes for improvement to articles during the process, if encyclopedic...a page template is noticed by passers-by far more than an entry on a project page or AFD comment would be... The usage also parallels other "fix me" tags used in article space. So there is at least a rationale for a template to be employed. The arguments presented in the TFD itself polarize around two major reasons for deletion, and a large number of views (around 2/3) towards keeping...the main delete views are..."Gives the appearance of warring" and "Move to talk page" "Vote stacking" and "inclusionist-pushing" concerns. ”
Pretty much all of which have been thoughtfully addressed by the project in response to concerns. Benjiboi 21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep both the template and the project, but yes, it should be on the main page and not the talk page. We are here to improve an encyclopedia and build and revise articles. We are not here to destroy people's factually verifiable work and exclude elements of mankind's collective knowledge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment I am not part of the project nor do I care what happens to this template, however, I disagree with the nominator's rationale. Why can't this continue to be used on talk pages? Things change over time. Many templates were originally created for use on the article page itself and are now use exclusively on talk pages. Look at all the "article issue" temps. that were moved. This is not a reason to delete at all. As for the status of the project itself—I can not comment. That's why I'm not voting "keep", I don't know if this template is even wanted anymore. Rocket000 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • From the prior TfD discussion a partial quote from Kelly Martin- Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. In short banishing the template from the article page to either talk or AfD page mitigates its usefulness. Only a fraction of users visit either the talk or AfD page and this templates intended use is for an AfD so is limited to less than a week's time which seems a minor inconvenience to those who deem it inconvenient at all. A good example of this is Fingerskate where there have been no usage of the talk page despite several years of the article's existence.(talk page has been restored but is still underutilized.) Putting the template there would seem to have no effect on alerting general users thus its possibility for communicating is rendered impotent. Every effort to ensure the template was reworded has been made yet it's opponents are still wanting to see it expunged from main page. Let's see if the template can be left as intended or if it, in fact, should be deleted as its detractors think is appropriate. Benjiboi 22:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It encourages vote stacking and it simply is a way for people to say "look at this AFD and vote keep" which is a way of canvassing in my view. Le Grand basically abuses the template by placing it on almost every article in AFD that he posts in. It's no secret he is anti-deletion (with the exception of a tiny amount of articles). This nonsense about "destroying people's work" needs to stop. Misplaced Pages simply isn't the guide to everything. There is policies and guidelines in place for good reason, but he chooses to ignore them and not even read many of them. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Could you please expand on how the template encourages vote-stacking and/or canvassing? And if so, is there a better way of wording so those concerns are addressed? Also, Le Grand's use of the template and behaviors should probably be addressed on a user level unless you're suggesting that they're part of the Rescue project-wide abuse or widespread template abuse. Benjiboi 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Robj please limit discussion to the template and remember to Assume Good Faith. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, for use in mainspace as opposed to talk-space, per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. To an extent, I agree with the nom that the system is relatively useless when the template is used in talk-space. Few people notice the tags except those who browse the category, and the category is no longer active enough to attract many browsers, thanks to the previous TfD -- now we have positive feedback going on. Hence the reason I favored keeping the template in mainspace last time. I don't think there was any consensus to restrict the template to talk-space in the previous TfD, and the template talk page, where the issue was discussed in more depth, seemed to be heading in the direction of keeping it to the mainspace. Perhaps the talk-space system was worth a try, but it doesn't seem to be working, and the previous TfD clearly favored keeping the old system over getting rid of it entirely (for reasons I won't repeat). — xDanielx /C\ 00:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If someone is misusing the template, that's no reason to delete it. People misuse the editing box, too -- shall we freeze all of Misplaced Pages? The rescue project explicitly states -- several times, and at such great length that people lose enthusiasm midway through -- that it is not about voting on AfD pages. Period. It has never been about that. It is about improving article pages. Please assume good faith. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 01:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. the template is a more positive way of framing 'cleanup', and thus more conducive to morale. Improving articles is a key part of wikipedia building. Also, articles are not voted upon at AfD on quality, therefore, if deleters are voting correctly, a 'rescue' tag should have no bearing on how anyone votes there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Please discuss specific problems with this template on the template talk page and help fix them. The Rescue project was only started in July 2007. Like articles, projects may start out as, effectively, stubs or proposals. Sometimes it can take time to get going. Deleting projects quickly is a way to practically ensure that they fail. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, in talkspace.. Template has a legitimate place as highlighting articles currently up for deletion where the deletion rational ought to be fixable. Argumets about votestacking would be a issue if AfD discussions where votes. As it is aimed at editors the template is inapropriate to mainspace. Taemyr (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Because the article space is what we are presenting to our readers. Comments to editors belong on the talk page. WP:TMP is fairly clear on the subject.Taemyr (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm not seeing anything that states that templates can't go on mainpage and, in practice, have seen pretty much the opposite. Also if you check out Misplaced Pages:Template messages/Sources of articles there's even a column saying where on the mainpage some of those templates go. And by your logic wouldn't the AfD template have to be on the talkpage as well? Benjiboi 03:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The guideline says; Templates used in pages from the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page. We are a verifiable encyclopedia, our sourcing is thus an important part of the package we deliver to our readers. The AfD is perhaps more strenous but it tells the user that the article might be either sub-par or unencyclopedic. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, it tells the reader that the article might not be there in a couple of weeks. Taemyr (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, bearing in mind that templates that are "warnings that content is sub-standard" are allowed in mainstace, wouldn't it be a logcial choice to put a template that warns editors and readers that content is encylopedic, but because of writing style or lack of source, is about to be deleted, also be placed in mainspace? Fosnez (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The AfD template should already be telling people this. Taemyr (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
And yet an entire project and template were put into effect - apparently with much success, apparently because many articles that, per WP:AFD policies, should not have been sent to AfD because if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. So, ironically, this template and project exist because Afd template is being abused yet that is being overlooked and the remedy for a flawed system is instead being targeted. Benjiboi 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not read WP:AFD that way. The strongest I can see there is that I should not put an article up for AfD if I can fix the problem myself. This is obvious, since the AfD would be moot, an article should not be deleted if the problem can be fixed. The reason an AfD is a discussion is in part to ascertain if the problem is fixable. If an article is beeing put up for AfD for concerns that the nominator knows are fixable then it is a bad faith nomination and ARS and the rescue template is not a good way of dealing with the problem. Because ARS are about saving the article, and when the AfD nomination is done in bad faith then the problem is the editor. Taemyr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Outdent. Well whether the problem is the editor/nominator or not it's the article that gets deleted so this would seem to bolster the need for the rescue template to help alert that the AfD in question may be flawed. Benjiboi 02:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
But the AfD is not flawed when the rescue template works. When the result of an AfD is that the problem is fixed then that is an excellent result. Taemyr (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually that fact that an article was saved from AfD is proof that the article should have been improved through regular editing rather than sent to AfD. So the AfD is flawed in those cases, intentional or not. Benjiboi 02:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No, there should never be any reason for a user to wonder "does this topic pass WP:NOTE", notability is a demonstrable claim. And articles that can not demonstrate notability should be deleted. If we are not allowed to test this you are saying that you should not demand that topics comply with WP:NOTE. Taemyr (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that AfD is not clean-up and using it as such abuses the resources of this volunteer community. There are many routes one can take to improving an article and even the AfD page encourages folks to do so but those suggestions are routinely ignored so the Rescue template is one remedy for that ongoing problem. Benjiboi 02:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. And as such it is of use to editors and belongs in the talk space. Taemyr (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
As such it is useful to readers who may wonder why a potentially good article is being deleted and many editors simply don't utilize the talk pages, they simply edit the article. Segregating the template to article space only hinders the productive use of teh template and just like Wikify, References and other clean-up/maintenance tags should have no restrictions on its use on mainpage. Benjiboi 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Deindenting. The template does not give any hint as to why an article is beeing considered for deletion, as such it is not of use "to readers who may wonder why a potentially good article is being deleted". Taemyr (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. This template is used with the AfD template as gives as much detail as to why an article is been sent to AfD; both correctly send interested parties to the AfD discussion. You still have not addressed why an extra template in addition to the AfD template (and likely others) on the mainpage somehow is such a bad thing to our readers, who I still think are easily able to overlook the inconvenience of an extra tag. In addition please address why such an alleged inconvenience is so offensive when it lasts mere days on an article that is headed for deletion anyway. I think we can have much more credit to wikipedia readers who are likely well used to seeing articles littered with all manner of tags and templates and somehow able to still find information and get on with learning and following wikilinks to still more information. Benjiboi 23:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The template is a boilerplate and gives no information about why an article is sent to AfD. I am not saying that it is a bad thing for our readers, I am saying that the template is irrelevant for our readers. Taemyr (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Template has a legitimate place highlighting articles currently up for deletion where the deletion rational ought to be fixable, ergo is perfectly relevant for our readers, many of whom are editors. All of whom will no longer ne able to read the article if it's deleted. Seems relevant enough to me. Benjiboi 18:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, preferably in mainspace. If a template telling readers that the article has been proposed for deletion is allowed on mainspace, then a template telling readers that people are working to improve and thus rescue the article should also be allowed in the same place. It means that if someone's made a mistake in nominating, say, Southern African Hedgehog, for deletion, the hedgehog fandom will be told that they needn't get up in arms about the Misplaced Pages system being hopelessly inept/corrupt/whatever, because someone's already working on making the article better and preventing its deletion. And, more importantly, just as an AfD template tells readers that the article might not be there in a couple of weeks, a Rescue template tells readers that the article might be much improved in a couple of weeks. --Zeborah (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
As it stands the rescue template tells the reader very little. Taemyr (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
The rescue template, per the last TfD was simplified and made more concise to ensure it was NPOV and as least intrusive as possible. If one needs an essay they can follow the links provided for more information. If you have suggestions as to information that should be added I'm sure constructive comments are welcome. Benjiboi 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The links on the rescue template is in order of prominence; Misplaced Pages:Article_Rescue_Squadron, the Afd, Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, and Misplaced Pages:Notability. No essay. And most noticable link is to ARS project page, which does contain useful references if you are setting out to establish notability. But little that I would judge usefull to casual readers. The AfD link shoud ideally give a casual reader an indication of what the problem is, but often things will tend to drown in an ongoing discussion. The policies is the most common reason for an article beeing on AfD, and it is possible for a reader to get what needs to be fixed by reading it, but I would still judge these as beeing less than newbie friendly.Taemyr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Well the last TfD asserted that the template was too prominent so a concerted effort was made to trim and make the template concise. I would post the text of template here but it's been vandalized out of use so I can't see what the text is. Regardless, if the AfD process had been followed the article would already have clean-up tags in place and the AfD discussion should quickly address the main issues to be addressed. In general AfD are resolved by addressing notability and citing sources so it seems those links are correctly on target. And pointing to the Rescue Squad also makes sense as it explains the project and basic steps one can follow to assist an article tagged or the project in general. Benjiboi 02:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in mainspace I've witnessed this template in action causing several notable articles to not be deleted upon the closing of AfD. Since most people end up at an article on its related mainspace, that's where the template should be used. We use all these other templates about sources needed, conflict of interest, on and on and on in the mainspace and I see no reason why this template shouldn't be used in the mainspace as well. It's purpose is to draw attention to the fact that the article needs attention and immediate editing. To draw that attention to the most people, mainspace is the place. -- ALLSTARecho 07:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in mainspace - (full disclosure: ARS Member) This template, when used in mainspace, alerts both people checking the article out from viewing the AFD and also just general passers by that the article may infact be encyclopedic. In no way is this detrimental to the content of wikipedia, and infact is well within the scope of the projects rules. I.E. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Misplaced Pages, ignore it. The apparent rule that project templates cannot be in namespace is preventing us improving wikipedia. Here are some facts:
    • If the template is used in mainspace, the maximum it would appear on any page would be 5 days (the length of a standard AFD)
      • If the article is deleted, the tag obviously disappears, no harm - no foul.
      • If the article is kept, the tag is removed along with the AFD, again, no harm - no foul.

Bearing in mind the fact that the ARS is there to improve articles to prevent encyclopedic content from being deleted, this template should be allowed to be used in mainspace, weather this requires a special dispensation or not i don't care, but the short answer is that casting this template to the talk pages will not help improve the wiki any where nearly as much as if it were allowed in mainspace for the limited time that an AFD is active. Fosnez (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact the rescue template does not and IMO should not do this. Articles flagged should be articles that are put on AfD for concerns that are adresable. Ie. the template does it work when the concerns raised on the AfD are real but fixable. This means that the article does not currently meet our standards for encyclopedic content. Taemyr (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
This seems to support exactly what the template does do - alert interested editors that an article has been sent to AfD, perhaps in violation of policy - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. Will it always be effective or used as intended? No. But neither is the entire AfD process which is why this template exists and should be left unfettered to assist editors in improving articles that have mistakenly of purposely been sent to AfD in error. Benjiboi 02:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Where does it say that? I find If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. which is an entierly different issue. Taemyr (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
How is If you can fix the article through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. and if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD entirely different?
Because I will always know if I can fix a problem. If I know that someone, but not me, can fix the problem then it's still a bad AfD. But I can never know that a problem is unfixable. Taemyr (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This may be getting off-track but whether or not you think an article is fixable shouldn't prevent others from freely using this template to try to get help to Rescue it once the article has been sent to AfD. The Rescue Squad then has less than a week to try to save it. Benjiboi 02:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, and use in mainspace or talk pages as appropriate. In mainspace, it is in fact an indication that there are major problems with the article & is therefore neutral, not saying "keep me" . Most of the time it is used, the article is in fact rescued due to the improvements in the article.If the article isnt improved to the satisfaction of the people at AfD, then the article gets deleted by consensus. People on the relevant Project do not vote all the same way on articles--far from it. if we keep unreferenced tags on articles, or wikify, then this makes as much sense. they all attract those reading he article to improve it. That's the unique genius of WP: anyone who reads can edit. I wish more people did. If they have things to add they can do so; if they see junk, they can remove it. We want to call the need for editing and the possibility for improvement to the attention of every reader. Some possible opposition to the template may be because some think that some of the articles improved are on topics that can never be encyclopedic. People thinking that way should argue this at AfD for the article--not give the impression that they are trying to discourage the articles from being improved so they won't be kept. AfD is very sussceptible to deletions or keeps based on unrepresentative presence of editors; wider participation there should be encouraged. I continue to AGF in this repeated nomination, but it's getting difficult. Odd to nominate something basic like this when many people are away , also. DGG (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in talk space ARS is, at the end of the day, a Wikiproject. Wikiproject banners belong in talk space. I'd also like to see a history of pages nominated for rescue, perhaps with a template for the AfD. That would at least make it easier to prove or disprove claims of vote stacking. I suspect a bit of "gaming the system" is happening here - is this TfD really about deleting the template, or overriding the previous consensus to keep the banner in talk space? --Phirazo 19:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the burden of proof that the project is vote-stacking is on those accusing them of same. And in simplified terms this TfD is to address the concerns that weren't resolved in the last TfD, there didn't seem to be strong consensus and there were multiple issues; despite the closing admin's decision the project made a good faith effort to re-work the project and template yet the template has continually come under target of what I consider harassment. As the Rescue effort is to improve articles and the template in the mainpage is a integral component then it should be left on mainpage as created and intended without those using it, again, to improve articles, in fear of it's premature deletion or removal until the AfD process for that article is complete. It stuns me that an article that someone deems should be deleted anyway should somehow be considered compromised by an additional tag that also will go away within days. The template is to be used in conjunction with the AfD template and as such should be removed when the AfD has been closed. I think our readers can live with that minor inconvenience in the last week of an article's existence if the AfD template is there as well. Perhaps we should overhaul the process of sending articles to AfD thus rendering this template unneeded but until then this an an elegant solution to counter abuses of the AfD process and seems well within the spirit of producing encyclopedia articles. Benjiboi 02:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep As the unfortunately named ARS has shown, some articles can be rescued, others simply cannot, or editors "simply cannot be ARS'ed" into rescuing the thing. As a member, I can certainly say that it's not so much a vote-stacking group, as much as it is a "hey, scarred WP battle veterans, can you help me/us make the article pass muster?". With some articles, it's quite easy, with other articles, well, the ARS is currently made of folks with with quite a few years of WP experience, and pleas can (and do) fall on deaf ears. The way I look at it, ARS requests are a plea to help wiki newbies navigate the byzantine policies we have created for ourselves. In the spirit of WP:AGF, and WP:BITE, the function of ARS is to help those new to the convoluted worlds of wikipedia-politics, and the entrance point is a template. 07:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for use on talk or AfD pages or strong delete. The purpose of this tag is to assist in the activities of a valuable WikiProject. This tag serves no informational purpose to the casual reader, which we have to remember are (1) who we write main pages for and (2) the silent majority: far more of them are out there than us editors, and they certainly aren't going to show up in THIS debate and voice an opinion. None of the arguments above give any reason to think that this is of any interest at all to readers, especially when an AFD tag is already on the article. Rather, putting it on the main page is a way, mainly, to advertise the WikiProject's activity, but we don't find that acceptable for any other WikiProjects so we should not here either. There are lots of ways for ARS to organize its list of articles that might need rescuing, including having this template on the talk page, the AFD page, or even nowhere at all: just maintain a list at a subpage of the project page. And let me point out that this is a bad faith nomination: the nominator has done this because they are upset that technical measures were taken to enforce the prior TFD decision, and they in no way want to see this deleted. Mangojuice 19:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • From the prior TfD discussion a partial quote from Kelly Martin- Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. If indeed an article is so unworthy of being on wikipedia to warrant the AfD tag the temporary coupling of the Rescue template with that will be a minor burden at best. And, although your abilities of mindreading are admirable I would rather the entire project and template be abolished if they are not allowed to work unfettered and, in my opinion, harassed by detractors who use their advanced skills to disable templates they don't approve of. If the template is deleted I likely will turn my attention to the overhauling of the AfD process to stem what i see as the many abuses as is evident by the many articles myself and those in the Rescue spirit have saved from the clutches of deletion because it was easier to delete an article rather than do the right thing and simply fix it. Benjiboi 21:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Kelly Martin's comment doesn't address the point about whether or not the tag is of value to readers, which is the main source of the objection. As for you and your motivations, I think that comment makes it perfectly clear. You claim to want the template deleted (and the project closed down) because you don't like them "not allowed to work unfettered"? You don't have to use the template or be part of the project, but calling for the project to close down if you don't get your way is pointless. You are trying to generate extra drama in order to make your position look more reasonable by comparison. See WP:SPIDER. Mangojuice 23:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe Kelly Martin's comment speaks for itself quite nicely and arguing that an extra template added in addition to the AfD template (both quite temporary) somehow will devalue an article deemed unworthy of wikipedia, seems silly, IMHO. Let's give our readers credit that they can read and ignore both templates at will or decide to click on one of the links if it interests them. Please note I didn't call for the project to be closed down if I didn't get my way nor would I think such an odd demand be taken seriously. What I did state, and let me quote myself here, "I would rather the entire project and template be abolished if they are not allowed to work unfettered and, in my opinion, harassed by detractors who use their advanced skills to disable templates they don't approve of." I hope the second reading of that is clear enough and will be seen by others as well as your alleging my actions are "trying to generate extra drama" with the clarity this TfD deserves. I remain quite simply stunned that anyone is, in any way, thwarting the efforts of the Rescue group and the use of this related template. Their goal is to save articles worth saving in the pressured environment of the AfD process, which lasts for less than a week. If the article is deleted then the article and tags are all removed; if the article is rescued the tag is also removed and the article was thus improved thus was never a good candidate for AfD. I fail to understand how our readers are somehow compromised by suffering the visibility of a single additional temple on the article mainpage. Indeed they would seem to benefit if the article is improved and if the article is deleted then they will be spared suffering as soon as the article is deleted. I'm unsure how you're applying WP:SPIDER to all this as it states "Users scaling any public building dressed as any popular comic book character may be blocked for disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a really stupid point." Are you suggesting I'm disrupting wikipedia, should be blocked, making a stupid point (if so, what) or all three? Benjiboi 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment I feel that in many ways the main problem is the AfD template. As it stands it encourages people to weight in in the ongoing discussion, but it gives no hint that the best way of preventing a deletion is to edit the article to adress the issues raised. Taemyr (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unfortunately, I can't actually see the template at the moment for some reason, but I know roughly what it is and what it is for, and I have no problem with it. Many articles nominated for deletion are clear hopeless cases; but some can be improved enough to be kept, with a little effort, and this template is useful for noting that and encouraging people to work on them. (It could be said that other cleanup templates have the same purpose, but I expect this one is probably more effective.) I admit it's not strictly necessary - the AfD template itself ought to be enough to alert readers that an article risks being deleted in its current state, and should be improved if they want to keep it. But if this gives an additional impetus to get certain pages improved rather than deleted, then it's served its purpose. I have no real preference for its placement on talk pages versus articles. Terraxos (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment. The reason you can't see the template is that a few editors who disagree with teh template in whole or part have vandalized it thus rendering it useless. Benjiboi 20:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    Actually, the "vandalism", making the template invisible in place, was done by an editor who agreed with your interpretation of where the template should be placed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    Well, it was you who reverted my correcting that error so you are now the one who did it. Benjiboi 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, use Template in Mainspace Reviewing what has been written to the contrary, I see a flawed concept, a rigid division between readers and editors. Every reader is a potential editor, especially with specialized articles. That reader may have the piece of knowledge needed to improve the article to establish notability, and may have the independent magazine review or article everyone is searching for, sitting on his or her lap. Originally I thought that the Rescue template might become part of the AfD template, but, in fact, that could be soliciting useless edits, multiplying bad feelings. Rather, it should be a separate template, placed because some editor suspects that the article can be improved. The active editors are a very limited group compared to the readers, the necessary knowledge (knowing where to look for reliable source) to establish notability is *much* more likely to be available from the general readership. Members of the Rescue squadron, then, might watchlist such articles and, as experienced editors, stand ready to assist new editors in meeting Misplaced Pages criteria. As has been pointed out, the Rescue template is only an extension of the AfD template (were it not for AfDs for articles that can't be improved, in the opinion of anyone who knows policy, it would be part of the AfD template), and if Rescue does not belong in Mainspace, neither does AfD --Abd (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
While I agree that the rigid division between reader and editor it is a division that is used in current policy, see it as one person with several hats. Also note that the template does little to help new editors with improving an article. Actually, I do feel that the rescue this article message should be made part of the AfD template, by making the AfD template incorporate the reason for deleting in the same way the prod template does. The AfD template belongs in the mainspace because it does an important job in informing non-editors. The rescue template does not. Taemyr (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it pretty clearly does so. It says to "read this article's deletion discussion for specific concerns that need to be addressed" and continues "If you can help by citing sources and establishing notability please edit this article." Arguably these would be improvements to any article and the template also correctly refers to the AfD discussion for specific concerns. Seems like that would be quite helpful. Benjiboi 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, should be in mainspace The regular afd tag does not help readers improve articles so that they are not deleted, it only encourages them to do things such as votestacking since they think it is the only way to keep an article. The rescue template engages both readers (who may know more about the subject) and editors together so that they can seek out the problem with the article and actually improve it rather than arguing at AFD. --Hdt83 04:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
This is how the template looks; . In my opinion it does not really do much in pointing out how to improve an article. What it mainly does is point out the existence of the ARS project. As far as I can see it has neer given much in the way of hints as to how one should go about improving an article.Taemyr (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually it pretty clearly does so. It says to "read this article's deletion discussion for specific concerns that need to be addressed" and continues "If you can help by citing sources and establishing notability please edit this article." Arguably these would be improvements to any article and the template also correctly refers to the AfD discussion for specific concerns. Seems like that would be quite helpful. Benjiboi 18:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep in Talkspace only. I see some (minimal) evidence that it's helpful in talk-space, but it would be clearly inappropriate in mainspace. Alternatively, delete all traces of the Wikiproject, and allow in mainspace, although talk-space is still more appropriate. No trace of the Wikiproject should be in mainspace. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree wholly that usefulness in talkspace is likely minimal that's why its intended use is for mainpage. And one need look only at the many articles that have been rescued as evidence that the project and this template should be left in peace to use the template as intended and has they have shown is effective in improving wikipedia. Suggesting that we "delete all traces of the Wikiproject" seems to clearly show your disdain for its work and thus your alterations to the template it helps administrate would thus be unlikely welcome, or as has been shown, unhelpful. There are many useless items on wikipedia that may benefit from your unique skills but this template is not one of them. Benjiboi 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
No, he is saying that the mainspace is not the place for wikiprojects to advertise for themselves. Taemyr (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. The Rescue project is hardly advertsing by stating, correctly, that the article in question "has been flagged for rescue". Again i defer that such an advertising scheme would seem rather doomed as it would only be in place for a few days and only on articles that are marked for deletion. Benjiboi 01:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not nonsense at all. The rescue template does far more in advertising the ARS project than it does in giving help to actually improve an article. Taemyr (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I suppose you can cite the huge number of folks joining the Rescue project because of this stealth campaign or were you going to reflect on all the articles saved as really not improving wikipedia? Benjiboi 21:56, 31 December 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 section.

Template:One Fine Day!

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

The result of the discussion was delete CSD G6 housekeeping --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:One Fine Day! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template should be deleted because it is no longer in use in any articles. Its parent article was deleted as a result of the following discussion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/One Fine Day! Obviously the creator had a plan for a larger set of articles, but there is no need for the template now. — Darkspots (talk) 21:04, 24 December 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 section.

Template:1990 Chicago Cubs season game log

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

The result of the debate was subst and delete. The templates which were used were substed and then deleted, feel free to remove the red links if it so suits you. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:1990 Chicago Cubs season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:1989 Chicago Cubs season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:1987 Chicago Cubs season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:1985 Chicago Cubs season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:1984 Chicago Cubs season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:1969 Chicago Cubs season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I came across these moster templates on Misplaced Pages:Templates with red links, which is apt because each contains over 160 of them, the largest having 204. The templates purport to link to individual articles for each game of the respective Chicago Cubs seasons. These red links will never turn blue, as individual baseball games are generally not notable enough to rate individual articles. Turn them into articles (if anything) and delete them all. BD2412 T 05:51, 24 December 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 section.

Template:The Simpsons Christmas Episodes

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Simpsons Christmas Episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It is a very loose grouping of episodes. There have been several others that have partially been centered around Christmas but didn't air in December. (ie. Dude, Where's My Ranch?, Mr. Plow and Homer vs. Dignity . In fact, these episodes were even included on a Christmas themed DVD release some years back, but none of them first aired in December) and some that are included here aren't actually Christmas episodes, they just aired in December. (ie. Eternal Moonshine of the Simpson Mind). There's really no need for the template, because the Christmas episodes are not like the Treehouse of Horror episodes, where they are all definitely Halloween episodes and there is use for easy navgiation between the epiusodes. -- Scorpion 01:22, 24 December 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 section.

December 23

Template:Recent book

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Recent book (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was created almost immediately after the deletion of {{Current fiction}}. As the closing admin stated in Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_15#Template:Current_fiction, "Articles about new things need help. This is not a new concept. A box with one of those bright stripes doesn't need to tell us that." An argument was made in the deletion debate that {{Current fiction}} was like {{Recent death}}, but it was not a compelling argument as information does not change rapidly for fictional works as they're static and don't change rapidly. Chaz 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The message is virtually the same. They both declare something to be new. Readers can figure out that a book is new from the lead. If an article is need of clean-up, there are plenty of clean-up templates with a more specific message than "this is new". The example you cite, {{recent death}} is more like {{current}}, that is to say, it is news, and the article may be unstable while the current event occurs. Information about recently released books doesn't change the way news of future books or news about recent deaths do, so I see little point to this template other than "OMG SPOILERS". If there is a problem with many editors editing an article on a recent book in a short period of time, then {{current}} can be used. --Phirazo 21:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The message is virtually the same? How so? They both declare something to be new? That's not why {{current fiction}} was deleted. And the {{current product}} template has existed since September. Temporal templates are not necessarily for cleanup. A death is not a current event. It happens once, and then it's over. Articles about recently released books do change alot after the book is released. Again, this template has nothing to do with spoilers. Most book releases are not considered "events", so I don't see how the {{current}} tag would apply. --Pixelface (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unable to determine its purpose since its message keeps changing (three distinct versions in the past day). If the message is simply declaring it's a recent book (as it does at this moment), then I see no purpose for it; I can look at its publishing history to see how recent it is (if the article lacks that information, then add it instead of this tag). Template tags like this must have a useful purpose, and that purpose is usually clear from the message it creates on the page. For some reason, this template's message (as well as those of its sisters) is deemed secondary or fungible or unnecessary by its creator. Therefore, I cannot discern its intent and must vote to Delete.
    Jim Dunning | talk 13:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't think of a useful reason to tag an article with this template. The book is finished, so no changes will take place (normally!). Critical reaction will be ongoing for eternity. The tag is not requesting assistance from editors, nor is it alerting readers to potential problems. SilkTork * 13:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I think this template is useful, but should say more than it does, mentioning more specific problems with the article as the old 'currentfiction' template did. I don't think this was intended as a spoiler template, but some people seem to think it is one, so if kept it should be reworded to clarify its actual purpose: alerting readers that an article may not be up to our highest standards of quality, due to inevitable problems with recentism. That's a real issue, and this is a helpful template. Terraxos (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per other editors' rationales and the fact that its useless.--Oni Ookami Alfador 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all arguments at the {{Current fiction}} TfD. This is virtually a G4 speedy candidate, and just more disruption from User:Pixelface, who continues to demonstrate that he has no interest in creating an encyclopedia and endless interest in "beating the dust which has blown over the bloody smear where the dead horse once lay", to quote a recent AN/I thread. --Stormie (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, having nothing to do with the spoiler or currentfiction arguments, but simply because it is completely useless and provides no added value to either readers or editors of the encyclopedia. Maintenance tags are not intended to enlighten readers - and it does not do that, since the release date should be presented within the article. They are intended for editors, to provide useful information and/or areas to concentrate improvement efforts. This template does nothing in that regard. Happy‑melon 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per other users rationals, especially per Hiding. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons stated here, recent film and current fiction. Simply stating that the book is recent is not helpful, but requesting specific improvements is. There are already cleanup templates that offer better advice and link to appropriate guidelines. ●BillPP 17:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Well what improvements do you think aricles on recently released books need? --Pixelface (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • It would depend on what improvements the article needed. Possibly {{plot}} or {{refimprove}}, but it really depends on what action is needed to improve the article. Tagging the article just to say that it is recently released doesn't really do anything except repeat what is presumably in the lead paragraph (release date). ●BillPP 23:53, 30 December 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 section.

Template:Recent film

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Recent film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Like {{Recent book}}, this template was created almost immediately after the deletion of {{Current fiction}}. Chaz 18:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd be inclined to delete simply because it differs in form dramatically from {{Current game}} and seems to have a different purpose. It doesn't really match anything in our current events templates, and really, all Misplaced Pages articles are subject to change. Once a film is released, the information tends to harden, they've usually already been reviewed and there isn't so much information flying about. Hiding T 18:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Not all films are fiction so I don't see how the deletion of {{current fiction}} applies here. This template is a counterpart to {{future film}}. Once a film has been released, {{future film}} can be removed from an article and replaced with {{recent film}}. I would say that articles about recently released films change much more rapidly after the film has been released, rather than before the film has been released. --Pixelface (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Seems unnecessary and arbitrary. When does a film stop being recent? A day? A week? Are we then going to then have template {{Not so recent film}}? {{Older film}}? {{Classic film}}? AniMate 23:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, wholly unnecessary and inappropriate attempt to get around the deletion of the current fiction template (and probably to get around the spoiler issue, yet again). Future covers films not yet released, after that, they do not need to be tagged as "recently" released, and "recent" is far too abitrary. Collectonian (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am leaning toward endorsing deletion of this template, but I'd like to pose a question. I've kept an eye on quite a few articles of recent films in the past year, and I've rarely noticed hefty editing on the large majority of them. They've usually been gnomish edits, either copy-editing or fine-tuning details to the Plot section. The film articles pale in absolute comparison to articles covering recent events or recent deaths, so I'm asking, how does this template serve to inform the reader in any way? A thought of mine is to wiki-link to WP:MOSFILM and encourage readers to get involved, but there is still an issue of when a film is recent. For example, The Killing of John Lennon is no longer a "future film", but it does not have a large presence. If it gets a wide release in the United States, would the template really apply there? From where we're standing, we can perceive points in the timeline where a film gets more awareness (such as a foreign film being introduced in an English-language territory, controversies, awards, or DVD releases), but from what I've seen, the traffic is rarely quantifiable based on the meager edits to articles on films. The objective threshold that's been used is the first non-festival release, so my issue is whether the template would really help even if it only exists in the first x weeks of a film's release, where it may find higher traffic afterward for a reason like the ones I previously listed. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Effectively this is a recreation, or at least a circumvention of deletion, or a previously deleted template. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm going to be honest here. The spoiler debate is over. Spoiler alerts are not welcome on Misplaced Pages. This template is attempt to bring back {{current fiction}}, which was an attempt to replace {{spoiler}}. --Phirazo 20:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC) 11:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Then what is it about? That a film is new? Readers can figure that out from the lead. That an article is in need of clean-up? There are plenty of clean-up templates with a more specific message than "this is new". The example you cite, {{recent death}} is more like {{current}}, that is to say, it is news, and the article may be unstable while the current event occurs. Information about recently released films doesn't change the way news of future films or news about recent deaths do, so I see little point to this template other than "OMG SPOILERS". If there is a problem with many editors editing an article on a recent film in a short period of time, then {{current}} can be used. --Phirazo 21:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Readers can figure out that Ike Turner died from the lead too. And they can also figure out that Cloverfield hasn't been released yet. Articles about recently released films do change quite a bit — and many of those articles do need attention. The template has nothing to do with spoilers or spoiler warnings. The template has never been about "OMG SPOILERS" and I have no idea why you would think that. Films are not current events, so no, {{current}} cannot be used. A film premiere may be a sort of "event", but the information about the premiere is often not what changes, the entire article changes, usually significantly. This is a temporal template. Most temporal templates lack any clean-up messages and just indicate that an article may change rapidly. I would say that articles about recently released films change much more after the film's release than before the film's release. I see no reason why the {{future film}} template should exist, but not the {{recent film}} template. --Pixelface (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per my concerns about the lack of ease in implementing such a template consistently, reflected in my comment a few bullet points above. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unable to determine its purpose since its message keeps changing (three distinct versions in the past day). If the message is simply declaring it's a recent film (as it does at this moment), then I see no purpose for it; I can look at its release dates relevant to my location to see just how recent it is (if the article lacks that information, then add it instead of adding this tag). Template tags like this must have a useful purpose, and that purpose should be clear from the message it creates on the page. For some reason, this template's message (as well as those of its sisters) is deemed secondary or fungible or unnecessary by its creator. Therefore, I cannot discern its intent and must vote to Delete.
    Jim Dunning | talk 13:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't think of a useful reason to tag an article with this template. The film is finished, so no changes will take place. Critical reaction will be ongoing for eternity. The tag is not requesting assistance from editors, nor is it alerting readers to potential problems. SilkTork * 13:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The film may be the finished but the article isn't. Articles about recently released films often change very quickly and some need updating and improvement. The tag did encourage people to expand the article, but some editors didn't like that wording so I changed it. This template puts articles into a category. An editor may work on one article and then see other articles in the category and work on those too. You said yourself that critical reaction will be ongoing. Film articles continue to change after the film has been released for a while, but I think the most changes come in the first few weeks after the film's release. --Pixelface (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. I think this template is useful, but should say more than it does, mentioning more specific problems with the article as the old 'currentfiction' template did. I don't think this was intended as a spoiler template, but some people seem to think it is one, so if kept it should be reworded to clarify its actual purpose: alerting readers that an article may not be up to our highest standards of quality, due to inevitable problems with recentism. That's a real issue, and this is a helpful template. Terraxos (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above reasonings.--Oni Ookami Alfador 05:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, same reasoning as above comment on {{Recent book}}, virtually a G4 speedy candidate after the {{Current fiction}} TfD. --Stormie (talk) 08:59, 28 December 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 section.

Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton

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

The result of the debate was keep and clean up. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Hillary Rodham Clinton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is consists of content which is mostly unrelated to Hillary Clinton. Even if it is not deleted, I still think that much of its content should be removed (like links to associations which she is a member of). I would also suggest people look through Misplaced Pages for similar templates because I have not seen any others quite like this. Comments appreciated. EvanS • talk |sign here 18:05, 23 December 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 section.

Template:2007-08 New Jersey Nets season game log

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007-08 New Jersey Nets season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:58, 23 December 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 section.

Template:2007-08 NBA Central standings

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007-08 NBA Central standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:57, 23 December 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 section.

Template:2007-08 Charlotte Bobcats season game log

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2007-08 Charlotte Bobcats season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not used in any article. Userfy if need be.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:56, 23 December 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 section.

Template:2006 San Francisco Giants season game log

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2006 San Francisco Giants season game log (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:55, 23 December 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 section.

Home Run Derby templates

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

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2006 Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2005 Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2004 Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2003 Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2002 Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2001 Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2000 Home Run Derby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not being used in any article. Userfy if need be. -- ALLSTARecho 09:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and unsubstitute. These templates were first proposed for deletion in July. The reason for no consensus was that the same tables were used across two articles. They still are, it's just that someone had substituted them. It's certainly possible that the format for these tables will change, considering the two types of formats in Home Run Derby. It's easier to edit one template than it is to know to make the same changes to two articles. The templates also make sure there are no discrepancies across articles. This time, I'll make sure they get unsubstituted. Note: I've merged the 7 nominations here to avoid copy and pasting across discussions as the same result should apply to all of them; for the same reason the templates should stay. –Pomte 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Two articles are not very difficult to change. It is basically still a single use template. Resolute 04:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "Not very difficult" still allows it to be more difficult to some degree, and every bit helps if someone's trying to maintain and check for consistency across 8+ articles. What does basically single use mean? They're clearly not single use. –Pomte 11:34, 24 December 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 section.

Template:2006 Bears Draft

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2006 Bears Draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2003 Bears Draft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it. -- ALLSTARecho 09:53, 23 December 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 section.

Template:2006-2007 National Division Three South

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2006-2007 National Division Three South (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not being used on any article. Userfy if need be.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:52, 23 December 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 section.

Template:2003 FIFA Womens world Cup Venues

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2003 FIFA Womens world Cup Venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:47, 23 December 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 section.

Template:2000s NBA Eastern Conference Final broadcasters

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:2000s NBA Eastern Conference Final broadcasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:44, 23 December 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 section.

Template:1998 FIFA World Cup Finalists

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. This goes against many guidelines for the template namespace - but if editors agree it could be useful it shouldn't be deleted - at this time. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:1998 FIFA World Cup Finalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, maybe I can link stuff to it? Because this template exists for 2002 + 2006 World Cups, so why not 98 as well? WilliamF1 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 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 section.

Template:1996 Florida Gators roster

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:1996 Florida Gators roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:32, 23 December 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 section.

Template:Misplaced Pages Wikipedians

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete by administrator Xaosflux as a test page. Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Misplaced Pages Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was apparently created solely to serve as an example for how football templates should be laid out. Obviously, it is not in use in any actual articles. A better practice would be to pick a template for an existing team to perfect and point to as a model (this appears to have been done too, rendering this template obsolete). — BD2412 T 09:30, 23 December 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 section.

Template:1996 Florida Gators depth chart

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:1996 Florida Gators depth chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:29, 23 December 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 section.

Template:1994 Atlantic Division Standings

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

The result of the debate was Delete Maxim(talk) 14:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:1994 Atlantic Division Standings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:28, 23 December 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 section.

Template:1990s NBA Western Conference Final broadcasters

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

The result of the debate was deletion of both. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:1990s NBA Western Conference Final broadcasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:1980s NBA Western Conference Final broadcasters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Too specific to go into individual articles. Make an article of it and delete the template. BD2412 T 09:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per BD2412. This is an article in template form, not a template. JPG-GR (talk) 18:34, 23 December 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 section.

Template:1969MLBPlayoffs

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:1969MLBPlayoffs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. Nothing links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 09:25, 23 December 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 section.

Template:Offensive pictures

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

The result of the debate was delete Wizardman 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Offensive pictures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is hopelessly POV. What is obscene to me may not be to you. WP is NOT Censored. — Gillyweed (talk) 08:14, 23 December 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 section.

Template:Tl1

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tl1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Filing this nomination on behalf of User:H3xx, who added the TfD template but did not list it here. — WODUP 07:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • This one's different from the ordinal numbers below. It has some unnecessary User talk links, unclear acronyms, and shows all parameters regardless of their existence, which makes it an outdated version of {{tls}} variants that should be deleted or at least mark deprecated. –Pomte 11:59, 24 December 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 section.

Ordinal numbers

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

The result of the discussion was delete --Rifleman 82 (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:9th (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:11th (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:12th (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:13th (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:0th (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Filing this nomination on behalf of User:H3xx, who added the TfD template but did not list it here. Also, I agree that this template should be deleted with {{th}} as a better alternative. — WODUP 07:33, 23 December 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 section.

Template:Cite press release/doc2

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per only editor's request. JERRY contribs 19:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cite press release/doc2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, redundant to Template:Cite press release/doc.. —Remember the dot 02:38, 23 December 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 section.

Template:Roads in Washington, DC suburbs

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Roads in Washington, DC suburbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is too large and is unnessecary to link all the roads in the area — Dough4872 (talk) 01:32, 23 December 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 section.

December 22

African region templates

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

The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Countries and territories of North Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Countries of West Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Countries of Southern Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Countries of Central Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Countries of East Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These five templates are redundant to Template:Countries of Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which is already present on all articles that contain them. There's no need for six templates when one will do, and since {{Countries of Africa}} is already organized by region, they offer no added functionality. Picaroon (t) 00:01, 23 December 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 section.

Template:CongBio2

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

The result of the debate was delete through merge. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:CongBio2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge to {{CongLinks}}. CL supercedes CB2. —Markles 23:01, 22 December 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 section.

Template:Perryton Radio

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Perryton Radio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A radio market with 2 stations doesn't need a navigation box.. Rtphokie (talk) 20:49, 22 December 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 section.

Template:Illinois cities

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Illinois cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is redundant to the major cities section of Template:Illinois, is not transcluded onto any pages, and no discussion (except for statements by this template's creator) has taken place on this template, whether by the Illinois wikiproject or by anyone else. It's standard practise to have this section on the state template — all fifty state templates have them. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 22 December 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 section.

Template:Florida cities

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Florida cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is redundant to the largest cities section of Template:Florida, is not transcluded onto any pages (except two highway articles, not linked or likely to be linked on this template), and no discussion (except for statements by this template's creator) has taken place on this template, whether by the Florida wikiproject or by anyone else. It's standard practise to have this section on the state template — all fifty state templates have them. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 22 December 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 section.

Template:Florida topics

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Florida topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is redundant to the topics section of Template:Florida, is not transcluded onto any pages, and very little discussion has taken place on this template, whether by the Florida wikiproject or by anyone else — only three editors (including the template's creator), all taking different points of view. It's standard practise to have this section on the state template — as far as I know, all fifty state templates have them. Nyttend (talk) 20:23, 22 December 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 section.

Template:Congressional delegation

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

The result of the debate was to replace. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Congressional delegation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), AND
Template:Congress delegation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which currently redirects to {{Congressional delegation}}

Merge to {{CurrentCongDeleg}} ("CCD").

Reason: CCD supercedes "Congressional delegation" ("CD"). On CD's discussion page last year it was discussed that we should delete CD, but nobody did. It's of no use to us and all pages which use CD should use CCD instead.

The two are different: CD is for the 110th Congress and CD is for the current members of the 110th Congress. CD was created for the incoming 110th Congress, to prepare for that new Congress. Once it convened, however, CD was intended then to be replaced by CCD. But nobody got around to it. There have been 9 deaths/retirements in the Congress since January 2007, so the current members are no longer the same as the original members. There is no real practical use for CD.

See also: {{cfd}} at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 22#Category:110th United States congressional delegation navigation boxes —Markles 19:26, 22 December 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 section.

Old article history tags

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

The result of the debate was mark 2 and 4 as historical, delete 1, 3, and 5. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Oldpeerreviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:FARpassed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:FormerFA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:FormerFA2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:FARCfailed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am investigating the gradual migration of talk-page content templates towards {{ArticleHistory}} and have found these templates to be old (sometimes very old) versions of various content templates currently in use. While all content templates have now been deprecated by ArticleHistory, the move to delete them is controversial, so note that {{GA}} or {{oldpeerreview}} etc are not in this list - all these templates have been deprecated by another more recent content template which is itself deprecated by ArticleHistory. As such, none of these templates are used in any articles and are very much relics of a bygone age. Delete all. — Happy‑melon 12:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I note that the first of these templates is actually currently in use on one article - see Talk:Discrete Bipolar Transistor Biasing. It was added as recently as last November, suggesting that at least one of these templates is still 'active'. In that case, might it be better to add a note to them saying they are deprecated, and should be replaced with {{ArticleHistory}} where found, as with {{Activepolitician}} and {{WPBiography}}? Or would it be easier just to delete them? (I'd be fine with deletion myself, but just wanted to raise this alternative.) Terraxos (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I added this as a way to provide a link to a peer review archive. I am going to make this easier to do with {{oldpeerreview}} and entirely support the deletion of {{oldpeerreviews}}: this template is not active in my view. Geometry guy 20:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I check oldpeerreviews whenever I remember, and it can acquire up to a half-dozen uses in two months, though sometimes with only one link. You can add a note to the docs not to use it, but I suspect some users won't notice and will continue to use it. FormerFA and FARCfailed refer to an old process and so aren't needed, but FARpassed and FormerFA2 would be used if FAR needs to do things by hand. Gimmetrow 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
It strikes me then that deletion of {{oldpeerreviews}} is a particularly good idea, since no one advocates that it be used that way. What do you mean by "if FAR needs to do things by hand" - you mean if GimmeBot ever explodes and everyone has to go back to candles and steam power? Happy‑melon 16:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Something like that. Or its operator goes away for a while. Gimmetrow 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or mark as deprecated. It may be worth keeping a version of FARpassed and FormerFA(2) for historical reasons, marked as deprecated. The rest should be deleted. Geometry guy 19:03, 29 December 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 section.

BR-**

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:BR-AC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-AL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-AP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-AM (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-BA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-CE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-DF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-ES (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-GO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-MA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-MT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-MS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-MG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-PA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-PB (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-PR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-PE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-PI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-RJ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-RN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-RS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-RO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-RR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-SC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-SP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-SE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:BR-TO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

unused and duplication of Country_data_Brazil — Guilherme 00:44, 22 December 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 section.

Template:United States Squad 2006 FIBA World Championship

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:United States Squad 2006 FIBA World Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete We do not in general uphold creation of templates for non-gold medal winning teams in order to keep every beloved team from having templates. — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep In other sports every team that participated in a world championship tournament has its own template, no matter what the results they achieved. Continental championships templates are not necessary in my opinion, but world championship are.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep per ArnoldPettybone. The soccer project has come up with a well-defined criteria, which allows for including World Cup rosters for all participating teams. The FIBA championships are just like that. Neier (talk) 11:29, 24 December 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 section.

Template:Footer 2004 Olympic Bronze Medalists Basketball Men

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Footer 2004 Olympic Bronze Medalists Basketball Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete We do not in general uphold creation of templates for non-gold medal winning teams in order to keep every beloved team from having templates. — TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 20:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) Keep as I wrote in another article, only olympic and world championship teams are considered. I don't really see the problem in having as many templates as possible.--ArnoldPettybone (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Comment If it is deleted then all those in Category:Basketball_Olympic_Bronze_medalists_templates would need deleting as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think that a template for a medal in olympics or world championship is more important than Category:EA Sports NBA Live Cover Athletes or Category:2003 NBA Draft for an athlete as you can in the article of Carmelo Anthony for example. Thank you.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep The soccer project has a policy allowing templates for all the teams playing at the top-level tournament (the World Cup; and, the Olympics prior to 1992 when I think they switched to requiring all players to be under-22 or something). AFAIK, the Olympics are at the same competitive level as the FIBA championships, and there is no prevailing reason to discriminate for/against either of those competitions. Neier (talk) 11:29, 24 December 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 section.

December 21

Template:Airing

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

The result of the debate was keep. Picaroon (t) 04:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

this template is useless, it is only in use for 30 or 60 minutes in most cases anyway. — Ctjf83 20:47, 21 December 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 section.

Template:The Chalets

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:The Chalets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template has no, and is apparently not designed for, navigational value. It is used on two articles only, which link to each other, and only link to one further article, which is just a band of a similar genre who have toured with the band in question, or whatever. None of the other things on the template are linked, nor do they have articles, nor indeed should they. Given this, I don't see a whole lot of point in this template. — Jdcooper (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiftmain7 (talk • contribs) 17:33, December 24, 2007

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

Number 2 singles templates

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1950s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1960s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1970s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1980s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 1990s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UK Christmas No. 2s in the 2000s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UK Christmas No. 2s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Excessive templating: records from one country which hit number 2 (not number 1) at Christmas. Imagine if we did this for every country! (See Misplaced Pages:Avoid template creep).

To make matters worse, these templates are being applied not just to articles on the records but the performers also. (I'm currently reverting those). kingboyk (talk) 17:13, 21 December 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 section.

Template:Schutzstaffel

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Unused and misleading: Death's Head is not the coat of arms of SS. MaxSem 16:01, 21 December 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 section.

Template:User Mississippi Import

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

The result of the debate was delete. Picaroon (t) 04:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Mississippi Import (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned. No links to it.. -- ALLSTARecho 07:58, 21 December 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 section.

December 20

Template:Bell System

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

The result of the debate was keep, empty nomination. John254 04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Bell System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

. BigDevil (talk) 23:53, 20 December 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 section.

Template:Muppets

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. There is no consensus of what to do with templates in this format. I cannot speak for the community, but I would prefer a plain text link like the Family Guy wiki. As for previous templates in this format - the Harry Potter wiki template had its TfD suspended due to edit warring, and a Star Trek wiki was recently deleted - not because the format of the template is wrong, but becuase the template was duplicated by a more widely used template. I'm tempted to delete this template as being relatively unused, but I think it would serve the community better to take this time to request that a consensus be formed on these templates in some place other than TfD before more of these templates are nominated. Then return, say "the consensus is for templates of this type," and all will be at peace. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Delete, template linking to a random wikia wiki that's masquerading as a sister project link. Plus the linked content doesn't seem useful to me in the cases I checked (it's only used on four pages). — Bobet 05:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The guideline makes no comment about this (regardless of the change Phil tried to make), so no, it does not violate it. Nor does the template even mention Wikia. And why on earth would the for-profit status of an organization matter in this discussion? -- Ned Scott 06:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment If the concern is about how it looks like a sister project, perhaps more can be done to help that. I remember there being a template for ELs on some anime articles that would note if a site was in English or Japanese that would go along side normal text links in the EL section. Maybe something like that, where it looks like a normal EL, but says "WIKI" beside it. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment, I guess you mean the templates in Category:Language icons. Anyway, no matter what the template looked like, it's still linking to content that fails wp:el, since none of the articles that are linked to contain anything useful that isn't already covered by the relevant wikipedia articles. It's just pointless linkspam that gets overlooked because it's linking to wikia. If someone cares about a muppet wiki, he'll find a link to it at the The Muppets article, but pasting a link to it on largely unrelated articles isn't very smart. - Bobet 16:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or change to a plaintext link. As I argued on an earlier TfD, templates like this unfairly place Wikis above other kinds of external links, and may mislead readers by implying that they're in some way officially linked to Misplaced Pages. Links to wiki sites are acceptable (with certain qualifiers, which this one meets), but they shouldn't look any different from external links to other websites. Terraxos (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the rationales for these kinds of link is that they're not functioning as a traditional EL. Basically, a utility EL, made to note any wiki EL, and to do so easily and with context (being able to not just link to the general wiki, but to specific topics as they relate to the article currently being viewed). I understand that you view this as giving one link an unfair position, but myself and others view this as simply noting an EL that has a different function than other ELs (and, again, is open to any wiki EL that meets WP:EL). -- Ned Scott 09:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand that you might feel that way, but a lot of other users don't even view this as "preferential linking" (see my comment above), nor is it the general feeling that this is a "bad idea". If it was such a bad idea, we wouldn't be using IMDb in so many infoboxes. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 24 December 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 section.

Template:Boneheaded editing

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

The result of the debate was delete before this TfD snowballs any further. Tijuana Brass (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Boneheaded editing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - No encyclopedic use, possible attack template, not neutral or particularly civil. — Cheeser1 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 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 section.

December 19

Template:Deaththreatblock

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

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 05:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Primarily, I think WP:BEANS should be considered here. The vast majority of death threats made at Misplaced Pages are jokes (and this would just encourage more of them), and for those that are serious, this just calls unnecessary attention to them. Template:Indefblockeduser works fine as a template for these users, and if there's some reason that an admin needs to look into the specifics, edit histories and user contributions should suffice.. Tijuana Brass (talk) 23:41, 19 December 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 section.

Template:Conflict Freepsace Craft

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

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 05:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Conflict Freepsace Craft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Besides the typo in the name (Freepsace.. FreeSpace), it is a template no article has been using for a long time. No current article likely to use it as well. Jappalang (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD only for articles D'OH. --Thinboy00 @214, i.e. 04:07, 20 December 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 section.

Template:International Centers of Commerce

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

The result of the debate was delete. Way too arbitrary and list-ish for a template. Woohookitty 12:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:International Centers of Commerce (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An arbitrary list functioning as a free advert for Mastercard — Loodog (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep but delete "Mastercard" name I think this template should be kept because it is the only one that tracks the top 10 cities for financial flow. If someone is interested in knowing where money goes, this template is pretty helpful. The only reason people are opposed to it is because of "Master Card worldwide" This can be changed to "ref" or something similar. Nikkul (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Then make an article List of world cities by ranked by financial flow. I can't see the relationship between these cities as being relevant enough to warrant a navigation box.--Loodog (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your making the effort to modify it, but you seem to have overlooked that every person here also called it 'arbitrary'. It is not encyclopedic to slap templates on cities declaring them 'International Centers of Commerce' because one company calls them such. Further, the ten links included are arbitrarily taken from the source - they are not even representative of the top ten. Why have you included Mumbai despite its ranking at an unimpressive #45? Why did you remove five much higher ranked cities that were added by someone else to balance the information presented? You appear to have an agenda here. If you can source an article on international centers of commerce (without making it 'according to MasterCard'), it could be an appropriate category, but this is just too arbitrary as a navigational template. Maralia (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Besides, the top 10 Business centers in 2007 ranked by MasterCard is "Hong Kong, London, Singapore, New York, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Paris, Chicago, Amsterdam, Shanghai". Financial flow in a year is just a small indicator for judging leaders of "International Centers of Commerce". Joe3600 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It's either a subjective, arbitrary list if we choose what goes in it, or it's a list chosen by MasterCard that has little recognition beyond their website (or so I assume). At the very least, a template like this should have some objective and understandable test for inclusion. "International Centers of Commerce" means nothing to readers. "Top 10 cities by GDP" or "Top 10 cities by population" would be examples of objective measurements that would mean something. --- RockMFR 05:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but delete "Mastercard" name. Useful template. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbitrary list and the entries are of dubious connection to each other.--Loodog (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but delete "Mastercard" name. It is also subjective and arbitrary to say that these are not leading centres of commerce. Coloane (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Aside from this still not being an appropriate subject for a template, it continues to completely misrepresent the source.
  • The new header title 'List of International Cities Ranked by Financial Flow' is not at all representative of the ranking methodology used by the source, as outlined extensively here. Financial flow was weighted at only 22% in their index calculations.
  • You have arbitrarily chosen which cities you want to list. The ten cities you have listed have the following ranks on the source list: 1, 2, 4, 7, 3, 9, 8, 16, 25, 45. Maralia (talk) 18:12, 21 December 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 section.

Template:Taxobox begin

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

The result of the debate was keep, mark as depreciated and unprotect as template is no longer high-risk. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Taxobox begin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template was previously nominated for deletion. The objection at the time was that there were many pages that needed to be converted to the new Taxobox template. This has now been done so the old 'Taxobox begin' template is no longer needed. — —Noah 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This is still used on a variety of user pages and should at least be kept for historical reasons. No good reason to delete it, and deleting it does harm. --- RockMFR 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep, maybe throw a namespace check thingymajig on it so that people know not to use it anymore. -- Ned Scott 04:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Mark as redundant and remove edit protection (which is no longer warranted). While no mainspace pages now link to the template, I take the point that (so long as it's obvious that it shouldn't be used), there's no need to delete it. Verisimilus T 22:48, 22 December 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 section.

Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Completely inappropriate and unnecessary template. Contains a single link to the official Oh My Goddess Japanese site, and most of the rest are a bunch of fan sites full of copyright and fair use violations. A template is not needed to put in the single official link and the rest should not be linked to at all.. Collectonian (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep The template is used to link to the relevant external link based on the passed parameter. It can link to multiple web sites so the assessment of the nominator is flawed. The default parameterless output is the official site so the nominator might have missed it. The official sites structure changes from time to time - especially between seasons. For example content on the official site is been moved to a sub folder as an archive making new room for the new season. That is how TBS maintains their site. Rather than updating multiple pages, template lets us update all relevant articles. Use of the template is well within Misplaced Pages:External links. It is frowned upon to remove a template before nominating it for deletion. -- Cat 13:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    The template was removed because it was including links to multiple fan sites that contain illegal content and blatantly violate copyright laws (which goes against Misplaced Pages's WP:COPYVIO and WP:EL policies. While your reasoning about the official site is a good one, that isn't the templates only purpose, nor does it appear to be its sole purpose when the main bulk of it is a bunch of options for inappropriate links. Collectonian (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly which links are violating US copyright laws? --- RockMFR 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    Both fan site links. Open Your Mind - on the whole not bad, but links to manga scans and links off to other sites with worse violations. Belldandy Angel Feathers - full manga chapters and scanslations, full episodes, and fansubs. I can't say if the OMG wiki has violations as the site is currently down with a database error. Collectonian (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    The linked pages contain extra information. This issue you talk about wont be addressed in 'Templates for deletion' as it is an editorial decision. The linked pages from the template do not contain manga chapters and instead information on the characters. I would welcome you to raise these concerns on the template talk page as I do not understand what the specific problem is. -- Cat 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
    The sites contain exactly what I said they contain. If you can not see why those are completely inappropriate links, I'd suggest reading up on US and Japanese copyright laws, as those sites violate both. While this is the English Misplaced Pages, it does not support stealing intellectual property from either country. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    Then take it to the templates talk page. Nothing is being stolen. Linked pages contain extra information on the characters - the purpose of external links. Have you checked the actual use in the articles? Is such a violation the case? No manga chapter is been linked directly. Copyrights is not an issue. US copyright law is not the issue at all. Japanese copyright law is binding in the US per Berne convention. I see nothing that is in violation of that. Linking to youtube isn't banned just because some videos there are copyvios. Linking to youtube is only a problem if the linked page itself is a copyvio. Consider one usage of the template: Belldandy#References. The top two links are from the template. One links to the official site and other to the Oh My Goddess wiki. -- Cat 14:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It seems those are conditional parameters, and are not included every time the template is transcluded. It's an unusual method, but at the same time the method doesn't seem problematic. I have no opinion on the links themselves. -- Ned Scott 20:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Per nom. Useless template to promote fan sites that per WP:EL probably shouldn't even belong to begin with.--Oni Ookami Alfador 00:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - violates WP:EL. JPG-GR (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Template contains a number of links to official sites, not just one, and is probably quite useful for keeping these links maintained. The reason given for deletion mostly centers on some links that host a large amount of copyrighted content. If these are a problem, remove them. Most of the links in the template look fine. --- RockMFR 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per my above comment and RockMFR. While it might not be my cup of tea when it comes to handling ELs, I can't say that I'm bothered with it. If individual links need to be evaluated, then that's an easy fix. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Most of the links created via this template are likely inappropriate. The use of a template for this purpose is a bad idea as it creates an impediment to editing by editors unfamiliar with template syntax. That this has, in fact, already been a problem is evinced by the fact that some of the instances of this template have not been properly invoked. External links created by this template should be made using ordinary format and inappropriate links removed. --Jack Merridew 03:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    This kind of template use isn't uncommon. What are you talking about? I suppose we should remove infoboxes and templates in general as well if we are going to care that much about newbie difficulties. -- Cat 14:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment am I missing something? What on Earth do you need a template for? Can't you just use ? Unless of course you're trying to circumvent WP:EL. --Thinboy00 @212, i.e. 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    The structure of the source sites aren't 100% stable. For example the official site (in Japanese) has it's folder structure altered pretty much every season (it has changed twice so far). It is possible to fix it with a simple alteration to the URL. Also non-official external link sites sometimes die and need to be removed from articles. Template makes it easy to update. Right now (as of this post) the official site returns a 404 because the structure of the official site has changed very recently. I will correct this now. -- Cat 14:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    The reason why the template is necesary can be summarized by one diff . -- Cat 14:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    You still haven't answer the question of why the main site link of http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/ can't be used like with every other anime page? There is usually no need to link to a bunch of internal pages unless you are using the page itself as a reference (which can't use your template anyway). Collectonian (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    An external link should link to the page over the specific character not to the TBS in general. If the topic is Belldandy the external link should not link to http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/ and instead to http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/megami2/05chara/bell.html which used to be http://www.tbs.co.jp/megamisama/05chara/bell.html (mind the lack of a "/megami2") before the site was restructured very recently. The key problem is that the structure of the site of TBS isn't very static. It takes me one edit to fix all external links after annual TBS megamisama site restructure if a template is used. This saves me a lot of time and makes sure I do not miss a single external link. I also use the template to link to semi-official sites that may contain more information on the topic such as the Oh My Goddess wiki. Such sites may end up disappearing, hence the use of the template. -- Cat 17:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and get rid of any inappropriate links. At least pages of the official site should be linked to suit WP:EL. Linking to the main page of the official site from every article is unintuitive and has minimal navigational value. Having a template makes maintenance that much easier in case the site's URL format changes or people change their minds, which is exactly the case here. –Pomte 00:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is actually a neat use of templating, and gives Oh My Goddess external links consistency. --Phirazo 06:27, 21 December 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 section.

Template:Philippine general election, 2010

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

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Philippine general election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not a single one of the people listed on this template has declared their candidacy for the 2010 election. It's pure speculation and original research. — TheCoffee (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice for recreation later. No one has declared intention of running now, so why should we say it for them? --Howard the Duck 03:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that WP:SNOWBALL has nothing to do with this, right? The guide states that if something has no chance in passing, don't bother. This is the exact opposite of that clause.--Oni Ookami Alfador 04:13, 20 December 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 section.

Old discussions

December 18

Template:Slow Motion Reign

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Slow Motion Reign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template of a band that fails WP:MUSIC Delete. Secret 23:23, 18 December 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 section.

Template:UK Food

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:UK Food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is basically a list of US restaurant chains doing business in the UK. It really has nothing to do with UK food. A rename might be possible, but I don't think this serves a useful purpose for a navbox. — Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The template doesn't just list American chains (e.g. Hungry Horse which is well and truly British). I'm undecided as to whether it has value as a navbox or not (maybe another option would be for the Spirit Group chains to have a navbox for them, Whitbread group theirs, etc.). -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - This template provides an easier link between different chains that have operations in the UK. The name UK Food was just to make it easier to put on pages and is in line with Template:UK Hotels and Template:UK supermarkets. Pafcool2 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, two more templates with the same problem. They are not UK businesses rather multinational chains operating in the UK. I should add that the supermarket one is mainly UK businesses so it does not have the problems that the other templates have. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - A very useful navbox, maybe a rename of the title to "Food chains operating in the United Kingdom" would be appropriate. └┘talk 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • So how many of these nav templates do we need for these multinational companies? Some companies operate in scores of countries and if we add a template for each country consider how useless these become. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 21 December 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 section.

Template:LFMQ team

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:LFMQ team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant clone of {{Infobox Sports team}}, seemingly an error by new user, unused. — Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:09, 18 December 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 section.

Template:Wicca

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

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

A draft template that has never reached consensus for inclusion in articles. Attempts to do so have been resisted by editors of those articles. A general discussion on templates in this topic area is occurring here and seems to favour either (1) no templates at all or (2) unobtrusive, collapsible templates at the foot of an article, rather than side-dwelling banners like this one. A revised template for articles on Wicca may emerge from that discussion, but it will not be this one.. Kim Dent-Brown 08:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Prob best deleted. No one seemed to like it, and everyone seemed to prefer a collapsible template at the bottom, if there's even consensus to have one at all. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 10:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. Sidebar templates have largely fallen out of favour in articles, and footer navboxes have taken their place. -- Huntster 10:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thing is, there's an alternative template {{WiccaandWitchcraft}}</noinclude> which more nearly does the job and is a better candidate for editing into shape. The one we're discussing here is unlikely to form the basis of whatever new template emerges, an its continued existence can be confusing to new editors who go off on a spree inserting it into articles, just because it's there.... Kim Dent-Brown 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This template only serves as eye candy, and doesn't aid navigation of the subject of Wicca. {{WiccaandWitchcraft}} is more promising, though whether a template is needed at all is debatable. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete - There still needs to be some serious discussion about whether Wicca-related articles need a template at all, but this deletion should be a no-brainer, since the template is redundant with the more attractive and useful {{WiccaandWitchcraft}}. (I mean no offense to those who created and developed it, of course. Your work is appreciated.) - AdelaMae 12:45, 20 December 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 section.

Template:CoppaItalia-9TeamQtr

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted as G7 - author request. SkierRMH (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:CoppaItalia-9TeamQtr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:CoppaItalia-12TeamQtr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I (the creator and sole editor of these two templates) have created a new template Template:CoppaItalia-Quarter which combines the functionality of these two templates. They have been replaced by the new template on the only page which included them, Coppa Italia 2007-08. —Ed Cormany (talk) 02:04, 18 December 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 section.

Completed discussions

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


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

Tools

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

Closing discussions

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

To review

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

To merge

Templates to be merged into another template.

Infoboxes

Navigation templates

  • None currently

Link templates

Other

Meta

  • None currently

To convert

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

To substitute

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

  • None currently

To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that the templates can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages should not be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top).

Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached, and for which orphaning has been completed, can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when an item has been deleted.

  • None currently

Archive and Indices

Current discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2025 January 9

December 25

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Sarah Connor Chronicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this template is empty. 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' original them is 0. — AaMcaa (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting first edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:10, 25 December 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 section.

Template:STLmedia

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 07:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:STLmedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 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 section.

Template:PHLmedia

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:PHLmedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Template is not useful. Already have TV and radio templates. Newspapers are handled by categories. — Spencer1151 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting 2nd and 3rd edit. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting first edits. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
delete - Redundancies abound. KansasCity (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I was not directed to this discussion. It just happened to be next to the one above to which I was directed. Call it serendipity. - Dravecky (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2008 (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 section.

Template:MBHighways

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 22:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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

The template is a red link farm, only few articles exist. Seeing that no article on this has been made in a while, this thing needs to go. 32 19:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. This template is huge, and WP:FA will never accept any article that has it. WP:GA might not either. The categories and lists system is much preferred across Misplaced Pages. WP:USRD (the United States road project) deleted its templates a while back at debates such as those listed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents#State highway system templates. CRWP needs to delete its templates, among other things, in order to be successful project. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. I agree with Rschen7754. The GA and FA projects probably wouldn't pass articles with such a large template on them. The fact that it is a red link farm doesn't bother me; what bothers me is that this template has existed for some time, and those red links were never filled in. It's time to let go of the template. A category also works much better. --Son (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Rschen7754  — master son 20:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Red Link Farm? I don't see any red links on there. Also, there is stuff you can do with infoboxes that you can't do with categories. It's easier for the users. Also, where does it say that large templates automatically fail FA/GA? You can make it hidden by default and make it pop out if you need it you know. ViperSnake151 14:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Its been an ongoing war - the original version of this was a redlink farm.32 14:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Permalink is here. --Phirazo 20:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. while the template was huge and ugly, that is a reason to fix it, not a valid reason for deletion. It has been cleaded up in the meantime (although I suggest all secondary road links go). Also, if this gets deleted, please don't consider it as a precedent for other better maintained provincial road navboxes. --Qyd (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
That is your opinion, and I disagree. --Qyd (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Then why did people say that lists and categories are better when we were having similar TFDs in the US? --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, don't care. But it sounds extreme. I suppose this is not the right place to discuss that. --Qyd (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I would consider creating 20 different "small" templates for browsing extreme. That is definitely how it is viewed at WP:USRD, which has been more successful than WP:CRWP. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:45, 26 December 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 section.

Template:Jay email

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

The result of the debate was delete per creator's request. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:Jay email (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is unencyclopedic, and will not be used within the context of the encyclopedia. The template namespace doesn't exist for the convenience of an editor. This was moved to the userspace by Edmundwoods (talk · contribs), but was moved back by Whjayg (talk · contribs). — Aecis·(away) 17:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added Template:Jay Archive box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to this discussion as it has the same issue. ~ Paul/T+ 04:52, 27 December 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 section.


Template:Maayan

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

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Doesn't seem to be useful in any way. It's supposed to be a nav template, but it is only used on one article. Most of the people and groups mentioned there are not linked, because they don't have articles, and aren't notable (some of the articles were deleted as NN). Putting the template on existing articles about people who are mentioned there wouldn't be useful either, as they are pretty loosely related. — Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - not a particularly useful template. Some of these articles don't even mention how they're linked to Maayan; others are only linked pretty loosely. If it's necessary to connect these articles together, the better way to do it would be with a category. Terraxos (talk) 04:59, 28 December 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 section.

WB & UPN Templates

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

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template is obsolete. It has been since the UPN-WB to CW merger. Please delete. Thanks. MaidService (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note that these are the only edits of MaidService (talk · contribs), and ThaCleaningLady (talk · contribs) proceeded to redirect all of the templates to their CW counterparts.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: User's only edits have been to redirect these templates to the corresponding CW templates and to conduct this TFD and related CFDs. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: See Misplaced Pages:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:MaidService. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that the sock puppetry page has been archived and confirmed please see instead Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/MaidService. Thank you. EvanS • talk |sign here 21:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a voteIf you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Swiss town/upd

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Swiss town/upd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merry Christmas! Here's an orphan infobox template that, for some inexplicable reason, is 338 kb. — BD2412 T 04:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wow. That is a whole lotta code. Orphaned and of questionable usefulness in this form. JPG-GR (talk) 04:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Looks like this was an attempt to create an "updater" template that could be rolled out extremely quickly when changes are made to the neighboring_municipalities parameter (whether it be the style of presentation or the actual content). Each town could be updated by simply changing the infobox used in the article to subst:Infobox Swiss town/upd. Very good idea, in my opinion. --- RockMFR 06:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but it is unused in practise, and is about ten times larger than Misplaced Pages's recommended page limit. There must be a more efficient way to do this. BD2412 T 07:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unneeded. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - clever, but this could be done so much easier with a bot or elbow grease. Happy‑melon 22:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom - echoing Happy Melon as well. SkierRMH (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. It was used in the last update by bot and can serve as a sample template for future updates. If it's considered too long, the neighboring municipalities can be cut as they are now in the article. -- User:Docu
    • Was it used by a bot in a way that could not be accomplished in a different namespace (e.g. Misplaced Pages wikiproject space)? BD2412 T 01:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • RockMFR explained in his post on Dec 25 how it was used. It doesn't matter which namespace it's in, but as it relates to Infobox Swiss town, it should be fine where it is, as is Template:Infobox Swiss town/testcases -- User:Docu
  • Keep. No good reason has been given for deletion. Its usefulness has been shown. Size is not a good reason for deletion. Neither is a subjective measurement of how easy a bot could make such updates. --- RockMFR 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it take more of the Misplaced Pages servers' elbow grease to transclude larger templates? This is, after all, hundreds of kilobytes (of which the end user only sees a minute fraction), so I think in this case that size does matter. Cheers! BD2412 T 04:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and don't worry about performance. 3 kb has been wasted on this discussion, and many more are being wasted on things much less useful. You're free to collaborate on a more efficient method, but do not delete until this is completely useless. –Pomte 10:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • The footnote at the bottom of that page would seem to indicate otherwise, with something of this size. BD2412 T 17:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • If you are referring to the addendum, the example of images involves images being viewed multiple times. This template is used only once in a very long while, and sparingly. Furthermore, this is not a client-side issue. –Pomte 23:57, 2 January 2008 (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 section.

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 24 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 23 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 22 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 21 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 20 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 19

Old discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 18

Completed discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices

[[Category:Misplaced Pages templates|PAGENAME ]]

Category: