Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2006 December 16)
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Nominator gave no reasons, and no one else came up with anything. Picaroon 00:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islam by country

edit
Template:Islam by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nomination added by 61.2.66.172 (talk · contribs) at 16:38, 16 December 2006

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. Nishkid64 01:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Strict

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

This is a template created as part of arguments on the Wikipedia:Reference desk, and essentially amounts to be a tool for "requesting" what should be part of every reference desk answer—a helpful response based on facts and sources. As such, it serves no purpose but to imply that questions without the template may be answered frivolously. --SCZenz 21:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Delete. The Reference Desks should always be giving serious answers, cited when reasonably possible, with frivolous answers kept to a minimum. (My answer is tentative because (a) I'm still not up to speed on all the arguments and counterarguments that have been advanced recently about the proper function of the Reference Desks, and (b) because it may turn out that deleting the template shuld be deferred until after the nascent Reference Desk policy guidelines have jelled.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's really a consensus someday that the reference desk ought to be frivolous unless requested otherwise, then the template can be recreated. -- SCZenz 21:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now there is, its called Entertainment Desk. lol. --Judged 00:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. - SCZenz has misrepresented the purpose of the template. It means that answers should not include humor, opinions, original research, and other items considered to be generally acceptable on the Ref Desk. For some users, who only want an answer with no commentary, and who require references, this is appropriate. However, most users do not require such strict rules. This question was already brought up at the Ref Desk talk page, and there was no consensus to remove the template. StuRat 21:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have used the template on Ref Desk and I found it to be useful. Those who want opionion and references without sources can omit the template. What is wrong with allowing questioners to employ a used and useful template? Edison 21:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Serves little identifiable purpose, and could be considered harmful. Friday (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not meet any of the criteria for deletion. Specifically: 1. it is helpful - it avoids misunderstanding between questioner and answerer; 2. it is not redundant - no similar template; 3. it is being used - see Edison above; 4. it is NPOV; 5. it does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. Gandalf61 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless template. It makes no sense in the context of WP. → JARED (t)  22:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. People most likely to be confused, intimidated, or insulted by joke answers are the same people least like to understand the instructions for the template's use—the young, the technically-less-adept, and those who don't speak English as their first language. The template is very rarely used, and then only by Ref Desk regulars. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, although I'm sure the nomination and all delete opinions will be taken as evidence of further persecution of the "RD regulars" by the evil empire of fun-hating admins. This template serves no purpose other than justifying the inclusion in responses to questions that do not include it of juvenile banter generally considered to be unacceptable. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please read this informal deletion discussion, specifically this section. By the way, some of you are shooting yourselves in the foot by saying it's unwanted; if a strict set of rules for answering is unwanted, many of you don't have much ground to stand on for the RD debates --frothT C 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is, the people who need it don't know how to use it, like TenOfAllTrades said. This provides an excuse to give muddled, unhelpful answered to newbies, and then if someone complains just write "well, if they wanted a factual answer then they should've used {{strict}}". It puts the onus on question-askers, who may be newbies, rather than on experienced question-answerers, to keep the reference desk productive. -- SCZenz 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, usually the answers to the HD, RefDesk, Misc Desk etc. are 90% time serious and the helpers are always serious, I see no reason to have a template that would ask to do what they are already doing (That was a hard sentence to say :S). — Seadog 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete are there enough people going to the ref desk looking for jokes, guesses, fiction, and nonsense that a tag is required for those who aren't? Substantive answers ought to be the default. Opabinia regalis 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not need a half-baked reminder that the answers I give should be both serious and to the point. As it stands it contains the inference that all answers where this silly tag does not appear are somehow frivolous. Puerlie for the puerile. Clio the Muse 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It should be assumed that I want this, unless I specify otherwise. -Amarkov blahedits 01:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Amarkov. pschemp | talk 01:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way. My first instinct was for keep -- but then I then I thought, it implies that RD questions not tagged this way are open for trivial and meandering replies. This is not the case, so the template can go. Vranak 04:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- this is part of the reference desk anyway. Replies there are expected to be serious, and I've seen humourous replies followed up. This isn't really needed, and I don't think many know it even exists. CattleGirl talk | e@ 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keep. I misunderstood the purpose of the template. Due to frequent 'nonsense' at the RD, I'm endorsing the template. The template itself seems unprofessional. Also, the "form and manner" preferences of a given user -- which are not a part of established guidelines/policy --- aren't binding on other users, so what justification is there for a template? Finally, a user can tell immediately how serious a communication is. Is it really that annoying to simply go to the next message? Tragic romance 14:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But the existance of this template legitimizes the nonsense, and says it's ok as long as the template isn't placed! -- SCZenz 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not appropriate, not necessary and not in keeping with the spirit of the RD. Borders on WP:POINT as a backdoor stab to those who feel that common sense should define our responses and that a template is needed to corral our collective give-and-take. The template also suggests that for for the most part we respond with a laissez-faire or joking attitude that needs to be overtly recognized and rejected for the question to which it is appended. For the very few users that don't seem to get the well understood limits of appropriate responses then the answer is to apply community pressure to those very few users, not a "don't mess with me" warning template. --hydnjo talk 15:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Humanities and Miscellaneous desks, where I tend to hang out, often devolve into discussion and debate involving puns, jokes, and other things which are simply not helpful to a questioner, but I do not feel are necessarily 'bad' (one of my own early answers to a blatant homework question was pure joke, and not remotely helpful). If a person has had a bad day, or needs a serious answer, there is no guarantee they will receive a helpful reply. This template is a way of throwing up your hands, and saying 'guys, we all like to have fun, but just seriously for a second'. It's helpful, and serves a useful purpose. --Mnemeson 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that editors are significantly divided points to an inadequate test period. Eventually one would have to analyse the usage and determine what sort of difference it makes to answers, giving a scientific some basis for a decision. --Seejyb 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Harmful. Dr Zak 19:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, useless. All answers given at the reference desk are serious. —Angr 06:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What Reference Desk are you looking at?? Tragic romance 03:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I understand the reasons why people are voting delete, but some Reference Desk responses are frivolous and this template should remind users to focus on the purpose of the place for those questions which deserve more straightforward responses. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete editors do not need reminding to not be frivolous when providing answers. In any case, responders should answer to the best of their abilities, giving ref's where possible. Any questioner wanting further detail or needing a ref can ask for one without needing this template. Moreover, as a regular RD reader this template seems to me to endorse frivolous answers in questions that do not have it placed. Zunaid©Please rate me at Editor Review! 12:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per TenOfAllTrades. Titoxd(?!?) 09:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Its use - almost exclusively by the so-called "Ref Desk Regulars", one should note - implicitly legitimises the injokes and opinionating that blights the Reference Desk. Harmful to the project. Rockpocket 18:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zunaid. If you want jokes, ask for them in plain text. If you don't want any jokes, ask for that in plain text. Otherwise, the presumption should be that questions deserve a serious answer, and that jokes, if there are any, should not detract from that. In any case, a huge attention-grabbing notice box is not needed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — those it would most help are least likely to use it, and it implies that serious answers are exceptions when they should be the rule. —Keenan Pepper 23:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result of the debate was Deleted by User:Nickshanks. -Amarkov blahedits 03:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Projects

edit
Template:WikiProject Astronomical objects/Projects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Millenia

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to weak keep. Martinp23 16:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems unnecessary with {{millenniabox}} at the top of the actual millenia. Misspelled. Incomplete: 30th millennium BC not in navbar. Include {{Millenia BC}} which redirect to it. Possibly to be included only in the Millennia article, but wouldn't need to be a template for that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from maker: Hello Arthur. Some warning on my talk page would be appreciated in future. The misspelling of millenia on the template has no effect on the actual template, if you are that concerned however, it can be moved. 30th millennium BC is now in the template. The template was originally created to link up a few "lonely" articles with a universal template. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apologies. TfDs normally run 5-7 days, and I was planning to be on my way out, and get back to this tomorrow. It's been trimmed now, and appears more reasonable, be I still don't see the need. Millennia 30 BC, 23 BC, and 22 BC are now redirects, anyway, and should not be in the template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs).
  • Comment— correction. Now (or, at least yesterday) only includes millennia with actual articles, not redirects to longer time intervals. I still don't see a need for this template, but it's less disruptive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the above templates being used more widely. → JARED (t)  22:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:RouteboxIA

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

The result of the debate was delete Martinp23 17:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, replaced by {{Infobox road}}. Additionally, this routebox was intended for use at the bottom of the article, contrary to the purpose of an infobox, which is typically located at the top of the article to give a brief overview of the article's subject. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 18:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Seven Network schedule

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

The result of the debate was delete and substMartinp23 17:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Template:Advert

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

The result of the debate was Keep. This template is used with good cause by editors who may not be in a position to improve such articles themselves, but would like to forewarn other readers of the article's nature. To delete it would cause too much disruption and alternatives would soon arise, with worse names. — Nicholas (reply) @ 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

It has been put at Maroochydore, Queensland - the language there is supposed to prove that it is notable - i.e. say what's important and significant about the place. Zephyr103 12:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may be used as a criticism, it is valid criticism--there's a difference between being non-neutral (accidentally or otherwise) and sounding like a full-blown ad. Ideally, such articles would be hacked down to neutral/factual stubs or put up for deletion immediately, but if the editor doesn't want to be hasty (or doesn't have time), this template can help draw attention from more experienced/available anti-ad patrollers to offer second opinions or deal with the article appropriately. --Arvedui 12:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at how this template is currently being used, it tends to be put on articles whose wording is felt to be favourable to the subject. Have a look at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Advert. The intent may be good, but it's absolutely not working. It's just one more annoying template anyone could stick on an article. As for your experienced anti-ad patrollers, I wonder what they're doing most of the time, because they don't seem to be fixing wording as required by the template. Utterly useless. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a very good, useful template that helps keep wiki-polices like WP:NOT enforced. dposse 14:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing wrong with taging articles that violate guidelines as needing cleanup. Koweja 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A fine template, no suitable alternative. Quatloo 18:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very useful template Subwayguy 18:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Nothing is wrong with it Bgold4 19:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the template's intent being perfectly within normal guidelines, policy and precedent - if you can't clean it yourself, tag it. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many articles on the encyclopedia are very ad-like. It's better to just tag them as such. We don't have time to fix all the ad language on the encyclopedia (the backlog is already tremendous). Part Deux 20:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep - really useful template. Monni 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep helps out editors find these type of things and also has shows the newcomers what they can't do and for readers. Basically it is usfull to everybody. — Seadog 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thought experiment: let's put all templates that apply on all articles they apply to. I shall start doing so today, and review our position in a few weeks' time. You guys can run in my wake and clean things up. Also make sure you accuse me of WP:POINT violation and miscellaneous other offenses. 'cause you're not gonna like it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's no one's obligation to do anything here at Wikipedia, as we're all volunteers. We hope that editors use common sense when tagging articles. An article that needs a great deal of work ought to get a single {{cleanup}} tag, with explanation on the talk page, not every single specific tag that might apply. If you have a problem with this system, I suggest taking it up at the Village Pump; this is not the place to try to change process. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Samsara, please don't be bitter that this nomination isn't working out right. I'm not sure the reasons you think this template shouldn't work (though I've read your words), but I can assure you, on a personal level, this template is extremely helpful when patroling dead-end pages. I realize that perhaps we should "just clean up the article", but then, by this argument, we should get rid of every other cleanup template, like {{uncat}}, {{wikify}}, {{OR}}, {{unsourced}}, and so on and so on. I can understand your frustration, but please understand that, speaking for myself, my keep vote (I know, it's not a vote: can't find a better word) was not a knee-jerk reaction, but a recognition that thie template is quite helpful. Otherwise, if we don't have time to fix a page (and let's be honest, there's a large backlog right now), we'd have to outright delete the page as spam. I know you may find it lazy that editors don't fix any POV problems, but if you've ever done Dead-end or new page patrol, you'd realize that we'd fall too far behind if we fixed every problem we saw. And, at the risk of alienating you even further: yes, your response was definitely a WP:POINT reaction (I know how difficult it is to refrain from these: after the Ron Jeremy incident, I was horribly tempted to go through every BLP article and delete everything unsourced - even though I knew Jimbo was right). Part Deux 01:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Finally, someone who understands the words. I don't know anything about the Ron Jeremy incident, but yes, this discussion has convinced me that we need to get rid of the cleanup templates. The whole lot. I don't see how they are helping us achieve anything, or making Wikipedia a better place. Thanks for your comments. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other keeps, this is fine †he Bread 23:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the many applicable arguments already offered, and the fact that no one has stepped up to suggest deletion. SnowFire 01:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Various Template:User:COMPFUNK2 templates

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

The result of the debate was delete all - perhaps these could have been done under CSD G6 (housekeeping)? Martinp23 17:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox short-sleeves (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox bbw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox atheism-xmas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User punk-billboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User dmb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User halloates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/User beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox arctic-monkeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User:COMPFUNK2/Userboxes/Userbox orange-julius (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Template:Infobox Philippine High School

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

The result of the debate was delayed delete, but after anything from this template worth keeping has been merged into {{Infobox Secondary School}}, and all uses have been migrated (there's more than one usage now [1]). Once this is done (with the blessing of WP:SCH, leave me a message on my talk and I'll delete. Martinp23 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a duplicate. See content. If duplicate, then delete other secondary schools templates as well (eg. Singapore, etc). Pmgomez 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Currently, only Xavier School uses this template. Another Philippine school, De La Salle Santiago Zobel School, uses Template:Infobox Secondary School. --Howard the Duck 15:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DLS-Z can then use the Philippine Secondary School template. 209.8.41.106 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No it can't. DLS-Z is already fine with the template it's using. --Mithril Cloud 06:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Needimage

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

The result of the debate was delete, as all three contributors to the page (Bitchen, Someguy0830 and Heligoland) have said that they want it deleted or don't mind, making it a CSD G7. Titoxd(?!?) 08:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yeast - templatitis: People who want to read the article have to search for the article text.
Thracian language - It looks like the template was dropped randomly. A comment at the talk page mentiones "for obvious reasons". Well, I had a look at other language articles and most of them don't have any images at all.
Alyssa Alps - the template is mostly used on pages of porn stars or nude models. Hmm ...
Template format: it's big, it gives redundant information (no or only a few pictures (I actually see that myself), a link to the "upload file" function, ...) a corresponding category is missing.
Redundancy: see template:reqphoto ("talk pages only" - that's how it should be. Don't bug the reader .) --32X 16:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped all pages using this template over to {{reqphoto}} as it's quite clear the consensus will be to delete this template, so there's not a real need to keep this TfD open, and I'd ask an admin to close under WP:SNOW. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_December_16&oldid=1146432878"