March 10

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 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trivial, inappropriate template that provides very little space for encyclopedic detail. Articles should contain prose, not a box for entering information (and, infoboxes don't cover information so trivial either). — Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:02, 10 March 2007 (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 section.
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 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zelda weapons and items (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Navigation template with only two entries. Not useful. — Pagrashtak 20:38, 10 March 2007 (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 section.
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 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Final Fantasy bestiary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is not used, and is not necessary with the current state of the Creatures of Final Fantasy article. — Kariteh 18:09, 10 March 2007 (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 section.
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 deleted by Grandmasterka. —dgiestc 21:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:"Summer Camp" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is it really necessary to have a template for creating a redirect? ><RichardΩ612 13:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This was originally someone creating an article in Template: space, so I moved it to mainspace, leaving this behind. Should probably have tagged it then... —dgiestc 18:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
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 delete per CSD G4. IronGargoyle 18:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I nominated something like this before [and it was deleted], but it has come back. This is nonsense, but not quite CSD G2. ><RichardΩ612 ER 13:34, 10 March 2007 (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 delete Martinp23 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Needless duplication of Wiki markup, not in substantial use. Sandstein 11:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I've speedied the even more trivial and unused Template:Bold (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); review here if necessary. Sandstein 11:20, 10 March 2007 (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 section.
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. John Reaves (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User MaristC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User MaristO (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 section.
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. Harryboyles 09:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1950-1969 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1970-1989 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Formula One World Drivers' Champions 1990-2009 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Discussion on WP:F1 resolved to replace the use of partial lists with the full list. The only remaining links to these templates are from each other, plus a few talk and user pages. --DH85868993 06:29, 10 March 2007 (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 section.
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 withdrawn, surrounding issues still being sorted out elsewhere. Opabinia regalis 18:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{Cite journal}} (the documentation specifically refers to {{Cite journal}} too). This template is only used in a few articles, which I'm in the process of replacing, so this template can be deleted. +mwtoews 02:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, well after taking a detailed look at the template history and code, it implements news and abstract parameters for a link to a related news article, and abstract url. In a case where both a science article and news article are referenced, both should have a full and proper citation. So use {{cite journal}} and {{cite news}} (rather embedding a partial citation in another). Secondly, the abstract can be viewed by setting either the doi or the id to something useful, such as "id={{PMID}}". This will bring you to the official abstract for the publication, which is URL neutral (will always link). These are very minor changes to {{cite journal}}, and I always discourage subtle forks, such as this.+mwtoews 04:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you show you are sorry, and do the right thing and revert your changes? There was not consensus for those. Besides, it doesn't link to anything because *you* removed all the links. This is not how a community works. pschemp | talk 05:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I am a bit sorry for confusing folks reading this (I should have discussed this with User:Samsara beforehand), and the template is back to what it was before (it was briefly a redirect). We can continue discussing this template in a formal matter now, but my position is still a redirect/delete, as it isn't really being used on any article and I highly dislike forks of popular templates (which is the {{cite journal}} template). As for the changes to the 20 or so citations in articles — sorry, those changes are sticking. I provided several of these with {{PMID}} and {{DOI}} info, where available (this provides a link to official abstract, publisher, pdf, etc.); and split any news url tags into a separate and proper citation (e.g., using {{cite news}}).+mwtoews 05:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read any of my comments? Did they make sense? Because I've tried to explain to you the reason why this template exists, and it doesn't seem to have been getting through to you. The fork was caused by resistance to expanding {{cite journal}}, which was my original proposal. Where were you to support that proposal when it happened? Second, your proposal to use a combination of two templates does not simplify things in the least. There is a reason why separate templates exist for separate purposes, otherwise everything would be one mega-template, and the documentation would be so immense that we might as well not bother having templates at all. Not to mention the fact that having two templates flies in the face of everything we have learnt since Wittgenstein about object-oriented ways of interacting with our environment. So, please. {{cite journal}} has been amended to this effect, but if we're going to have this TfD at all, it should remain open until it is clear whether there is going to be a backlash from the retainers of {{cite journal}}. Samsara (talk  contribs) 05:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the TfD tag for now to review the proposal in a bit more detail. In the future, try to make it clear in the template what the purpose is, and other important details that people like myself should know (and yes, I'll try to do some more detective work before making any rouge moves). Lets close this discussion for now.+mwtoews 07:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You've now essentially closed this TfD out of process TWICE. Can someone please close this as "withdrawn" or something before we all start flying off the walls? Thanks. Samsara (talk  contribs) 10:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There does not seem to be a consensus to delete unless other matters are rectified per Samsara (who I think has raised some fair points. More a "process keep" vote from me than an actual opinion on the subject matter. Orderinchaos78 13:46, 10 March 2007 (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:November deprecated Vandalism 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 Martinp23 11:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia Is Communism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:WIC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UsernameBlock-impostor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:VPblock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:UsernameBlock-impostor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Deprecated template with suitable replacement, no significant incoming links ^demon[omg plz] 02:05, 10 March 2007 (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 section.