Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18

Template:VicePresidentialCallsigns

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 merge Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VicePresidentialCallsigns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Should be merged into Template:PresidentialCallsigns. Most links redirect to pages on the latter navbox, and I see no reason to keep these navboxes split. I've made an example of the merged navbox at Template talk:PresidentialCallsigns. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, makes sense. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete - one way or another, I don't see the need for a separate template for this purpose. Terraxos (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2008 (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.

Template:Multiple Gallo-siculo dialect 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 Happy‑melon 21:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (Nicosia) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (San Fratello) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (Sperlinga) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Multiple "navbox" templates that were intended to be used to show translations of the same text into various dialects of Gallo-siculo, plus the Latin and Italian translations of the same text. The latin version was accidentally created in the main article space and speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A2. This, and following discussion (see DRV discussion of "Lupus et angus"), led the creator to remove all this from the Gallo-siculo article and stop using Wikipedia. Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (Aidone) was deleted at TFD. I suggest deleting the rest, with the content to be userfied upon request if the user returns and requests it. — GRBerry 15:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also this one: Template:Il lupo e l'agnello (Piazza Armerina) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) --Thetrick (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (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.

Template:TALKPAGENAME

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. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TALKPAGENAME (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A template to create half a link? Really? This isn't even really a typing-aid ({{TALKPAGENAME|}}link text]] is only two characters shorter than [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|link text]]), and because it has the same name as a magic word, you need to give it a parameter to use it as a template, although the parameter is ignored. Creating only half a link seems unintuitive anyway, as does giving the template the same name as a magic word. (I used this template by mistake, and ended up so confused that I almost ended up filing a bug against MediaWiki!) I recommend subst and delete; also, note that on a policy level using this in articles may be a bad idea, which seem to be the main place it's used at present. --ais523 12:53, 18 June 2008 (U T C)

Delete- I find no use for it, and it does look like a confusing template, to avoid confusion it should be substituted with another or deleted. --SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Subst and~~ delete. Useless and bloody confusing. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there were only a handful of uses, so I went and fixed all of them except for one test page. Note that the (former) transclusions fell into two distinct types: a couple of incorrectly formatted merge tags that ended up transcluding this template instead of the intended magic word, and a few user pages that used it "as intended" (all via the redirect Template:TALKPAGE). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now useless CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't use the built-in variable names as templates. That's crazy. --- RockMFR 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem at all useful. –xenocidic (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2008 (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.

Template:Usrcvtext

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 redirect to Template:Db-copyvio-notice. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Usrcvtext (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Bag ugly old version of {{Db-copyvio-notice}} MBisanz ^talk 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Delete-it is not needed, an old version of {{Db-copyvio-notice}}; no need to have the old version.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:07, 18 June 2008 (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.

Template:Nn-wikia

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 Happy‑melon 20:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nn-wikia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Advertisement for non-WMF wiki, improper in current warning systems. MBisanz ^talk 07:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reword and rename to use a list of wikis (both on Wikia and not). I'm pretty sure we have one around here.. if not there's always the m:interwiki map. -- Ned Scott 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this template can be fairly useful. For example, an article about a specific Doom level would be inappropriate for Wikipedia, but perfect for the Doom Wiki. Also, while Wikia isn't a part of the Wikimedia Foundation, they do have some close ties. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This template advertises for a for-profit company (allegedly) independent of Wikipedia. If I made a template for my own website, how long would it last? 5:15 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - we have templates for IMDb, Google, ADS, and various WHOIS services, none of which are related to the Wikimedia Foundation. Category:External link templates states that templates for "highly reliable" sites are acceptable. I believe that Wikia falls under this category. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - agreeing with Ixfd64, I must also point out that the template is only suggesting content that is not appropriate for Wikipedia be put on a website that is wholly appropriate; making "advertising" a very harsh claim. I hate to claim it's not hurting anyone, but Wikipedia will not suffer at all from this template as an encyclopdia, because the content the template refers to is inappropriate to be added anyway. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 21:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove explicit reference to specific for-profit website or delete. It may be more helpful to encourage users to consult with a relevant wikiproject, as far as forwarding material. I've noticed that many editors in these sorts of discussions are active on various Wikias, and therefore have a conflict of interest regarding links to it. It is true that some Wikias are useful, but it is also true that many of them are atrociously bad, and that being the case, linking to them should not be done blindly. Recruiting for Wikia is rightly their job, not ours. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 27 June 2008 (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.

Template:Uw-birthday

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 agreement of nom and creator. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-birthday (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ultra-narrow warning template that appears to be unused in any schema, old or current, superseded by better Test and UTM templates. MBisanz ^talk 07:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this. I created this template and subst'ed it about a half dozen times, but since then a bot has been programmed to deal with most of the birthday-type vandalism to June 11 and similar articles. Yechiel (Shalom) 11:32, 18 June 2008 (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.

Template:Rookie-vandal

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. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rookie-vandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Insulting template name, other templates convey the same message with less bite. MBisanz ^talk 07:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yechiel (Shalom) 11:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rookie-vandal? That's even insulting to vandals. Rocket000 (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely too much ouch here. Liashi (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2008 (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.

Template:MSW

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 redirect to Template:Uw-spam3, as users are frequently blocked after 3rd-level warnings, and this doesn't clearly identify itself as a "last" warning; if anything, it seems it may have been intended as a "first" warning. But, I won't cry if somebody changes it to the 4th level. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MSW (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, poorly worded version of Template:Spam4, not used in current schema. MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as somewhat redundant to {{Spam4}}, and unused. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:38, 18 June 2008 (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.

Template:DTTR

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 Hilarious, but still Delete - it's been transwikied so it's not lost totally. Anyone wants to have a look or get it userfied to their space, don't hesitate to ask. Happy‑melon 20:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DTTR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template for a non-policy actions that contradicts the entire usage of warning templates to get across a clear, unbiased message. MBisanz ^talk 07:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN or just delete. This template represents silly hypocrisy. You want to tell someone "Don't template the regulars" by sending them a template message?? You can't be serious. Yechiel (Shalom) 11:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BJAODN or keep. As above. --Carnildo (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep good use of humor without being too insulting. I could see this actually being used to help deescalate situations. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJAODN and userfy it into my userspace darn it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The hypocrisy makes the point. But Wikipedia needs less humor and less useful templates because it bothers too many editors doing very productive things like me. Rocket000 (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It used to have a humour template, and I do think it's supposed to be a used humourously. If kept, perhaps increase the humour. xenocidic (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikied to CWii Wiki. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's comment. Obviously it was intended to be used humorously only (and the only time I did use it, on AN or ANI I believe, that was the sole intention). I have no particularly strong feelings for this template and will not oppose any deletion, transwikification, userfication, or injection of better humour into it. 0h, and Rocket000, it was intended to be funny, or rather meta-funny. Fram (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's hilarious; the irony is delicious. Obviously, I'm a minority here, but not everyone thinks it is an insulting/stupid template. Just wanted to make sure the discussion wasn't one-sided.bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:59, 24 June 2008 (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.

Template:Image-license

These are from the old license template standardization effort (they were originally subst'd, thus no transclusions). With the advent of {{imbox}}, existing uses have all been replaced and they have been rendered obsolete. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template wasn't simply for standardization, it also provided machne-readable data about licenses for tools like User:zocky/Picture Popups. If that functionality is duplicated in the new template, then delete, otherwise fix the new template to provide the same information, and then delete. Zocky | picture popups 09:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would drop a note for User:Davidgothberg regarding the machine-readability part, as {{imbox}} is largely his doing. I don't know if he incorporated such things or not. I do know that practically every license template has been updated to use it though. - AWeenieMan (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image-license-fairuse

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 02:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are from the old license template standardization effort (they were originally subst'd, thus no transclusions). With the advent of {{imbox}}, existing uses have all been replaced and they have been rendered obsolete. - AWeenieMan (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:18, 18 June 2008 (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.

Template:Npa2MrB

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 Speedily deleted under CSD G6. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Npa2MrB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete personal template of a retired user. Not is use in current schema. MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy -- Ned Scott 04:24, 19 June 2008 (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.

Template:Drmafd2MrB

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 Speedily deleted under CSD G6. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drmafd2MrB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete personal template of a retired user. Not is use in current schema. MBisanz ^talk 07:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy -- Ned Scott 04:24, 19 June 2008 (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.

Template:Image2MrB

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 Speedily deleted under CSD G6. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Image2MrB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obsolete personal template of a retired user. Not is use in current schema. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy -- Ned Scott 04:24, 19 June 2008 (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.

Template:NoIPbots

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 modify - moved and rewritten as {{uw-botblock}}, for all unapproved bots. Happy‑melon 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoIPbots (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template does not conform to current practice, IP bots would be blocked on sight, not warned, then watched, then blocked. MBisanz ^talk 07:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or edit it so it no longer misrepresents policy (e.g. instead of 'stop immediately', it should just say 'your bot has been blocked'). At the moment, it could arguably be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#T2. Terraxos (talk) 23:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there's nothing here to suggest the IP hasn't already been blocked, and it may be situationally useful. Or deprecate via redirect, if there's a more suitable template out there. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 08:58, 27 June 2008 (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.