Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 19

< June 18	June 20 >

June 19

Template:AlcheMister 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Substed only current transclusion. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AlcheMister page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless userspace template. Thetrick (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's blank. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its blank white paper, and waste of computer source.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If you would look at the source you would see that there is a link hidden in there. But it is really more secret page garbage. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:37, 20 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:Bonds hr tracker

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 userfied to User:ChopAtwa/Bonds hr tracker. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bonds hr tracker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unmaintained and now somewhat pointless. Thetrick (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its old template, and not use on any articles.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy It's somebodies userpage thing, I guess. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:39, 20 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:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities/test

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) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities/test (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused test template. Parent does not exist. Thetrick (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its orphan, and don't do any uses.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Do tests in your own garden. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The parent page once existed, but I guess the deleting admin missed it. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as housekeeping per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 27#Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities. -- Ned Scott 06:43, 20 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:Blocknumbers

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) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obscure template that serves no purpose other than to shame a user, redundant to block log. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete-though you are correct, it is in use in a few couple of blocked user pages.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete — While theoretically useful, any administrator worth his or her salt would verify with logs before any block. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 18:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this template is design for admins, so they know the length of user's last block. So incase user has not learnt from last block admins can take action by posting longer blocks.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a little thing called the block log. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely useless, the block log is displayed in the block interface. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:06, 21 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:Fairlogo

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:Logo rationale. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor redundant version of {{Logo rationale}} MBisanz ^talk 21:19, 9 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! 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems unused, unnecessary. --Thetrick (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is in a diff format. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 19:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; the template looks the same, but technically not.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate by redirecting, not deleting. It may be a duplicate but it's been around long enough that some people may be used to it. A redirect helps them find the template we now want them to use instead of suddenly leaving them with a broken link. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 20 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:Comic-ovrsize-img

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:Non-free reduce (also deleted the category this populated, per WP:CSD#C3). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Non-free reduce}}. ViperSnake151 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:55, 10 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! 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, its exactly the same to another, and waste of computer source.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It apparently was created to help categorize a specific set of images, to help with the work load. That in itself is fine, but it might not be used anymore. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is truly redundant (something that is not immediately obvious to me but I defer to the expertise of others who work more with images), deprecate by redirecting, not by deletion. Redirects point users to the correct template instead of suddenly leaving our editors with a broken link and no clear way to know how to fix it.
Note to Freewayguy - Please remember that deletion does not free up any computer space. The records containing the deleted versions remain in the database regardless - they are just removed from public view. To the extent that you are concerned about computer space, remember that converting a page to a redirect consumes approximately 1/10th the resources that a deletion does, assuming even a very short discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:28, 20 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:Fairproduct

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 as deprecated by Template:Non-free use rationale. I don't believe redirects are the common practice in this area, as they are with substed warning templates. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old, non-standard FUR. Fails to link to article, or en.wiki NFCC policies. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 9 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! 06:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reason stated. There are better templates out there. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 07:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 17:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unclear, to which is duplicate?--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:53, 20 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:Badfairuse

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-badfairuse-notice. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant and contextually identical to {{Db-badfairuse-notice}} MBisanz ^talk 04:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{db-badfairuse-notice}} as it is still referred to by several speedy templates. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R# the tl on top sounds like a good plan. After we have done this we can delete.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 02:56, 20 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:Vand3

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/merge to Template:Test3. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vand3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge to {{Test3}} as an admitted fork that should be merged. MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality already merged. I would be fine with redirection or deletion. -- Ned Scott 04:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it to Test 3. Some people makes test changes, even if their ultimate intention is to fix it. This place is not for ask merging. Put purple tag on the template like we do on articles. This project page is for templates, voting to delete.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me sir! This is the appropriate place to discuss this. This is the place to decide an outcome for disputed states of templates. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:50, 20 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:Warn

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to {{Uw-test1}}, a more current wording of the approach. MBisanz ^talk 04:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a part of the old TestTemplates system that some users still prefer. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into UW-test 1.~~ Discuss on its own talkpage, not at this page.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instant keep, people uses this.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this time I'd advise against a redirect, as this template adds a section heading in addition to the warning message. The difference in substantial in terms of the template's use. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:52, 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:Vw

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 Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Template:Uw-test2, a more current formulation of the same warning. MBisanz ^talk 04:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a part of the old TestTemplates system that some users still prefer. -- Ned Scott 04:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The vandalism warning templates are names test1, test2, etc. Most of the warnings don't concern the user doing a test on an article however they are names test*. I think the templates should have another name, or that this should remain. I now use tabs with the different warnings on it however for users that don't have/want this the templates should have obvious names. The template has been used often, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Vw. --Adam1213 Talk 07:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Some users still use that system. Mww113 (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
instant keep. People commonly use this.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could be a redirect, as it was for part of last year. But either way, keep. PhilKnight (talk) 15:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:Uw-test1. Just looking at the text, they're so obviously the same warning by a different name. So many people seem to think that template redirects don't work -- they do. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:51, 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.