Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 10

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10

edit

Template:FamilytreeXL

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant to {{family tree}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2011 (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:FebruaryCalendar2004

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FebruaryCalendar2004 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Unnecessary. Old. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2011 (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:Famous Vachana poets (Kannada) of 12th century

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Famous Vachana poets (Kannada) of 12th century (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbar. Few of the mentioned poets have articles; no scope for use. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2011 (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:Exact Solutions in General Relativity

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exact Solutions in General Relativity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused infobox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2011 (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:Dowfacts

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Infobox for a topic which does not apparently have an article. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2011 (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:Distro Item

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distro Item (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Apparently a failed proposal. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (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:Docheck02g

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Docheck02g (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seemingly no longer used by {{atn}}, as stated on the template page. Unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (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:Farcarticle

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 section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete by Zscout370.

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

Unused, unnecessary. Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates no longer exists. Mhiji 23:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling problems? Nergaal (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? Mhiji 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You said that FARC does not exist. Nergaal (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know that (obviously - I wrote it). You said "Scrolling problems?". Why? Please stop talking in riddles. If you've got anything constructive to say please say it (this goes for all your comments on this page.....) if not, don't. Mhiji 03:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And when I said Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates doesn't exist, I meant it doesn't exist as a page, it does exist as a redirect (if you're being pedantic about that - I can't actually tell because you are not communicating properly). We clearly shouldn't be creating subpages of a redirect... Mhiji 03:28, 11 January 2011 (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:Fast-forward

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nav Arch-allgt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Nav Arch-allg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fast-forward (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No longer necessary. Once used by Template:Atn but isn't any more. Mhiji 23:12, 10 January 2011 (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:Fairuseuserpage

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. No longer needed. Mhiji 23:08, 10 January 2011 (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:Fact since

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fact since (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Template:Citation needed now has a |date= parameter and a system for tracking articles with unsourced statements. This is no longer needed. Mhiji 23:07, 10 January 2011 (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:FTC-icon

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FTC-icon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 23:01, 10 January 2011 (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:FPCnom/intro

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn. Mhiji 14:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FPCnom/intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPCdel/init (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPCdel/intro (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPCnom/init (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No longer necessary. Mhiji 22:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you try to look around before pressing the Twinkle buttons? Have you wondered that some templates are substituted? Nergaal (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Why, do you use these? Mhiji 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um...aren't these all used by FPC? Makeemlighter (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2011 (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:FIYC

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. No substistutions. Mhiji 22:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible copyvio. Look at the early versions. It seems to have been stolen from Uncyclopedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2011 (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:FF deletion

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FF deletion (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy no longer exists. Mhiji 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The project does not exist? Nergaal (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. (Why do I have to repeat myself...) Mhiji 03:21, 11 January 2011 (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:FCPnom

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. WP:FCP is now inactive. Mhiji 22:50, 10 January 2011 (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:FBI Basic

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FBI Basic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 22:49, 10 January 2011 (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:FPArchiveBarMay2005

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FPArchiveBarApril2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarApril2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarAugust2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarDecember2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarFebruary2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarJanuary2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarJuly2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarJune2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarJune2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarMarch2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarMarch2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarMay2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarMay2006 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarNovember2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FPArchiveBarSeptember2005 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, no longer necessary. Mhiji 22:42, 10 January 2011 (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:FA January Calendar part

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FA April Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA August Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA December Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA February Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA January Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA July Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA June Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA March Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA May Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA November Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA October Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:FA September Calendar part (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. No longer necessary. Mhiji 22:36, 10 January 2011 (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:Editnotice urgetalk

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Editnotice urgetalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I understand this reduced revert rule can only come about from process, and whatever that process, it ought to be identified in the template. This template provides no such parameter for doing so. It's also not clear what might be a "red light", since this template seems to suggest it's part of a spectrum of actions. Probably best to delete. Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (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:Eritrean elections

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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eritrean elections (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox. Only 1 link. Mhiji 22:08, 10 January 2011 (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:Epping Chatswood alt

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:01, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epping Chatswood alt (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 22:08, 10 January 2011 (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:Enphon

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 22:07, 10 January 2011 (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:Encyclopedia of Real Estate Terms, Third Edition, London, 2008

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Encyclopedia of Real Estate Terms, Third Edition, London, 2008 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 22:02, 10 January 2011 (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:Election dual-member end

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election dual-member end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box welsh candidate electoral region (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box welsh candidate electoral region nocolor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box welsh candidate electoral region with party link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box invalid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box candidate no party in partisan race (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box uncast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box expenditures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box candidate write-in no change (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box begin no party2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box candidate no party2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election FPTP 1 begin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box challenged (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box turnout for Runoff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Election box turnout no party2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 21:45, 10 January 2011 (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:Emit template

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Emit template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Emit category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Emit parameter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 21:37, 10 January 2011 (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:Earls of England

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Earls of England (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Earls Mhiji 21:31, 10 January 2011 (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:EarlWiki

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 07:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. http://mynameisearl.wikia.com is not a WP:RS anyway Mhiji 21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it an unreliable source? It is simply incomplete. SignorSimon (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis aren't reliable sources (see Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 and WP:SPS). Mhiji 14:26, 11 January 2011 (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.

Kent villages navboxes

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, per this and prior discussions. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I really think that all those nominated are templates-for-their-own-sake (created because by an editor who is following the essay and rejected-guideline-proposal WP:NBFILL) rather than useful navigational devices to link together articles which are sufficiently-closely-related that a navbox genuinely helps the reader ... but if any of them are to be kept, they should be renamed to match the head article. The worst example I came across of an ambiguous name was {{Sandhurst}}, which relates to one of the least significant of the items listed at Sandhurst (disambiguation). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to make my vote here, despite the individual listings given, because my vote applies to all of them: Delete all or merge. From what I could ascertain from not just the templates but also the articles connected to the templates, there is not enough to support the implementation and use of these templates. If any template(s) is/are to be used, it should be one for the entire county of Kent (hence the "merge" option to my vote). If a navbox is to be used, then both WP:NBFILL and WP:NENAN need to be reasd, understood and considered, and not just one or the other. Then the editor in question can ask themselves the most important questions: do the articles need a navbox, and if so, what is the best way to implement it? Then the templates can be created. But, as it stands, this series causes too much creep, and can be better streamlined iff it is kept. --JB Adder | Talk 14:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Commenting here rather than on each one. The navboxes contain numerous tenuous links, some contain multiple links to the same article and so on. These are all small places where the need for a navbox is dubious. Quantpole (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kent navboxes with less than 5 blue links, excluding people
edit
Template:East Farleigh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:West Farleigh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Great Chart with Singleton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:High Halden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Horsmonden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Hunton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Mereworth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Otham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Paddock Wood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Shipbourne (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Teston (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wateringbury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Wittersham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Each of these template contains fewer than five blue links (i.e. links to existing pages), excluding the (largely tenuous) links to individuals.

Most of the links to the people in the templates should not be there, because their relationship with the village is not a significant of part of either the history of the village/parish or the notability of the person. Including these links give WP:UNDUE weight to a small factoid. For an example of these tenuous links, see {{Shipbourne}}, which includes 4 people:

  • Maurice Allom is listed as having died in Shipbourne, but played cricket for Surrey not Kent, and is not notable for anything to do with the village
  • Christopher Smart left Shipbourne when he was 11 years old
  • Piers Gilchrist Thompson went to live in Shipbourne after he had left Parliament, and never stood again
  • Christopher Vane died in Shipbourne, but his Kent estate was to Fairlawne, which AFAICS was nearer Plaxtol ... and in any case his notable residence was Raby Castle in Durham, where he lived most of his life, and notably employed people to trash the place.

If we exclude the inappropriately-listed people, these navboxes are too small to be worth keeping. When there is not much to cross-link, a navbox is an unnecessarily crude and intrusive device. It is much better to simply create any relevant links in the body text of the articles.

I have not removed any links from the templates in this section, even tho most of the people links seem inappropriate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion below, I have removed the people links from {{Paddock Wood}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - If 5 valid bluelinks is to be a criterion (as it has been used here), then these should all be kept. Particularly keep {{Paddock Wood}}, which is a town, not a village. The first two people on that template have very strong connections. Mjroots (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. Five bluelinks has been used a grouping, not as threshold for inclusion. The question of whether Paddock Wood is a town or a city or a village a parish (or even a drug-crazed hamster driving a rocket-powered unicycle without a fishing licence) is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether a navigation template based on the place actually links articles with a strong connection to each other.
      Mjroots says that "the first two people on that template have very strong connections". Not according to the articles, they don't: the fist two people on {{Paddock Wood}} are Philip Martin Brown nor John Brunt, but neither article mentions the other one, and I can find nothing any of the five people current listed which indicates any connection between each other other than the trivial point of having lived in the same village at very difft times. If there is such a strong connection between any two, it should be handled in the usual way: by stating the connection in the text (with a reference) and including a wikilink. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Philip Martin Brown lives in Paddock Wood, and teaches at Mascalls School. He is also an actor on a major TV series shown on BBC1 - Waterloo Road. John Brunt VC lived in Paddock Wood between 1934 and 1943 and helped train the local Home Guard during WWII. He also has a pub named after him in the town - the John Brunt VC, said pub is notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pubs are usually a local landmark in a village, so if we were going to keep a template for the village, including that would be fair enough. However, Brunt's own notability is due to his VC, not to his village, so the case for including him in the template is weaker ... and to include both him and the eponymous pub looks like giving him WP:UNDUE weight.
          As to Philip Martin Brown, he is not notable for living in Paddock, nor for his intermittent teaching in the local school: he is notable as an actor. The addition to his article of a series of links to a town which is completely unrelated to his notability is giving grossly WP:UNDUE weight to a minor point in his article.
          Please do read WP:NAVBOX: The goal is not to cram as many related articles as possible into one space. Ask yourself, does this help the reader in reading up on related topics? Take any two articles in the template. Would a reader really want to go from A to B? ... and then explain why you think that someone reading a biography of a television actor is so likely to want to navigate to an article on his local railway station or a building on a river somewhere near the town where he lives or a pub in the town or to a war hero who died 11 years before Brown was born 200 miles away? Nothing in the article on Brown suggests any direct link to any of those things, and nothing in those articles mentions Brown or his television work. So there appears to be absolutely no need to include him in a geographical template relating to the area.
          When this sort of inclusion of people in village or town templates was discussed at WT:KENT, no editors supported your view that people like Brown this should be included in town/village templates; three of us specifcally opposed it, and one editor reckoned that deletion of the templates was too much hassle.
          Since including these people breaches the guideline]] WP:NAVBOX and has no support from anyone except yourself, I will now remove all the people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Plaxtol
edit
Template:Plaxtol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox for the village of Plaxtol in Kent, part of a series of over-templating discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates.

Contains only 12 links, of which

  • 4 are redlinks
  • 4 are links to entities with out their own article, and which may therefore not meet WP:GNG. Including them in a navbox gives undue prominence per WP:GNG
  • One is a link to Walter Monckton, who was born in Plxatol but does not appear to have lived there after childhood. His inclusion gives undue prominence to a minor point of biographical detail

Strip out the redlinks, the irrelevant biog, and the non-articles, and we are left with only items. we don't need a navbox to link 3 items. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Benenden
edit
Template:Benenden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another pointless navbox for a village in Kent, as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates. Only five articles are included in the navbox, which are already adequately interlinked through the head article Benenden.

Direct links between each of the articles may be added if relevant, but there seems little point in a direct link between, for example List of people from Benenden and Beacon Mill, Benenden. The only purpose of the template is give prominence to such barely-relevant links. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Harrietsham
edit
Template:Harrietsham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Yet another pointless navbox for a village in Kent, created by an adherent of the essay WP:NBFILL (a rejected proposal for a guideline), as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates.

I have removed from this template three people with only tenuous connections to Harrietsham: see edit history.

That leaves only ten links, of which 2 are redlinks, and 3 are to entities which do not even have a standalone article, and hence may not meet WP:GNG. The remaining 5 articles can be easily interlinked in body text if the connections are relevant, so this template is not needed.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sutton Valence
edit
Template:Sutton Valence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless template for the small village of Sutton Valence in Kent. Not needed for navigation, and has been used to give WP:UNDUE weight the town on a long series of biographical articles.
prt from the people, it has a total of only three links, two of them redlinks, and navigation between the related articles can be handled much more simply by just linking to the village article (if/when the articles are created).
As to the people, this template is a form of blatant spam. For example:

  • Edward Atienza attended a school in the village, but there is no evidence in that article that he had any longer connection with Sutton Valence or that he was significant to the village.
  • Adrian Bawtree is included because his predecessor at a school in Sussex left to work at Sutton Valence School.

I can only conclude that the "people" section has been populated simply by including all the biographical articles which link to either Sutton Valence or Sutton Valence School, with no attempt at all to assess their significance. Note: this is one of a long series of similarly pointless templates for small villages: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Lenham
edit
Template:Lenham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superflous template for a small village, which has been padded out by the inclusion of tenuous links. I have just removed three links to articles with tenuous connections here and here, and of the remaining 10 links, for are to entities which don't even have their own article.
The head article Lenham is a one-screenful stub, and anything relevant to the village can be linked from there.
See also related TFD discussions from 11 Dec on Template:Tudeley-cum-Capel and Template:Hollingbourne BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Lenham is technically a town, not a village. The removal of entries from the template before nominiation seems to me to be designed to degrade the template before it is discussed. I've no objection to the removal of an element if it has been accidentally included in error, but removal of people who have proven links falls into the above degradation. If you read the GKD article, the "workshops" are actually where the cars are manufactured. Are we going to have every Kent locality template nominated here? Mjroots (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal of the links is designed solely to bring the template to a state where it is not gratuitously padded with irrelevancies, and I have done it openly, with explicit acknowledgement in the nom.
    No, I don't intend to bring every Kent locality template here. But so far, the majority of those I have examined appear to be useless, and I will nominate any more useless ones I find. This should be no surprise to you after the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kent#Kent_town_and_village_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per the other Kent template discussions. Schwede66 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (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:R from move

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 section.

The result of the discussion was 'delete BUT not until the software can be rewritten to leave this template behind automatically during the move process. The argument to delete this template because it's use can be used to game the system after a bad page move is valid, but until the software can be modified, there is no other way to populate the appropriate maintenance categories. Recommend that those arguing for delete revisit the Pump and push for the software revision. JPG-GR (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from move (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Category:Redirects from moves(edit talk links history) per WP:CFD

Liberal use of this template as described would prevent any wrong-headed page-move from being reverted without contacting an admin. I’m particularly worried some nimrod will deploy a bot to stalk the page-move log and apply this template more quickly than humans can revert, all whilst playing the OMGAGF card. Unnecessary editing of redirects should be avoided, because doing this obstructs normal page movement for minimal practical gain. This is especially true when redirect in question is a plausible alternative title for the subject (i.e. in nearly all cases where this template is likely to be used) as opposed to redirects involving abbreviations, misspellings, slang terms, etc. Delete per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK and on general principle. ―cobaltcigs 11:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to perhaps {{R with history}}. This should only be used where necessary, and one can always use {{db-move}} to revert if necessary. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 14:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. That purpose would be completely unrelated to existing uses. When a page is moved, any and all history moves to the new title (leaving a redirect with no history). The template {{R from merge}} exists for redirects which do have meaningful content in their history like you say, and is used as a reminder not to delete said redirects. Moreover if there already is edit history prior to the redirect, incoming page-moves are blocked already, whether or not any of these templates is present. That is why my concern applies to the above-nominated template and not to the many counter-examples. ―cobaltcigs 14:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.  This template is also used to track redirects from moved pages that may be linked to from external sites (see the category into which this template lands its redirects). I understand the nom's concern about moving back over redirect before a second edit can be made to the new redirect. I don't think contacting an administrator in the event a "move back" is needed is a big deal. However, since this Rcat template should be added to every redirect from a move, it would seem very helpful to add the template to the new redirect as part of the move process. That way, all qualms about nimrods, human or bot should be alleviated.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this is timely. Paine and I were just discussing this template. Here's my question. Is this template only used for unrepaired cut-paste moves? Is there a different template for redirects from merges? When else would useful history remain on a redirect page? --Bsherr (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The history tracking is probably a leftover from pre-sophisticated-move-process days. It stayed on the template in the unlikely event that the modern move process failed to move the history. And as I stated above, its other use is to track moves to ensure external linking isn't broken. {{R from merge}} covers merges. See {{R help}} <g>
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ensuring external links aren't broken is why the redirect exists, not the redirect template. Ok, so this is for moves that predate the move function and were cut-paste moves. I buy that. (Grr, and I looked at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, not its illegitimate copycat.) --Bsherr (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct... the redirects exist to maintain the links, and the {{R from move}} template is placed on the move-redirects to track them.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  18:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm the irrelevance of external links, one doesn't use this template on all redirects from moves, only on redirects with useful page history, correct? --Bsherr (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read the category in which this template lands its redirects, this Rcat belongs on each and every redirect from a page move. According to that category, it is used to track those redirects from page moves that may have external links that would break if the redirect is deleted. In my opinion, this template can also serve to help track non-article-namespace redirects to preserve any internal links, as well. That previous sentence is just my opinion. While the category reads that it is concerned about breaking external links, it follows logically to me that it is a useful tracking tool to keep internal links from breaking, too.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If what Paine says is true, it should be deleted. Redirects exist either from a page move, a merge, without a merge in lieu of deletion, or as original creations. Documenting which is functionally useless to the encyclopedia. There must be tens of thousands of redirects from page moves, yet this template is only transcluded a couple hundred times. Any redirect could be the target of links on outside sites, but that's not a consideration for whether a redirect should exist or not, so traking it is purposeless. --Bsherr (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or rename and repurpose per Train2104. --Bsherr (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category that this Rcat lands its redirects in was created for a purpose. And that category uses this Rcat to populate it. Both the Rcat and the category serve a useful purpose. Just because editors are still at work using this Rcat to populate its category (286 per "tens of thousands" >>> Without categorization, how could you possibly know it's "tens of thousands"? Getting an accurate count is one purpose of categorization. <<<), that is no good reason to delete it. And your "functionally useless" statement exposes your unfamiliarity with the reasons for categorization. There are tutorials for this purpose, both on and off Wikipedia.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to be rude. If I'm wrong, educate me. That's the very purpose of this discussion. Why is it necessary to track redirects from page moves? It's not because it speaks to printworthiness. It doesn't benefit any WikiProject. What's the reason? --Bsherr (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, when a person tries to be sincere, he can be taken as being rude. I would take the time to educate you, Bsherr, but from your past record with me, I feel that you would not trust anything I say. Your response above is a prime example. What I wrote was meant to educate, yet you took it to be rude. Are you expecting to undergo an attitude change? If not, then any further effort on my part to educate you would probably be futile. As I wrote, there are ample ways for you to educate yourself on these subjects— ways that won't require you to trust someone with whom you are discussing a closed Tfd.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am expecting to undergo an attitude change, because I would genuinely like to know the answer. Could you tell me what the purpose of tracking redirects from page moves is (or link me to an explanation)? --Bsherr (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<g> Your response reminds me of the film Karate Kid, when Miyagi told Daniel san, "You karate 'guess so', and get squished, just like grape." I have already written about one good reason to track. Do you remember what that was? There are actually several reasons to categorize such things. Can you name at least one more reason? Everything you need to find the answers is available to you. The beautiful part, I have found, is that when you go looking for an answer to one thing, you'll find answers to other things you were wondering about. I could give it all to you "on a silver platter", yet you will find it a lot more satisfying to find the answers on your own. Will you trust me on this?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paine, it's a little silly to make me play a guessing game. Does it exist because the pages it identifies might be linked to from outside sites? If that's the reason, why is that not a consideration when deciding whether or not to delete any redirect? I've read over your comments. Is there something else you've said that I'm missing? --Bsherr (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "silly", I call a method of "education". You asked to be educated, not to be treated like an animal who begs for food. The external linking should always be a consideration when discussing the deletion of most redirects.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  16:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask to be educated by Socratic method. I'm not obligated to inqure into your view. I'll just leave my !vote as is. --Bsherr (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paine, the greatest practical effect is a first-move advantage whenever a disagreement arises over naming conventions. Editing a redirect following a page-move a.k.a. “sand-bagging” a.k.a. “the poor man’s move-protection” a.k.a. a “dirty pool” coincides with a well-known technique for making page-moves irreversible without divine intervention. The arbitration committee has taken a dim view of this exploit, deeming it both disruptive and ban-worthy, see [1], [2], [3]. Templates which excuse the use of this tactic (“hey, the documentation told me to!”) are unhelpful and ought to be deleted. ―cobaltcigs 15:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the connection between page move disputes and templating redirects? --Bsherr (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I answered that question amply well above:
Editing a redirect following a page-move [to add this template, or to change the capitalization of “#REDIRECT”, or for any other reason] […] [makes] page-moves irreversible without [administrator] intervention.
Also, first-mover advantage in this context: the ability for user A to do something which user B can’t undo, except by sweet-talking an admin into reverting it (and into waiving the tedious votes for page-move process). Whether user A is claiming the upper hand maliciously or just enjoys sorting redirects (for what minimal benefit it provides) is somewhat irrelevant as the result is the same. Moreover it is further blurred by the existence of this template. I’m not sure how I could explain the dynamics of this any more clearly. ―cobaltcigs 16:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can an editor not just use {{db-move}} to revert the move? --Bsherr (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your worries about this template being used as an "end run" are noted. But that is no reason to delete a good, useful template. There are other avenues to travel first, such as acting on my suggestion above to include this template in every move process. That way it would not take a "second edit" to install it. It would already be on the new redirect.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  00:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, automatically you mean. That would be fine but would require a software change allowing us to configure which arbitrary text should be appended to a redirect resulting from a page-move.
As long as we’re adding new software features (and if the goal is to discourage deletion of redirects which represent the former url of an article) approach would be to display the move log (if non-empty) above or below the “  Foo” line when viewing the redirect directly (&redirect=no). The effect would be similar to seeing deletion log excerpts when viewing a red link without &action=edit, and perhaps presented in similar angry pink hue. ―cobaltcigs 06:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like you have a lot more savvy than I do about these things. What would be our next course of action?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be difficult to implement. A redirect isn't a property of the page, like protection is. Rather, it's the content of the page. The move log would have to be transcluded in somehow. Contrast that to the deletion log on deleted pages, where it's part of the interface. --Bsherr (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A rhetorical question: I believe that ATD and INSPECTOR both apply in this case and in the case of several other deletion discussions here. I would humbly hope that closing adminstrators question in most cases whether or not appropriate alternatives to deletion are investigated before beginning the actual deletion process. It seems that there are some editors who feel that slapping a template/redirect/category into a deletion discussion without due process is the easy way out. My rhet. question is: Can ducking the deletion policy truly be considered good for Wikipedia?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I don't really understand why the nominator wants this deleted. This is not the only template that is applied to redirects. I'm afraid that even if this template were deleted, redirects will still be edited and tagged with other redirect templates. This is a logical way of keeping track of page moves in my opinion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. Did you read the part where I explained how this template differs quite fundamentally from those intended for tagging redirects based upon misspellings, abbreviations, and slang terms? ―cobaltcigs 17:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I can't seem to find that bit. I read the bit where you said we shouldn't use this template because it would prevent moves from being easily reverted. My point is that any redirect template could be used in the same circumstances. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Should I take a screen-shot for you or are you truly not interested? My point is the other tagging categories (generally) tend to imply that the redirect is not a plausible alternative title for the article in question. I don’t think the other templates to which you refer are “more useful” or even “useful”—they simply create fewer problems in the normal run of things. ―cobaltcigs 09:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I said I couldn't find that bit, I was being serious. You are completely wrong when you say other redirect templates generally imply that a redirect is not a plausible alternative for an article title. Category:Printworthy redirects, for example, is huge and vastly incomplete. Category:Redirects with possibilities, although sometimes misused, is also large. If I move a page, even without {{R from move}}, I could just as easily tag the resultant redirect with any other redirect template, e.g. {{R from alternative name}}, making it impossible to easily revert the move, so that argument is really void. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The other redirects are generally less likely for users to need to reverse their direction via page-move, and far less likely to have been the original title before some previous page-move. {{R from alternative name}} is another bad template though, as it may needlessly lock the article into one of two spelling variations of statedly equal correctness. While I don’t believe any of those templates are beneficial, I chose for the time being only to nominate the one most overtly harmful when used as directed. ―cobaltcigs 16:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have no idea what you mean when you say {{R from alternative name}} "may needlessly lock the article into one of two spelling variations". All it does is mark a redirect as being an equally viable name for something, e.g. Toffee apple redirects to Candy apple. It has nothing to do with spelling. All these redirect categories do is help editors keep track of particular kinds of redirects and explain to readers why the redirects exist, although most redirect are not tagged yet and many are tagged incorrectly. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep documenting why a redirect was created is extremely useful. For one thing, it serves to prevent --or at least discourage--people from trying to delete them when they do not understand. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do users not typically document their reason in the edit summary whilst creating a redirect, or by commenting on the talk page of the said redirect? In the event of a page-move, the information of which you speak is preserved automatically. Also if admins’ judgment and diligence are so suspect we ought to avoid creating another decision-making bottleneck for them—namely the matter of which page-moves to revert on sight and which to submit for a week-long vote! ―cobaltcigs 09:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a frequent page mover, nothing irritates me more than having to go beg for administrator intervention. Keep if we can get this template added automatically upon moving a page without expanding the edit history.Marcus Qwertyus 04:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note of WP:Village pump (technical). Hopefully this can be resolved soon. Marcus Qwertyus 09:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, judging from the discussion above, this is a solution looking for a problem - people have different vague ideas of what useful purpose it may serve, but it doesn't actually appear to serve any (and has the undersiable effect of making it harder to revert inappropriate bold moves).--Kotniski (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have already noted, even without this template, a moved page could immediately be tagged with any applicable redirect template making it impossible to easily revert the move. There's no real benefit in deleting this template for that reason. McLerristarr | Mclay1 15:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that this template (if people are aware of it) kind of begs to be put on the left-behind redirect, even if the person doing it doesn't have any malign intent. It's not a strong argument, I know, but in the absence of any concrete benefit in having the template, this seems to provide one more argument (alongside Occam's razor) for deleting it. --Kotniski (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing vague about the useful purpose of this template. It populates a project category. Project categories include stub categories (generally produced by stub templates), maintenance categories (often produced by tag templates such as {{cleanup}} and {{fact}}, and used for maintenance projects), WikiProject and assessment categories, and categories of pages in non-article namespaces. Ref.: PROJCATS. There has to be an exceptionally good reason to delete such cats and their populating templates, and neither the nom nor anybody else has been able to reach that altitude.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be an exceptionally good reason, just WP:Consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all !votes are to delete, it is still up to administration whether or not to actually delete an item based upon the arguments made by the deleting !voters. If those arguments are weak, such as the one(s) in this discussion, then the closing admin can decide to keep the item.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point arguing about consensus. As we can all clearly see, some want it kept and others want it deleted – there is no consensus and the discussion will almost certainly end that way. I think it's time to put this request to rest. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still utterly baffled as to what purpose this template is supposed to serve. I understand that some zealous editors like to categorize everything, including redirects, but the category that this template populates is not even a category of redirects of a certain type, it's a category of redirects with a certain history. Who and why and what is benefited by having a list of redirects that happened to be created by someone moving a page - and not even a remotely complete list, since addition of this template is not part of the standard procedure to be followed when moving a page, and would be nothing but a blasted nuisance if it were? --Kotniski (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the decision is "keep", amend the page-move process so that this template is automatically added after the redirect. Few people who move pages would appear to be aware that this template even exists, let alone know of its purpose. The redirect is created automatically: if the use of this template is desirable, there is no reason why this template could not be appended to that redirect also automatically, by the same software. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that getting anyone to change the software to do anything, even useful things, is well nigh impossible (we've been waiting a decade now for proper alphabetical ordering in categories, which you might have though would be pretty basic functionality for a work of reference). If we start badgering the developers to spend their time on apparently useless things like this, there's even less chance of the software ever actually becoming fit for purpose. (Though I agree that as long as this template is not added automatically, that makes it even more especially useless.)--Kotniski (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – To be honest, I only !voted keep because no good reason to delete was provided, but I don't actually know why it's necessary to document moves. It may be useful to someone at some time, who knows, but I don't know why it was created in the first place. Maybe we should ask the creator. I've never really understood the "useful history" argument. History is moved when the page is moved. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, and I have been trying to get more info on it. However, all one need do is go to the Category that this template populates to see why it was created.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we realise all that. But the question is - why create this particular list? what use is it to anyone? particularly since it is so obviously and grossly incomplete, and always will be unless we have either a change to the software or reducation of users carrying out moves (and why make such a change when there's apparently no point to having the list in the first place?)--Kotniski (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)One answer might be - why create any particular list? what use is it to anyone? Many cats on Wikipedia are obviously and grossly incomplete. Why not adopt a victor's attitude and realize that there are many people working on the less visible administrative side of this project, people who are still in the process of organizing a very quickly growing reference work. The point in having a trackable list like this in the first place is the same point for having any trackable list, isn't it? In this case, it hasn't anything to do with preserving history. (It strongly appears that the wording was copied from the associated WP:Merge category and redirect template, and as you know, merging is not an automated process, so histories of merged pages cannot be merged and must be preserved.) And yet it has everything to do with preserving links to the old page names from both outside and inside Wikipedia and the tracking of those redirects.
This cat and Rcat were evidently "upmerged" into Category:Wikipedia redirects recently, along with the cat and Rcat for merging. So administrators apparently had in mind getting a better handle on these cats, to "make them easier to find". I can see the importance of tracking moved pages. There are several analyses that can be performed on such a list just as there are several analyses that can be performed on, say, a census comparison, or the number of people who have "moved" from one place to another. The need for this cat and Rcat might even just boil down to conforming to Wikipedia's licensing requirements in the same manner as the merging process must adhere to those requirements. The bottom line is that we have to be careful about deleting tracking tools that could be necessary to keep this encyclopedia within legal boundaries. If this is the case, then only an administrator would be able to find and give you the answers you seek.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to track moves, we have the move log. Meanwhile this template would not be of any use for that purpose, since it is not added routinely to post-move redirects. But if it is to be added routinely, then someone has to justify the inconvenience this would cause, and so far we haven't seen any such justification.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconvenience? If it is routinely added during the move process, then where's the inconvenience? Move logs don't put redirects into trackable cats. It's the "redirect from move" that's tracked, not the move itself, although the analysis might compare the tracking of redirects from move to the move log to ensure that a redirect was left behind so as not to break links.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  17:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how your proposal would stop people from deleting non-recent, non-harmful redirects?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that as being part of the proposal, not a consequence of it.--Kotniski (talk) 08:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions more of a tech nature...
  1. (to JPG-GR)— I've seen other relistings (technically, they're not "relistings", but are new edit lines for the loooonger discussions) that would generate a new edit line, so editors would not have to "trudge" all the way back up to the first line of the entry, then up and down, up and down while previewing, and I wonder why this is not done here?, and
  2. There appear to be two pages that hold this conversation— here and here. My inexperience shows, but just out of curiosity, what's up with that?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  13:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. Wait... did I just post this to the other page and it wound up on this page? That would be auto-impressive!
  • Response regarding the proposed name changes above...
  1. If I'm not mistaken, the ditty on the Rcat and the cat about "preserving history" was pasted on in the same manner it was written into the merger cats. This cat is not meant to track cut-and-paste moves; it is meant to track all moves (possibly to ensure that links to the old name are not broken?). The fact that it hasn't evolved yet to where it is auto-added during a move just might mean that it's still a WIP, and
  2. Such a name change looks as though it would be redundant to a DefaultsortBot procedure, such as on this redirect.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  14:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have page history to track move redirects. Bots are quite capable of finding proper moves. Rich Farmbrough, 13:28, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Good! So admin can get rid of all their tracking cats and put bots to work on page histories! Correct?
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  15:33, 19 January 2011 (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:Malaysian expressway interchange

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malaysian expressway interchange (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Infobox template for Malaysian interchange articles. The problem is that all of the articles are on subjects that are not notable as separate entities that have been PRODed. The template also duplicates the function of {{infobox road junction}}, which could be updated to include any Malaysia-specific parameters. Imzadi 1979 → 10:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: over 150 PRODs have expired, and the articles' creator was indefinitely blocked for repeated copyright violations. One PROD will expire on January 13 only because it was missed with the rest. No longer in use at all. Imzadi 1979 → 08:11, 13 January 2011 (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:Expressway start Malaysia

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expressway start Malaysia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used for succession boxes on Malaysian interchange articles. The problem is that all of the articles are on subjects that are not notable as separate entities that have been PRODed. Imzadi 1979 → 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: over 150 PRODs have expired, and the articles' creator was indefinitely blocked for repeated copyright violations. One PROD will expire on January 13 only because it was missed with the rest. No longer in use at all. Imzadi 1979 → 08:11, 13 January 2011 (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:Hawaiifootballleagueteams

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Main article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawaiʻi Football League, remaining four articles on template all have WP:PROD which will expire today. Template will then be unused--as it stands now, the bulk of the pages on the template have already been deleted or were never created.Paul McDonald (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2011 (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:After-block

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:After-block (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As far as I know, this template is only being used in {{uw-block}}. The rest of the templates seen in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:After-block apparently are just transcluding {{uw-block}}. Therefore, it seems better to just substitute this template in {{uw-block}} and delete this template HeyMid (contribs) 15:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you identify which templates, please? --Bsherr (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just follow the link that Edokter provided. It produces a list of almost 20 templates. — SpikeToronto 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not used in those. Those templates transclude {{uw-block}} which transcludes this. Per the nom, it's used in {{uw-block}} only. Mhiji 23:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, uw-block is the meta template. Have a look at that then... most other text of uw-block is made up of transcluded text from other templates in order to keep code managable and modifying easier. If this one is to be merged, what about all the other texts? (At least that used to be the way.) This is still a pointless nomination; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. — Edokter • Talk — 16:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No-one said it was broke. This is just trying to streamline it a bit. There's nothing bad about simplifying templates and their structure. Mhiji 05:58, 13 January 2011 (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:Unblock-hard

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unblock-hard (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As far as I know, this template is only being used in {{uw-block}}. The rest of the templates seen in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unblock-hard apparently are just transcluding {{uw-block}}. Therefore, it seems better to just substitute this template in {{uw-block}} and delete this template HeyMid (contribs) 15:37, 10 January 2011 (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.
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of drugs A Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs B Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs C Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs D Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs E Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs F Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs H Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs I Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs L Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs M Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs M Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs O Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs P Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs R Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs S Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs T Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:List of drugs V Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. They were only used in one other template each, which made editing somewhat difficult. I have substed them now. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2011 (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:Infobox given name2

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 section.

The result of the discussion was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox given name2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox given name (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox given name2 with Template:Infobox given name.
I can't see any reason to have both templates. Any additional parameters in {{Infobox given name2}} can be added to {{Infobox given name}} . Mhiji 14:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 2200 articles using Template:Infobox given name. How do you propose merging it without damaging a couple thousand articles? Come check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. I see that you are not a member. --Hutcher (talk) 05:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, by just adding the additional parameters from the {{Infobox given name2}} template to the {{Infobox given name}} one. That wouldn't affect those 2200 articles at all... Mhiji 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry, can you please forgive me?--Hutcher (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grrr, what I meant was will given2 be transcluding given and who will have the privilege of doing that? --Hutcher (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the 13th, the merge tag was added 3 days ago, and I just noticed this now by chance. Come on. See Template talk:Infobox given name, where someone mentions that fiddling with the parameters of the older will screw-up who knows how many articles. That's why we have two. When I made the newer template, I followed the terms used by The Oxford Dictionary of Given Names. The original one is a mess because it's got things like "alternative spelling", "variant forms", and "related names" as different parameters, and is fuzzy with "region" "origin" and "derived" which seem to be blended together (look at their descriptions in the doc file). I think different people added these parameters at different times, and they had their own idea of what they meant, but things have become muddled over time, so they kinda duplicate each other. Look at William: for "Region of origin" we have Germanic, and that's piped to Germanic language, for "Origin" we have Germanic (un-wikilinked). The newer template is better laid out because it's thought-out and uses real terms used by reliable name-dictionaries. Just compare the templates side-by-side Template:Infobox given name2/doc and Template:Infobox given name/doc - there's a little bit of a theory to it. That's why I created this one and didn't mess with the older one, once it was clear that fiddling with it could cause problems. If we just add more parameters into the old one it'll be even more of a mess. Imagine a template with "alternative spelling", "variant forms", "related names", and then "shortform", "petname", "cognate ", "anglicisation", and "derivative". Here's the newer one in action Kennedy and here Randall.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2011 (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:List of drugs-Bottom

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 section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Both were unused, only contained an horizontal line and thus could be recreated in minutes if ever needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of drugs-Bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Only contains a horizontal line. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (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:List of drugs-Separator

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Deleted under WP:G2. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:List of drugs-Separator (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Only contains a horizontal line. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (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:Disputed humour

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed humour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another "humorous" template which is not really very funny. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Again, not funny... Mhiji 13:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually, this is a legitimate template. It's used in response to the plcaement of {{humor}}. However, really, the use of this template isn't efficient, because it's very unlikely that pages the humor of which is disputed are going to be "fixed" through talk page discussion. Really, the only productive response is MfD. I'm sure that's the reason it's not used on any pages currently. Deletion is ok. --Bsherr (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2011 (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:Discrimination3

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Discrimination3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; redundant to {{discrimination}} and {{discrimination sidebar}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2011 (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:Markup

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since dates are no longer automatically linked, this template serves no purpose. It appears to have been used to show how a date was linked by the parser. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:53, 10 January 2011 (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:Efe

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Efe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:E9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Fdf (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Style template only used by one user. Other similar templates have also been nominated for today by others, so thought that I should nominate these as well. Others nominated earlier today are: {{ddf}}, {{eef}}, {{eee}} & {{eff}}. WOSlinker (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2011 (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:Cleanup-tracks

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-tracks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Old, unused. No reason why a normal cleanup template could not be used in such cases, as this problem is usually pretty obvious. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2011 (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:Cleanup-meta

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-meta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I suspect this was originally intended for use on the Help: pages when they were automatically imported from Meta. Since that importing has long since ceased, this template is probably not required. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The template isn't needed anymore, as that terribly confusing importing system is gone. rspεεr (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2011 (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:CloseFPC

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No longer used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that anyone has used this in the last three years. I suspect FPC uses different templates now, although I'm at all up-to-date with current procedures, so don't take my word for it. -- Solipsist (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2011 (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:Depok

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 redlinks. Woot. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 10 January 2011 (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:Ddf

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear use. Unused. Unnecessary. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2011 (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:Cry vandal

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cry vandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Stock text that isn't very nice or helpful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mind that this template is probably always substituted, so it won't have transclusions to indicate its use. --Bsherr (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2011 (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:Construction Warning

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Construction Warning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's disruptive to vandalize any page, not just those under construction. This template is not helpful, and not standardized. If deleted, the redirect {{C. Warning}} should be deleted as well. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2011 (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:Assign

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. If wanted, it can be made by users on their user page on a once-off basis. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2011 (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:Lose

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Apparently a failed proposal. See Template talk:Table cell templates. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2011 (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:MMM

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused; probably superseded by the last expandable section in {{MMMeadowsSeriesUnderInfoBox}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2011 (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:MOD Serbia

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete under G7. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MOD Serbia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Such files should be uploaded on Commons anyway (this is where this template came from). — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2011 (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:Manitoba Portal Picture

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. WOSlinker (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Manitoba Portal Picture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. The portal in question is inactive, but it appears they never used this anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2011 (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:Man-page

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 section.

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Man-page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Fair-enough template, but it isn't used. Seems to be a good-faith creation by one user who never listed it on WP:TC, etc. "Man page" itself if jargon, so the template is a bit contradictory. Redundant to {{technical}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2011 (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:Maringint

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Usage not clear due to lack of documentation/categories. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2011 (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:MULTIPAGESIZE

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am not sure why one would need to sum the page size (in bytes, presumably) of up to 10 pages. If they do, they can use {{#expr:{{PAGESIZE:____}}+{{PAGESIZE:_____}}+...}} on a per-use basis. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (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:MW 1.6

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MW 1.6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, old, useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2011 (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:Notes NOAA

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notes NOAA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. It appears to have never been subst'ed, either. These references can be added to hurricane articles as needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2011 (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:Wikiproject:G-Unit Records/Invitation

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiproject:G-Unit Records/Invitation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject G-Unit Records/Welcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. WP:WikiProject G-Unit Records is now inactive. Mhiji 05:11, 10 January 2011 (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:Toronto municipal election, 1980/Position/Toronto City Councillor, Ward Five (two members elected)

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 section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toronto municipal election, 1980/Position/Toronto City Councillor, Ward Five (two members elected) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused (I just de-linked it). No other such templates. Not necessary to include poll results on the page of every candidate. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's actually a fairly common practice to include electoral results on the pages of elected officials. The actual information is clearly encyclopedic; I can't see why the template should be controversial. CJCurrie (talk) 03:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Why did you create the template but not actually put it in any articles then? Mhiji 14:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in the articles; it was subsequently removed, and then re-added.CJCurrie (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not there now. Why not re-add it? Mhiji 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled by this question. The template is currently included in three mainspace articles. CJCurrie (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per CJCurrie. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If kept, it needs to be renamed - the current title is far too long, and it is a subpage with no parent page. I disagree that it is a "fairly common practice" to include electoral results on pages of candidates, but I am not making a judgment on whether this should occur. (Indeed, this is entirely the wrong forum to debate that.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat confused regarding terminology: can you please explain what is meant by "a subpage with no parent page"? I've been creating templates like this since 2006, and this is the first time that anyone's complained. CJCurrie (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the name has slashes (/) in it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The call for deletion strikes me as a tad bureaucratic, in that case. Wikipedia's template creation guideline states that there should be some exceptions to the general rule; I think this qualifies as one such. CJCurrie (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: the slashes are a tool of convenience -- they're used to create links to the election pages (and, where applicable, to the riding pages). CJCurrie (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Renaming - I wouldn't just rename a single template though. There are a lot more similarly named templates: [4] and [5] -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's useful for linking to the relevant candidates. Rename if necessary, by all means. PKT(alk) 19:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it's used somewhere. Mhiji 20:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The template is currently being used in three mainspace articles. CJCurrie (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think it's good form to make a speedy delete request while this discussion is ongoing. CJCurrie (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not good form to remove speedy deletion templates. As the creator, you are not allowed to remove speedy deletion templates. Use {{hang on}} to prevent a template being deleted and explain on the talk page why you object to the deletion - an admin will then review and take appropriate action. I re-added the speedy template because you should not have removed it. I'm glad you're now following the correct process (any reason you didn't before?). Please don't remove speedy from pages you've created again. Mhiji 22:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it the first time because I thought it was posted in error (I wasn't clear on the sub-pages definition). There are several pages of this sort, and none had ever met with opposition before. You're correct that I should have contacted you, but my sense at the time was that this was a fairly minor technical matter. All of this notwithstanding, I still think it's inappropriate to have a speedy deletion notice on a page that's being discussed on a regular deletion page. CJCurrie (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are loads of similar templatess, for example Category:Toronto election results templates, Category:Ontario municipal election results templates, Category:Brandon, Manitoba municipal election results templates and so on. Most of this type of template is only used on one or two articles. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General Comment I'm a bit concerned that this discussion is starting to assume a hostile tone. I hope this is not the case, and I apologize if my remarks have contributed in any way toward this. I do think it's inappropriate to leave a "speedy delete" notice on a page that's being considered for "regular" deletion, but I did not intend this as a personal attack and I apologize if my wording made it appear this way.
By way of background, I should let people know that I started creating templates of this sort in 2006. The idea was actually not mine; rather, it was suggested to me by User:Pete Peters (who left Wikipedia in 2007). I realized that these templates would save space and make it easier to correct errors when and as necessary. To that end, I created a series of parent templates (e.g., Template:MunElec) to facilitate the creation of individual pages. No one has objected to the existence of these templates until now -- hence my confusion (and perhaps my over-reaction) when someone recommended this particular template for deletion.
Some people might take issue with these templates on stylistic grounds, but there's general agreement (among interested parties) that the information is noteworthy. If anyone can suggest an alternate approach that would keep the advantages of the current templates while removing the causes for concern, then I'm open to suggestions. My opinion is that the current templates are not problematic, even if their appearance is a bit unconventional. CJCurrie (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2011 (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:Vietnamese Traditional Music

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnamese Traditional Music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure what to do with this one. It does have a lot of redlinks, but there are more existing articles from Category:Vietnamese music, etc. which could be added to replace the redlinks. However, I'm not sure if a navbox is needed at all for this topic - the category system might be enough. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2011 (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:Template Experiments

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear purpose, unused, apparently redundant to {{User Sandbox}}). — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2011 (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:Time zone and age

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Time zone and age (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unclear purpose, unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2011 (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:Topics Navchart

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Topics Navchart (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No transclusions. Appears to have been formerly used by WP:WikiProject Contents, but it is now not used there or anywhere else. Probably out-of-date, too. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (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:Twizzler

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. Mhiji 01:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template would most likely be subst'ed when used (hence its orphan status), but I seriously doubt anyone knows about it anymore. Unnecessary, unused, useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (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:Unleap

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 section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:G7, author request. Airplaneman ✈ 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unclear purpose; unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2011 (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:OrthodoxWelcome

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This topic-specific welcome message (WP:WT#Topic-specific_messages) directs the user to another wiki. Topic-specific messages should only direct users to on-wiki projects; "advertising" another wiki is not the role of such welcome messages. If a user needs to be directed to another wiki, it should be done by means of a personal comment, not a hard-coded template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2011 (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:Numbered list demo

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Numbered list demo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary; no longer used as a demo on Help:Template. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2011 (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:Numbers (3 E2)

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, most numbers using Template:Number, which provides navigation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Numbers (3 E2) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Most of these numbers don't have their own article, and just redirect to 300 (number), so this is pretty useless. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2011 (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:No help

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 section.

The result of the discussion was G3 as vandalism. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:No help (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

So, this is a humour template. But it's not really very funny, and it's not used. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3. I agree... not very funny. Mhiji 03:46, 10 January 2011 (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:Spam-warn-userpage

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 section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spam-warn-userpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be merged into Template:spam-warn with conditional text on that template based on whether it is a user page or an article. This would consolidate the speedy deletion process. Logan Talk Contributions 01:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I use this one at least once a day - quite often more. I don't want to be messing round with conditional texts. If this goes, I'll go back to the copy/paste of my own warning that I used before I found this one. For articles, I use the subst template on the article notice. What's the point of the 'Template:spam-warn' when the subst one is available and already linked to the article title and your signature? Get rid of that template, but keep Spam-warn-userpage. Peridon (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and encourage further use. Honestly I didn't know this was available until know. If this is kept I'll be using it in the future. ThemFromSpace 01:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful alternative to Template:spam-warn . . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2011 (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:Expand Algeria

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expand Algeria (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. If we don't need {{expand}}, we don't need this either. Mhiji 00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Logan Talk Contributions 01:32, 10 January 2011 (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:ExamsDIRshort

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. {{wikibreak|type=exams}} can be used instead. Mhiji 00:32, 10 January 2011 (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:Evoltalk

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. We don't need a template just for the Talk:Evolution page. Mhiji 00:31, 10 January 2011 (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:European political parties

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete, redundant to Template:List of political parties in Europe Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary Mhiji 00:26, 10 January 2011 (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:Everton

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 00:22, 10 January 2011 (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:Nigerian ties

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nigerian ties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not an appropriate navbox. If these existed for each country, and were applied to the pages of the organizations listed, the UN page would have 200 navboxes. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2011 (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:Eupleridae nav

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eupleridae nav (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Carnivora Mhiji 00:20, 10 January 2011 (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:Ethnicity in Atlanta

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ethnicity in Atlanta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Nearly all red links Mhiji 00:19, 10 January 2011 (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:Enchanted

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Duplicates Template:Stephen Schwartz Mhiji 00:17, 10 January 2011 (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.
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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete with no objections and per prior discussion Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, unnecessary. I don't think we should be creating links without the external links icon - it's there for a reason. Mhiji 00:11, 10 January 2011 (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:Eesti Õhuvägi

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 section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eesti Õhuvägi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Redundant to Template:Estonian Military Mhiji 00:09, 10 January 2011 (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:Eef

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eef (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Eff (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji 00:08, 10 January 2011 (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:Rfaprod

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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Failed proposal which did not gain consensus. No longer necessary. Mhiji 00:06, 10 January 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_10&oldid=1146650285"