Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 19

< August 18	August 20 >

August 19

Template:GA banner

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) 01:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GA banner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates the function of {{The Good Article Barnstar}} (if a barnstar-type template is desired) or {{GANotice}} (if a notification is desired). The latter also handles notifications for nominations that have been failed, placed on hold or where a second opinion is being sought, so it's more versatile. Imzadi 1979 → 23:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all a duplicate template. This notifies the nominator and congratulates them, everyone liked it except you and two other people. Don't use it if you don't like it. The barnstar gives the user credit for what they did, and thanks them. This tells the nominator that it was promoted and congratulates them. It is not like GANotice because it congratulates the nominator and also the nominator had to participate in the review and edited before the review. GANotice just tells the nominator. Obtund^Talk 23:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GANotice also notifies and congratulates a user with the text: "The article Article you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Article for comments about the article. Well done!" with the appropriate links to whatever article it is. Ergo, it duplicates that function, but the older template has additional versatility (can notify holds, fails, second opinions). If barnstar-type templates are desired, we already have one which can be used to congratulate someone for their participation in the GA process, be it for reviewing, nominating or other work. That also duplicates this new template without the versatility. Imzadi 1979 → 23:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi, I don't need explain the reasons to you why it doesn't matter or the reasons that it is fine. I am just going to say, you are allowed to be wrong every once and awhile, we all are. But once you lose, don't try to do an end around and try to win, it never works. Obtund^Talk 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all awards more or less intersect with each other. What is the problem with this particular intersection? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is wrong, he just can't stand to lose an argument. Obtund^Talk 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to attack other editors. The discussion should be about the template. --ELEKHH^T 22:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this, as it is not harming the project. It doesn't matter if it duplicates some functionality, as all awards are gratuitous in the strictest view of things. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highest used. Not harming the projects. No real reason to delete. Also, per the above. TBran dl ey 02:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what I said above, and I created it. Obtund^Talk 04:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd rather all this wikilove thankspam stopped polluting templatespace, the consensus appears to be that infinite variations of these things are acceptable. I'd much rather that the people who waste their time on such things made some effort to standardise around barnstars rather than creating their own kewl new looks every three days, but seeing as I'm staying the hell away from any such effort myself I can hardly demand anything of those who are involved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(WikiProject Wikipedia Awards was informed benzband (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep: What is wrong with a nice little GA recognition template? Nothing. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Adds nothing to the two existing banners and is poorly designed, with the oversized "+" perceived as shouting. --ELEKHH^T 22:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary duplication of existing templates. Duplication does harm the project, both by diluting the standard usage of correct templates and by occupying storage and cache space for no actual benefit. {{GANotice}} has been around for 6 years, no reason not to use that one instead. If it needs to be improved, improve it, don't duplicate it. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see my talk page --Guerillero | My Talk 03:44, 26 August 2012 (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:Classical Barnstar

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Classical Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template should be merged to Template:The Classical Barnstar as it is the same except using a Barnstar version 1.0. mabdul 19:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(WikiProject Wikipedia Awards was informed mabdul 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

(WikiProject Classical music was informed mabdul 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Merge - duplicate template. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Merger complete. benzband (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:The Classical Barnstar. benzband (talk) 20:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (done) and Redirect. ~~I have corrected the recent implementation of the merge: the default is the previous behaviour of TCB and alt the behaviour of CB.~~ Back to Benzband's version after the explanations below. CB can be turned into a redirect to TCB once this action is accepted. --Mirokado (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually the 1.0 (CB) version goes as default, and the 2.0 (TCB) version as alt. benzband (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the response. In this case (at least) the 2.0 version is a much better visual match to all the ones I have seen regularly appearing on peoples' user pages, so the user experience is enhanced this way round. Also, not changing the default appearance of the barnstar definition being retained seems the correct default behaviour anyway. I'm afraid I would oppose the merge if the inferior (yes I know an individual artistic judgement) image were retained as default. --Mirokado (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 1.0 came first though, which is why it is common practice for it to be default. In fact, the CB having come first, maybe TCB should be merged and redirected to CB rather than the other way round? benzband (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Arr. I will definitely oppose any suggestion that we remove the high resolution image from the default behaviour of TCB, for the reasons I have already given (consistency with other current barnstars, superior quality image). If you want the old version to be available as it always has been, I suggest you oppose this merge. --Mirokado (talk) 10:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your argument is inconsistent: check out Category:Barnstars with alternative versions. It is per "consistency with other current barnstars" that i put the 2.0/Hires/"superior quality"/whatever version as |alt}}; not personal preference. And i won't oppose the merge because i don't care either way. benzband (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Heh. Consistent but incomplete. It's ages since I looked at the list of barnstars, perhaps before "alt" here was invented, and I can certainly see what you mean. Some of the earlier ones should be retired hurt, but others are genuine alternatives. I'll restore your change for overall consistency in that listing. It looks as if most of the barnstars are "The" barnstars so TCB would be the more consistent choice. --Mirokado (talk) 12:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok that's cool. benzband (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. TBran dl ey 02:09, 20 August 2012 (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:The Environment Barnstar

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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Environment Barnstar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

duplicated barnstar to Template:The Environmental Barnstar. 'The Environmental Barnstar' has both version of images and thus should be kept. A redirect should be kept (or the other moved to this place.) mabdul 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(WikiProject Wikipedia Awards was informed mabdul 19:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

(WikiProject Environment was informed mabdul 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Redirect to Template:The Environmental Barnstar. benzband (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poor documentation of reason for deletion. I gather that there are two versions, thus one is redundant. My preference is for the one that is proposed to be deleted. If anything, I would suggest deleting the other one (with the smaller, darker globe). DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: did you try {{subst:The Environmental Barnstar|put your message here ~~~~|alt}} as described in the description? Wikipedia:Sandbox is your friend. ;-) mabdul 21:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It is the same thing; aka, a duplicate. TBran dl ey 02:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect extra999 (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2012 (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:PopEdm

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 userfy Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Pop Calgary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Display the 2011 populations for Edmonton and Calgary respectively. Only used in User:Trfs/sandbox and User:Trfs/sandbox1. Userfy? DH85868993 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to userfication if the author is just using these to experiment with transclusion, but as simple text-substitution templates these aren't useful in the long term. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2012 (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:Middle Class Rut

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) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Middle Class Rut (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WP:NENAN The Banner _talk 13:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here we go again. Template has five links, which do not all connect to one another. Again, NENAN is not a sufficient condition for deleting a template.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me the policy the prescribes the minimum 5 links. And do some research, there lots of templates removed due to WP:NENAN. But I prefer that you make better quality templates (= with more links, without links to disambiguation pages) so that we meets each other less often... The Banner _talk 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Per WP:NENAN:

"A good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the rule of five. Are there presently at least five articles on which your navbox will be used?"

I didn't say there was a "policy the prescribes the minimum 5 links" [sic], I simply said that "Template has five links, which do not all connect to one another".

Additionally, I said that "NENAN is not a sufficient condition for deleting a template". This means simply saying this does not mean that the template should be deleted. In my opinion, two links, unrelated links, patent nonsense, etc. may be reasons by themselves to delete a template. If we rely only on saying "WP:NENAN", then we may potentially be selecting templates at random to delete, since there is very loose criteria for navboxes in that article. Per WP:NAV, the template provides "navigation between existing [and related] articles". Also, "Busy Bein' Born" makes 6.--Jax 0677 (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep yes, it's a little thin for a navbox but it's not off-the-charts thin and given that the band is still active and that some of their past EPs might get articles eventually, deleting it would probably mean recreating it in six months. I don't really see the point in that. Pichpich (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - Any other points of debate requiring discussion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:18, 20 August 2012 (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:SSP-CU

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) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SSP-CU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. I couldn't find the exact text of the template on any pages, suggesting it isn't being substed. DH85868993 (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unused. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Old and completely unused by WP:SPI. (Note that it links to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets/xxxxxx, which has been superseded by WP:SPI.

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:LinksChecked

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) 01:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unused. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (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:Footy-competition-prediction

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) 01:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Footy-competition-prediction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unused and not a main space template. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (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:Saros eclipse set info

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; deleted as G7 by Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saros eclipse set info (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Wikipedia:WikiProject Eclipses/Work Page says the template is a shared intro paragraph for the "Solar Saros series NNN" templates (e.g. Template:Solar Saros series 120), but it doesn't appear to be used/have been used for that purpose - the "Solar Saros series NNN" templates don't transclude Template:Saros eclipse set info and the intro text for the "Solar Saros series NNN" templates doesn't exactly match Template:Saros eclipse set info, so it doesn't appear as though Template:Saros eclipse set info was substed to produce the intro text. DH85868993 (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made it, apparently never used, or expanded directly. You can delete it. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (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:Notesbox

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) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in User:Flooch/Sandbox, which was last edited by User:Flooch in 2006. (User:Flooch's last edit to any page was in March 2011). DH85868993 (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unused. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (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:MiBtasks

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) 01:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unused and not in scope of main space templates as a WikiProject task template. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (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:Organic-development

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 userfy for now. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Organic-development (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear (to me). DH85868993 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is intended for temporary usage. If you decide to delete this, please leave a copy on my user page. I am a bit too busy to discuss it right now BO | Talk 13:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move without redirect to OrenBochman's user space. The apparent purpose is to be able to build a new article in main article space and have that template to automatically tell the development phase. But shouldn't articles be created in user space – and if you want to do it main space I can't see why this would be needed. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - It is needed because as a workflow - userspace article development is a non-colaborative inefficent method for article development. It retards growth, damages quality, encourages ownership, reduces fact-checking and leads to NPOV issues due to a dominant subjective POV. However most NPP & RCP are not conductive to organic development of article hence the need to announce this protocol formaly with a template. (This is a marker template inteded to be used by creaters to signal NPP and RCP that userspace development is considered counterproductive for an given article at a given time). BO | Talk 01:23, 24 August 2012 (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:Song table header

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) 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Song table header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. DH85868993 (talk) 10:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it can go. I created it five years ago, and since it is not used anywhere, I probably "subst'ed" it on pages such as List of songs recorded by Patti Page, so it is no longer necessary. If I had simply transcluded it, it would be another story, but because I used "subst:" it can go. -- BRG (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unused. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (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:Prev ltr

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) 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prev ltr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Next ltr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Produce the previous/next lowercase letter to the one supplied. Not sure where these would be used. DH85868993 (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since i was notified about it, i assume i created it in the context of List of people by name, a navigational tool in the form of a hierarchical structure that tried for most of the first 6 years of WP to link to every bio article, in surname order. If you can read deleted pages, go to e.g. List of people by name: name Brown.
There's a template-call at the top of that page beginning

{{Lopbn p|B|r|o|w|n|||||||||||||

and it had the job of linking, within the List of people by name structure, all the "sibling" pages of List of people by name: Brown (probably just List of people by name: Browa-Browm and List of people by name: Browo-Browz), to List of people by name: Brow and its sibling pages, to List of people by name: Bro and its sibling pages, to List of people by name: Br and its sibling pages, and to List of people by name: A, List of people by name: C, List of people by name: D, etc. It should be apparent that as the tree inexorably grew, the ability of templates to "calculate", and pass on to other templates, certain strings (in this case "Bp" and "Bs", "Brn" and "Brp", "Brov" and "Brox", and "Browm" and "Browo") had substantial labor-saving and typo-avoiding value in that context.
I have no reason to know if anyone but myself has ever invoked the two templates in question. I do note that the effort needed to code them is nothing compared to that of recognizing that coding them is part of a solution that will justify the boredom it entails. (Hmm, speaking of problematic omissions, i may have omitted here, List of people by name: name Brow, List of people by name: name Bro, List of people by name: name Bro, List of people by name: name Br, and maybe even List of people by name: name B. It's been a long time, and i've just got no idea now how that was handled.)
--Jerzy•t 23:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete, better handled by a different process (perhaps a bot). basically, list out all the pages by prefix, sort them, and have a bot make sure the prev/next links are correct. Frietjes (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2012 (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:Big papa

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) 01:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big papa (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Purpose unclear. DH85868993 (talk) 06:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unused and most likely vandalism. --Pudeo ' 02:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Template:The Notorious B.I.G. - Ok, not quite a serious proposal :) Ego White Tray (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete ... resisting biggy joke. Frietjes (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2012 (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:Basic policy list

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; deleted as G7 by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Basic policy list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; superseded by {{policy list}} and others. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created the template a long time ago, and as I recall, it turned out we didn't need it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since it's surpassed by the more comprehensive {{policy list}} template. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (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.