The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 15:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkheader[edit]

Template:Talkheader (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is pointless. The word "Talk" is in big letters at the top of every talk page, and is in the title as well. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Commentary: Template:Talkheader has survived multiple TfD's in recent months (here and here) with a strong majority voting to keep. Do we really need to go through this yet again? Warrens 22:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  An argument that it should be kept because it has been put forward for deletion before is not a valid reason for why the template is kept. TFD is not a straightforward vote - do you have a reason for wishing to keep the template? Talrias (t | e | c) 22:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful template for new and/or anonymous users, and also quite relevant, with more than 1500 inclusions [1]. --Nkcs 22:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely used and very useful for articles that attract newbies. Mikker ^... 22:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since this is a warning to editors, it only needs to be seen during editing, which is exactly what MediaWiki:Talkpagetext (built-into the software) was meant for. See simple:MediaWiki:Talkpagetext for how it's used there, and this example to see how it displays. The message would need to change somewhat, but it's a better option all around. -- Netoholic @ 23:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't obvious to me from skimming the above (on careful reading it is) that Netoholic is referring to Simple English Wikipedia for the above example, where MediaWiki:Talkpagetext apparently is currently active. It isn't currently active on English Wikipedia, nor any others I'm familiar with. Rd232 ^talk 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hate the pointless thing. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until such a time as the MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is active on English Wikipedia - this being precisely the template's purpose. As was stated in previous TfD's, if the need for the template is obviated by software changes, it will soon lose support. (NB - I'm assuming that merely editing MediaWiki:Talkpagetext wouldn't be enough, on the basis that if it were, someone would have done it already; and I don't want to experiment. Can anyone confirm or deny?) Rd232 ^talk 23:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever you type in MediaWiki:Talkpagetext will show up every time someone edits a Talk page. That is its function. -- Netoholic @ 00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If we can use MediaWiki:Talkpagetext, then let's do it! Gerard Foley 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I have the template working at simple.wiktionary, check it out !! It's just a case of copy/paste. There is no reason to keep this template. Gerard Foley 00:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is active, then delete. æle ✆ 00:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've put it in MediaWiki:Talkpagetext. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The link to the "main page" doesn't work outside of article-talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  What link to the main page? Gerard Foley 00:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check it out Gerard Foley 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is worth displaying on Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is helpful and useful for new Wikipedia members. (Ibaranoff24 03:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep as it is helpful/useful for new members and visitors until the very much needed MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is active, then delete. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It provides link to Talk page guidelines which I think is very useful. Eversince this template was added to Talk:Kashmir the amount of trolls decreased significantly. --Deepak|वार्ता 05:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can see asking for policy not to put it on every single talk page... but, for big high traffic pages it's definitely an asset. gren グレン ^? 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all above; but mostly until a message is decided upon (then this'll become redundant). —Locke Cole • t • c 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until such time as a MediaWiki function can fulfill its purpose. I believe this template to be very helpful in advising newcomers of proper discussion etiquette.--cj | talk 07:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Cyberjunkie. Chairman S. | Talk 07:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I feel it is a very important template. I often find myself pointing out to newcomers that they should sign their comments, but on adding this template to the top of the page more newcomers will actually sign their comments. Deskana (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - used on hundreds of pages, very helpful for first time users. Agnte 10:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a valuable resource for any of the new folk that come here. Daniel Davis 11:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it is a valuable resource. Especially on popular pages that newcomers gravitate to. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the nomination as it stands makes no sense. —Phil | Talk 13:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there's no reason what so ever to delete it--Hotwiki 13:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very useful template. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good template. --Terence Ong 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Homestarmy 19:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some articles are magnets for new users, and having a little explanation at the top explaining what a talk page is and how to use it does not seem to hurt anything. --Fastfission 19:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until the talkpagetext is widely used, as per Rd232. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 23:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - But I like the sound of switching to this other template. Agent0042 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I love this template. -- Tvaughn05_e ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 02:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I hate this template. It's inconsistently used an just plain unsightly for those who are familiar with Wikipedia. Keep this kind of introductory information to the welcome message. joturner 02:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm pretty sure most people never actually read their welcome message - at least I didn't. I don't think this template is too bad at all although the new one looks very nice. Secondly, there's a lot of new editors that aren't familiar with Wikipedia yet, esp. those that haven't registered, and just because it's "unsighlty" does not justify removing it. --Every1blowz 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for the reasons cited above by Every1blowz. -- Polaris999 07:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ugly and redundant...do we really want to start adding ugly headers repeating basic information on every talk page? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Highly usefull on high-trafic pages, or pages with content disputes in their history. --Barberio 14:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - waste of space. Raul654 19:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep---We need something on talkpages to help anons and noobs with discussion guidelines, like signing comments and observing ettiquette. Most people voting here are probably veterans of Wikipedia who have visited dozens of talkpages and don't need to see this anymore. But to anons seeing only one talk page, they need to see a set of standard rules, so the talk pages can be controlled chaos indstead of total anarchy.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ikiroid - at least until the MediaWiki talk page text is implemented on the en.wikipedia. I've placed this template on several talk pages where it was getting very hard to follow discussion due to no one (or very few people) signing their comments properly. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gerard. The new system message is better. - Eagle^amn 12:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' Per ikiroid. Deckiller 18:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ikiroid. --Khoikhoi 20:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Quite useful. --Ragib 02:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ikiroid ~ ApolloCreed 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's bulky, obtrusive, and redundant. — BrianSmithson 03:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see MediaWiki:Talkpagetext taking effect on the talk pages yet. Once that happens, this template should be deleted.PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until such time that MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is actually operational, but right now that is a proposal. I do not think that this is a matter for TfD to decide, in fact, this should only go if it's accepted, which it has yet to be. It is not obsolete until it is obsolete, and it is not right now. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful for new-wikipedians. Helped me learn the ~~~~'s for signature. --Zimbabweed 06:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It's amazingly useful for educating new users, particularly those who arrive at the talk page for the first time after an article is protected from edit warring. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 13:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I have made use of it. Alexander 007 13:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until MediaWiki:Talkpagetext is up and running. --Optichan 15:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The reminders of policy and civility cannot hurt; and who knows how much worse things might be without them? Septentrionalis 16:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The suggested talk-page edit screen will not replace this, even if approved; our trolls do not read the bold warning that text will be mercilessly edited which is on all edit screens now. Septentrionalis 16:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Makes wikipedia more user friendly, provides valuable information and is unobtrusive to the actual article. I would prefer if it was on every single talk page. PhatJew 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful template. --cesarb 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Functional Keep I think the extra added information and pointers are useful to incoming newbies. I suspect it may be *more* useful to keep it as a template, as it's mostly likely to be necessary on Lightning Rod articles, as opposed to the general case. --Baylink 02:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I myself never saw this template for some time after I got here and only know one article where it occurs, so it plainly did not help me as a newcomer. Logically, it should either be on all talk pages or none, so if it continues to exist as a template it should be reserved for pages where there is a real need to make the point about proper talk procedure. Sandpiper 12:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Judging from the discussion on MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext, that seems to be just as controversal (and more universally so) than this template. However, if that is detangled then I would advocate switching to it so as to have only one "helpful" notice system in place. JRP 14:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and indef. block for nominator. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please respect Wikipedia policies.SoothingR 22:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the fact that it's used on over 1500 talk pages, in itself, speaks volumes for the fact that people think it's useful. The Mediawiki:Talkpagetext option is promising but I feel it needs to be made a bit more prominent and noticeable before it can duplicate this functionality. I, myself, learned how to sign comments from this template and, I suspect, many others users have, as well. — Dave 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeper. It functions as a helpful reminder and a link to relevant policies, which is a lot more user-friendly than telling newcomers to come back when they have finished reading through every single policy and help-page. //Big Adamsky 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- In general, I've found talk pages with the header are much more better organized than those without. It's nice to have the rules right there. -- MisterHand 20:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- By all means we need to keep it. It isn't failing its job and changing it to something else would remove it in all the old articles. I think it's fine, keep it. Bourgeoisdude 20:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information it gives is already stated at the bottom of the editing screen. Further, who really listens to the advice on wikiette? Honestly, delete the damn waste of space... Spawn Man 00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs a bit of a redesign (the boxes show up as off centre and not lined up) but is useful. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Useful and helped me when I started. However, I agree it does look a bit tired and could do with some cosmetic improvement. --- Yellowspacehopper 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was (roughly) merge the first one (rationale being there was only one inclusion, while the second had much more), keep the second one, and no consensus for the third one. - Mailer Diablo 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coke templates[edit]

Template:User coke, Template:User cocacola, Template:User Coke not Pepsi -- These templates are redundant with one another, but I don't want to delete all of them, just leave one. DPFUNEditor 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Template:User coke, and Template:User cocacola should be merged, but Template:User Coke not Pepsi should remain a seperate template. There are people like me who drink both coke and pepsi, proudly posting both templates on their userpage, and then there are people who are ardent supporters of one over another. Each group should get their own template.--ikiroid | (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Give people a range! C'mon... Spawn Man 00:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. //MrD9 00:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --'Ivan 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (Ibaranoff24 03:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge 2, keep 3rd. Agree with ikiroid; merge first two, keep Coke not Pepsi separate. --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 04:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Atari2600tim. Chairman S. | Talk 07:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 15:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all silly, pointless, , or potentially divisive userboxes. --Cyde Weys 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody give this guy a Fanta: A bottle of fun..... Spawn Man 01:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can give it to me if you want, I'll just delete it though. --Cyde Weys 01:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:ikiroid --Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the last umpteen million debates on userboxes. Karmafist 18:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:ikiroid, but please be sure to fix any broken pages afterwords. --Dragon695 01:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above --MiraLuka 04:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per ikiroid

Aleksei 10:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per ikiroid and Spawn Man. Эйрон Кинни 02:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm so sick of these userbox purge-attempts. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The admin nutjobs are just going to end up with many of the active Wikipedia users abandoning the project. MSTCrow 10:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge first 2, Keep 3rd — CJewell (talk to me) 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per MSTCrow Pacific Coast Highway|^{Leave a message ($.25)} 23:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge first 2, keep the third, harmless --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge first two and Weak Delete on third as divisive. Ardric47 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the first 2, as they have exactly the same meaning, and Strong Keep the third, as it shows a user's preference of Coke over Pepsi. --G VOLTT 02:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete all. Alibabs 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge 1st + 2nd Keep 3rd. Gaspa 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete all. I am all for fun, but wikipedia is wikipedia. No need to bog it down with jokes, etc. Even one k of bandwidth spent on this is a waste of donor $. PhatJew 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge first two; Delete third as divisive. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep = 1st Merge = 2nd,Don't Delete. I like to cocacola. -- Korean alpha for knowledge 11:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete first one, keep second two. Notice what ikiroid said. OneGyT/T|C 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep second two, delete the first if you care to. Tranzid 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, but actually HISTORY MERGE, which, yes, is GFDL compliant, on the assumption that the adding of TfD tags doesn't result in new copyright for the tagger. However, at present, WLH is recovering in regards to templates used within <ref> tags, so this nomination might be on ice for a while. It's also rather unclear to what name it should go, but since virtually all calls now use citejournal, craeting thousands of redirects does seem rather pointless. -Splash^talk 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Journal reference[edit]

Deprecated, orphaned and replaced inclusions (and redirects to it) with template:cite journal. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was based on a broken What links here. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: What links here is broken for templates used inside <ref> tags. It has been fixed. But the database is still not fixed. See (bugzilla:4549, bugzilla:5042) --Adrian Buehlmann 08:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge histories - "Journal reference" and "cite journal" share a common development history, which can easily be preserved. -- Netoholic @ 19:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a better name than cite journal, I think, because the thing the template creates is a reference, not a citation. I'm not sure how the mojo works, but can the histories be merged and have cite journal be a redirect back to Journal reference? –Joke 19:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This should be the name of the journal reference template, to keep it in line with Template:Web reference, Template:Book reference etc. Rhobite 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a proposal to move ((book reference)) to ((cite book)) to do a move to standard lowercase parameters. I intend to propose the same on ((web reference)) (move to ((cite web))) when moving that to lower case params only (currently web reference is needlessly complex due to the fact that it provides both lower and upper case parameter names). BTW "cite" is much easier to write than "reference". --Adrian Buehlmann 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move ((cite journal)) to ((journal reference)) and do a page history merge. JYolkowski // talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Netoholic and JYolkowski: merge histories and delete (if that's compatible with the GFDL, otherwise leave a redirect). --MarkSweep (call me collect) 22:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: we already have a bunch of cite xxx templates and there was once some consensus to move in that direction on these templates. See also the category:citation templates. There was also once an attempt to consolidate all citation templates on template:citation. But that lost some momentum. So this decision is somewhat dangling at the moment. Needs sure carefully rethinking before going there (but that decision can wait). As per the merge histories: I think this isn't worth the trouble because we had to introduce a temporary template anyway to do the move because not all 1,500 calls can be migrated in the same minute to lower case params (there are also some protected articles and edits can also fail, even if a light speed 100% error free bot rushes around). I think we can spare us the exchange of the names of all calls back to journal reference. I also think the name issue isn't worth creating a redirect for such a high use template. All calls now use "cite journal", as previously already decided per consensus. I see no need to revisit that naming decision and change all calls back or introduce a redirect. The voters that vote here to use the old name for the new template abstained on the discussion that lead to the name "cite journal". Please also note that I already put a copy of the talk of journal reference into an archive on the talk of cite journal. That's probably the most relevant part of the "history" of journal reference. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge histories and Delete: we could redirect to ((cite journal)), but that might lead to confusion for those who have been used to using the old-style parameters; we could replace the current content with a deprecated notice , directing users to use ((cite journal)) instead. Possibly better to delete… —Phil | Talk 13:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: replacement is fine with me, but I do wish that this administrative work (reaching for consistency in naming and parameter conventions across templates) could have been done without disrupting article content with the deletion notice. Note that simple awareness issues around "use this template instead of that one" are not to be handled via deletion notices. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't object to changing to the ((cite journal)) template. But removing this template will break all the articles that use the template, which would be quite wrong. You cannot rely on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Journal reference to list all pages that use the template. Special:Whatlinkshere is not accurate for templates. Gdr 22:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If what links here is broken, then journal reference will not be deleted. Please post articles that you find still using journal reference on my talk page. I will convert them to cite journal. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know of two articles still using this template; neither appears in Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Journal reference; there are undoubtedly hundreds of others. Gdr 23:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right. I found Kingdom (biology) using journal reference and it is not on the what links here. A single evidence is sufficent for me. → WHAT LINKS HERE IS STILL BROKEN. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with comment. There should be just one journal reference template; if this one is deprecated and orphaned then it should be deleted. Whoever's working on these templates should also do the same with Template:Journal_web_reference. Finally, I don't see why a full-fledged deletion is necessary...simply replace the orphan template with a redirect. — jdorje (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eurovision Song Contest host cities[edit]

Template:Eurovision Song Contest host cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Big. Uninteresting for the majority of readers. Fred-Chess 15:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (no vote): maybe you should first object to the inclusion of the template at Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest? (and the cities' talk pages if needed). That way we don't delete a template used in a large number of articles possibly going against the consensus on those pages. Seems to me the contributors to the relevant pages should have a say first... Just a thought... Mikker ^... 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Done. It worries me if people add these template to geography article for their pet purpose. I can't see why this renders a template. The cities have nothing in common, IMO. / Fred-Chess 17:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from all the cities as useless fluff, subst it to the pages on the Eurovision, and then delete. Stifle 17:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• listify and delete, cruft. Circeus 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (neutral): Seems rather unnecessary - most of these cities have rather more prominent things in their histories than that they have hosted the ESC. -- Arwel (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too trivial, even for a category - and it seems to apply to most major European cities. Listify instead. Flowerparty■ 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete from all the articles, at least. Imagine if we had a massive template for every international event held in a city. The city article would become ridiculous... ::Supergolden:: 14:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Donar Reiskoffer 08:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --klaustus 17:42 24 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Attilios 24 February 2006
• Keep. Could be useful as historical information on how many cities have hosted the ESC, has a city hosted more than one ESC, etc. - Nick C 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the template. - Mailer Diablo 15:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Antipope[edit]

Template:User Antipope (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A speedy deletion tag was removed from this template but it was never nominated for deletion here. So I'm doing it. Pointless template, breaches WP:NOT and WP:USER. Physchim62 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we work out a sensible compromise here? Whilst this may be inoffensive in intent, it will annoy many. A grand total of nine users are including this right now. How about subst: all and delete? - no-one loses out and removed as a template this becomes unobjectionable. Let's try a rational solution. --Doc ^ask? 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the box seems to be either an attempt at humour or equivalent to saying "This user is a Protestant". If that's accurate I think Doc's suggestion makes sense... Mikker ^... 16:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep discloses editor POV. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. This template does not express an editor PoV, but rather appears to be designed to be humourous. I can see no value to the project from this template, so recommend subst'ing per Doc. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 19:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's humor. I don't think it's any kind of attack on Benedict. --D-Day 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, I have no problem with users displaying this on their userpages but I don't think we need something in the Template namespace for this. JYolkowski // talk 21:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV and does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia--MONGO 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I'm just using it for fun, I see nothing wrong with it. I make no real claim to being the Pope. ;) (That was me, forgot to sign it at first.) MiraLuka 06:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, possibly userfy. It's funny. Laugh. —Andux^␅ 08:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly idiotic and unencyclopaedic. Only very mildly offensive, which is why I don't say strong delete. If absolutely necessary, subst and delete. AnnH ^(talk) 14:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Its funny. Userboxes arent intended to build the encyclopedia, because they go on userpages - • The Giant Puffin • 15:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't think it's funny but some people might. Why should we deny them this?--God of War 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all silly, pointless, , or potentially divisive userboxes. --Cyde Weys 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as humorous. --Fang Aili 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps there should be a namechange to make it sound less threatening. --D-Day Somebody talk to me. Please somebody! Anybody! 18:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - humor - userbox freedom -   Guðsþegn – UTCE – 22:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. helohe (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Dragon695 01:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 05:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The name "User antipope" may sound threatening, but perfectly describes the "claim" in the box, improving the fun-factor. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 05:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mostlyharmless 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per AnnH. This really should be speedied under CSDT1, as it certainly inflammatory towards Catholics. Bratsche^talk 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am a Catholic, and I am not offended.--M@rēino 04:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete In reality I do not see anything wrong with this, just a but POV. But I have seen POV humourous userboxes that are less offfensive than this one and have been deleted. DaGizza^{Chat ©} 06:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Subst and delete (not actually delete it so no-one can use it), but recategorise it, so instead of being in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion it should go into Wikipedia:Userboxes/Funny, as that is what it is for. If a user actually believed they should be the pope, they should type it in actual words, not say it in templates. - Ghelae^talk_contribs 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an inappropriate use of Wikipedia resources. Jkelly 21:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was interesting. But this template is gone now, and there will be no more George W. Bush templates of any form. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User PresidentBush[edit]

Template:User PresidentBush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
If users are not allowed to express opposition, they should not be allowed to expresss support. Nelson Ricardo 11:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep No reason for deletion. --D-Day 12:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No reason for deletion. Baka42 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete No reason for retention. --Doc ^ask? 13:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep discloses editor POV, seems to be a WP:POINT nomination. Mike McGregor (Can) 13:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disgaree with your assessment. I would not have nominted this template if the Bush opposition templates were allowed to remain. Allowing this supportive template and not the opposition amounts to Wikipedia endorsement of Bush. --Nelson Ricardo 13:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a wikimedia endorsement at all. However political userboxes should go. Delete Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whether or not a user has the box on his/page is not a Wikimedia endorsement. Allowing the pro-Bush template and disallowing the anti-Bush template can certainly be seen as a political endorsement. --Nelson Ricardo 17:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Political userboxes do not further the goal of writing an encyclopedia. However I have to vote keep, since this box was kept. Rhobite 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a red link. --Nelson Ricardo 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, fixed. Rhobite 00:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It wasn't kept. It's got ((deletedpage)) on it. Stifle 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep. I think it is generally agreed that support userboxes are fine, but opposition are not generally. OneGyT(T|C) 23:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supporting one POV implies opposing the POV that is not supported. --Nelson Ricardo 00:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV, and does nothing to help us write a better encyclopedia--MONGO 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If the anti-bush one gets deleted, so must this - <b><font color="orange">[[User:The Giant Puffin|• The Giant Puffin •</font></b> <font size="1">(<b><font color="darkblue">[[User Talk:The Gaint Pufin|T]]</font></b>)</font>]] 15:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, if you can't have an anti-Bush box, then it's ridiculous having a pro-Bush box. Stifle 16:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - I hate President Bush but I will support people's right to have this opinion about him.--God of War 16:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion should never be used to ignore a TFD. If this deletion is allowed to stand then all of your opinion will count for nothing. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#User_PresidentBush.--God of War 16:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all silly, pointless, , or potentially divisive userboxes. --Cyde Weys 16:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the template. - Mailer Diablo 15:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sgspoiler[edit]

Template:Sgspoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Excessive templating; is redundant with Template:spoiler-season, which it instead uses as a meta-template. The point of such templates is to be widely applicable, not for one to be created for each, in this case, TV show. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as they are useful Stwalkerster 20:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Angr/talk 15:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cuiviénen's reasoning. Mikker ^... 16:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Atari2600tim (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Use ((spoiler-season)) only. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please give a REASON! I can't believe this is up for deletion. See my above: there are clear cases for it not to be deleted! This template is well used! -- Alfakim --  talk  18:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ((spoiler)) is enough, and overused already. Spoiler templates should not contain distracting images. Kusma (討論) 19:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I point out pages like Anubis (Stargate) or Samantha Carter which have exemplary exhibitions of how this template is meant to be used. It's not enough to just say "Spoiler here" in general as, on a TV show, you may have only watched up to Season 5, say. These templates tell you how far into a "Plot" section you can read.
    As for the images, they are mainly to emphasise the big number. I see no problem with them. -- Alfakim --  talk  02:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen that page, and it makes me oppose this template even more. Even ((spoiler)) is redundant with a section that is called "Plot". These templates here can be replaced by subsections titled "Season 1", which tell people to expect spoilers for precisely these seasons without having to put ugly boxes into the text of an encyclopedia article. Kusma (討論) 18:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't be ridiculous: about the only place that ((spoiler)) is ever seen is in a plot section. Plot sections can often not contain spoilers if designed that way. In the Anubis article for instance, there is a large amount of plot that doesnt include a spoiler template. When it does start to spoil, however, it's no good just to say "spoilers now" because people whove seen season 1-3 but not 4 will be okay to read on until it says "S4 spoilers now". Also, it is rarely a viable option just to split every plot section into 10 different subsections (as SG-1 has 10 seasons and growing).-- Alfakim --  talk  15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not being ridiculous, I just find "Plot. Warning! Plot and/or ending details follow" silly. Actually, I personally think ((spoiler)) should be deleted, and I argue for deletion of the ((sgspoiler)) template because it is worse and more distracting, as it contains images. If spoiler warnings have a place at all in an encyclopedia, they should be as unobtrusive and invisible as possible. Kusma (討論) 17:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with Alfakim. --Keolah 07:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Alfa.--Kross^Talk 20:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Alfa. Just because people who are not working as much on Stargate Topics as some others do don't know how to use them as they were intented that does not make the template unnecessary. There is a bunch of knowledgeable people working on the Stargate Wikiproject and I think they know what they do. --SoWhy 21:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Alfakim. The template Sgspoiler is useful, notifying the user the info below is spoiler info for a certain season. I see no reason to delete this. It is useful, and unique to its subject. (Opes 21:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep per Alfakim. Wibbble 17:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first and (so far) only edit. Kusma (討論) 05:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator has no idea what they are doing. None
• Keep this template is being used on hundereds of pages. Don't create senseless work for people. Unless the nominator wants to modify every sigle one. Seriosly people should acutaly realize what they're voting on before they vote. If the people who voted delete go through and chage the 150+ pages this template is on, than delete it. Otherwise don't be stupid. Tobyk777 05:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a discussion about the merits of the template, not about the amount of work it would be to change its usage. Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to get a bot and do the work of changing the first mention of the template to ((spoiler)) and delete the ones that follow. Kusma (討論) 15:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But Tobyk777 actually makes a related point too: sgspoiler is damned useful. It is put to good use, not arbitrarily but indispensibly on a large number of pages where it is appropriate, well-needed and informative. spoiler-season is far too vague a template to do the job (and was designed that way, remember). TV Show Seasons are an idea to get your head around if you dont follow any series, but if you do then you see the use. You need something that says "Spoilers for Show X Season Y follow" sometimes (or, as in this case, 150+ times).-- Alfakim --  talk  16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the author convinced me that it is useful. Besides, it's widely used already. --Tone 23:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was at first leaning towards a delete vote, but after reading Alfakim's reasoning and taking a look at ((spoiler-season)), I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. --Optichan 15:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. I find the keeper's argument uniformly invalid. James S. is incorrect in what he says, so his 'keep' isn't useful, particularly as he recommends replacing it anyway. Locke Cole chooses to lower things to a barbed claim of bad-faith when it plainly isn't any such thing. The templates have not been reinstated as he claims he plans to do, despite a considerable delay on these and related templates. The procedural complaining is unimportant. Therefore, those saying "per Locke Cole" have similarly little basis in what they say. -Splash^talk 00:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:If defined, and others[edit]

• Template:If defined (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:If defined call (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:Unless defined (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused meta-templates. Even proponents of ugly meta-templates would say that these have been replaced with the vastly (*cough*) superior Template:Qif. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because these templates are not unused e.g., what links to If defined call. Please be careful in nominating; we can't even trust What links here. I recommend keeping them all until it's fixed and then going through and swapping them out with Qif. --James S. 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only uses are on test pages and talk pages. Whatlinkshere is accurate, as the bug that affected it has been fixed. Please reconsider. -- Netoholic @ 19:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to second the unused claim. The whatlinkshere is both accurate and orphaned, save for other templates that are headed for deletion. The usages in userspace are immaterial to the orphaning and deleting process. -Splash^talk 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nuke'em until they glow and shoot them in the dark. Maybe we should drop the various users a line to let them know that their test pages are about to be affected? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think these are ready to go. --Adrian Buehlmann 13:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. Netoholic is well aware that I intend to go through many of the templates he broke while WP:AUM was policy, and those templates will rely on these meta-templates (short of re-writing the logic used formerly to use ((qif))). Note also that these nominations are malformed. He did not place a TFD tag on either the template talk page or the template itself (a bad idea in this case, but a note on the talk page would, to me, be mandatory so people who have it watchlisted would be aware of this TFD debate). Also note that these were just nominated towards the end of January, it's barely been three weeks since the last debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keepper Lock Cole Circeus 20:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Locke Cole. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elections1831-DE[edit]

Template:Elections1831-DE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is just a paragraph of text. Should be deleted and the text just pasted into the article. JW1805 (Talk) 03:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 06:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems worth keeping the text consistent across articles. --Nelson Ricardo 14:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This information doesn't even need to be included in the articles where it's used. Angr/talk 15:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Mikker ^... 16:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom DaGizza^{Chat ©} 06:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute and delete This sort of templated text is deprecated. If it were so marvellously phrased that the editors of various articles should be discouraged from adapting and improving it, that would be one thing; but it isn't as wonderful as all that. Septentrionalis 17:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP ALL, closed by Guanaco. -Splash^talk 17:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Masses of userboxes[edit]

Looking for the masses of userboxes nominated today? Go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16/Masses of userboxes instead.-Splash^talk 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. A borderline numeric consensus, but bear in mind this was 'deleted' once before and has failed here to find even a minmal level of support in a second chance debate. The nomination from the original debate is still quite compelling here. -Splash^talk 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Background[edit]

This was previously deleted by consensus (log), mostly because it is better handled by other templates. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia:Deletion review process is flawed because someone managed to quietly post a complaint that went practically unseen[2]. Re-nominating again and this time it better stick. It was already orphaned from articles. -- Netoholic @ 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Stbalbach 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. I don't entirely trust that it is currently unused (What Links Here? problems), but it is much better covered by Template:Main. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That Whatlinkshere bug has been fixed. Whatlinkshere is now only broken when talking about meta-templates. -- Netoholic @ 04:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Let's have a little variety instead of using ((main)) all the time. An example of use is here. ((Main)) and ((Background)) are similar but still have different meaning. -- Zondor 06:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want variety or customizability, use ((dablink|For more about...)). -- Netoholic @ 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, as it is not clear what a/the "main article" is. Therefore use {background} for child to parent link and {details} for parent to child link. Don't use {main} for both.-MarSch 12:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are too many similar templates. This makes it harder to achieve a common look and feel. It also makes it more difficult for users to select the 'correct' template. Drop what we don't need so it is less confusing. Vegaswikian 23:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.