August 5
- 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:DEFAULTSORT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Self-deprecating, pointless template. Also del. its redir., Template:Default sort. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice: This TfD is not about the ((DEFAULTSORT:...)) magicword, it is about the mimicking ((DEFAULTSORT|...)) template.
- Repurpose (this is not actually a deletion discussion per se): The purpose of this template appears to be to serve as a simple wrapper for a magic word, to catch '|' usage instead of ':'. Rather than "delete" I'd be happy with a consensus of "repurpose", to change the template into something that pops up a cleanup note. It shouldn't silently kluge around the problems it attempts to address, or people will simply be lazy and never fix the problem! I do agree that the functionality it currently performs should be retained; while we do want a fixit notice to appear, we also want the DEFAULTSORTing to work properly in the interim. Do delete the redirect though, as it only encourages people to actually use it on purpose, which is not the intent of the template at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – The template serves no other purpose other than to mimic a magic word. Said magic word is also in the editing help toolbox, so I see no need for this. —« ANIMUM » 01:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Though I can understand the reason for this nomination, this does a bit more than mimic a magic word, since it sorts all categories, including those added by templates which are unparameterised and cannot be easily parameterised for sorting (such as the 2000+ stub templates). Unless whoever deletes this also wishes to alter all of those templates, this template should be kept. Grutness...wha? 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply coment: Grutness, I think you may have misunderstood. This is not about ((DEFAULTSORT:...)) which will stay, because it is part of the MediaWiki software, in the same way that ((subst:...)) is. Rather, it is about repurposing, not actually deleting, the ((DEFAULTSORT|...)) (notice "|" vs. ":") template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 03:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (slaps head and makes Homer-like "D'oh" sound). Yeah - ignore my comments :) Grutness...wha? 01:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Redirects are cheap, and this is effectively a redirect to a magic word. The possible detriment incurred by people using this rather than the magic word directly is almost exactly nil, so displaying a whinge notice every time someone makes a miniscule mistake seems pointless. If semi-automated tools like AWB were to add a task of changing articles from using the template to using the magic word directly, when already making other substantive changes, then that would be appropriate, but the harm incurred by using the template is, as far as I can tell, very very close to nothing at all. Incidentally, since even the proponent seems not to favour deletion, TfD is perhaps the wrong location for discussion. --Stemonitis 06:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because this is confusing people (as witnessed in this TFD, even) >Radiant< 08:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I regularly come across articles where editors utilized the "DEFAULTSORT" magic word using this template. The semantics can indeed be confusing. (I remember becoming very confused about the "fullurl" magic word, when I couldn't get it to work as a template.) Redirects are cheap, and the template is useful for the non-technically-inclined, and usefulness may certainly be an argument to keep a template, so I suggest it be kept. --Iamunknown 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - at the moment, this template is transcluded on about 30 pages, which is trivial to clean-up (but which must be done). However, people will still make the mistake. The question is whether it is better to force them to learn when they see the redlink they have created, or to have a bot (or humans) clean up after them (and leave notices on their talk page). The documentation at least (which is at the moment a series of links) should be moved somewhere, and the talk page contains discussion that should be retained, probably as an archive at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. The talk page also contains suggestions for trivial ways to fix this, including moving over to a "a warning notice" solution. It also suggests that at one time there were over 600 links to the template - this suggests that, after an initial learning period, people are now using the magic word, rather than the template. As long as an eye is kept on this, I don't think the template will do that much harm. Carcharoth 10:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 30 transclusions? Either we are looking at different lists (see my comment below), or somebody went through and cleaned those up already. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 07:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone must have cleaned them up. When I looked there were under 200 "what links here, and I counted the ones that had "transclusion" next to them. I anyone wants to implement a "what used to link here" function... :-) Carcharoth 09:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do what SMcCandlish says under "repurpose" above. I'm not going to repeat it, since people are already getting confused by this nomination and the ensuing discussion, but what he says above is what we need to do. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Repurpose per proposal, as good engineering practice: on error, fail loudly. I would like to suggest that, rather than making the template produce an error message, you start Category:Pages with template errors or some such, and make the repurposed template add pages to that category. Much in the same sense that dispute templates add articles to Category:All articles lacking sources, Category:Articles with weasel words, etcetera, that would make it easier for bots and bored users to find something on which to expend their excess time.
On the other hand, this might be completely useless. Of the 107 pages which link to that template, there are: 2 pages, Template:Defaultsort and Template:Default sort, which are redirect pages; 102 pages which contain regular links to the template, the redirect pages, or some mixture thereof; and 3 pages, Alysia Reiner, User:Scribblingwoman/Drafts, and User:The-Pope/Testing, which actually transclude the template. This would throw an error on exactly three pages (one of which is marked for speedy delete, and may be gone before anybody reads this). I still support the idea, just to help people avoid transcluding it in the future, though. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 06:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No need to fix (if there is a desire, then fix it already). This is a solution in search of a problem. –Pomte 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this template here so it can point to the documentation at Template:DEFAULTSORT/doc? If so, there might be some documentation value in keeping it. In regard to editors using "|" to specify a template argument versus using ":" to actually apply the magic word, it might be possible to specify m:ParserFunctions that will flag an error if any parameters are used. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:43, 9 August 2007 (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.
Obsolete month and year templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no more in use, replaced by a few other templates HandigeHarry 21:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only two, if I'm not mistaken. They are Template:Month3 and Template:Year3.
- These tenplates invoke Template:MonthRg and Template:MonthRday, but you need not bother about that. HandigeHarry 08:03, 6 August 2007 (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:Films of R. Madhavan
- 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. IronGargoyle 03:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Films of R. Madhavan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, R. Madhavan. It is currently transcluded in 27 film articles (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:11, 5 August 2007 (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:Lee Marvin Films
- 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. Unused template. Clear prior consensus on this issue. IronGargoyle 04:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Lee Marvin Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Lee Marvin, that is already subst'ed in the main article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Re-subst (the version in the article has some kind of error), delete and, if possible, get rid of the "v • d • e" links at the top of the navbox in the article. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have not surrounded the ((tfd)) tag with <noinclude> tags, so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with a list in the main article, and delete per precedent. PC78 20:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it. "Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article." is POV. Adminstrators are not allowed to delet anything here based in POVs, just wiki rules. The template is extremely necessary, has a very cool design, fast to search and makes sense. Template was removed without any discussion and was replaced.Parallel33
- Administrators are required to follow consensus ... the statement that single-use templates are unneeded is not just my personal opinion, but reflects a strong consensus here at "Templates for deletion". You write that "the template is extremely necessary" ... no it's not; it can exist as text in the main article. You write that it has a "very cool design"; substing it will not change the design. You write that it is "fast to search and makes sense"; again, substing it will not change the appearance or content. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:44, 10 August 2007 (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:Yves Montand Films
- 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. Unused template. Clear prior consensus on this issue. IronGargoyle 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Yves Montand Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Yves Montand, that is already subst'ed in the main article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete and, if possible, get rid of the "v • d • e" links at the top of the navbox in the article. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent. I've merged the filmography into the main article and removed the template, so it's no longer being used. PC78 20:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it. "Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article." is POV. Adminstrators are not allowed to delet anything here based in POVs, just wiki rules. The template is extremely necessary, has a very cool design, fast to search and makes sense. Template was removed without any discussion and was replaced.Parallel33
- Administrators are required to follow consensus ... the statement that single-use templates are unneeded is not just my personal opinion, but reflects a strong consensus here at "Templates for deletion". You write that "the template is extremely necessary" ... no it's not; it exists as text in the main article. You write that it has a "very cool design"; well, the substed version has the same design. You write that it is "fast to search and makes sense"; again, the substed version is identical in appearance and content. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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:Films of Rani Mukherji
- 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. IronGargoyle 04:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Films of Rani Mukherji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Rani Mukerji. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a detailed filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and precedent. PC78 20:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Filmography of the actress does cover the features of the template. No need to clutter a single film with a dozen such templates of each actor.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 02:45, 6 August 2007 (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:Streep movies
- 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. IronGargoyle 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Streep movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Meryl Streep. It is currently transcluded in 29 film articles (whatlinkshere) and is linked from the actor's article. To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. So, remove all transclusions, re-subst into Meryl Streep#Filmography (the two versions are different), and delete. If possible, eliminate the "v • d • e" links at the top of the navbox. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have not surrounded the ((tfd)) tag with <noinclude> tags (so that the deletion notice shows up in any transclusions), so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates NPOV. Her filmography is much bigger than that in the template. How do you select her main films? --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent and WP:NPOV. PC78 20:45, 5 August 2007 (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:Sutherland movies
- 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. Unused template. Clear prior consensus on this issue. IronGargoyle 04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Sutherland movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Donald Sutherland. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a detailed filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and precedent. PC78 20:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template was replaced in the same place. It was vandalized without any reason. A complete filmography article was created and the main article do not provides a detailed filmography.Parallel33
- 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:Films of Preity Zinta
- 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. IronGargoyle 04:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Films of Preity Zinta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Preity Zinta. It is currently not transcluded anywhere (whatlinkshere) and the main article already provides a detailed filmography. So, delete as an unused single-use template. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:37, 5 August 2007 (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:Harrison Ford filmography
- 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. IronGargoyle 04:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Harrison Ford filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Harrison Ford. It is currently transcluded only in the article on the actor (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Subst and delete (and, if possible, get rid of the "v • d • e" links at the top left). — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have not surrounded the ((tfd)) tag with <noinclude> tags (so that the deletion notice shows up in any transclusions), so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace with a list or table, and delete per precedent. PC78 20:49, 5 August 2007 (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:Stallone movies
- 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. IronGargoyle 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Stallone movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Sylvester Stallone. It is currently transcluded only in the article on the actor (whatlinkshere). Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Subst and delete (and, if possible, get rid of the "v • d • e" links at the top left). — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have not surrounded the ((tfd)) tag with <noinclude> tags (so that the deletion notice shows up in any transclusions), so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent. There's a whole article for his filmography, so no need to replace. PC78 20:55, 5 August 2007 (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:Tom Hanks Films
- 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. Unused template. Clear prior consensus on this issue. IronGargoyle 04:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Tom Hanks Films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Tom Hanks, that is already subst'ed in the main article. Single-use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article. Delete. By the way, is there any way to get rid of the "v • d • e" links at the top left corner of the navbox (see Tom Hanks#Filmography)? — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent. His filmography is already covered in its own article. PC78 20:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it. "use templates are unneeded and should exist as text in the main article." is POV. Adminstrators are bot allowed to delet anything here based in POVs, just wiki rules. The template is extremely necessary, has a very cool design, fast to search and makes sense.Parallel33
- The statement that single-use templates are unneeded is not just my personal opinion, but reflects a strong consensus here at "Templates for deletion". You write that "the template is extremely necessary" ... no it's not; it already exists as text in the main article. You write that it has a "very cool design"; well, the substed version has the same design. You write that it is "fast to search and makes sense"; again, the substed version is identical in appearance and content. — Black Falcon (Talk) 16:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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:Hanks movies
- 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. IronGargoyle 04:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Hanks movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a filmography template for a single actor, Tom Hanks. It is currently transcluded in three film articles (whatlinkshere). To avoid clutter, film articles should not contain filmography templates for individual actors, as individual films involve dozens of actors. So, remove all transclusions and delete. — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have not surrounded the ((tfd)) tag with <noinclude> tags (so that the deletion notice shows up in any transclusions), so it should be removed before substing. — Black Falcon (Talk) 18:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent and above - we certainly don't need two templates for Tom Hanks' filmography. PC78 20:59, 5 August 2007 (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:History of China - BC
- 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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:History of China - BC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Apparently there has been some disagreements across several talk pages as to whether WP should use BC/AD or BCE/CE to indicate years.[1][2][3][4] The discussion probably spreads across more than just those four Talk pages that I found. I have no interest in the dispute. However, this template I've nominated for TfD was apparently created only a few weeks ago and is an exact copy-and-paste duplicate of Template:History of China - except all the BCE/CE appear as BC/AD. WP is not a battle ground and we should not be creating POV duplicates of templates. Furthermore, I am not aware that any discussion took place at the Talk page of the original template or any related Talk pages where this change in date might be relevant to Chinese history articles and this template. The template was simply created, and mass-inserted across Chinese history articles as minor edits.[5] Please delete this POV duplicate. I don't care about the date dispute, but an agreement should be reached about which system to use and then the original template should be edited instead of creating a POV duplicate. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as specified. DGG (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I made this template as it seemed odd - and aesthetically unpleasing - that the articles on Chinese history that I was reading used BC and AD notation consistently throughout them, and yet they had attached to them a template that used different notation. Looking now through the Manual of Style guidance, my changes also appear consistent with the requirement/suggestion that an article should be consistent in its style. Obviously one way to resolve this would have been to change the existing template to BC and AD notation throughout, but this would have had the disadvantage that the articles that used that template that use BCE and CE notation throughout would then have had a template that uses BC and AD notation. OK, such articles appear to be a small percentage of the whole - but still "Out of the frying pan and into the fire," I thought. So I didn't do this. I created the new template for use in those Chinese history articles that already consistently use BC and AD notation. Hong Qi Gong refers to "POV duplicate". Well, regarding "POV", the point is to keep articles consistent as then they look and read better, which appears to already be set out in the Manual of Style. Regarding "duplicate", well, it isn't a duplicate either. As noted above, it is deliberately different so that it properly fits in with the style that's already been decided upon for the article. Foula 16:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It is sensible to keep a template that corresponds with most of the articles in question. Although the argument has been made that the original template can be changed, I'm sure there would be reverts from other wikipedians who wanted BCE/CE to stay. If at some point it is agreed by consensus to change the original template to BC/AD, when this alternate version can be deleted. However, HongQiGong hasn't even tried to get an agreement - his listing for deletion is far too hasty. Let's have a discussion first and see how far we get with it. John Smith's 19:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Foula - the problem still exists that if somebody edits the original template, he would also have to edit the copied template to make sure that all the articles using it have the illusion that it's the same template. For example, if the colour scheme on the original changes, then you are essentially requiring the editor that made the change to also intuitively know that he needs to change the copied template as well. Knowing how WP works - allowing anonymous editing even by people who are very inexperienced with WP - this is just going to eventually create two templates that look very different over time. If you are concerned that some of the articles use BC and others use BCE in their content, then just edit the article content to be consistent with the template. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that an article should be changed to be consistent with the template. Let's have a discussion on the template's talk page first to see if we can get an agreement to change it to BC/AD. There is no need to delete anything right now. John Smith's 19:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I've changed the original template. We'll see how long it takes until someone reverts it back. John Smith's 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, wow. I honestly didn't think that it would be reverted back in less than 30 minutes! John Smith's 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To Add - If editors think that something should be done about the fact that some of the Chinese history articles use BC and others use BCE, while the template only uses one of the systems, then what needs to be done is to make sure that the content of all the Chinese history articles use only one of the systems, since they are the same topic series. Having a duplicate navigational template for the same topic series is very problematic. Again I don't care about the date dispute, I care that we don't create duplicates of navigational templates, making the copies only different on exactly the topic of a dispute. And John Smith's, if you are worried that editing the original template would start a revert war, then the natural thing to do is to try to initiate discussion first. If not at the Talk page of the template, then at WikiProject China at least (since more editors watch that page anyway). Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hong, then maybe you should practice what you preached and talked about things first. You seem very quick to list things for deletion when it suits you, but when it doesn't insist people talk about things first. John Smith's 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. When there is a dispute about a matter, the solution is to discuss it, not create a fork. Since, BC/AD are specifically affiliated with Christianity, I think BCE/CE are more neutral. If consistency is desired, the articles should be fixed. Regardless of the final outcome (BC/AD or BCE/CE), a duplicate template is completely unnecessary. — Black Falcon (Talk) 19:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Discuss it? You made it clear (on the original template, when you reverted by edit) that you reject the use of BC/AD. Indeed you asserted that the articles should be changed to make them consistent with the template. So your protestations that things should be discussed first are rather hollow. John Smith's 20:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You were the one who initiated the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold and changed BCE/CE to BC/AD and I reverted. Now we can discuss. In any case, reverting your edit is not equivalent to creating a fork at Template:History of China - BCE. Finally, my personal views on the BC/AD vs. BCE/CE debate have no bearing on the fact that the nominated template is a fork and a duplicate (especially after your change). — Black Falcon (Talk) 20:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Your personal views on BC/AD and BCE/CE are actually inconsistent with WP:MOS, which says both terms are fine to use. Neither is more "NPOV" than the other. In light of that I'm not sure how we could ever reach consensus because it's clear you don't think the former should be used anywhere apart from "Christian" articles. John Smith's 20:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, I don't think the former should be used anywhere, not even Christianity-related articles. In any case, my involvement in this issue will be restricted almost exclusively to this deletion discussion. But, again, we're going off-topic. This TfD isn't about whether the template should use BC/AD or BCE/CE, but whether we need two templates to serve one purpose. — Black Falcon (Talk) 23:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI - I've initiated a discussion at WikiProject China on which date system we should use.[6] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It would probably be best not to action this request until the matter has been fully discussed on the project page. John Smith's 21:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreed. That discussion is for us to talk about which date system to use. Regardless of the outcome, we should not have duplicates of navigational templates or POV forks. This template needs to be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not NEED to be deleted at all. It only needs to be deleted if it is decided to use BC/AD in the original article. If it is decided to keep BCE/CE or there is no consensus, this version will ensure we can have commonality between the articles and template. John Smith's 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already explained that having a duplicate template like this is very problematic. Furthermore, if the solution is to have some articles use the BC/AD system and some others use the BCE/CE system on the template, then we simply add a couple of parameters in the original template. How long have you been editing on WP, John Smith's? Have you never come across templates that take parameters and display different text depending on the parameters? So yes, this disruptive duplicate needs to be deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you blithering about? Since when did spending time on wikipedia require anyone to know about paremeters in templates? You're being absolutely ridiculous. If it's that simple, go sort it out to resolve the problem! John Smith's 09:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So in addition to spending my time to resolve your inane date dispute, would you like me to give you a tutorial on using WP also? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to give me a tutorial over anything - just don't assume someone understands the intricacies of templates, which is hardly key to being able to edit wikipedia. If it is as simple as you imply, it wouldn't take you very long if you can change it. However another editor has volunteered to help, so if you're unwilling to give up a little bit of your time that's not a problem. John Smith's 17:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually it is simple to do. And I haven't done it firstly because I think this whole date dispute is silly, and secondly because there's no concensus to actually change the template to function that way - majority support so far seems to be for the template to use the BCE/CE format alone. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion hasn't raised the issue of whether to let the template adapt or not. Until you raise it on a separate issue you can't get consensus - you asked a black or white question. John Smith's 10:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion hasn't raised the issue of whether to let the template adapt or not... yeah that's kind of the point. Nobody in the discussion at WikiProject China has even so much as suggested that we modify the template to take in paramters to switch between BC/AD and BCE/CE. That's why we shouldn't change it, at least not now. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Forking templates is messy and not the way to go, per Hong Qi Gong. If a consensus forms to use BC/AD in the template on all or some articles, the original template can be modified accordingly. Otherwise, no changes or new templates need to be made.--Danaman5 01:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: this is only an attempt by a BC/AD date warrior to impose his POV on this Template and related articles. PHG 12:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Year format for the History of China template is to use BCE/CE. --Ideogram 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I myself support BC/AD dating (harmless, and the so-called "common" era excludes Islam and non-Abrahamic religions), but template forking is damaging. And it just moves the edit war from the template to the articles, with edits switching back and forth between templates. --Groggy Dice T | C 15:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - Original History of China template should not be forked. Also see consensus of using BCE/CE system on Wikipedia talk: WikiProject China section 31. Count de Chagny 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed, first of all Hong has been "edit-warring" just as much as me. Two, that would have no bearing on whether to delete a template. Three, there is no consensus at WP:China - consensus is not a super-majority. John Smith's 09:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is decided to leave some articles BC/AD and others BCE/CE, it is possible to make the template consistent with each usage by adding a parameter to the template. This would solve the problem of consistency within an article without adding a new problem of keeping two templates consistent with each other. This might be easier than trying to find consensus on a contentious issue. I'd be happy to implement the parameter if that's the solution chosen. I'm completely uninvolved, and won't watch this debate, so just leave a message on my talk (I'm sort of on wikibreak, but am still reading most days). Ingrid 15:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the MOS has specified BCE/CE for as long as I can remember. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Maybe you should read the MOS again - it says both BCE/CE and BC/AD are perfectly fine to use. John Smith's 15:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep What should be done here is to check that each article is consistent, and leave it alone. Since the template is part of the article, it should abide by the usage of the article; this could also be done by one template with a parameter, as Ingrid suggests, but that would be a tradeoff of complexity against editorial convenience, which may not be worth it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant, inappropriate POV-fork of a perfectly good template. There are a lot of general-purpose info/navboxes that don't necessarily reflect the usage in every article where they're transcluded, and this is generally not a big deal (anyone who thinks it is a big deal is welcome to request a copy of my "List of More Important Issues" which starts with Core Topics that have not even reached GA status). The idea of parameterizing the navbox, as suggested by Ingrid above, is not a bad one, but it should be done with the original template, not this redundant, pointless fork. Xtifr tälk 03:48, 13 August 2007 (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:Height2
- 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 per author. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59 5 August 2007 (GMT).
- Template:Height2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Experimental, now obsolete, created by myself, not used anywhere. — GregorB 16:46, 5 August 2007 (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.
USRD clean-up templates
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete all. IronGargoyle 05:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also previous deletion debate: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_April_4#Template:CleanupMNSR resulting in no consensus keep.
Now a parameter in the WikiProject Talk page tag and a to-do list. Plus WP:CU never intended cleanup templates to be used for anything more than grammar related problems. Finally with all the standard templates (wikify, tone, original_research, etc) these have now become deprecated. master sonT - C 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These associated cats will have to go as well if these are deleted:
- --Holderca1 16:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all including the associated cats per Holderca1. --Son 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but change articles in these categories to use a more generic cleanup/improve quality template first. Perhaps institute a generic "road cleanup" template. I think it wouldn't be that hard to cross-reference which articles are in the road cleanup category versus which ones are in each state. I'm in WP:USRD, WP:MASH, WP:NHSH and others. A while ago we came up with general naming conventions between the states. If you organize the articles to be cleaned up in alphabetical order (which is done automagically on the category page), it's easy to see which ones belong to which state, and which ones are Interstate Highways, US Federal Routes, etc. -- Tckma 17:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the new procedure is to add an "attention=yes" tag to the WikiProject template (e.g. ((USRD))) and place a to-do list on that article's talk page. Cleanup templates are intended to focus on grammar - these cleanup templates were being used to enforce USRD policy which goes against WP:CU. master sonT - C 18:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete templates, but Keep Category: U.S. road articles needing work and its subcats. The templates are absolutely inappropriate for mainspace, as they are a horrid self-reference. But as far as cats go? Keep them, and then the USRD people can use the cats for tracking just like they've used the templates. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories have been replaced with other categories in the form "[state] road articles needing attention" and are now redundant. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 23:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What TMF said - plus the new categories allow for wider use accross USRD outside State, US or interstate routes master sonT - C 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete state-specific, and especially Wikiproject-specific templates, as much too narrow, and undesirable self-references. (I notice that a number of stub templates are becoming overly "self-reference-y", above and beyond the level of self-reference anticipated in the guidelines for same, which I would similarly strongly recommend being cleaned up.) If wikiprojects need this level of detail and breakdown, add it as a parameter to their talk-page template, or otherwise populate a talk-page category for such. Alai 03:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete re above. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:52, 6 August 2007 (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:Konjiki no Gash Bell navigation
- 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. IronGargoyle 04:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Konjiki no Gash Bell navigation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template was created in an attempt to change the Zatch Bell! related articles to have information exclusive to the japanese versions of the anime and manga. Those changes were not discussed on any sort of talk page and were reverted. This template has no further use. -XxKibaxX Talk 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The template seems to be put to good use and is the main link between the individual articles and the tv show. --Odie5533 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Template:Zatch Bell navigation is the template used for the dubbed articles. The articles linked to in the gash template have been abandoned. Those articles were, as I said, created in an attempt to change the system without a general consensus among any other members. -XxKibaxX Talk 23:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The pages created and linked to by Template:Konjiki no Gash Bell navigation were all manually moved (copy/paste) to I guess push the project towards the Japanese version of the anime which is why the template appears to be in use. Since the pages are no longer in use, the template need not exist. --Odie5533 17:39, 12 August 2007 (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.
MOVE Template:Northern Ireland cities
- 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 inappropriate forum. If consensus had developed here, I would have done it, but there seems to be some opposition. WP:RM would probably be a better outlet. IronGargoyle 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Northern Ireland cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) → Template:Northern Irish Cities —([[Talk:Template:Northern Ireland cities#Requested move|Discuss]])
— Capital 'C' for consistency with the other 3 templates of city status in their respective regions of the United Kingdom. Adjective form of "Northern Ireland" to be consistent with 'Scottish', 'Welsh' and 'English' counterpart templates. I beg to move that it be moved as per request. —Biofoundationsoflanguage 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am not sure whether Templates for deletion is the most appropriate forum for this. In anycase, it seems to me, that because the island of Ireland is divided into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom and everyone from that island is irish. Then the Northern Irish Cites seems more vague than the Northern Ireland cites. I'd say leave it status quo. —MJCdetroit 17:55, 5 August 2007 (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:Db-shoutout
- 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 a shout-out to the delete button. IronGargoyle 23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Db-shoutout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
To avoid confusion and promote a clear understanding of the speedy deletion criteria, the wording of speedy deletion tags should closely correspond to the wording of the criteria themselves. This tag is essentially a mix of ((db-a7)) and ((db-nocontent)), but includes wording that does not appear on the WP:CSD main page. In addition, the wording of "Wikipedia is not a place to ..." suggests that the tag reflects WP:NOT, which is explicitly listed as a non-criterion. So, delete to avoid confusion and to avoid setting a precedent for dozens of uniquely worded deletion tags. — Black Falcon (Talk) 05:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally created this template to counter the seemingly never-ending stream of "_____ is the coolest person ever!" articles, since I wasn't sure if db-context or db-bio carried a sufficient explanation. But I have found that even I rarely use this anymore, as db-context seems to do the job (and I'm using Twinkle now), so I won't oppose deletion. Realkyhick 05:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have been meaning to use it, and am glad to be reminded. It is not an extension of the nn criteria, but an expansion and clarification of just what the problem is. I have just modified the template to make that more explicit--please take a look. DGG (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The current wording of "such tributes or shout outs to or about friends and relatives are not appropriate unless the subject is notable" suggests that tributes are appropriate when the subject is notable, but that can be solved through editing. A more general issue is why a redundant template is necessary. Also, as noted in the nomination, the tag seems to mix criteria A7 (no assertion of notability) and A3 (attempt to contact the subject). In addition, it suggests that NPOV/NOR issues (which is the main problem of articles written like a "tribute") alone justify speedy deletion. — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: we have one person (the creator) who no longer uses it, and one person who has been "meaning to use it"; sounds like it's unused. On top of that, it's clearly redundant to existing templates. I disagree that it is an "expansion and clarification of just what the problem is"; it simply provides additional irrelevant information that has nothing to do with what the problem is. Xtifr tälk 08:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I just recently started using this, and found a link here after I saw the TfD notice at the top of the page I'd put it in. After reading the arguments, I'll be probably be using ((db-context)) in future.— Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 22:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Use ((db-context)) or ((db-bio)) instead. This doesn't really serve any specific purpose. GlassCobra 06:51, 10 August 2007 (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:Db-csd7
- 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. Sr13 is almost Singularity 00:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Db-csd7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This recently-created template is essentially a more complicated and more ambiguously-titled version of ((db-author)). There are three CSD criteria that correspond to #7: G7 (author request), A7 (no assertion of notability), and I7 (invalid fair use claim and tagged for 2-7 days, depending on the time of upload). This template only deals with the first, but the title doesn't make that clear. So, delete. — Black Falcon (Talk) 04:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete confusing and un-necesssaryDGG (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Holy... Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is a good try, but did not work out well. --Haemo 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I actually initially guessed from the title that it was referring to CSD A7 (possibly because I've deleted several articles that fit that criterion recently). Given that there is already enough confusion (especially for newcomers) about what is and isn't speedily deletable, ambiguity only magnifies the problem. — TKD::Talk 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The notes parameter is interesting, but "author wants this gone" is fairly unambiguous. I don't think that this template achieves anything not achieved by ((Db-author)). As far as it being shorter (by two characters), this template is redundant; there is already the ((Db-g7)) redirect (as well as the ((Db-a7)) and ((Db-i7)) redirects) for lazy typists. In any case, I'd still like to see the author's thoughts here. — Bigwyrm watch mewake me 01:08, 7 August 2007 (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:Db-pov
- 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 delete. Templates should not misrepresent policy. >Radiant< 08:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Db-pov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The text of this speedy deletion template reads:
It is an article that intends to show the author's opinion and violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. (CSD G2).
First, CSD G2 refers to "test pages", not POV pages. Second, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NPOV are not speedy deletion criteria. Indeed, "reasons derived from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" are explicitly noted as non-criteria. Delete. — Black Falcon (Talk) 04:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oh the irony. Deleting a speedy deletion tag. But this should be speedied, since the tag is by definition useless, it is not a CSD. i said 04:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the whole reason I created the template is that if someone created a page that said "someone should impeach bush" I could put that on it. If it gets deleted, what to put on that page now? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It gives a non-criterion. Not only is speedy not appropriate for violations of NPOV, not even deletion is appropriate. The tag I would use in the situation you mention is nocontext. DGG (talk) 01:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What if it was a whole essay on why Bush should be impeached? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That could potentially be a candidate for deletion under CSD G10 (a page created primarily to disparage its subject). If not, tag it for proposed deletion. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't we be more specific? Say it's not a direct attack? Cheers, JetLover (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's just a POV page that doesn't disparage its subject, and another speedy deletion criterion doesn't apply (e.g., G12 - copyright), then ((prod)) it. Just being POV is not a speedy deletion criteria and pages should not (and generally will not) be speedily deleted on the basis alone. — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a POV page it should be speedied, also maybe some Republican might create an article that says Bush is the best president ever? That should be speedied. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think "POV page" alone should justify speedy deletion, you are welcome to propose a new criterion on the policy talk page. At present, however, that is not the case and we should not have a speedy deletion template for something that is not a speedy deletion criterion. — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still though, it's a reasonable template. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a template that calls for speedy deletion of articles that do not meet the speedy deletion criteria. It should existed only when POV becomes a criterion (if ever). — Black Falcon (Talk) 02:26, 6 August 2007 (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:Db-polemic
- 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 delete. Templates should not misrepresent policy. >Radiant< 08:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Db-polemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This speedy deletion template was created for a speedy deletion criterion which failed to attain consensus. The criterion was introduced on June 24, contested about 10 minutes later, and a subsequent discussion about it (and criterion T1) failed to produce a change. — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That's not a CSD. Thus, no need for the template. i said 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete there is no CSD U4. The proposal having failed, the template should obviously be deleted. . DGG (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The criteria failed to gain consensus, so the template is pointless. Worse, it implies that "polemic" is a speedy deletion criteria. 84.145.196.251 06:44, 6 August 2007 (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:AfD in 3 steps new
- 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 delete G7 (by me, on my request). Actually, this page did replace AfD in 3 steps, and as such is no longer needed; it was an example for an admin to copy from (at that time, I wasn't an admin, and so had to request admin help). To prevent any GFDL problems with deleting it, I licence any contribution I had to that template that wasn't already in ((AfD in 3 steps)) into the public domain. --ais523 16:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Template:AfD in 3 steps new (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a slightly revised version of ((AfD in 3 steps)). As far as I can tell, the page was created to eventually replace ((AfD in 3 steps)), but it has not been significantly modified since September 2006 and is currently unused. Delete as redundant. — Black Falcon (Talk) 03:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Template is not used and not recently modified. Odie5533 15:01, 6 August 2007 (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:Peru Constitution
- 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. IronGargoyle 05:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Peru Constitution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is based on what seems to be an earlier version ((US Constitution)), however, it was never finished. Thus, it links mostly to US-related pages instead of Peru-related ones. Furthermore, it can't be completed as the Peruvian Constitution article has no subpages. So, IMHO it should be deleted. — Victor12 02:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There is not even a Peru Constitution page anymore, the template serves no purpose. Odie5533 15:04, 6 August 2007 (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:Afd-tally
- 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 delete per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Policy consensus/Regarding tally boxes. >Radiant< 08:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Afd-tally (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template presents separate columns to list "keep", "delete", and "other" comments in AfDs. However, AfD is not a vote, and I feel that use of this template would encourage the misconception that it is. So, I suggest subst'ing the sole transclusion and deleting the template. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:59, 5 August 2007 (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:Afd no consensus
- 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 was tempted to make a template to close this discussion, just to be ironic. But no... I just typed it out. :-) IronGargoyle 05:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Afd no consensus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is essentially a less flexible version of ((afd top)), in that it does not allow the closer to provide information beyond the outcome (i.e., a closing rationale). Since it is meant to be substituted, I cannot be sure whether/how often it is used; however, I can't remember seeing a "No Consensus, article kept" result. The creator is currently on wikibreak (since May 2007), so I can't ask him/her directly. So, delete as redundant. — Black Falcon (Talk) 01:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Since there are redirected abreviations for the ((afd top)) template, I can't imagine that
((subst:at)) '''No Consensus''', article kept. is significantly more effort. — TKD::Talk 09:57, 6 August 2007 (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.