< June 26	June 28 >

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. Sr 13 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a completely unnecessary template. All it does it link to the article kayfabe and superscript it. — «»bd(^talk _stalk) 00:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some of the members of the WP:PW project have agreed that the template is pretty useless and un-needed. A link to that discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#kayfabe template?. Nikki311 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is useless. Darrenhusted 00:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but is this really just "(Kayfabe)" without the quatation marks? Oh my god this is terrible. Get rid of it. --SteelersFan UK06 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I find it somewhat useful, but as far as policy is concerned, it is useless. Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 03:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has been TfD'd for a fair while now, I think we've received a fiar concencus, can it be dealt with now? Please? --SteelersFan UK06 03:49, 4 July 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.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with other CSD templates. It's also somewhat insulting to new users ("waste of resource") and listing non-CSD criteria ("orphan"). Suggest deletion. — Wafulz 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems to either contradict itself or list non-CSDs, depending on your interpretation of it. It has a non-standard name, and is too vague (a CSD template should ideally fit one of the criteria, a subset of one criterion, or the common subset between two criteria). It contains factual errors (deleting a page doesn't free up resources, as its content still has to be stored so the page can be undeleted). (I see that between the nomination and this comment, the template has been edited to remove the factual errors and new-user biting, but I'm still not convinced that this template is within policy; it now looks like a speedy-delete criterion for redirects with quotes in their name, which is either not a CSD or ((db-redirtypo)), and so this template is at best redundant.) --ais523 15:37, 29 June 2007 (U T C)
Delete. The template lists an unusual mixture of potential reasons for deletion that don't have a good match with the current CSD criteria, yet its overall form is like that of a typical CSD template. Whoever has to close the CSD is likely to be confused and slowed down, so I recommend it be deleted. EdJohnston 19:24, 4 July 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.

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 subst and redirect. IronGargoyle 16:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template was replaced with ((NYCS time)) and has been removed from all article namespace. — Dream out loud (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I would rather see it marked as deprecated, rather than removed. It still appears on a number of talk pages and archive pages. It's quite annoying when you look at one of those pages to see what was said, and a template shows up as a red link. Marc Shepherd 22:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as per Marc. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which template has replaced this one? (you currently link to the old template rather than its replacement, and a template can't replace itself...) Can this template be set as a redirect to that new template? Mike Peel 08:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Subst. remaining usages, and set as a redirect to Template:NYCS (which seems to be its replacement). I can't think of any benefit of deprecating the template over doing that, and it's what will probably happen to the template anyway once it's been lying around Category:Deprecated templates for a while. Mike Peel 08:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst. and redirect per Mike Peel. Although I don't need to know what this template did, it is of historical value to some users, and redirects are cheap. Tinlinkin 11:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & Redirect as per Mike Peel above. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:48, 10 July 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.

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. Currently orphaned. matt br 11:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused user box template. Verges on WP:ADVERT. Mike Peel 19:48, 27 June 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.

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. Клоун 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Replacing inappropriate speedy deletion request) Initially, Template:Dalek Stories and Template:Cybermen Stories were created to deal with collecting the dozen or more Doctor Who episodes featuring these characters. However, more templates were created, so that story arcs, even just 2 episodes long were listed. All templates only list two-four episodes, featuring a barely notable character, and all related episodes are wikilinked to each other anyway. (not included are Dalek, Cybermen, Master, Ice Warrior, Gallifrey, Slitheen and Black Guardian stories templates. Slitheen and Black Guardian stories are a bit iffy, but they are just about big enough to be useful) — Laïka 15:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Some of them aren't even used in the episode articles. DrKiernan 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also replacing speedy deletion request as above. First: Only four stories and a 'minor appearance'. Second: three stories and two minor refs. Gwinva 16:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, including the two added just above. They're not particularly useful, with very few articles included in them, and the articles in each template already link to each other anyway. They were deleted from most of the pages as soon as they were added to them - they unnecessarily clutter up the articles. --Brian Olsen 16:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per above, plus creation of them seems like it might be a little pointy. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, as well as:

Delete all! THE MACRA television stories? Dear god help us. Another useful creation by Wolf of Fenric. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above arguments. As Brian Olsen points out they clutter up the articles.--MarnetteD | Talk 19:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the key to time, - six stories not linked on the articles. Delete the rest.--OZ OO (Can't you hear them?) 12:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In creating these templates, I was merely trying to be helpful as I noticed Dalek, Cybermen, UNIT and The Master templates had recently been inserted on pages. It has been pointed out by someone that categories are preferred to templates and so be it. I would think there is place for a Key to Time template, but apart from that, do with them as you will. As for articles not linking to the templates, as has been pointed out, this is down to speedy removal of the templates by other contributors on the relevant pages, instantly rendering them useless.

I object strongly to Zythe's personal comments and have written on his talk page expressing my concerns over his tone. It simply is not necessary to resort to that. Fine, you do not like the templates - it appears they are to be deleted - therefore, there is no need to get personal. Wolf of Fenric 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't take much effort to list the episodes in the (minor) character's article or List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. Useless template detected. Exterminate. MER-C 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all with the exception of ((The Key to Time)) which is probably justified. Tim! 07:42, 7 July 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.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is going a little too far. If one existed for every mission (and they don't), things would get too cluttered. —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I see no reason why this box needs to be a template. For STS-115 article, just put it in the article itself. For the crew members' articles, mentioning that they were a crew in STS-115 in the body text would suffice. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 06:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. navbox crazyness. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, excessive. So far this template is not causing much mischief, since it is transcluded in only nine articles. However such a template for every mission would be overkill. EdJohnston 01:47, 6 July 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.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template takes the previously neatly-arranged category links and scatters them randomly across the page. It's impossible to find them, you can forget about maintenance, and it makes editing pages even more confusing for newcomers. Please do something about this template before I'm forced to rip it from every article it's in in the name of sanity – Gurch 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a good theoretical idea ,allowing editors to justify an article's inclusion in some category by calling out the material in the article that justifies it; however, it is unfortunately implemented very badly. Categories should go in one place (the end of the article), not in many places. Furthermore, they need to obviously be category links, not unexplained template parameters. To those who want something like this, I suggest implementing a template that can just wrap a properly formatted categoy list without breaking it. Breaking up category lists as this does is frankly a non-starter. -- Gavia immer (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re-write the article, or delete it. I think my vote speaks for itself. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An innovative notion that does not seem to fit with the way we do things now. People are unlikely to switch away from current practice to start using this template. Broad consensus would be needed before any actual use. Otherwise, as Gurch noted, people will be tempted to rip them out wherever they occur. EdJohnston 19:13, 4 July 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.

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. The corresponding article was also kept. matt br 11:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaia series article itself acknowledges it: these games do not officially form a series. Consequently, the article is just a collection of original research, assumptions, and personal extrapolation. A discussion has taken place on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Soul Blazer series but it didn't help fix the article, as no reliable sources has ever been found to establish the notability and veracity of this article. — Kariteh 07:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please also vote on the deletion page of the corresponding article. Kariteh 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources for this being considered a series by fans include the following three professional reviews: [1] [2] [3]. As such, it is not original research to state that fans consider them to be a series. JulesH 17:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth and it is readily verifiable through reliable sources that fans and gaming professionals refer to these as a series. As JulesH says, with those sources, it is obviously not original research, assumptions or personal extrapolation. DarkSaber2k 10:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the first review is truly "professional". The other two sites are fan sites. As a matter of fact, the second site is outright wrong as it states that Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma were called "Soul Blazer 2" and "Soul Blazer 3" in Japan (it was not the case). Since only one website (the first link) seems to mention the existence of this series in a reliable way, it remains the point of view of that website and not a common, widespread verifiable fact. Moreover, the third site doesn't actually name what games are part of that series, while the second site does not mention Granstream Saga. And finally, none of these three sites use the term "Gaia series" which is the name of the article here. All this is really shoddy. Kariteh 11:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - During Beta, Illusion of Gaia was referred to as Soul Blazer: Illusion of Gaia, and Terranigma was referred to as Illusion of Gaia 2 inside the game. If Illusion of Gaia is the indirect sequel to Soul Blazer, and Terranigma is the "sequel" to Illusion of Gaia, that's enough connection, isn't it? I just think the template should be renamed back to the Soul Blazer series. SouperAwesome 10:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have reliable sources to establish that this is really how they were referred to? And what do you do about Granstream Saga? Kariteh 11:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added The Granstream Saga in the template as "Related", since it's not "officially" connected to the others, despite all the similarities. I tried to take a photo of my TV showing the screen where Terranigma is called "Illusion of Gaia 2" but it didn't turn out, but I'll try again later if you'd like. SouperAwesome 10:03, 2 July 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.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NOT#DIR and is only used by one article on the template, even after a year of being in place. ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Even the article linked on this template is considered to be deleted. ~Iceshark7 17:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above. DrKiernan 08:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. EdJohnston 20:52, 3 July 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.

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template, as there is a Template:New Orleans Hornets that does the job well for the Hornets' page. The information is also outdated anyway. Big Phoenix 03:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template should be deleted because the information in it is outdated, and because we already have another template that serves the same purpose and is not outdated.--†Sir James Paul† 06:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With their move back to New Orleans, they're just the New Orleans Hornets now, and the other template better represents this. --fuzzy510 17:43, 2 July 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.

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 . subst all and delete. IronGargoyle 16:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used on one article, and with no links, not likely to be used anyplace else. Substitute it and be done with it. — fuzzy510 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as well as Template:Cal football, Template:Cal rugby, and Template:Cal crew. All are used only in California Golden Bears. WODUP 09:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. None of the four criteria for template deletion listed at WP:TFD seem to apply here. Is there a precedent for getting rid of templates that are only used in one article? For long-term maintenance of an article it might be convenient to keep some of the wiki code in a single-purpose template that wasn't used elsewhere. EdJohnston 21:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it can be substed onto another page, or a subpage of the article; it doesn't need to be in the template namespace. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to be educated on this point, if single-use templates are not generally accepted. Aren't subpages in article space frowned upon? And is template namespace really a scarce resource? EdJohnston 01:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst & Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:45, 10 July 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.

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. matt br 11:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template which doesn't seem entirely accurate based off of new information on their website which only permits educational use. Of course some information on the website may be PD, i.e. old images, but not all of it (i.e., click a link on the biography page of the current governor and note the educational-use only for copyrighted material in popup box). Tom (talk - email) 02:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm OK with deleting this as an unused template. The nominator's concern about the restriction to educational use seems well-taken. EdJohnston 20:56, 3 July 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.

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. Sr 13 08:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This allows any user to upload a non-free Pokémon image and not care why it should be uploaded. They just slap the fair use template and this template on the image and be done with it. ((Non-free media rationale)) seems more appropriate for adding fair use rationales rather than just adding this. — FunPika 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the argument funpika presents, and the fact a similar template can do the job is good enough already. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete the other template is MUCH better. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 20:57, 27 June 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.

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 Replace with ((cleanup)), and add cleanup parameter to ((Pokeproject)) on the talk page. Mike Peel 17:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant template that is essentially ((cleanup)). In addition, the wording makes it sound like the project owns the page it's on. — Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Template:Pokeproject. A parameter in the project's talk page banner can allow editors to find articles needing attention without this cleanup template that violates WP:OWN like the nominator says. FunPika 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete or improve this template adds nothing to the original except the word Pokemon and the category functionality has now been integrated into ((PCP)) (by myself). On the other hand, there seems to be a recent campaign against specialized templates, while I'm unsure if other categories of templates have been put up for TFD (and other XFDs), pokemon related templates seem to be consistently viewed as "overspecialization" while other "legitimate" schemes are left in place. If we delete this template, the same reasoning should call for Template:Cleanup-biography, Template:Cleanup-book, Template:Cleanup comics, Template:Cleanup-school, Template:Cleanup-university, Template:Gamecleanup, Template:In-universe/Television, and everything under Category:Cleanup templates for WikiProjects. If these templates should stay, we should then be asking how we can improve this template to make it more acceptable. I'm all for improving the encyclopedia but i'm really getting sick of the double-standards that seem to be enforced. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- note to closing admin if replacing ((poke-cleanup)) with ((cleanup)) please update the wikiproject banner on the talk page with |cleanup= MONTHNAME YEAR)), a lot of the recent XfDs have completely screwed up legitimate categories and undone months of work. -PokeZap (Zappernapper) 14:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ((Pokeproject)) per FunPika. --The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 15:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Specialisation is broad, and cleanup templates regarding WikiProjects are not ruled out. The template in question is used to categorise by date, and the cleanup resources do not rule out WikiProject-specific boilerplates in the place of banners on the discussion page. Template removal consistency should be called if we do delete this template. Is "PCP owning the template" a legitimate reason? The text should be able to be improved to imply less of ownership and more of article standardisation. - Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which WikiProjects also use specialized cleanup templates? FunPika 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which have but disappeared. Withdrawing keep vote. Delete. -- Sotomura (Tetsuya-san) (yell : see) 13:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Till I see proof of these "other WikiProjects" Sotomura is siding on, delete. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 01:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not needed. There are barely any Pokemon articles needing cleanup, and it's soon to be defunct.--Zxcvbnm 14:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ((Pokeproject)) --Kralizec! (talk) 15:43, 10 July 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.

June 27

Template:Kayfabe

Template:Qm

Template:NYCS time

Template:AIR KORYO

Doctor Who television stories

Template:STS-115

Template:Catcite

Template:Gaia series

Template:Dialing codes in Greece - Zone 26

Template:New Orleans/Oklahoma Hornets

Template:Cal basketball

Template:Mdarchives

Template:Pokefair

Template:Poke-cleanup