< August 28	August 30 >

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. Joe 20:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Being used to stage an attack on a fellow editor, user has been warned about attacking editors instead of the content. Difs provided here of users intent [1][2] Should be deleted, user should be formally warned. zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possible history deletion X8 is a sandbox template used for practicing templates, and its original purpose is useful. If there are personal attacks in the history they may need to be deleted. --ais523 11:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. ((X8)) is listed as a sandbox template on Wikipedia's ((Template sandbox)). Neil916 (Talk) 00:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My apologies a history delete will suffice if anything. I was unaware of its official postition. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 13:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No problem. I don't think this to be a situation in which history deletion is appropriate; whilst the aggregation by one editor of the work of another toward the proposition that the latter acts in bad faith or is a bad contributor is rather uncivil and ought not to be undertaken, where no personally identifiable information or profound harassment (cf., imputations of malign motive concomitant to a summary of reasons for which one infers such motive) occurs, history deletion is wholly unnecessary. Even Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, for which a consensus never developed, suggests that situations like this be handled by one's striking out the offending remarks, although for personal attacks of a more complex and substantive nature, such striking out is probably unnecessary. Were the information, for example, to be compiled on a user page or subpage, we'd likely MfD such page as unnecessarily disruptive, but where information is instead appended to a talk page, it is best to ignore the post or to refactor or blank the offending sections. In any case, I'm going to be bold and close this as a keep, but I'll suggest that should Zero continue to desire history deletion, his request would almost certainly be fulfilled by an admin; a request is probably best made at WP:AN. Joe 20:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move to user space. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fir0002 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template for one user's specific use. Should be userfied. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Userfy and delete. --Durin 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why are you making life hard for me? What is the problem with having a template for uploading images? There are many people who use such templates (see Template:Froggydarb). Is there a limit to the number of templates Wikipedia can sustain? I think not. And when there is a valid reason for having the template, it's not just some stupid userbox, why make it difficult for Wikipedia photographers? I mean what is easier to type ((Fir0002)) or ((User:Fir0002/Template)) ? --Fir0002 22:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't personally feel strongly about this, and it is indeed a grey area. Personally, I'd just prefer to see templates that will only be used by a single user to be within that user's space. Sort of project neatness concern. Template space is for everybody; your userspace is for you. This template is unusable by anybody but you. Extending this on the same basis, you could create a category just for images created or taken by you. Should we have a category for every photographer/image contributor on Wikipedia? That other people are using template space in this way is not an argument in favor of more of this sort of use. I can understand your concern about ease of typing, but you can trim this to 7 additional characters; ((User:Fir0002/T)) rather than 14. Perhaps we should clarify Wikipedia:Template namespace as to whether it should be used in this manner. --Durin 13:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't let ((Froggydarb)) slide; I just didn't know about it. howcheng {chat} 16:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy to Fir0002's namespace if they'll take it, otherwise delete. --ais523 17:28, 31 August 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Timeline Dukes of Abercorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not used in the related articles, to big, superseeded by other templates on UK parliament. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone finds a use for it. Addhoc 13:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cancerdict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not used anywhere, although I think it is a valable template. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've checked for subst, and it isn't being substed either. This template should probably be deleted; it will probably be recreated if information from the PD source is reincorporated into Wikipedia. --ais523 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone finds a use for it. Addhoc 13:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protectbecause (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Some user's way of asking for page protection without visiting WP:RFPP and without specifying a reason for the request. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC) * Conditional delete unless consensus is found for this page-protection process, otherwise keep. --ais523 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Addhoc 13:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Modify per proposed modification at Template Talk:Protectbecause, which lists the process for all and sundry as a reference. Such can easily be included into process.

As proposed it looks like this (subst'd)

User:Fabartus believes this page has to be protected because This article is repeatedly being vandalised by IP 123.456.789.012. An lengthier rationale has been (or is about to be) added to the talk page Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 29 under the section Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 29#Requesting_Page_Protection. The same or similar rationale is (or is about to be) added to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. All requests have been duly signed by me with my signature: FrankB 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(({category|[[Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests|((PAGENAME))]]))}

Boy! I do hope that's not a good IP! <g>

Note the auto-category Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests I nowiki blocked around before substing. I presume that's a patroled cat, and if this pops up it may alert someone that work is pending.

The noninclude parts of the proposed template page have some additional usage annotations helpful to the newer users, and who have stumbled onto this template via a category search or whatnot. As such it helps disseminate the 'proper procedures and places to go'.

Oh! The reason I think this should be kept is it's a good reference to how the process works and serves as a notice to others that the protection request is outstanding. Someone else may well stumble on the Category:Protection templates, as I did, or via a protected page (as I did) or remember seeing it's cat since it has a nice simple easy to remember name. It's name as template is useful to provide a editor friendly starting point however they find the thing.
   IMHO, Such back door links to find what one is looking for should not only be held opened, but made sure of for the benefit of the poor sod volunteering precious discretionary time to any wikipedia.

• If this Keep with modification counter proposal is adopted, I opine also, that the template ought to be listed on Wikipedia:List of protected pages as the third listed by ((Tl)) in the Protection templates row (i.e In the Wikitable boxed at top center), and certainly on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.
     I believe there are a few others that also should be cross-listed on those two pages there, for the same reason—as leads for and to the newbies, the occasional editor, or even for the benefit of experience old hands—all with little protecting process experience heretofore. However they might find it, we ought to make it visible, if not enshrined in the process itself. I'm going to cross post to the Wikipedia Talk:Requests for page protection and Wikipedia talk:List of protected pages // FrankB 21:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My experience is that Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests isn't patrolled very fast (it's backlogged with 12 items as of this timestamp). --ais523 11:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per suggested modification. There are templates for deletion recommendation, and a template for protection recommendation would be a good tool to have in the box. --SpecOp Macavity 20:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• (vote changed) Change to suggested modification as this no longer introduces a new process. --ais523 10:09, 4 September 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Protect2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A protection template that's redundant and offers no explanation to users as to why the page is protected. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant and inferior to ((protected)). --ais523 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inferior version. Addhoc 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete totally unnecessary Bugtrio 10:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suburbs with 2108 Postcode (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Oh no. Lets not start down this slope. Create this and you then have to create one for every postcode in Australia. Delete Chuq 01:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: More like postcodes around the world. --Durin 01:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Durin. Addhoc 13:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. QazPlm 02:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Teehee, Delete. Lankiveil 07:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bugtrio 10:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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