< February 2	February 4 >

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vulgarity[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored for minors. This template makes it seem otherwise. Delete Karmafist 18:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. very useful when responding to personal attacks or uncivil behavior without draging oneself down to the offender's level. That the template appears to be sparsly used is misleading: it is so effective that it rarely stays anywhere without the offending text being cleaned up and the template swiftly removed. I've used it at least three times in the past month. Please see also Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement. --James S. 22:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Karmafist, above. --SpacemanAfrica 01:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Says nothing that is either better off not said or better said in a less annoying way. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ummm... If someone creates an article with vulgarity in it, the odds are that A) it qualifies for speedy deletion or B) the person who puts this template up could just as easily remove the vulgarity themselves. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless. Inaccurate. Ugly. Dump. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... but not because Wikipedia isn't censored. This is just redundant cleanup template in my view. gren グレン ^? 06:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gren and because the icon is indistinct and overpowering. --Aaron 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete helohe (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fkmd 12:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Discordance 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Catamorphism 01:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Loopy ^e 01:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oregon State Highways[edit]

Rather big. A succession box like on Oregon State Route 36 will still provide context and a link to the list without being huge. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Definitely too big. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's huge! And the succession box will work better too. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Flags of European Countries[edit]

• Template:Flags of European Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Delete — This template is used simply to put an image in Category:Flag images of Europe. It should be replaced with the category link directly everywhere it's used. dbenbenn | talk 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC) dbenbenn | talk 11:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, confusing and unnecessary. JYolkowski // talk 23:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Valentinian 17:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• stong Delete unnesly and dos not work.**My Cat inn @ (talk)** 20:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was confused by the template itself, and a good ol' category will work great for these images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Loopy ^e 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MAX Stations[edit]

Rather big. MAX station articles already include succession boxes, which link to the line and the previous and next stations, so there is no need for this. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 11:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought the highways one was big! Delete. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 19:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's completely redundant, and less usable than the next/prev station table. --Mattmcc 04:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NZ Cleanup[edit]

• Template:NZ Cleanup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Delete. — This is just a specialized version of the ((cleanup)) template. It's the only specialized version of ((cleanup)) in Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. It's not currently used, and IMO, not needed. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, speedily if possible. Who's idea is it that New Zealand is somehow more important? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:33, Feb. 3, 2006
• Delete per Freakofnurture. -Xol 20:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template:cleanup-school should probably go too. Discordance 22:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied, has already been discussed on TFD earlier. >Radiant< 11:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tfd-small/Temp[edit]

• Template:Tfd-small/Temp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. — Left over from deletion of ((tfd-small)). Also should delete related template ((tfd1-small)). – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TrollWarning[edit]

• Template:TrollWarning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A talk page warning template that fails to assume good faith. It's far, far too common for legitimate disagreement to be characterized as "trolling", and we don't need a boilerplate template that encourages this. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Being wary doesn't mean you can't WP:AGF. Like it or not, some pages are troll magnets. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. WP:POINT nomination. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand how this nomination is WP:POINT. It seems perfectly valid and reasonable to me, not "disruptive". -Silence 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Whether the template is kept or deleted, it should be rewritten. "This discussion page may contain comments better considered as trolling,"? What terrible English! -Silence 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as totally redundant and useless. Trolling is in the eye of the beholder, and this box itself could be considered to be a form of trolling. It is not useful. --Dschor 21:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very useful, e.g. Talk:Saudi Arabia. As far as I understand, the last two comments are textbook examples of trolling. (The comments were later edited to be less recognizable as trolling) -- Eagle^amn 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This message just does not strike me as appropriate for an article talk page. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most articles which have it tagged also have ((controversial)) as well. I think the controvercial template should explain that heated feelings may run high on the talk pages, and one must be civil. (Although not in those words). --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 07:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with LBMixPro. If kept, atleast make it sound better and less inflamatory though. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Trolls do not assume good faith. How do you warn normal users about the nonsense that gets regularly posted to Talk:Sollog and other highly vandalized articles? ((controversial)) does not differentiate between legitimate disagreements about article versus some net.kook harassing other users and posting complete nonsense on talk pages. jni 09:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unfortunitly useful. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- many users, especially new ones, may not recognize trolling on sight. Catamorphism 01:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Process[edit]

• Template:Process (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

"This page is considered a process on Wikipedia". We don't need a blatant box at the top of every Wikipedia page explaining exactly what it is. For the differences between policy/guideline/proposal/rejected it's useful, but for any process this is just restating the bloody obvious. >Radiant< 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept — bad faith nomination, I made the template to see if they could help crearing up for me what's an process is, it was ment to be on the main process-page, so my initial script wasn't perfekt I sorry. O.T. Please wait more than a couple of hours before sending things here, and you could HAVE before a civilised discussion about it instead of doing it the Neto-way. _→AzaToth 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FAITH, WP:NPA. Don't argue that people need to discuss before removing things, when you yourself haven't discussed before adding them. >Radiant< 02:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that was wrong from my side, wrong page and all things :) I thought AI was a page defined as a process page, so I wintoed to see if people likes it or not, but it was the wrong page totaly. _→AzaToth 02:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ceci n'est pas une process, delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 13:30, Feb. 3, 2006
• Delete. Vague and overly broad. --SpacemanAfrica 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Categorization gone mad. —Cryptic (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per apparently bad faith nom. Seriously, how on Earth could this possibly have been considered "bad faith"? What justification do you have, AzaToth, for slinging about that accusation? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wowwiki[edit]

• Template:Wowwiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Links to the World of Warcraft wiki, which is neither a primary source nor a sisterproject. >Radiant< 02:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are many other templates like this that link to other such websites, see Category:External link templates. One such is ((Memoryalpha)). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • additional examples: ((Comixpedia)), the MusicBrainz (((musicbrainz artist)), ((musicbrainz album)), ((musicbrainz track)) and ((musicbrainz wiki))) templates. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for pointing that out, I'll nominate those for deletion as well. The difference is that linking to a well-known information site (such as IMDB) is useful, and linking to a small start-up wiki is linkspam. >Radiant< 16:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • WoWWiki may be a "start-up" site to you, but it's a very well-known compendium for the 5.5 million players of World of Warcraft. —Joseph | Talk 03:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per reasons stated by myself above and by User:CyberSkull. The finest example is ((imdb title)). —Joseph | Talk 03:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. Not as bad as the BBC and Google links (as it isn't for a commercial organization), but still problematic. Mostly link spamming. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 03:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was going to vote delete, but the site seems to qualify as a primary source in the same sense that Wikipedia could be cited as a source. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Start up wikis shouldnt be linked. Memory alpha is part of wikia and contains far more information on its subject thats why it gets a template. Discordance 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WoWWiki is not a "start-up" wiki, it's a very well established source of World of Warcraft information. The difference between Memory Alpha and WoWWiki is that not every Star Trek fan knows about Memory Alpha while virtually most -if not all- World of Warcraft players have visited or know about WoWWiki. —Joseph | Talk 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a open-edit wiki, it is not a 'reliable' source for Wikipedia. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment: Um, but isn't that what wikipedia is? Also WoWWiki doesn't allow anonymous edits. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not yet a reliable source, either. Jimbo has said that students shouldn't use it to do their homework. The last I looked, many articles in WOWWiki are unsourced, and that makes it unreliable as a source. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 12:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The source for everything in WoWWiki is World of Warcraft itself. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per CyberSkull. Are the articles on WoWWiki useful external links? Clearly they are, for a number of topics. Therefore, why would one delete a template used to ensure a consistent style to those links? --Stormie 07:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I would hope that these links might encourage people to contribute detailed and useful - but not really encyclopedic - information to a more appropriate wiki than Wikipedia. --Stormie 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looking at a few of the posted external links, they seem to be informative. Since it clearly can be usefull to post links to that wiki there is no reason not to keep the template. Thue | talk 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When I was still playing WoW I actually visited this site more often than Wikipedia itself. WoW has a huge fanbase and this Wiki managed to establish itself early enough that it became one of the definitive fan sites for the game. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yeah, I've visited this site for lots of World of Warcraft stuff. It's very informative, and not just a startup wiki. Polanco
• Keep: does exactly the job for which templates were designed, which is to ensure uniformity of style of related information. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash^talk 23:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mergefromcat[edit]

• Template:Mergefromcat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete — This template is a duplicate of ((cfm)). ((cfm)) is discussed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion as the template to use for merging categories. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, merge? >Radiant< 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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