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 speedily deleted per CSD G4 by Stifle. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3di H1[edit]

Provides a redundant link on Interstate H-1 and Interstate H-201. --SPUI (T - C) 19:16, 31 July 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(The people rejoice!) 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

No pages use this template. Should be using "Template:Cite_book" instead. -- SatyrTN 01:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Template:Cite book. --ais523 11:08, 4 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 speedy close - moved to RfD. --ais523 09:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Template text rewritten not to be a disclaimer and moved to Template:Legally frivolous, per comments on previous TfD (July 18). This redirect now serves no need and is misleading. Robert A.West (Talk) 12:32, 31 July 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(The people rejoice!) 03:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox The Simpsons season 15 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superseded by ((Infobox Simpsons episode)), this is unfinished and apparently unused.Gareth Aus 08:27, 31 July 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(The people rejoice!) 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) - some (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aside from the awful name, this should be a list and perhaps a mention in the article of each. I see no utility of being ble to browse by such a classificiation. older ≠ wiser 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also adding Template:GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) - Min (common sense, rationales given here apply as well, TFD is not a vote but a discussion, and arguments is what count) -- Drini 03:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless. bogdan 12:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is unclear what this list is trying to convey. You have to go trawling through the world city article before you work out what it is referring to and even once you have, it adds little value to the article. -- Adz|talk 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I am the creator - you might wanna deleted the other template then, ((GaWC Inventory of World Cities (1999 Edition) - Min)). I just thought it was a good way to link articles that might no commonly be linked to each other.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  They have almost nothing one to do with each other and that's why they should not be linked. bogdan 15:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not because it's useless (it's useful), not because it's unclear (it's tedious and obscure, not unclear), but because it adds little value to the article. Besides, "Subnet articulator cities" is a much more lovely and much more up-to-date term. --M@rēino 19:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the name was clear, would you support keep?--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 23:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to see also link or category. Passer-by 19:01, 2 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 seriously...keep. ;) - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

A BJAODN-quality template, made entirely redundant by ((bv)) and ((bv-n)). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful as a warning, and in line with ((behave)) and ((funnybut)). It would probably help if a redirect was added from ((humor4)) (likewise for the other two templates mentioned above). It doesn't seem excessively humorous in nature to me, and slightly decorative warnings like this probably work best on excessively humourous users. --ais523 12:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Very useful! - CobaltBlueTony 12:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ideally along with the other templates ais523 linked to. When a user deliberately vandalises others' work, someone coming along and telling them to "oh, be-have" or "be serious" is hardly going to encourage respect of our mission. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The templates are more useful for people who think this is Uncyclopedia and create humourous articles. To take a recent example (the example via which I noticed this TfD), look at User talk:Clueless, Pathetic and very Annoying, which shows all three levels of humour warnings in action. Somehow I don't think ((vw)) and ((bv)) or ((test1)) etc. would have been quite appropriate (although I don't know for certain, as I can't see the deleted content of the pages). --ais523 15:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it does little harm to have a variety of templates for cautioning new users. Isn't there a WikiProject for this, however? What do they say on the matter? I notice it's included in the matrix at Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. -- nae'blis 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The WikiProject on user warnings was founded to create a small, standardised set of informative and helpful messages. Regarding existing "legacy templates" (those not part of this standardised scheme), the WikiProject only cares about conformance to the technical guidelines. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 03:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems like this could be more effective than the other templates. --JJay 23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template has its uses. It's listed on the user talk template list under the category "Using improper humor", whereas ((bv)) et al. are used for cases of blatant vandalism. Different circumstances, different warnings. Neil916 00:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is useful. Michael 07:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --DragonWR12LB 03:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I like it, its useful, it stands out and gets the point across. Its alos humorous. Abstract Idiot (talk · contribs · count)
• Strong Keep. Basically the final warning for users making joke edits. Users who start out by putting jokes in might stay and become serious contributors if told nicely that jokes, while funny, aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. The test- series aren't really appropriate for such a situation, and neither is blatantvandal. Powers 02:30, 5 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(The people rejoice!) 04:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is far more limited to be used a genealogy template. It was previously used in two different articles which now uses Familytree template. This template is therefore obsolete and should be removed. Oblivious 05:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. per nom Neil916 00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obsolete. (SEWilco 14:49, 5 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.