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 delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet[edit]

Template:Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is comprised of information that belongs only in one article-the biography of Patrizia Norelli-Bachelet. Further it appears to have many external links, so it does not function as an internal navigation aid. Will Beback 22:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and Delete - Single use template. (That should be a speedy criterion.) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete. It could possibly be useful if all of those books had their own article — and happen to be notable enough to deserve their own — but, for now, subst and delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Template is being used to inappropriately promote Norelli-Bachlet and external websites. — goethean ॐ 16:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are not enough wikilinks to Norelli-Bachelet's ideas and books to justify keeping it; the only other page is Gnostic circle (which doesnt even have the template on it), the other two links are only to short sections in other pages. M Alan Kazlev 04:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy subst and delete per obvious reasons stated above. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as single-use template. Spacepotato 04:13, 8 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BCInfobox[edit]

Template:BCInfobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Infobox has been wikified and is now embedded in the actual article:Boston College. Delete this template as it is no longer needed. 136.167.226.202 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the above reason. —MementoVivere (talk • contribs) 05:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom +Hexagon1 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is currently being discussed on the proposed policy page Wikipedia:Root page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Backlink[edit]

Template:Backlink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Awful idea for many reasons. Wikipedia is not, and should not, be organized hierarchically. Its use is wrong in almost every case (why would a person arriving at computer-generated imagery have followed a link from animation in particular?). Fredrik Johansson 19:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Omegatron 04:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — ALoopingIcon 08:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it really does go against common navigation —Wikibarista 11:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stupid. — Mar. 2, '06 [12:48] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete. Horrible idea. Mickey 18:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Presumes one has to get to a page only one way -very bad. -R. S. Shaw 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. Never know when it might be needed.--Light current 18:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia does not use hierarchical navigation. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Comments here say very definitively that WP should not be hierarchically organized, and I can see that point. However: 1) Is that an official policy?; and 2) Does that also imply that it may not be useful to have (small) subsets of grouped, hierarchically-linked articles? I can see an argument for shallow trees of hierarchical article groups, normally a situation with an overview article and a series of expanded sub-articles. But before arguing this at more length, is non-hierarchicality (?) a settled issue? -- Gnetwerker 01:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a clear consensus here. There is also a poll on Gnetworker's proposal, which was also against it. Septentrionalis 23:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Wikibarista. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; confusing, all articles which would be below something else hierarchically should link to the thing above it (Animated television series contains a link to animation without this template). smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 08:50, 5 March 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 Since this template is obsoleted, I will redirect to Template:Infobox Military Conflict to prevent users from recreating it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MultiWarbox[edit]

Template:MultiWarbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by ((Infobox Military Conflict)). —Kirill Lokshin 14:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Vargher 22:57, 1 March 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, not used anymore. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:World War II infobox[edit]

Template:World War II infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No longer used, obsoleted by ((Infobox Military Conflict)). —Kirill Lokshin 14:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since the template is not used anymore in the actual World War II article. In addition to that, the current template is more flexible, the WWII template being too specific. --Vargher 22:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unflexible and unused template. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looks as if it is still in use to me. Эйрон Кинни (t) 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was just someone doing something silly, I think. It's not used on any articles. —Kirill Lokshin 17:15, 5 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal US Roads[edit]

The portal is not being maintained, and this template is being used to spam a link to it at the top of a large number of articles. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 09:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless there is a good example of how this concept is supposed to work elsewhere. Given all my browsing of Wikipedia, I suspect there isn't, and that this really belongs in userspaceland. —Rob (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the portal is only 2-3 weeks old and is being maintained, I've been working on it. As for the portal being spam, it is listed only on the listing of the various interstate, US, and state highways and a few related articles. I understood this is what was supposed to be done. There is no single US roads article. Portal:Oz has put the portal link on several Oz related articles.Rt66lt 01:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for formatting, nothing has been done since it was created. Portals are supposed to be subject-specific versions of the main page, not static pages. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 12:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Portal is being maintained, see WT:USRD. As for the template being spam? That's just nonsense. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant with wikiproject notices on the articles' talk pages. — Mar. 2, '06 [12:47] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Keep

1. I don't see anything under Wikipedia:Portal that indicates a portal (and therefore the template) should be deleted if it doesn't get changed with any great frequency. The purpose of a portal is to "to serve as 'main pages' for specific topics or areas". That is exactly what this portal does.
2. WikiProject pages are not intended to be used in the same manner, but instead are used to collaborate editing efforts so there is no redundancy there.
3. The "spamming" argument is spurious: referencing the template on the project pages serves to remind editors to provide updates to the portal, therefore since it serves a purpose it is not spam.

--Censorwolf 17:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying the portal should be deleted, only the template. I don't feel putting it at the top of this large number of articles is helpful. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 18:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as long as it doesn't go on individual highway/route articles but only on Lists. Polaron 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, is maintained currently.Gateman1997 02:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, useful for US Roads. Has its purpose to stay. Deryck C. 08:33, 8 March 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect page[edit]

Template:Redirect page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
If a page should be redirected, anyone who knows how to transclude the template can most likely redirect the page. If they don't know where to redirect to, the page should be deleted. As far as I can tell, the template is unused. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^') 07:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, if for no other reason than it's the most ugly template I've ever set my eyes on. Stifle 17:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Please. The road to unneeded templates is paved with good intentions... —Rob (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know why, but that template kills my browser (firefox 1.5.0.1) _→AzaToth 19:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPUI messed with it. I'd fix it, but honestly, I'd rather see it deleted first... and the original version is about as bad. —Rob (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted it. SPUI was probably making, in his usual roundabout way, the point that the template is fugly. --cesarb 21:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    More like completely broken and nonsensical. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as notice-creep. If somebody feels this way about a page, just do it. — Mar. 2, '06 [12:51] <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• Delete. Will that also eliminate the dubious categories Redirected pages and Redirected from...? Omniplex 19:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, per criteria for speedy deletion C3 (template categories). // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 12:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If the page just need a redirect...((sofixit))? — Rebelguys2 ^talk 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rebelguys2. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I am starting to work on it and have the time, not to mention this is an important part of Wikipedia, that will only become more important as time progresses --Tim Quievryn 20:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems unneeded and frankly is somewhat incomprehensible. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:09, 5 March 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 pending a possible revision Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MajorRevision[edit]

Template:MajorRevision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This new template is completely redundant the more specific ((expand)) and ((disputed)), which are established templates and much less garish. Superm401 - Talk 00:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; possibly revise. unlike the 'expand' and 'disputed' templates, this is a note to readers, rather than editors. It's intent is to notify readers (as it says) that content is currently incomplete because of a particularly active ongoing process of revision. garishness is a separate issue; changes in format would go undisputed. Ted 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That would simply mean it's redundant with ((underconstruction)), then. --cesarb 01:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  perhaps, but ((underconstruction)) is clearly aimed at editors, and is (regardless) much more obtrusive. an editor I'm working with has stated a dislike for large, overbearing headers, which is one reason why I created this one. Ted 02:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it is useful, and it is not redundant. (Ibaranoff24 06:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep, useful template. --Terence Ong 09:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. Nameme 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and perhaps revise. This is a useful notice for non-editing readers. aliceinlampyland 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, might serve some purpose sometime. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This notice applies to most if not all pages here. Redundant with Wikipedia:General disclaimer, which is already linked to from every page. Flowerparty■ 14:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep and revise. The template does not say because of a particularly active ongoing process of revision as Ted claims above. I would probably be more useful if it did, although I think Flowerparty makes a good point about possible redundancy. And it sure is ugly. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 01:05, 5 March 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.