< May 22	May 24 >

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 deleted by Drini as T1 candidates and I have no complaint. In general, if a template accuses people of being "negligent idiots" or "suicidal", it is an inflammatory one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User recycling2[edit]

This user thinks that people who don't recycle waste are negligent idiots.

Wow, even I think this should be subst'ed and deleted. Calling people "negligent idiots" is definitely polemical and unhelpful to the encyclopedia. --M @r ē ino 21:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. I was fixing this template while sombeody deleted it. I improved it to

((Tfd-inline|User recycling2)) This user thinks that people who don't recycle waste are suicidal.

Oh well Don't say i didn't try--E-Bod 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway this is a user template and was proposed in the wronge place. The template is gone now so it dosn't matter but were my edits helpfull?--E-Bod 01:24, 24 May 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 no consensus to delete, defaults to keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mills corp[edit]

This template is too large see The Block at Orange for example and should be converted to a more economical category. MarsRover 01:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are redlinks, a list would be better than a category - and a list is already part of the article Mills Corporation. The template currently provides categorisation for pages it is used on - if the template is removed, the category should be added back. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure why it is being proposed for deletion.--Rockero 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Template is too large" seems to be an argument for cleanup, rather than deletion. The logo should clearly be removed, as fair-use images aren't allowed in templates, and if the redlinks are removed, it shrinks down further. --Interiot 20:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, use a category. --Golbez 21:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~though if the logo is controversial, that individual element should go~~. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Logo seems to have been edited away already. Well, good. Still a keep from me, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, templates by area would be useful (and are already used in many cases). People are unlikely to be interested in searching malls by operating group, so a less intrusive category or linked list would be a better way of presenting this information. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a decent navigational template to me. It is a bit large, but since it is placed at the bottom of articles, rather than at the top, it is not very obtrusive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I find it interesting and useful. If there's a problem, it's fo rcleanup. Sophy's Duckling 00:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
deleteI think that it should be turned into a category--sonicKAI 14:53, 25 May 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 no consensus - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serebiidex[edit]

Template:Serebiidex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is just a link to a Pokedex, thats all thats in it. Even worse: The image is inside another templae so theres no need to worry about the text changing. What someone should do is enter ((subst:Serebiidex)) BEFORE the template gets deleted where the template is placed in ((Pokerefs)). It also had parameters (Which was NOT used in any of the Pokemon articles.) We should apply the articles to Pokerefs, NOT a template inside Pokerefs. Theres no need to have a template inside a template unless the template is used in lots of other templates.

So in Pokerefs, change:

((Serebiidex))

to

((subst:Serebiidex))

which will turn it into:

[http://www.serebii.net/pokedex-rs/(({1))}.shtml Serebii.net]’s 3rd Gen Pokédex entry for (({2))}]

and then apply parametres to Pokerefs by using this ((Pokerefs|PokemonNumbder|PokemonName)), and it will include no time wasting, the parametres weren't currently used anyway. Please discuss what you should do and sign it using ~~~~ I Love Minun 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Can I propose a bad faith nom? Not to sound ill-willed, but this a useful and helpful template that appears in all Pokémon articles. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 18:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no opinion on whether this template( ((Serebiidex))) should be deleted, however, if it is, it should first be substed in ALL instances, as ((pokerefs)) is meant to be substed( with appropriate parameters), and therefore ((Serebiidex)) is directly included in a large number of articles, plus the ones the creator manually inserted it in. Also, I don’t quite understand what I Love Minun means about parameters not being used, that’s complete bs, all the parameters are fully used. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ok, lets first substed it. Once its all substeded and the template is no longer in use, we can delete it. Anyone who knows someone in Wikipedia who likes Pokémon, you can leave a message in their talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by I Love Minun (talk • contribs) 18:53, May 23, 2006 (UTC).
- Sign your comments. Well, we will wait for the results of this nomination and act accordingly WikidSmaht (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, augh. There's no need to link specifically to Serebii's Pokédex in every single Pokémon article, ~~especially since we already link to Wikibooks's substantially identical Pokédex in every single Pokémon article.~~ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- However, it's up for deletion at wikibooks since it isn't a textbook.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can we denounce this vote? The wikibook has been deleted. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The pokédex has found a new home at http://www.gmcfoley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon Gerard Foley 05:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand by this. The existence of the Wikibook was an aggravating factor; I still say we don't need a template to link to a strategy guide in every single article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What difference is to before? All it does is change the way we link to Serebii. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think AMIB believes that we shouldn’t link Serebii.net at all. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That could end up happening, lets wait until the results and see. I've put a notice in some of the talk pages so others will comment. If there are more people who want to delete it than people who want to keep it, we can delete it. If theres more people who want to keep it than delete it, we can keep it. (Speedy Keep and Speedy Delete count as two people. It only counts for unique Wikipedians) I Love Minun 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, let’s wait and see. So stop prematurely substing ((Serebiidex)) and changing ((pokerefs)). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete If A Man In Black really is an administrator, he can delete it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by I Love Minun (talk • contribs) 11:30, May 24, 2006 (UTC).~~
- Why yes, he can delete it. But he won’t, yet, because he has respect for the TfD process. You evidently don’t, as you’ve attempted to vote on your own nomination twice without signing. Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, it’s more about the points you make than how many votes there are either way. And if it were a democracy, you still wouldn’t be allowed to vote twice. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stricken, duplicated vote Will (^E_@) T 16:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I don't see why it should be deleted, templates like this are useful for when links change and such - even if it isn't used in every pokemon article. This is an uninformed opinion, however. RN 22:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Serebii.net is totally offensive to my favourite POkémon, don't link back to serebii.net at all Pokemon Fan.—This user is a vandal and suspected sockpuppet.
- Please denounce this vote, it appears that it is a sockpuppet of the nominator (someone who I have alleged with various other similar accounts for sometime). He has no productive edits, only vandalism to AMIB's user page and here, and it is somewhat odd that a user could migrate here by chance. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 - I doubt the vote well be taken seriously anyway, look at the reasoning. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 - Stricken. Will (^E_@) T 16:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's a useful template for the Pokémon articles. --Sparky Lurkdragon 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Iloveminun, the nominator, has altered the pokerefs template to completely remove all links to Serebii from it, replacing it with links to Pokémon Galaxy. Serebii is a valued source of Pokémon knowledge, and has been replaced with a website which actually crashes my window on both occassions I have gone near it. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 21:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with your assessment, your ad hominem argument has no bearing on the value of this template. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not an ad hominem argument. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will freely admit this isn’t my forte, but I though an ad hominem argument was an argument relating to the character or actions of the person representing the opposition, rather than the merits of the case( in this instance, the value of ((Serebiidex))). -- WikidSmaht (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have evidence on this. First of all, User:Iloveminun is trying to remove all connections with Serebii so he can replace it with Pokémon Galaxy. Pokémon Galaxy is actually Iloveminun's own site, which is why he's been POV pushing on the matter, as well as voting on this TfD repeatedly. I also have reason to believe that User:PokemonFan is a sock puppet to Iloveminun, primarily because of the instantaneous grasp of the TfD system, and the fact that I have two other users who I have evidence to link with Iloveminun. See all notes here. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 12:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lets just settle it We might as well just keep it, because I want to stop being accused of using sock puppets. IM NOT USING SOCKPUPPETS so lets just keep it if it can stop me from being accused.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by I Love Minun (talk • contribs) 19:28, May 28, 2006 (UTC).

It has been confirmed that User:PokemonFan is the sockpuppet of User:Iloveminun. Confirmed here. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a pain in the ass to subst: templates in every article. I should know. I personally did so for the ((pokerefs)) template on any article that already did not have it subst'd already. Besides, ((serebiidex)) is used within ((pokerefs)), and the template is being used correctly on any and all articles that had ((pokerefs)). Ryulong 22:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Also, Serebii.net is one of the best unofficial sites on the internet for anything related to Pokémon. The only advertisements they have are a few Google text ads, and they usually have the newest information up as soon as it comes out. Ryulong 20:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems useful and used. -- Zawersh 05:48, 31 May 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 - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SGColor Tau'ri et al[edit]

Entirely deprecated and replaced with better system. Now useless and orphaned. Alfakim -- talk 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Knock 'em dead. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Zawersh 05:36, 31 May 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 - Mailer Diablo 14:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User DLF[edit]

Another political party affiliation userbox, this time for an extreme right wing Norwegian party. Since I don't endorse T2 I am bringing this here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What about all the communist templates, then? They are extreme left-wing. --80.239.107.30 10:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeep bad faith nom, not divisive --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whats wrong with right wing? - • The Giant Puffin • 20:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Nothing offensive, divisive, etc. Sophy's Duckling 00:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's nothing wrong with this. Treima 07:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Political party affiliation userboxes are not breaking any rules on Wikipedia.--sonicKAI 14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --StuffOfInterest 02:50, 30 May 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 Circeus 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trinidad and Tobago infobox[edit]

Template:Trinidad and Tobago infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Was updated to the Template:Infobox country standard. Single use template that is not needed. Also, there wasn't anything on the talk page.— MJCdetroit 02:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the other inidivual country infoboxces being deleted. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 16:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and larsinio. Sophy's Duckling 00:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you get rid of this you might as well get rid of Jamaica's one, and Scotland's one, and Germany's one, and so on.--sonicKAI 14:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Those two must have slipped througth, but your wish is my command. Poof. Germany and Jamaica up for Deletion.—MJCdetroit 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You missed ((Scotland infobox)). -- Zawersh 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously Strong Keep. This is insane. why not just speedy delete everything on wikipedia? before you blindly nominate random pages for deletion, try to check how many pages link to them, and if it's heavily used. That's why there's the "What Links Here" link on the side of the wikipedia page. This excessive and useless nomination of pages has to come to an end... I'm just waiting for someone to nominate Main page for deletion... User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 20:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Whhhhaaat are you talking about? Ridiculous to replace an out-of-date, single-use template with an up-to-date template that is the standard for over 195 other countries. As for "What Links Here" on the Template:Trinidad and Tobago infobox page...almost nothing. Except three pages dealing with its deletion and one user My contrib page. So either you meant to post your Ridiculously Strong Keep to some other template for deletion (like Template:User DTF) OR you really do mean it. To which I would say: at no point in your infinite ramblings did you come close to a rational thought. Everyone here is now dumber for having read it. —MJCdetroit 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A uniform infobox, when practical, is preferred. If there are shortcomings in the country infobox then request enhancements (or better yet contribute the enhancements yourself). harpchad 20:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Polaron | Talk 05:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, larsinio, and harpchad. -- Zawersh 05:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and harpchad. -- Slowmover 18:43, 2 June 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.

May 23, 2006

Template:User recycling2[edit]

Template:Mills corp[edit]

Template:Serebiidex[edit]

Template:SGColor Tau'ri et al[edit]

Template:User DLF[edit]

Template:Trinidad and Tobago infobox[edit]