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(Упражнение В!) 21:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:3di 16 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Used purely to link I-16 to I-516. Redundant, since there is a textual link to I-516 on I-16 immediately above the box where this is used, and a single text link back to I-16 from I-516 will do just as nicely. 81.104.170.167 13:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason why this can't be covered by regular text links, especially in cases where there is just one item to list. EVula 21:35, 16 October 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. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox idol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Largely redundant to Template:Infobox musical artist; the only real differences I can see are the addition of the fields "Astrological sign," "Height," "Measurements," and "Blood type," and I fail to see how those are at all notable. Shannernanner 12:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha BJAODN _→AzaToth 12:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While that information may not be notable in the case of Madonna, Idols are not simply musical artists - they're hybridized sex symbol/musicians. Template:Female adult bio, Template:Infobox Female Model Bio and others you may note have information that is not exactly needed, but they are directly related to what they do - bust is important to models, sexual orientation is important to porn stars. Well, the listed all are important to the portrayed image of an idol. Janizary 15:55, 12 October 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(Упражнение В!) 21:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian Military Unit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused template. _→AzaToth 10:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant with ((Infobox Military Unit)). Kirill Lokshin 11:37, 12 October 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(Упражнение В!) 21:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox book publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template used in only two instances. _→AzaToth 10:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually recall that being a justification for deletion, would not it make sense to try and - wait for it now - use it on other publishers' articles? Janizary 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with keeping this template. But if you want to continue using it, please convert it to not using deprecated Wikipedia:hiddenStructure (hS) CSS hack (was probably the main reason why AzaToth listed it for TfD). We are currently converting a list of templates away from hS. It's sometimes a bit tempting to just tfd a template instead of converting a suspect dead horse. --Ligulem 18:35, 12 October 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(Упражнение В!) 21:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this template, although it may have been made with the best intentions, does nothing to aid consensus building. --Peta 05:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It can be used appropriately. AFD canvassing is a general problem, but it usually doesn't involve any templates. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-10-12 07:09Z
• Keep. I actually just went looking for this template because I wanted to use it to inform someone I nominted an article they did almost all the editing on for deletion. Canvassing for support for your position on an article deletion discussion should not be done anyways. Kevin_b_er 08:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interested parties should watchlist the articles they're involved in. If this template is seldom used, it's not needed - whereas if it's used often, it becomes a vehicle for vote canvassing. >Radiant< 09:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have used it before, it is useful. I have never seen it being used for spamming all contributors. However I have seen it, and have used it, to notify some major contributor of an article that I am nominating for deletion.--Konst.able 11:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see the nominator's point. However, I think we need an "the article you _created_ is up for deletion" warning, because new users don't always use watchlists appropriately. This is the template we would use.. the wording used here just makes it general enough to apply to all similar cases. If people use this for advertising AfD debates in an attempt to drum up support, it's their behavior that's the problem and should be looked at case-by-case. Mangojuice^talk 14:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per MangoJuice. EVula 21:37, 16 October 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 speedy delete by NCurse. --Coredesat 06:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Footfetish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnessecary. We should Subst and delete most funny/controversial or otherwise userboxes per WP:GUS. And the last of all arguments, eww... some things should be kept to themselves. — Moe 02:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is neither funny nor controversial.There are more controversial Userboxes than this (EX.((User:UBX/yiff))).It is more of an intrest.It should not be deleted just because you don't like it SOADLuver 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one needs to know you have a foot fetish. You are the only one currently using it on a userpage. I am proposing that it either deleted or moved to the userspace like your above example userbox. I don't care if it's on the userspace, but on the template namespace, where less funny and controversial stuff was removed, is unacceptable. You should have never placed it in the template namespace to begin with, but in your userspace. — Moe 02:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No one really need to know you play guitar.No one really needs to know your intrested in "yiff".You have no real objection except that you do not think it is right. SOADLuver 21:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I do, it's in the template namespace, thats reason enough to delete it and put it in the userspace. — Moe 02:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all other such templates.--Konst.able 11:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete as long as I am allowed to keep it in my personal userspace it may be deleted. SOADLuver 02:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said you couldn't have it on your userspace. You could have it at User:SOADLuver/User Footfetish or something? All that needs to be done is removing it from the template namespace. — Moe 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• GUSed I've moved the userbox to User:EVula/Userboxes/Footfetish and will start updating all links. EVula 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All instances of the template have been transitioned to the new location, and it can be safely deleted. EVula 18:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Punkmorten 12:16, 16 October 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(Упражнение В!) 21:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Counter-StrikeMap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused. Uses bad Wikipedia:hiddenStructure CSS hack. Ligulem 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Are there even any CS maps that are notable? EVula 21:31, 16 October 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(Упражнение В!) 21:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GBdot-gr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, obsoleted by ((GBthumb)). Wereon 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. EVula 21:33, 16 October 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(Упражнение В!) 22:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sprotected template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

What links here of this template gives a handy list of templates for vandals. Shouldn't be used at all. Per WP:BEANS and WP:SPP, Semi-protected templates shouldn't be listed anywhere. Ligulem 23:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't semiprot high-risk templates, we fully protect them. That's the whole point. >Radiant< 14:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. People will find out that the template is sprotected when they (try to) edit it anyway, so tagging them is not needed. Shanes 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but to discourage the notion that sprotecting anything that looks interesting is a good idea. There is no policy to semiprotect anything that gets used a bit, and this template attempts to legitimise the notion that there is. I should also like to reject the smoke and mirrors argument. Those that wish to vandalise templates can do so 4 days from now, and not tagging the templates makes no difference to them. They'll soon find out. On the other hand, those who have good intent, but are 4 days young and ignorant may fail to see through the smoke and not contribute where they otherwise might. This being an open project means that smoke and mirrors, cloaks and daggers only affect those you didn't intend them to. I thus reject the deletion reasons given in the nomination, and by Shanes. -Splash - tk 17:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As long as you take every semi-protected template you deprotect on your personal watchlist, I'm fine with that. In the mean time, the important thing is to not create stupid what link here lists for vandals — a position on which we seem to agree. --Ligulem 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether they are on my watchlist or not makes no difference to what people can/not do with them. We do not agree on the reason for deletion, no, as I said above. We agree solely that it should be deleted. -Splash - tk 12:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. Then I don't understand you. Sorry. --Ligulem 13:19, 18 October 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.