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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted under G6. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 04:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TES-characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All articles have been deleted. Template should therefore be deleted. — Mbisanz (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (and per all the other TES templates nominated elsewhere on this page). Terraxos (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete housekeeping. –Pomte 23:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete G6 housekeeping. JPG-GR (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Contemporary Western philosophers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. There is no non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion in this template.
2. There is too little guidance to link readers to articles they may be interested in navigating to.
3. This template contains too many articles and would be better replaced by sub-topics such as Modal realists, Existentialists, Metaphysical fictionalists etc, thereby giving the reader closely related articles to compare and contrast.. Skomorokh ^incite 16:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a generally unhelpful navigational aid for both people familiar with contemporary Western philosophy (can type in names and click in-article links easier than looking at that huge list) and people who are not (who's who?). As the talk page suggests, the template may still be missing some number of major figures. If by 3. you are suggesting sub-templates, I'd oppose those as well; if you want a list of major contemporary Western philosophers in a specific field, look at the related articles, which provide context as to who are actually relevant to your interests. –Pomte 20:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regrettable Delete I hate to see a well done template go, but these types of templates are a bad idea as Skomorokh laid out above. The template should be replaced with a simple link to List of Western philosophers.--12 Noon ^2¢ 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template is quite good. It allows those not informed about either tradition (or both) to see who are considered important within the profession, and even if it's missing some important figures, it's still a valuable reference tool. Even if it's missing some philosophers that many consider important it constitutes an important addition to Wikipedia's coverage of philosophical topics. Surely, even in the face of regrettable omissions (Wittgenstein, Stroud, and Unger are rather blatant omissions), being able to point out major voices in the contemporary philosophical discussion is important, because what these people write guides what the topics of discussion are in philosophy, at least on the analytic side. I can't think of a philosopher in the analytic section that hasn't made important and groundbreaking contributions to the discipline, and omissions aside anyone interested in philosophy will be able to gain a great deal from this template. Euphoria 5L (talk)
• Undecided I'm not as skeptical as those asking for deletion. Just because the criteria is vague doesn't mean its completely arbitrary and useless. Certainly the criteria for "bald" is vague, but that doesn't mean there isn't any. Looking at the list of faculty at the University of Washington, it seems reasonable to include Fine and Bonjour. While it is a stretch to include any others (currently). Looking at the list of faculty at the University of Miami, it seems reasonable to include Haack, McGinn, and Slote while it is a stretch to include any others (currently). Certainly the other philosophers at these universities are important philosophers (e.g. Thomasson's work on the ontology of fictional characters), but she doesn't have the general name recognition among all analytic philosophy as Haack, McGinn, and Slote. Anyway, I am more sympathetic to the other criticisms. Is a flat list of the generally key contemporary philosophers of any use to a wikipedia reader? Is it a "a valuable reference tool"? - Atfyfe (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PDFM Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Almost the same function as Template:Infobox Football club. — Matthew_hk tc 11:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused/redundant. –Pomte 20:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated & redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect as redundant. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was userfy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template strikes me as at the very least uncivil, and possibly divisive and inflammatory. It's essentially a way for people to leave Wikipedia in an angry huff, which doesn't seem like something we should be supporting in a template; and needless to say, it doesn't exactly Assume Good Faith either. I realise the irony in deleting an 'anti-wikilawyering' template because it violates Wikipedia's policies, but I just don't think it's appropriate to keep it. Terraxos (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy as a UBX which doesn't implicitly add to the encyclopedia. JPG-GR (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify For historical reasons break=yes is the default, but the box can also be used for people who are not leaving. I see nothing uncivil, divisive, or inflammatory about it; it doesn't mention anyone or any group by name, and the behavior it speaks out against is contrary to Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines. WP:AGF states: "Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." I see no attribution to malice. If anyone feels that they are the cause of this template, perhaps they should review their own behavior. Anomie⚔ 13:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify. Move to userboxes. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy Not appropriate in template namespace per nom, but still is appropriate for a user to put it on their userpage. Those users using it should find it hilarious the template is up for TfD.--12 Noon ^2¢ 22:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify. Moving it to userboxes sounds like a great idea. I have it here not to violate any policy, but to protest uncivil, and possibly divisive and inflammatory tactics being used way too frequently in editing disputes. I didn't even know there was a policy against a peaceful protest. BTW, one of the tactics I'm protesting about is the targeting of a person's work for deletion, which I was a target myself. Huge irony and sort of a QED that my protest template itself gets targeted for deletion. Renmiri (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userify. The deletion nomination is unfounded. (Duane543 (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2007 (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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Singularity 00:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pending deletion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is unused and unneeded since we have revised the policies well enough that this deletion template is unnecessary. . Marlith ^T/C 05:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Could you please explain what this template was actually used for? It's not immediately obvious, and I'm hesitant to support deletion when I don't understand the purpose of the template. Terraxos (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template was originally created to tag pages that, due to a MediaWiki bug, could not be deleted. I don't know what Netoholic repurposed it for. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. –Pomte 07:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure that there is a great redundancy joke in here somewhere, but I think I must be on the back end of tired, so it escapes me. However, since the template seems to hold no current use that the standard TfD note does not, I think it is safe to say it is not needed any longer. Here is what it looked like before the recent repurposing in July, and I'm assuming the Mediawiki bug was repaired. Of course, I freely admit to limited understanding of the inner workings of the Mediawiki software, so if anyone can explain why the template would still be handy, of course I would be open to an opinion change. Ariel♥Gold 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2007 (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 section.