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. Yannismarou (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template links to a non-notable website (as per WP:WEB) that is also an open wiki without a substantial number of editors, and thus unacceptable as per WP:EL. Mushroom (Talk) 12:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Violates both WP:EL and WP:RS. JPG-GR (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable link. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & RS. SkierRMH (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems to be an unfocused and pretty-much-dead (one edit in last month) wiki, can't see that links to it add any value, especially since they seem to be largely used for Pokémon, where other superior wiki-links are available. --Stormie (talk) 04:10, 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template links to two non-notable websites (as per WP:WEB) and an open wiki (unacceptable as per WP:EL) that are also unreliable sources (as per WP:RS). Mushroom (Talk) 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Violates both WP:EL and WP:RS. JPG-GR (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, blatantly fails WP:RS.Terraxos (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & RS. SkierRMH (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is useful indeed, useful if we are still in the past. However, since we are way far from when all Pokémon used to have their own article, and since it's old news, this should be Delete. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a comment on the external links, or just articles within Wikipedia? –Pomte 02:37, 16 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The website has no sign of notability as per WP:WEB, is not a reliable source as per WP:RS and is not a valid external link as per WP:EL. Having a template that links to it encourages users to violate these guidelines. Mushroom (Talk) 12:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Serebii.net is a fansite, and linking to it violates WP:RS. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Violates both WP:EL and WP:RS. JPG-GR (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & above. SkierRMH (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is useful indeed, useful if we are still in the past. However, since we are way far from when all Pokémon used to have their own article, and since it's old news, this should be Delete. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this template has been discussed twice before, with both discussions closed as "no consensus". I have added the links above. --Stormie (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Our policy at WP:EL (in its current form) currently states "Links to be considered... Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Notability has absolutely nothing to do with whether we link to a website or not. Linking to serebii.net doesn't violate any of our policies. --- RockMFR 17:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• RockMFR is right about the criteria, though I'm not familiar with Pokemon at all to judge the external links. Note that the decision here should agree with the two above on ((WikiKnowledge)) and ((PokeLinks)), especially since the latter [it] contained a link to Serebiidex. –Pomte 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The first discussion was about a wiki with a low number of users, so I don't see how it applies here. --- RockMFR 07:53, 19 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 subst and delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref-section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only used on 42 pages. Besides, Template:Reflist is used much more. This one is basically a duplicate. Davnel03 09:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to ((reflist)) (if technically feasible, I'm not real up on template redirects), otherwise replace all the uses with ((reflist)) and delete. If adding the section header is desirable, it can be discussed at Template talk:Reflist, but creating a second template for something so trivial is overly redundant.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute and delete, very few templates which are designed for substitution are greatly useful and this one isn't much of a time-saver. Chris Cunningham (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete, no significant advantage over ((Reflist)), and having the section header in the article instead of the template is more clear to inexperienced editors. (And experienced editors as well!) Pagrashtak 16:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete - to maintain standardization of ((reflist)) to avoid confusion. –Pomte 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and keep. I'd imagine the point of this template is to make it easier to add a references section by just typing ((subst:ref-section)). This isn't a duplicate in any sense of the word. It's not meant to be one. --- RockMFR 16:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alternative is == References == ((refs)), which is barely longer. The problem with always-sub templates is that people don't sub them. We should be standardising on ways to create footnotes sections, not encouraging the creation of lots of slightly different templates. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:49, 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fruits Basket characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary template about a single, relatively short franchise. All articles in template are already well wikified in Fruits Basket and Fruits Basket characters. Several of the links just go back to Fruits Basket characters as well, making it circular. Recommending delete as part of over all effort to clean up and improve these two articles.. Collectonian (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The template serves as a navigational aid while most of the character articles still exist. Maybe there should be consensus to redirect them first. –Pomte 20:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the time being. I clicked on some of the links in this template, and most of them go to separate articles, suggesting a navigation template is useful here. (I don't see the need for multiple links to Fruits Basket characters, though.) However, some of those character articles are currently proposed for deletion; we should probably wait a few weeks to see how many of them end up getting deleted or merged and take another look at this template then. Terraxos (talk) 22:39, 12 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 keep. Wizardman 04:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Compromised account (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I found a case where a template was deleted due to being an uncommon occurance. This template was deleted because it was a) an uncommon appearance, and b) unnecesary, because it could be replaced with a ((indefblockeduser)) and a note stating what happened. Same case here. — Maser ^(Talk!) 05:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template is meant to be a convenient notice for that purpose, and to allow the victim to notify other users what the replacement account's name is using its optional parameter. See User:RaccoonFox for an example of the optional parameter in use. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not arguing against your opinion - you are the creator of this template, after all. However, my reasoning is that instead of a template that'll rarely be used, we should include information on the hacking and the user who is the rightful owner of the account. Maser ^(Talk!) 07:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I forgot to add this rebuttal to the argument for deletion above: ((Indefblockeduser)) is a mark of shame for the various trolls and vandals we block from time to time because it is used mostly for those reasons. There is much less shame for getting hacked and subsequently blocked rather than blocked due to trolling, incivility, or vandalism. Since Wikipedia uses passwords in the clear, it is easy to hack one's account, especially if the user is using a Wi-Fi network with no encryption, WEP, or a passphrase that would fall to a dictionary attack when WPA or WPA2 is used. Even then, there are users that are naïve enough to use a dictionary word as their passwords. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I never thought of it that way before. :) Maser ^(Talk!) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. When accounts are blocked, we should always leave a reason on their userpage, and this template does just that; accounts being blocked for this reason may be a very rare occurrence, but it's not unheard of. If you want to include additional information in the template that it doesn't currently include, as suggested by the comment above, feel free to edit it and add additional fields; but there's no need to delete this potentially-useful template. Terraxos (talk) 22:36, 12 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.