< June 21	June 23 >

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. Wizardman 22:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DART B (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:DART G (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:DART O (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:DART R (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:DART TRE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Kwun Tong Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tsuen Wan Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Island Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tung Chung Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Airport Express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tseung Kwan O Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Disneyland Resort Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Yonge-University-Spadina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Bloor-Danforth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Scarborough RT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Sheppard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same basic reason as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/November 2005#Various formatting templates: As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Color coding, "Using color alone to convey information should not be done". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep these are in use and appear to be happily residing in the articles they're in. -N 01:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think failure to adhere to WP:MOS is reason for deletion of templates. I would think that at best it would be a reason for improvement of said templates. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. For the TTC-related templates, at least, if you look at the way they're used at Toronto subway and RT, you'll see that color is not the only way the line identification information is being conveyed. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but not speedy keep because of the precedent TFD mentioned by the nom. However, the following comment in that TFD hit the hammer on the nail, striking at the root of the dilemma:

*Keep - These templates are immensely helpful for differentiating between lines. The pages are much easier and more attractive to read - and it certainly saves a lot of time in writing out Wiki code. The MOS does not ban colour links specifically - it asks users to not use them where appropriate and if necessary to remember colour blindness. I think the colours of railway lines should be a good example of where you can use a coloured link, as long as it is not excessively done; it is an excellent reference to the line you are referring to - if we have tourist and other people reading a site like this it is helpful for them. Please keep it all. (JROBBO 12:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

YechielMan 10:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The templates are useful for this very reason: if you'd like to propose a change to eliminate the colours, you can do it easily. A stylistic issue does not warrant deletion, as there'll be future discussions like this to come. –Pomte 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - when talking about mass-transit systems, the colours alone carry great information to readers. While it's against the manual to use colours solely to convey information, this rule is not applied in this case as the colour is itself a piece of accessory information, not an information carrier. --Der yck C. 03:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with the templates it is much easier to represent the meanings. All in all, they are helpful enough to be kept. --- Microtony 05:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Using color alone to convey information should not be done": please note the existence of the word "alone". It does not say that conveying of information using both text and colour should not be done. In such case the conveying of information is actually, in my opinion, enhanced. P.S: This TfD has made many MTR-related pages flooded with TfD tags --:Raphaelmak: [talk] [contribs] 09:34, 29 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual series fork of ((Infobox Television episode)). All uses replaced, time to delete. Jay32183 23:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this one was an article template to be subseted in order to created an episode stub. However, since there will be no more Angel episodes, the template has out lived its use. --Farix (Talk) 02:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated/unused. –Pomte 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Pax:Vobiscum 07:48, 29 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual series fork of ((Infobox Television episode)). Unused, time to delete. Jay32183 23:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no need for individual series forks of good templates. --tennisman 15:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as unused/deprecated - I combined these discussions to avoid repetitive copy and pasting. –Pomte 16:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unused and redundant. Pax:Vobiscum 07:51, 29 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 22:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally redundant as there is already a template for 24 villains and most of the characters shown on this template do not even have their own article. — T smitts 21:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is overkill having two templates with much of the same characters. Combine with ((24villains)). –Pomte 16:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely useless, most characters don't even have pages and are already included on the 24 villans template.

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. —« ANIMUM » 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not appropriate to put religious or other symbols (with the exception of Wikipedia-specific icons like the FA star) in the "top"-space above encyclopedia articles. It creates an (unintended, I'm sure) impression of "ownership" of articles by groups.— Pharos 20:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the only icon of its kind that I've seen relating to the articles of a specific religion. Likewise, its formatting on the pages it is on looks a little messy. Drumpler 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For some reason, this confuses Outriggr's tool into thinking Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is a Featured Article, when it is not. This symbol is disruptive, and as Pharos said, giving the impression of "ownership" by a particular group is clearly unnecessary. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason for icons outside the space of article content to represent a category it belongs in. –Pomte 21:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It messes up the aesthetic of the page and keeping would open a Pandora's box of other groups waiting to claim our banner space.Baka man 21:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had raised this point at the Sikhism project [1]. But yes, it definitely should be deleted: clutters up the banner space. Recurring dreams 13:25, 26 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template creates a false dichotomy that relies on two pieces of research (Ohio report and the subsumed Florida report). The differences between the two terms are not just technical, but also (importantly) regional. The terms used in the reports seem to have been created to distinguish between two types of circle, regardless of the popular meanings of the two terms. Furthermore, the template is only used in two articles, one where it is totally out of place and without explanation, and one where it is given in the context of UK circles (for which it is obviously irrelevant). — Mgcsinc 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way Oregon (can't find the Ohio/Florida reports mentioned) defines these terms does not apply to the UK and may not apply to other states (New York has its own research). Such links may be useful as external links in the transcluding articles and Transportation in the United States. The table may be useful in Oregon Department of Transportation (there's no better article for Oregon to put it in), in which case it should be substituted. –Pomte 21:03, 25 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was Marked for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#g7. Template deleted by Fvasconcellos. Close by non-admin EC93. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New userbox created in template space; should have been created in userspace per WP:GUS. — E&M ^(talk) 14:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Under WP:CSD#G7. I'm marking it accordingly. Evilclown93_(talk) 14:35, 22 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted per nom. Thatcher131 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template which is only used on the two templates nominated below and in one userpage. Template is not in English, not used and not useful. — Fram 12:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sick of such templates that ought to be prodded. This TfD will be snowballed with deletes in a day. I've gone WT:PROD to enquire about changing the policy. --Evilclown93_(talk) 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same as the others: Unused, foreign, and not useful. Delete. --tennisman 15:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice for prod. –Pomte 16:48, 24 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted per nomination. Thatcher131 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is clearly unused. It transcludes the template nominated below, and that's it. Result is not used and not useful. — Fram 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sick of such templates that ought to be prodded. This TfD will be snowballed with deletes in a day. I've gone WT:PROD to enquire about changing the policy. --Evilclown93_(talk) 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused, not in english, un-useful. --tennisman 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason for this to be copied from es:. –Pomte 16:50, 24 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was Deleted per nom. Belongs in user space. Thatcher131 19:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not in English, can't see a possible use for it. — Fram 12:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sick of such templates that ought to be prodded. This TfD will be snowballed with deletes in a day. I've gone WT:PROD to enquire about changing the policy. --Evilclown93_(talk) 14:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and agree with Evilclown93. Why TfD when you could ((prod)), or better yet, speedy? --tennisman 15:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Prod doesn't work for templates, though. That's basically my point: This debate is better handled by the prod system. Evilclown93_(talk) 15:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could always make it easier by grouping these into one nomination. –Pomte 16:48, 24 June 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 05:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. Tagged for speedy deletion because of the potential for this template to be divisive. However, the template is transcluded in a number of talk pages so this should at least be debated properly. — Pascal.Tesson 11:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Because I initially nominated it (using the wrong codes), my reasons for deletion are listed here. Drumpler 12:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agreed with DGG's comment below. It likewise sends the message that people can't have nor even vocalise the same opinion and has potential for encouraging violation of WP:OWN. Drumpler 19:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Substitute the template (or even ask to be removed) and nuke it under WP:CSD#T1. --Evilclown93_(talk) 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see it as being useful, especially to newcomers to a talk page, in pointing out that same arguments have been repeatedly presented, and it can encourage people to introduce new arguments. --Brandon Dilbeck 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it should be kept only if people agree to a wording that doesn't apparently "offend or attack" others. It's useful for newcomers, as well as regular editors to talk pages. RobJ1981 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one seems designed for the purpose of discouraging newbies and encouraging WP:OWN. DGG 19:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've certainly seen my share of talk pages where the debates seem to never end. It's frustrating, but at the same time I don't like any templates on talk pages that discourage discussion. It's unreasonable to expect newbies to wade through pages of discussion just to see if their point has been made before. -- MisterHand 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or discourage. Not a speedy or anything like that, but it's just not realistically going to help when there's a dispute, and usually pisses people off in the process. -- Ned Scott 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Here's one case where it is clearly being abused and a pretend scenario showing how it can be abused. Drumpler 07:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you read through that talk page, it's painfully obvious that the same arguments have been repeated ad nauseum, and yet, there still is no consensus. Any advancement of the article is grinded to a halt, and the page is locked because of edit wars. --Brandon Dilbeck 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Painfully obvious" or not, this is not the place to even be discussing this. We are discussing the template. If you can find a use for the template, then by all means, discuss that. I, however, feel that it discourages contributions and input and if months of input are needed to make a better article, so be it. The world will not end tomorrow and the behaviours of certain editors are what gets the article blocked, not discussion in an attempt for consensus. I likewise don't expect the people in that article to even point to this discussion, as they did another one, as that would be meatpuppeting and canvassing. Drumpler 22:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Brandon and Rob's statements; it DOES encourage people to introduce new views or ideas, and it gives fair warning to newcomers (both to the article and to Wikipedia) that discussion has stalled because of the same arguments being thrown back and forth. It doesn't discourage people from coming in and contributing to the conversation; it only asks that people read what is already there before adding something in. --PeanutCheeseBar 04:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. However, if you look at the edit summaries of a fair amount of people voting on this, you'll note that many of them came from the same article and some of them are guilty of saying things akin "This has been discussed to death, say something new." How is this not in violation of WP:OWN? Drumpler 07:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From what I read on WP:OWN, I believe it is referring more to telling people not to edit the content of the article because "it isn't theirs", or because the editor who is attempting to make the edit "is not qualified" or "doesn't know the subject matter". Saying "This has been discussed to death, say something new." certainly doesn't contribute to finding a resolution, but I don't think it constitutes an attempt at ownership in any way. The template does not explicitly say "Do not edit this" or "Stay away", it just encourages new editors to be a little more judicious in editing in their views or commentary, since adding more of the same arguments might stall things further. New viewpoints or ideas ARE encouraged though. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm inclined to disagree. As the template actually says, ". . . however, if you find that your beliefs on the subject are parallel to those already discussed, you might want to reconsider the potential value of such an edit." The template can be interpreted to read that your edit isn't valuable if it is argued to death. I've seen editors argue in a similar vain and I've seen these same editors add this template to the page. It is for this reason I believe it encourages ownership, especially as a group of editors gather around one article, come up with a consensus they are all happy with and bully those who disagree with their consensus ("Well, the template says that this has been discussed to death and so really, you've not said anything we already haven't heard."). New editors especially might fall pray for this, as they do not understand Wikipedia rules and protocol and the template could be interpreted as rules and protocol and discourage new input, no matter how similar it is to old input. Drumpler 03:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Started of as stifling and crude, now diluted to being benign and redundant. Either way, delete. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:05, 29 June 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 page.

The resulte was speedy deleted by Wknight94 . (non-admin closure) Evilclown93_(talk) 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this template, and then realized that it was a bad idea. Please delete. —The Real One Returns 08:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use ((db-author)) on the page. --Haemo 08:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on. Should be deleted within minutes. --Evilclown93_(talk) 10:50, 22 June 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.

June 22

Various formatting templates

Template:Infobox Angel Television episode

Template:Infobox Strange Days at Blake Holsey High episode

Template:24Mercenaries

Template:Sikht

Template:Roundabouttable

Template:User allien

Template:Editar

Template:Variables

Template:Uso de plantilla

Template:Round In Circles

Template:Beavis and Butt-head character‎