< May 7	May 9 >

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Seems to be intended for subjects that do not warrant their own article. — Pagrashtak 19:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, all the World of Warcraft instances were deleted per this discussion. The template was probably used there. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ALTON .ıl 04:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No need for articles on the instances listed in Instance (World of Warcraft). –Pomte 02:37, 14 May 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 already deleted three times. Redirecting and protecting isn't really necessary. –Pomte 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anime episode list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is an attempt to add images to episode lists, even after lengthy discussion determined that this is an unacceptable practice in violation of the non-free content policy, and is otherwise redundant to Template:Japanese episode list. —TangentCube, Dialogues 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect+protect or delete:
  • There are two things I believe could be done with this template. It seems to be a good candidate for a redirect to Template:Japanese episode list; however, if the template redirect remains unprotected, there is nothing to stop an anonymous editor or a new account from simply reverting the redirect back to a version of the template that seems specifically designed to violate Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8.
  • The other option is to delete this template; even if the measure above were implemented, it may not be long before yet another version comes along using the code from Template:Japanese episode list before its latest edits; in fact, this template probably only exists because the parent template is fully protected. Formally deleting this template would make any further attempts to re-create the old code eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G4. —TangentCube, Dialogues 19:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • er... never mind, I guess. —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:43, 8 May 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-racism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Same as homophobia below. — The Evil Spartan 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - same reason as below. Moreschi ^Talk 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if we are going to psychologically evaluate vandals' motives, assuming that they they've vandalized because of some racist vendetta deep within them is a mostly fruitless place to start. Gracenotes^T § 19:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as below - APA works fine, IMHO wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- The No Personal Attacks template describes the same thing. No need for this template. Esperanza Ortega 21:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and Redirect to uw-npa# --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to ((uw-npa)). Calling out certain types of personal attacks is not an appropriate role for warning templates. Gavia immer (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I understand the rationale behind the template, but I think npa should be used for all kind of personal attacks. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPA covers this fine. – Riana_ऋ 14:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Important Comment - I would be heavily opposed to redirecting this to npa. Npa is clearly written with the purpose of warning editors not to snipe at each other; it has nothing to do with editors who replace the page LeVar Burton with UGLY NIGGER!!!!!. That's vandalism, not personal attack. So I would plead with users who have asked for redirect to ((uw-npa)) to reconsider and respond to my comment. Perhaps redirecting to ((uw-bv)) would be better, though outright deletion seems best, as a redirect is confusing and accomplishes nothing. The Evil Spartan 17:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Like uw-homophobia, this is directed at attacking editors, not articles. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 21:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eek, you're correct. Npa will do just fine (though I still think delete is better). The Evil Spartan 22:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Have we a policy forbidding homophobic or racist comments? Yes, WP:NPA. Sorting comments by type is needless: a personal attack is a personal attack, and should be recognized as such, sans obscuring classifications. Gracenotes^T § 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until a hate speech uw template can be implemented. -- Marc 00:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment re hate templates there are no hate speech templates in development at WP:UW as far as I'm aware of. ^Khukri 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't feed the vandal.--Kubigula (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Using this template there are two options: the user is being racist to another user, which is a personal attack and should not necessarily carry more weight for the racist nature of the comment (a judgment that should be made by a blocking admin); or the user is not being racist in which case placing this template on their talk page is a personal attack itself due to the stigma associated with racism. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:47, 14 May 2007 (GMT)
• Delete There's no need to have different templates for different kinds of personal attacks. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:01, 16 May 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-homophobia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear God, Wikipedia is not therapy, especially not to people that are vandalizing anyway. A search history of WP:AN reveals that this idea was shot down fully at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive70#Proposed_warning_template_series. — The Evil Spartan 17:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_10#Template:Obscene, and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_7#Template:Sobscene. The Evil Spartan 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had it in my userspace for ages, and only moved it into template space due to ((uw-racism)) being a warning. I don't care what happens to it, though, honestly. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've nominated that one too. :P. The Evil Spartan 18:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both this and ((Uw-racism)) also, or redirect to ((uw-npa)). NPA series covers these more generically, but adequately, in my opinion, and also allows for multiple warning levels. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see how this is useful. Is this intended for the high schoolers who vandalize Tom Cruise with "He's gay!!"? If so, that's just glorifying vandalism, and doesn't work on a vandal's mentality. If not...then what? Moreschi ^Talk 18:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPA works fine, IMHO. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Uh... why does this template exist? Esperanza Ortega 21:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete and Redirect to uw-npa# --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 22:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to ((uw-npa)). Calling out certain types of personal attacks is not an appropriate role for warning templates. Gavia immer (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Update: Do not replace this with a "hate speech" template; that just repeats the problem. Gavia immer (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I understand the rationale behind the template, but I think npa should be used for all kind of personal attacks. I have no objection of its existence on one's user space though. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, NPA covers this fine. – Riana_ऋ 14:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Important Comment - I would be heavily opposed to redirecting this to npa. Npa is clearly written with the purpose of warning editors not to snipe at each other; it has nothing to do with editors who replace the page Lance Bass with FAGGOT!!!!!. That's vandalism, not personal attack. So I would plead with users who have asked for redirect to ((uw-npa)) to reconsider and respond to my comment. Perhaps redirecting to ((uw-bv)) would be better, though outright deletion seems best, as a redirect is confusing and accomplishes nothing. The Evil Spartan 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• But the template says don't make attacks at other users. uw-homophobia addresses people targeting users, not pages or people (in articles). That means it is a personal attack. Also, there was no need to repost the "see my comment" under every single persons comment. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's go Yankees!) 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until a hate speech uw template can be implemented. I do not think personal attacks are the same thing as racist or homophobic attacks. I use this template to respond to hate speech, i.e. comments advocating for homosexuals to be killed. I think that a user warning specifically directed towards hate spech must be implemented before either this template or the racism template can be removed.--Agnaramasi 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep until a hate speech uw template can be implemented. Marc 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• could you care to explain why? The Evil Spartan 00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that using NPA as a replacement of this is sufficient. I think users making broad statements of a homophobic nature shouldn't get a NPA statement, but a statement regarding hate speech - for their statements aren't aimed specifically at one person. And since there's not a current "No hate speech" template, this one should be kept as a temporary measure. -- Marc 21:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is not directed toward an other editor, I think ((uw-vandalism)) is a better choice. Firstly because this is effectively vandalism, and secondly, by being more impersonal, it probably fulfills WP:DENY better. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re hate templates there are no hate speech templates in development at WP:UW as far as I'm aware of. ^Khukri 16:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lucas. I think the likely effect of this is to feed the vandal.--Kubigula (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect deletion of this sort of commonly used template cause havoc of broken links, redirect is a better choice. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the template is indeed well worded and necessary. I needed it today during a RC patrol. Homophobic vandalism is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. - Gilliam 06:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Using this template there are two options: the user is being homophobic to another user, which is a personal attack and should not necessarily carry more weight for the homophobic nature of the comment (a judgment that should be made by a blocking admin); or the user is not being homophobic in which case placing this template on their talk page is a personal attack itself due to the stigma associated with homophobia. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:47, 14 May 2007 (GMT)
• Delete per Spaully and others above. Wikipedia prohibits personal attacks in general; there's no specific rule concerning homophobia. Homophobic personal attacks should be treated like any other personal attacks, i.e. repeat offenders should be blocked. And if someone is making general homophobic comments, but not attacking specific users, then they're not necessarily violating policy; homophobia, like fascism, communism, ultranationalism and so on, is a valid point of view, and Wikipedians who happen to hold it shouldn't be punished for their opinions. Walton ^{Need some help?} 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- As someone stated previously, NPA already covers this. ResurgamII 18:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & modify npa I think we need to modify npa a bit more so that it isn't directly focused on users within Wikipedia. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 01:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no need to have different templates for different kinds of personal attacks. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:00, 16 May 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 all. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Block ciphers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Cipher machines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Classical cryptography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Cryptographic hash functions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Public-key cryptography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Stream ciphers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Have been deprecated since September 2006. No transclusions. ^demon^{[omg plz]} <emstyle="font-size:10px;">17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all The only transclusion I could find is in the user space, I think we can safely delete them now. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Unhelpful, esoteric mass of links. And the above statements. ALTON .ıl 04:07, 10 May 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UU Youth Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This has been added to four well-known party games that one particular youth group happens to play. This is not a helpful or noteworthy template, and it should be deleted. — McGeddon 16:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template fails to explain why this grouping is noteworthy, let alone why it should specifically called out in those articles. Mafia (Game) is widely played outside of Young Religious Unitarian Universalists (YRUU). Tellingly that article doesn't mentino the YRUU at all. Silent football is Just Another Variant of Zoom Schwartz Profigliano, a much older game again played by a wide variety of people. Absent something showing the importance of these games to YRUU, or YRUU, I see no benefit to the template. Even if such evidence existed, it would seem better to just list the details in the individual articles, then have the YRUU article have a section noting this and linking back. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is the kind of navigation that would go on an advertisement for the subject. ALTON .ıl 04:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-defining characteristic; irrelevant for the general reader. –Pomte 02:39, 14 May 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:History of Western Fashion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superseded by ((History of fashion)) and no longer in use in any articles. — Daniel Case 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete replaced the last transclusion. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I made it, and Daniel's replacement is much better. - PKM 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no longer used, and better template is made. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 16:29, 13 May 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 the AFD. >Radiant< 08:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The band this template relates to are non-notable per this AfD, so the template seems redundant. — One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:15, 8 May 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hospitals of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template duplicates the list at List of hospitals in Nepal. It only contains redlinks and links to redirects back to List of hospitals in Nepal. The only page on which it is still transcluded is also up for deletion, but I’m planning on merging after that debate is over. Jaksmata 02:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom: this was used to link a whole set of articles, which (pretty much) all failed WP:N. As those stubs have been, quite sensibly, redirected back to the list, we don't need this. It's redundant, so it can be removed. Moreschi ^Talk 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nice work Jaksmata. Much better. Doesn't link to any useful articles, and so is not used. |→ Spaully^₪† 09:43, 10 May 2007 (GMT)
• Delete - No navigational use as the articles have been redirected. –Pomte 02:40, 14 May 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.