< May 8	May 10 >

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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Satellites 0f 2003 EL61 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is unused, and the subpages have been merged into the main article page. — 132.205.44.134 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Since it's not used, and not likely to be used in the future. Quite bizarre to have a two-page navbox. ALTON .ıl 03:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Since the related articles were merged together, this navigation template is no longer needed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - No navigational use. –Pomte 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Satellites 0f 2003 EL61 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is unused, and the subpages have been merged into the main article page. Additionally, the template is misnamed, using a "0" in place of an "O" — 132.205.44.134 23:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - nominator covered it well enough. ALTON .ıl 03:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - Since the related articles were merged together, this navigation template is no longer needed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - No navigational use. –Pomte 03:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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! 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Redundant template — Marky1981 23:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• What is it redundant to? Gracenotes^T § 02:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Poked around, and it seems he's referring to ((hillsong2)), which is much less comprehensive. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep. If anything put ((hillsong2)) up for deletion. Colin MacLaurin 12:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just checked and the less comprehensive template is the one linked to on all the pages! I suggest this be reverted. Colin MacLaurin 12:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Easily fixed. I've redirected hillsong2 to hillsong. Job done I would think. --kingboyk 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very bizarre. I just got reverted by an editor who said it's best to have them seperate, and I recommended to him he get over he pronto. I then noticed that it was Marky1981, the nominator! /me is confused. --kingboyk 12:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• One solution is to delete ((Hillsong2)) as redundant, then add a state parameter to ((Hillsong)) that allows it to be collapsed in certain transclusions. Another solution is to delete ((Hillsong2)) as redundant and merge that into ((Hillsong)) by creating a parameter that shows the small version (what ((Hillsong2)) looks like now) instead of the big version (what ((Hillsong)) looks like). Of course, we could just leave these alone to the discretion of the creator(s). –Pomte 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - agree with nom - this is one MASSIVE template, and the other one (((Hillsong2))), with some expansion, would be far more appropriate to the articles it covers. A casual observer of Hillsong may not need a link to every single album they've ever produced (nearly 70% of the template's bulk) - a direction to an appropriate list with more details and appropriate copyright information about each release, as has been done with Songs, would be an improvement. With the existing one, you might not even *find* the article about the church, which is the only really notable thing linked from it. Orderinchaos 05:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Totally agreed with Orderinchaos on this one, it's another useless template with excessive linking. Convert the information to a category or list, then blow this template away. The casual observer would not give a stuff about every article they have released. Thewinchester ^(talk) 05:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. I agree with Orderinchaos wrt to general use of this template, however .. why not use ((Hillsong)) (renamed and refocused) on the articles for the Hillsong albums, and ((hillsong2)) on the remainder of the Hillsong articles. John Vandenberg 12:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, with Orderinchaos too. Massive in size, massive in ugliness. Split it down into subcategories, if absolutely necessasry. Lankiveil 10:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[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. Aquarius • talk 15:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC) Reply[reply]

• Template:PokeAnime (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:PokeAttributes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:PokeCulture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:PokeManga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:PokeOtherMedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:PokeSmash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:PokeTCG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Template:PokeVideoGames (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates contain only four words and, as far as I can see, are static. Unlike ((Pokenum)), which serves a purpose, the use of these templates are potentially confusing to new editors. Subst and delete. — Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 18:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• A note, you placed the tfd tags on all the templates inside <noinclude> tags, which prevents them from being transcluded. This means that the editors who regularly use the templates will not be informed, and is probably bad practice, making it seem like you're trying to sneak something by, like nominating an article for afd without tagging it. If it's a layout issue, use ((tfd-inline)). Plus, the linebreak you added between the tfd tag and the content broke the layout on every page using the templates anyway! Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'm changing these to a condensed version of ((tfd-inline)) because these templates are used in section headers, so they're currently making articles confusing and hard to read. –Pomte 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Not only that, also if someone make changes to the page, you can't click the edit summary see what effect it had on the article, you have to find the section some other way. Also note to the closing administrator: Subst all of them. This is pointless. This is as pointless as adding template: ((earlylife)) and put the early life section with the template on every person, dead or not. TheBlazikenMaster 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • clarify I'm not sure what you mean by "you can't click the edit summary [to] see what effect it had on the article..." do you mean that the way they were tagged for this TFD caused a problem, or the way they were being implemented? If it has to do with the way they were implented, i'm not sure what problems you may have been having as they've been used on the Eevee related pages for quite a few months. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Do any of you realize that deleting those templates will also delete the 'sub-categories' that are on the profile of every species of Pokemon? Go to an article on any species, even the one on Arceus, and you'll see what I'm talking about. Just ckecking to see if you all noticed...-Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Keeper of Truth (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Of course we do. That's why we're saying subst and delete. Will ^{(is it can be time for messages now plz?)} 20:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - I say we keep them. Deleted them would delete alot of useful information. I know alot of people who log on to some of these pokemon articles because its a way to gather information which if I am not mistaken was the purpose of an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheUltimate3 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
• Sub and Delete. This can be confusing to people who have an article using such a template on their watchlist, since the template is used in a section heading. Thus a section named "In the Pokemon video games" is reduced to ((PokeVideoGames)) in the edit summary if this template is used. (ec) Further, Ultimate, these are in SECTION HEADINGS. Removing them isn't going to affect the information of the article. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a sidenote: Thanks for the heads up. Was under the impression that this would empty out the articles as I saw another wiki site do. Thanks.
    • Null perspiration. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sub and Delete - This is confusing and not really necessary. Theredhouse7 01:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete. Hooray for shifting away from templatizing everything. -Amarkov moo! 04:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete - it's pointless to transclude basic text: templates were designed to hide more complex code like divs and tables. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 12:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Strongly delete Templates must not be used for such simple words. Vikrant Phadkay 14:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Obviously, as i'm the creator of these templates. I'd like to invite everyone who voted to read through the talk page at Template talk:PokePage, a related template that was not nominated and which explains the use of these templates. There is also a summary of the lengthy discussion at the project, found here. Unfortunately no one really seemed interested in discussing it further so I was bold and decided to implement the concept in a few non-obscure, but also non-high profile articles and gauge the reactions. I did this to all Eevee evolutions (Vaporeon, Jolteon, Flareon, Espeon, Umbreon) and Chansey and Blissey around Nov. 18 (here's one diff). Because of the unfruitful discussions at the project I figured I would follow the spirit of WP:CON and make the changes and see if anyone really had a problem with them. You can review the histories for the pages themselves, but I believe there were only two times anyone changed them back/subst'd them and worries of confusing editors were obviously overplayed as the many edits that occured after these changes can testify. I'd like to ask that anyone coming deciding to vote on this please review the explanation at Template talk:PokePage, read through the summary at the project, and take a good look at WP:CON. There appears to be consesnus for this change, however I haven't been pushing these templates recently because of a planned merger that would make the work implenting them be wasted. I'd also like to ask that people who voiced their opinions rethink their positions after reviewing this information. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Delete Why do you need a template for a section header? Its easy to right this out without a template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DBZROCKS (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • one would think that people could follow a style guide for 493 articles, but that's simply not the case. Why not take a look at some of the diffs and you can see it for yourself. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Then sub them with ((subst:Templatefoo)). Subst'ing them puts the text in, and leaves the template out. Besides, vandalism on a template is harder to fix in an article; a subst'ed template lacks these problems. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • There's actually a future-proof rationale to this, and that's for making it easier to update the articles should the style guides ever change, that's why transclusion is opted for over substitution. It also discourages people from making inappropraite changes to section headers. Take a look at ((main)), the reasonings there are the same, many people have often said that it and similar templates should be subst'd, but the push has repeatedly been shot down. As for vandalism, please review the discussions associated with these templates i noted above, they address the issues you may have quite thoroughly. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • ((main)) serves a useful purpose by linking to a more in-depth article, whereas these pokéheaders do not, they are merely placeholders for the header text. The existence of these headers is in contrast to a lot of Wikipedia articles where header names are more or less standardized without requiring templates to do the job. Subst and delete. --Stratadrake 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • the main template merely writes some words in italics and then puts the parameter given into a wikilink. all of these delete arguments could be used to subst ((main)), ((seealso)), ((details)), and others. why not merely write out the guidlenine and hope people follow it? because that just simply doesn't work. and i don't believe a majority of the people here !voting even read the related discussions. there is precendent for this, but people are just ignoring it. and you say that the header names are stanrdized? take a look at Cat and Dog, they could easily follow the same naming conventions, but they don't - non-standarization leaves the articles of any topic looking like a disheveled mess as you move from one to the other. an encyclopedia should allow me to find the information quickly and easily, not have to guess at header names, and hope that the info is tucked away in the spot I think it would be at. Sure, Cat will have different sections than Dog, but why are they calling one section Anatomy and Morphology, and it's related section is simply Physical Characteristics? Indeed, Physical Characterisitcs is the norm for animal species (take a look at Emperor Penguin) but we let someone come along and change them into these weird names... or people create headers that outright violate the MOS by doing things like having links in them. If there were a set of related animal species header templates, it would help improve this situation. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete Unlike Pokenum, which will change every now and then, this can really just be written as is for every article. Toastypk 03:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and what happens if style guidlines change again? there are still articles with the two-years old Biology sections. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary - the only purpose of these templates is to create a style for the headers, but the only people who would use this template would know about the style, and those who don't know about the style wouldn't know about the template. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

wait, you're saying to delete a template because the only people who will use it are those who know about it? and at any rate, each template has a link to the style guidline it's based on. so if the headers were used on every page, there's no way someone couldn't know about it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sub and Delete. Confusing to new editors, and you can just type in headers. All are unnecessary. --TV-VCR watch 11:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Subst and delete, but remove the deletion template before doing that. They contain four words, it's not too hard to just type them. Waste of templatespace. Axem Titanium 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete per nom and Axem Titanium. - Nick C 17:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete but make sure that any information is not lost if it's deleted (I keep forgetting if deleting templates removes all the information from the articles, or if the information stays)--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 20:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep or sub. I don't see how deleting them would make the articles better. As-is this discussion notice makes the articles just plain ugly.--Marhawkman 09:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete, as per the above arguments. -masa ♫ 00:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep As Marhawkman said, how would deleting these templates serve any decent purpose whatsoever? --Luigifan 21:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not as easy to vandalize 493 articles at once, plus people don't think that all articles in a series must have exactly the same format. -Amarkov moo! 21:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment I think that there should just be a note under the templates that says not to change the title. DBZROCKS 23:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Why? -Amarkov moo! 00:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yeah, something like that would be totally against the nature of Wikipedia. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Amarkov, if people want to vandalize all the pages, they'll do it with Pokenum, or the infobox... and if they do it with these headers, we can sproct them as well. vandalism is NEVER an excuse for getting rid of something. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • It's not my reason for wanting to get rid of it. I want to get rid of the templates because they are unnecessary and encourage overly strict style guidelines. The comment was in response to something I interpreted as "they may be useless, but why delete them?" -Amarkov moo! 03:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strongly delete Pointless. -70.95.73.60 08:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete. Templates like this just further the misguided notion that Wikipedia is a pokedex. --Chris (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete. It's not all that hard to type out two to four words instead of just slapping a template there.Raan0001 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Strong Delete Sorry but this template serves only the purpose of keeping a consistent title heading (from what I've read on the template's talk page) and surely this is already covered by WP:MoS? --Phill ^{talk Edits} 14:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ty for at least reading some of the pages i posted for perusal. these templates are intended to encourage the policies of MOS (like no links in headers). by templating the headers we can also insure that sectional links remain accurate. this concept of taking the already practiced transclusion of mostly static templates can save so much time just within this topic alone. For example, if i wanted to create a piped link to the Anime section in Pikachu i can just write it as [[Pikachu#((PokeAnime))|Ash's Pikachu]]. Standardization with the templates not only makes our encyclopedia look more professional, but also saves us time. I now know that the piped link will always point to the right section, no matter how often the header gets renamed, and i did it without even having to look at the article to make sure i lablled it right, this obviously can't work for everything, but in cases like these, where large numbers of articles are presenting the same kind of content, standardization is so helpful. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Subst and delete, and do it quickly so we can no longer have the "‹The template that displays this section title has been proposed for deletion.›" cluttering the articles that use these templates. I suggest doing so now per WP:SNOWBALL. - Redxiv 03:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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! 05:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User 25e - similar to 10e below. - jc37 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 18:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge with ((User contrib)) per this disscusion. Michael Greiner 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, per Michael Greiner. --Phoenix 22:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - a result of "merge" will effectively delete it. - jc37 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as merged - covered already by ((User contrib)), ((User contrib meta)), and ((User:Nihiltres/Userboxes/Super contrib meta)). Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete; not necessary. John Vandenberg 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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! 05:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:User 10e - 10 edits? Adding and removing this userbox is at least 2 : ) - jc37 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 17:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense, probably speediable. --kingboyk 17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge with ((User contrib)) per this disscusion. Michael Greiner 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, per Michael Greiner. --Phoenix 22:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - a result of "merge" will effectively delete it. - jc37 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as merged - covered already by ((User contrib)), ((User contrib meta)), and ((User:Nihiltres/Userboxes/Super contrib meta)). Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 04:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete; not necessary. John Vandenberg 13:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 Speedy close - Please relist at WP:CFD. - jc37 17:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These categories have now been replaced by some more intuitive categories and are now blank. Most likely speedy delete necessary. Centy 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, I suppose you were looking for CfD... CharonX/talk 17:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While well-intended, I believe this is not such a good idea. The intent is to prettify articles by consolidating boxes like ((npov)) into one central template. The disadvantage is that this makes it more difficult for editors to add or remove boxes, where easiness of use is such a strong point of Wikipedia. Also, this template encourages just adding another tagline to the template, as for instance here. >Radiant< 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Kingston Student Ghetto seems to be an exceptional case. The template documentation advises not adding redundant taglines, and not using the generic "cleanup" in conjunction with other ones. WP:TC can also be seen as encouraging excessive tagging. I think the way tags are added is pretty intuitive, similar to infoboxes, which are widely used. We can always add a comment along with each transclusion: <!-- Please see Template:Articleissues for how to use this template. --> SmackBot already appears to be updating the dates on these, so the instructions don't need to emphasize dates, in order to make it simpler to use. The main idea is to say the same thing with less vertical space, so the reader can acknowledge the multiple lines in the box, then more quickly get to reading and hopefully improving the article. –Pomte 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. This template replaced ((noncompliant)) and it is an excellent template to use on articles that have multiple issues, and better than have three or four stacked templates a top of page. Removing a particular issue is as easy as removing a the appropriate line from the template text. Regarding the case of Kingston Student Ghetto, if all the issues listed are standing, I see no problem with it. It will encourage editors to address the issues raised and remove the template when done fixing. If it just WP:POINT prune it back to what is really disputed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Per User:Jossi this template is useful to consolidating multiple guideline breaches without the need to "stack" multiple templates. It also focuses editors attention on what specifically needs to be addressed before the template might be removed. Guliolopez 19:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. This is much better than having the entire first page taken up by templates, which I have seen before. -Amarkov moo! 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep' Reduces use of verticle space, per Jossi. Ideally, it be better to fix the issues that add the template, but ultimately makes life easier for readers. -- Kendrick7^talk 16:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as creator, this was discussed prior to creation/move to template space here. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, per Kendrick7. - Cyrus XIII 16:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Radiant is correct that Template:Articleissues is intended to prettify articles. Maybe the need for it is not so exceptional and perhaps is a growing category. This template is attached to List of groups referred to as cults (LOGRTAC), and I think I recall seeing three templates at LOGRTAC simultaneously. Since the article opponents are going to add either lines or templates to dispute these issues anyway, I agree with Amarkov that filling up the screen with dispute templates is a bad idea. Template editing may not be quite as easy, but for sure it won't halt. LOGRTAC has just gone through it's 5th AfD - no consensus defaulting to keep with about 52% support. It's time to acknowledge that dispute template(s) at LOGRTAC are a semipermanent feature of the article, and that they need to be prettyfied, since the article is being published elsewhere in this form. (Those interested can read a description of the semipermanent LOGRTAC dispute issues at Wikipedia talk:List guideline#To what extent does NPOV apply? (find down to "consensed", beginning with "Let's vet")). Milo 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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! 06:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Sealand table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Used in only one article. I recommend subst'ing into that article, and deleting (if GFDL allows) or replacing with a permanent redirect (if not). — kingboyk 14:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, that's what ((Infobox Country or territory)) is for. >Radiant< 14:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per above. Tim.bounceback^{(talk | contribs | ubxen)} 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - it doesn't warrant its own template. ALTON .ıl 04:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom - only used in one article and not likely to ever be used in any others. But (to respond to Radiant) wouldn't ((Infobox Country or territory)) give undue weight to the claims of an unrecognized group like Sealand? I'd say that's what ((Infobox Micronation)) is for. PubliusFL 18:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree in principle, although I think subst'ing the current Sealand table would be just fine. I'm interested to be told of ((Infobox Micronation)), it would seem that a lot of micronation articles either aren't using it or have subst'd it. That said, I would caution against using that infobox in articles on fraudulent and very frivolous entities, as I think it was the infobox which was one of the worst problems in the New Utopia article before it got refactored. It gave it something of an air of credibility which the reliable sources in no way supported. --kingboyk 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Point well taken. Common practice seems to be to use the micronation infobox as a guideline and modify as needed for particular cases. PubliusFL 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Having everything that is in the template on top of the sealand page is very cluttered and might be confusing for new editors. --Indolences 20:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete - just put it in that one article direct. DreamGuy 01:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 Speedy Deleted. I cited "Housekeeping" but it may just as well have been "Nonsense" or WP:SNOW. Whatever, this is quite possibly the most ridiculous template I've ever seen! kingboyk 14:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delete. This template is totally irrelevant. There is no need to tag an article to show it's been wikified - that would apply to every article in WP!. andy 06:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete The correct action would be to remove the ((wikify)) tag once the wikification is done. Jeepday (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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 Speedy Delete per author request. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Round16-2Legs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I mistakenly created two redundant templates, Round16-2Legs and Round16-2legs. Therefore, the Round16-2Legs can be deleted without problem. — Garavello 06:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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! 05:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Forgotten-Realms-Wikia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am nominating this template for deletion because it appears to be spam. Normally I would say it would qualify for ((db-spam)) but in this case there is a history of dialog on the page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Forgotten Realms which also comments on its Spam content, yet the template still is here and used on at least 8 articles currently Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Forgotten-Realms-Wikia. It is probably best to document the outcome in the WP:TFD process. — Jeepday (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving 2 comments over from Template talk:Forgotten-Realms-Wikia that are posted there in response to this TfD. Jeepday (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am the creator of the template and also the creator of the Wikiproject Forgotten Realms. Despite a considerable amount of work from me, I did not see much help from others (for the exception of one person who subsequently dropped). Meanwhile, a third-party project on Wikia gathered many people.
Now, I'm not feeling jealous for anything: I did my best, I'm happy with it, few people followed, no problem. What I'm concerned about is not me but my goal: a consolidated source of information. And what I see now is two concurrent project working without much dialog, a consequently a lot of redundancy and the necessity to check two sources for anyone interested in the Realms. Do you like to read the same information twice just to find the delta? Me neither. That's why I created this template. Now, as far as information is consolidated, I don't care much.
Bottom-line: delete if you want, but think about the ultimate goal when doing so: consolidating information.
David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 07:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, I think the question of having all content ported to both FR Wiki and WP is just moot. The projects are of totally different scopes. Our wiki is inclusive and will have pages about the most obscure characters, while Wikipedia has been known to delete pages like Netheril on the premise that it is non-notable. And I agree with the WP mods that it is non-notable, from an Encyclopedia point of view - if pepople want to find obscure stuff, go to the specialists, ie. us. As for the banner/template, I can see how it could be percieved as spam by the WP community, and I think we'd be better off if it was just deleted. I know it wasn't your intention Latapie, but by making the banner in "our name" it has made it look like we are spamming/advertising on Wikipedia.

In my eyes I'm happy with having the link from Wikipedia's Forgotten Realms page, and nowhere else. For anyone else looking for FR wiki, we can just hope we get some favorable rankings from Google :P From here 85.81.126.123 08:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete for discouraging readers from editing the article (if the article is too specific, then propose it for deletion). Otherwise, the template is redundant to ((forgottenrealmswiki)). Cross-wiki redundancy is not such a bad thing: You can watch these articles, see the changes, and update accordingly at Wikia. Use both to improve the other for concise summaries (Wikipedia) and details (Wikia). Easier said than done, of course. –Pomte 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete – I agree with Pomte but for the following reasons. As previously stated on this subject, the Forgotten Realms Wiki contains extremely detailed information on a very specific subject, and this is outside the scope of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a suitable starting point for one's research on a Forgotten Realms related topic, and thus should contain a link to further reading on any given topic. That a link to further reading at the Forgotten Realms Wiki should be included in Wikipedia articles surely cannot be under dispute, so this surely must be a discussion as to the best way to present this link. I am proposing the use of the ((forgottenrealmswiki)) template instead, which will appear towards the bottom of the article, and conforms to the general style of other such interwiki boxes. Fw190a8 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete this isn't what templates are for. Unencyclopedic advertising. Having an external link, or even a interwiki box is one thing, but we shouldn't be discouraging readers from editing, or promoting editing elsewhere.-Andrew c 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Fw190a8. John Vandenberg 12:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.