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 (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template which is essentially spam for iBiquity. — JPG-GR 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused, I do not think that we will use it again. Carlosguitar 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a commercial spam. Tankred 18:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is spam. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:36, 20 October 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template which is essentially spam for iBiquity. — JPG-GR 20:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused, I do not think that we will use it again. Carlosguitar 15:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a commercial spam. Tankred 18:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:36, 20 October 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is a specialty template to list episodes of a Cartoon network crossover event, but half of the links redirect to "List of episodes" articles, not articles on the episodes, and one is redlinked. Moreover, the episodes are already linked in the article. Therefore the template isn't very helpful and is also redundant. — MSJapan 19:14, 17 October 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template is not in use. Also "Fads and trends" in Europe seems to violate NPOV . --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Template not in use, and all redlinks. GlassCobra 06:24, 23 October 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Canadian museum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An country specific infobox design for museums that seems to have not been adopted. (seems the author figured out we have a more general infobox that applies.). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 October 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 subst and delete. Flags in templates like this are not a good thing. — Malcolm (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose to subst: this template. Was previously used to quickly include the EU flag next to the link in "Politics" articleseries. A convention that seems to have since been dropped.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I re-added the flag, which was the reason to make the template. If the template is to be deleted, it means that in every of the 27 Politics of templates, a link should be added to Politics of the European Union. Electionworld Talk? 12:18, 22 October 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 subst and delete

Template:Brazil-templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Mexico-templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template isn't necessary if will be used by only one page. — — Guilherme ^(t/c) 14:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - These templates are used for better organization in the articles. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since the template namespace is meant to allow transclusions on multiple articles, rather than hide content that should only be used on one page. Gracenotes^T § 02:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - That's what templates are for, to release some weight from the main article, which sometimes takes a long time to load completely, also to keep all the topics about that one article better organized. Supaman89 17:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Substitute and delete - no, the template namespace is not for single use templates; it's for templates that need to be used on multiple pages. To use it for single use templates is just added bureaucracy with no real benefit. Also, in this case the two templates only have ~ 25 lines. This means that it will have a negligible impact on the loading time of the edit page - and it actually slows down (albeit also negligibly) the loading of the article page as the servers have to do a bit more work to pull the page together. Mike Peel 08:04, 21 October 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 suspended. Delete upon obsolesence. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-csd-notice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recently this appears to have become the most common template for the task of informing users that an article they created has been proposed for deletion and on what basis. I see why it has caught on: a single template where all you need to do is insert the common CSD abbreviations (A7, G11, etc.), as opposed to having to use different templates depending on the criterion at issue. It is elegant in that respect, but it is a one size fits all template, with just a link to that CSD section, followed by necessarily generic text.

I think it is important that users receive tailored information on the specifics of deletion, such as is provided by ((nn-warn)), ((empty-warn)), ((spam-warn)) and so on, rather than this blanket warning. Though the template may speed up newpages patrol to some extent, it is also slowing me down on the other end of matters at CAT:CSD patrol, because when I delete an article and see this template used for warning users, I feel compelled to add a specific admin deletion template, such as ((nn-warn-deletion)), where before, if the user already received one of the custom CSD warning templates, my further warning would be redundant. I think the negatives of this template's [now constant] usage, outweigh the benefits.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure, but that's an interesting point. By far the most common reasons for speedy deletion of articles are G11 (spam), G12 (copyvio), and A7 (lack of significance), not necessarily in that order. I think it's a good idea to use specialized templates for those cases. I'm not sure that patrollers really want to remember specialized templates to account for all of the other possibilities. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indeed those are the most common, and I can attest that right now that for the majority of articles tagged with, for example, an A7 concern, such as ((db-bio)), the creators are getting this template rather than nn-warn. If someone could engineer a way to make the template not work for certain CSD criteria such as those you've highlighted, that might also be a solution.--Fuhghettaboutit 16:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This template was created because there was no logic in the setup of templates that could be used for notifying based on CSD nominations. At that time I had no motivation or energy to standardize them all, so I decided just to create a simple generic template, and only link to the criteria (was for twinkle by the way). It would probably be better to be able to post a more detailed notice to the subject, but as long there are no standard, it's pretty difficult to complete in an automatical fassion. _→AzaToth 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure what you mean by standardization, but why would it be a problem to have Twinkle place the standard and much vetted templates for high traffic CSD criteria: nn-warn for any A7 tags (db-a7, db-bio, db-club, db-group, db-band, db-inc and db-web), spam-warn for g11 tags (db-spam, db-g11), empty-warn for A3 and A1 (db-nocontent, db-nocontext, db-empty), nonsensepages for G1 tags (db-nonsense) and so on?
    • As I couldn't know the 1:1 combination of criteria and template, are they listed somewhere? _→AzaToth 18:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I remember now I stated to make a bounch of templates, but never completed it, could you complete it for me, see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates _→AzaToth 19:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd be happy to help out but I'm confused by that chart, which shows new templates being made for each criteria. Is there some reason why the existing [1:1] templates can't be used by Twinkle. Just as an example, as I note above, all of the A7 based db- tags (db-a7, db-bio, db-club, db-group, db-band, db-inc and db-web), are properly warned with ((nn-warn)). Why use a new template? Please note that I know nothing about how Twinkle operates. Can't you tell Twinkle to place ((nn-warn)) if I tell you what db- templates it should be associated with, as I have above? If this is the solution, I'll gladly make a comprehensive chart for you of which existing templates go with which db- tags (and where there is no proper one, make new ones. I have created many templates, including ((empty-warn)), and most of those used at the help desk to answer standard questions).--Fuhghettaboutit 23:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or, if needed, how about redirecting those to the appropriate template (see Db-bio-notice. → AA ^(talk) — 08:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If I understand how this works, that wouldn't make any difference because those templates are not presently being used by Twinkle. The chart was an attempt to create new templates for each criteria but was never implemented. Instead the template at issue was made the corresponding template for every CSD criteria in Twinkle. Azatoth: I'm going to go ahead and start making that chart. Should have it done in a few days. Question: do you need all redirect templates listed as well? For example, db-group is a redirect to db-club. There arte many of those. Do you need those separately listed?--Fuhghettaboutit 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yea, I was going to do the system, but lost track after a couple of templates, and at that time, just hadn't the time, and I really didn't (don't) know what templates should be issued, and how they should look like, and what they should contain. Also a question is that if there should be separate templates for the different A7. _→AzaToth 12:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reason for not using nn-warn in twinkle: first most I didn't know it existed, second is thati's a warning template, not in my eye a notice template. Reason for making it standardized, first that it makes more sense, and is easier to issue for ordinary folks, second it's much easier to program. _→AzaToth 12:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I love that Twinkle does this and does this automatically, because quite a few editors who don't use Twinkle don't seem to warn at all. :) That said, I think the specific warnings would be nice if possible, particularly as relates to G12, which requires an administrator to check that the creator has been warned of copyright policy prior to deleting the article. ((subst:sd-copyvio|title|url)) gives all the information necessary. I'm not above writing my own templates in my clumsy, technologically-clueless way, so if for any reason it's not possible to use the preexisting set, I'd be happy to help craft new, specific ones. I'm quite reliant and Twinkle and willing to pitch in if I can. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not doing any harm and can be used when there is no other template that applies. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Done. Tailored templates now exist for every necesssary CSD criteria. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Templates. Once implemented in Twinkle, this template becomes redundant.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:57, 28 October 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.