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(C-Town) 03:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Standardized all articles to ((Infobox Settlement)) — MJCdetroit 18:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Obsolete. - Darwinek 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as deprecated. JPG-GR 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 03:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No longer in use / has been deprecated. Yamaguchi先生 19:17, 6 November 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(C-Town) 03:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

All technologies except WebCore have been merged into one article, so there's little need for a navigation box now Hertzsprung 10:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, but replace the "see also" links into the WebKit article. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:35, 29 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template namespace is not the place for indulging a penchant for satire/parody/humour. We already have enough "humourous" rubbish floating around the Wikipedia namespace without tainting other namespaces as well. Hesperian 11:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're planning to list every humorous userpage for deletion also? – Gurch 00:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These straw man arguments are so predictable, it's a great comfort to me. Hesperian 00:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm serious. You just claimed that the Wikipedia namespace is the only namespace suitable for humorous content, a claim which you repeat below. If so, surely any humorous content in userspace (or any other namespace) would also be misplaced? – Gurch 01:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well done, Gurch, you got me! You ferreted out a laxity in my language that allows you to interpret what I said in a way that makes me look utterly stupid. Bravo! No, of course I don't think humour on userpages is misplaced. Since you're so clever at wringing meaning out of my words, I'll leave the reconciliation of my various statements as an exercise for the reader. Here's a clue: you haven't found a loophole. Hesperian 02:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bugger off (Oppose). Some of us appreciate humour. See WP:HUMOUR. If you want to delete all humourous templates at the absurd risk they are used, why not make it a policy at Wikipedia:Template. In fact, I suggest you propose deleting Wikipedia humour all together, in case someone actually refers someone to our policy of assuming bad faith (or good wraith). Even if someone did use this template, there's no harm; in fact it's quite a humourous way to get the message across. There's no evidence that they will be used (and any other form of vandalism is just as bad), and we could probably do something to stop them from working if they were used if it was an issue. In short, I think this is just silly 'template Stalinism', and uncalled for. Richard001 07:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate humour, although most of what passes for it on Wikipedia does nothing for me. Nevertheless, I'm not proposing the deletion of all Wikipedia humour here, so we can dispose of that straw man right away. I'm proposing the deletion of this template, on the principle that our attempts at humour, such as they are, should be confined to the Wikipedia namespace, the home namespace for such meta- commentary. Hesperian 11:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's funny, but unfortunately there is evidence that when it has been used, it was used vindictively and was not taken well (see its 'what links here') Publicola 09:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't think everyone would find it funny if they received that template in real life. We're better off without it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What Shalom said was true, it's not really funny, just redundant. Also, as Hesperian said, humor should only be in the wikipedia namespace.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions)} 23:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The collective bureaucratic stupidity of this project never ceases to amaze me – Gurch 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is droll analysis not suitable for the template namespace? An analogy: just because the category namespace groups together related articles doesn't mean the template namespace shouldn't. In the case of this template, form can send as effective of a message as content, if not more effective. I would suggest WP:IAR but it seems like we're making the rules up as we go. Gracenotes^T § 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Droll analysis is suitable for the template namespace if and only if it is droll analysis intended for transclusion. Hesperian 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm. This template should not be transcluded; it should be linked. Looking at its links reveals that its intended use is a light-hearted introduction to WP:DTTR. Its form (existence in the template namespace) is necessary for this function. Its transclusions, as you can see, were not as well received. The solution, then, would be to prevent transclusion with noinclude. I was ambivalent about doing this when it came up approximately two months ago, but I see it's a good idea. The template namespace is meant for transclusion, yes, but the idea that exceptions to this "rule" should be removed for the reason that they are exceptions is not terribly wiki-like. Gracenotes^T § 03:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every valid deletion, ever, is done in recognition that the page is an exception to a "rule" and should therefore be removed. If I delete an obscene hoax from the the mainspace, I'm doing so in recognition that it is an exception to WP:HOAX, and should therefore be deleted. Why should application of the same in this case be insufficiently "wiki-like", whatever that means? Hesperian 04:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, here we come to the discrepancy between mainspace and template space. Articles are the end result; templates need not be (templates are suitable for either article space or in-project). Judging from some its links, this template serves a useful social function in some cases, however minor. It is a good idea to minimize cases in which its function is harmful, but deleting the template is neither a sensitive nor well thought out means to do so. Gracenotes^T § 22:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If we are going to delete these let's create a page for all parody templates to move them to. The only thing I don't like about that is that them being templates is part of the humour. Richard001 04:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy to User:Gracenotes/Templater if people are bothered about it being in the template-space. If it's in userspace, people won't think it's a legitimate template. Acalamari 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination, from the main template space at least. Yamaguchi先生 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• userfy per Acalamari. –Crazytales talk/desk 00:55, 7 November 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(C-Town) 03:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant (contained in Template:Quantities_of_bytes, was only used where that other template was also present, links to it already removed) — RFST 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as deprecated, replaced by ((Quantities of bytes)) SkierRMH 03:09, 29 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.