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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baywatch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard banner for non-existent WikiProject (yes, apparently someone thought there was a need for a Baywatch WikiProject). 4 uses on talk pages. Thetrick (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No Hasselhoff, even? No Pamela? Just a box? delete A²Kafir (and...?) 01:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. They should do the WikiProject first, then do a template... Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 10:13, 22 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barky (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Test template. Also has a doc page and 2 sub-templates. Thetrick (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#T3. –xenocidic (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barrytilton (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A user signature. Thetrick (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banner WP PROBAB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Banner for a dead wikiproject. 2 uses. Thetrick (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Banzaitest (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Test template. 1 use on 1 user page. Thetrick (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete all Happy‑melon 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BUP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BUP admin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:BestUserPage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Userbox for some abandoned project. Not needed. 10-15 uses in user pages. Thetrick (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Currently on 23 pages. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The project was deleted on 27 July 2006. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 10:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Added in related banner for deleted project. 25 uses on user pages. --Thetrick (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Template for non-existent project. Martarius (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BUAFL team (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Provides a small string of plain text that could be easily hardcoded. 1 use on 1 page. Thetrick (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nonsense. Kubek15 ^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 10:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only transclusion removed, now unused as well as being useless. Typing ((BUAFL team)) takes more characters than simply 'BUAFL team'! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:01, June 23, 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As there is no need to have a template just for one page. Also as Richard0612 put it since it is now unused we don't need it. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 20:04, 23 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-afterfinal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

If a user has received their final warning (e.g. ((uw-v4))), they need to be reported to WP:AIV and either blocked or not blocked; further warning templates are unlikely to help the matter. Part of the creator's rationale is to provide some sort of "record" of further vandalism, but since anyone can legitimately remove warnings from their talk page at any time the only reliable record of vandalism is Special:Contributions. — Anomie⚔ 19:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to deletion (as template creator). As I said, it was a provisional idea. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, however, userfy it to User:AubreyEllenShomo/Templates/Warnings/Uw-afterfinal for my own personal use. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 20:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - adding an extra warning after someone has already received a 'final' warning just seems contradictory. Such behaviour should be responded to with blocks, not further warning templates. Terraxos (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As nom put it if they continue to vandalize past the final warning we block them, not give them more attention via additional templates. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I understand the urge to do something if a vandal keeps going while you wait for AIV, but continuing to warn defeats the purpose of a "final warning" and is more likely to encourage the vandal.--Kubigula (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I understand the rationale for this, it is very common to see someone vandalize and go to warn them only to find they already got a final warning - but it's stale, from 6 hours to a couple of weeks old, they have the idea starting over is not warranted but AIV will often deny due to no other recent vandalism unless the current matter is exceptionally blatant. No objection to deletion but support the editor keeping a userfied copy and addressing this matter with active members of WP:UW for further thoughts.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it may be better for discussion to take place at WT:AIV regarding just when is "recent" enough and what the AIV people want done if the person waits just long enough after the last final warning to not be "recent" anymore. Until someone figures that out, how can we figure out what sort of warnings are needed? Anomie⚔ 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm glad Doug made that point, as the template now makes a lot more sense to me. I do agree that we don't have a good solution for what to do when the final warning is stale, and there may be a need for some kind of continuing vandalism template. This would be a good point for discussion at AIV or UTM.--Kubigula (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally like ((uw-longterm)) for issuing after a stale final. –xenocidic (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Longterm is pretty good, but only if you are dealing with a true long term pattern of abuse (though I am a bit concerned that the template helps to educate vandals about how much they can get away with before a block). I've also seen people use ((uw-v4im)) when the previous warning was stale. Personally, I'm not a big fan of v4im. I'm thinking we could use something like, "Be advised that there has been recent vandalism originating from this IP address. Any further disruption will result in this address being blocked from editing. If this warning does not pertain to your editing, please consider creating an account...".--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Anomie. The whole point of a final warning is that there won't be anymore warnings. If the responding admin from AIV feels the prior final warning is "stale", then they can shorten the block they give.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:41, 2 July 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - no convincing arguments to keep. Happy‑melon 16:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Capital cities of the Arab League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Odd template; the CAPITALS of the League are not the point of the League; the nations themselves are. I'm guessing the point of this template is to include Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine. So, points for an original, subtle piece of POV-pushing. But, POV or no POV, the template serves no purpose. — A²Kafir (and...?) 15:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as the nominator says, the Arab League is a union of nations/states, not capitals, so this is a slightly misleading template. I can't see much need to group together cities in this way (although I have just noticed that ((Capital cities of the European Union)) exists, which I have no problem with, so maybe it's not so bad). Terraxos (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. There is a distinction, I think; the EU is an actual governing body, whereas the Arab League is like the Organization of American States (which incidentally has no similar template) or other regional bodies that serve mostly to coordinate policies and argue with each other. A²Kafir (and...?) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - unless we're (collectively) going to make the assertion that the EU is either a) most "important" or b) more like a federation than a international organization, then they should both be deleted or both be kept. ((Canada capitals)) stays because Canada is a federation, but the Arab League isn't, so it goes. Is EU closer to being like the Arab League or the Canadian federation? I would say it's like that Arab League, but deciding that is the heart of the issue. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EU is unique, really, as a supernational organization with real power to enforce its decrees on member states, which are still sovereign states (although there is much talk of losing said sovereignty to a European "superstate"). The Arab League is one among many international organizations that nations are members of. Some nations are members of five or even more of them; one could imagine their capitals clogged with templates. (And I'm not arguing that other templates might not be superfluous, either.) A²Kafir (and...?) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - What is wrong with this template? It's not doing anything wrong - it just exists. Just leave it and stop fussing. If you want to fix it, go ahead - there's a simple solution - turn it into Arab League countries and put the capitals next to it. Simple. Otherwise let's leave people's work along and stop deleting things for no reason. JRG (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to say to this. I said I thought it was odd; I said I thought it was created as a clever POV-push. Did you miss that? A²Kafir (and...?) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The template serves no purpose. 70.89.163.245 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this template should be deleted since the capital cities themselves serve no purpose to the Arab League. Also, ((Arab League)) already exists which lists the countries themselves. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It wouldn't kill you to keep it, some people don't know such a thing as an Arab League even exists. So, since it's not doin any harm. Why should we remove it? Nas93 (talk) 06:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this template, ((Capital cities of the European Union)), and any other like this into a new template, ((World capitals)). Much less appearance of POV that way, and probably much more useful for readers than either of them.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:04, 2 July 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Speedy G6/IAR This template hasn't been edited in over a year, it is only used on about a dozen subpages of the same project and the nominator is the primary contributor and user. If anyone from the project objects to this early close it can be easily undeleted but there appears to be no interest in discussing, let alone keeping, this template. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPCloseAFD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template for an inactive project subject of an MfD nominated by me and see here. — _Maggot^Syn 12:48, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WA Interstate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not sure that we really need this; there's already a category for it. Rschen7754 (T C) 09:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Some people like navigating by categories, some by nav templates. We should accommodate both unless there is a strong reason not to do so. Keep and use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with above, and as templates go this is relatively useful. --Thetrick (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WA U.S. Routes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not really sure that we need this as there is a category for it already Rschen7754 (T C) 09:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above, and next time (if there has to be one) use the multiple nomination convention. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
• Keep Agree with above, and as templates go this is relatively useful. --Thetrick (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-vandalism4. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Test4a-n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly an exact duplicate, down to image and message of ((Uw-vandalism4)), ((Test4a)) has already been redirected to ((Uw-vandalism4)). MBisanz ^talk 07:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, then. Redirects are cheap and I know I, and probably many other users, don't keep track with the naming conventions of the day on template messages and would be very confused if a tempalte call we made stopped working. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Stifle, and please stop; there will never be a system everybody uses, and there is no real need for one. I doubt I am alone in finding the uw-series confusing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The original pagename is better than that. I don't see why having a redirect helps. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Drmspeedy. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Drmspeedy-n (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Have modified ((Drmspeedy)) to have same functionality, exact duplicate now, can be deleted/redirected. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect it then, no need to be listing this (or many other similar templates) here. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Talkback Happy‑melon 16:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User reply (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Less good faith version of ((Talkback)), also not as pretty, maybe a redirect. MBisanz ^talk 06:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - while I've never used it, this seems like a perfectly acceptable alternative to ((Talkback)) to me. Terraxos (talk) 00:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I support standarisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any apparent assumption of bad faith, in the template. Standardization is good to a point, but it doesn't hurt to give users a whopping two options in this area. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I don't see any problem with this, though it really isn't a warning template, but a user talk page header template, and should be recatted. --Thetrick (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no objection to redirect. With 9 links (only 2 are transclusions, and none are actual uses, substs not counted, of course) it is barely used, and is redundant for ((Talkback)). I don't see the alleged good faith issues, but I also fail to see the need for this template. Maybe if it were in wider use, it would be a keeper. At most, it should be a redirect, and I won't object to that, but I don't even see that need. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 00:32, 2 July 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Test. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Revert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Obscure forked duplicate of ((test)), nothing really different, should be merged probably. MBisanz ^talk 06:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I kinda agree with you on that one. I created that one a while ago without thinking. Marcus2 (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A more offensive version of the 'test' template. Martarius (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to other warning templates, and this one has a bit too much bite.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((test)). If you want to revert for test edits, "revert" is a good key-word. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In Utero (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rather unnecessary since around half of the songs are non-notable and redirect to the album itself. Further, its redundant to ((Extra tracklisting)). See also: a very similar precedent. — indopug (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Navbox for an album? Wild overkill for anything but Sgt. Pepper and Dark Side of the Moon. --Thetrick (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the notable tracks for that album are on the 'Nirvana' template. Martarius (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Slivercobain Although i love Nirvana, most of the tracks on this album do not have articles anyway and the tracklisting is available on the albums page. —Preceding comment was added at 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - borderline CSD#T2, plus obsolete etc. Happy‑melon 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Autoblock-moves (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

1. We don't allow autoblocking by adminbots, 2. its an unused holdover from the WOW days, 3. its against policy to ABF this much. 4. It doesn't explain how to be unblocked. MBisanz ^talk 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then fix it. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I originally created this template because Curps (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was using a bot to automatically block page-move vandals. However, seeing that Curps is inactive and that admins are not allowed to auto-block users via bots, I don't really see the need for this template anymore. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is a message for a block inconsistent with current wikipedia policy, and I don't anticipate the return of autoblocking adminbots any time soon. It is therefore obsolete and unneeded. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 00:36, 2 July 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 16:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Request denied (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused legacy template, not in current Test/UTM systems, mistakes policy. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remark. I wouldn't say this template is unused: I have used the template in the past (I'm afraid I can't find any diff's at the moment), in response to unblock requests, and find it particularly useful in certain situations, where the standard "unblock-declined|reason=..." response is not appropriate, or the original reason accompanying the unblock request must be, for some reason, omitted. If this template is deleted, I will, no doubt, simply manually insert it on-the-spot, rather than subst:-ing it from Template:Request denied. Anthøny 13:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did an image backlinks check to see all the substed instances of it, about 5 total, maybe userfy? MBisanz ^talk 15:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the template that the unblock template suggests is fine. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Will a redirect work, then? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per WP:CON to Template:Unblock reviewed, It would be better to have this one to redirect here since this template has not been used at all. --75.47.199.185 (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A redirect does not strike me as entirely suitable, because the templates take completely different parameters. It is largely deprecated by ((unblock reviewed)), but I'm not quite comfortable getting rid of it -- is there any particular reason to? It's not as if we're drowning in such templates. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 27 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:GBlock Happy‑melon 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Genblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Poorly formatted duplicate of ((GBlock)), defaults to blocks for "misbehaviour", should be merged. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge then. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to ((GBlock)), as I agree that this one is poorly formatted and redundant.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:00, 27 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Trollblock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Trolling, in and of itself, is not a blockable offense, it does not even link to a policy. MBisanz ^talk 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Trolling" may not be an explicitly blockable offense, but use of common sense is. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The meaning of trolling isn't always clear to everyone. To the extent that Trolling is blockable it is as vandalism which already has plenty of warning templates. We don't usually say why we block someone on the block template, we leave that for the log, except for socks. I also see a risk that this will be used by non-admins to leave a somewhat presumptuous and uncivil remark on the users page, rather than by admins to document their actions.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an ultimately unhelpful template. You should always be able to point to some kind of specific disruption in a trolling situation - personal attacks, vandalism, OR etc. It's far better to ground a block on specific grounds than nebulous trolling.--Kubigula (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 08:59, 27 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Sockblock. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blocked user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

extraordinarily BITEy duplicate of ((Sockblock)), confuses types of bans and blocks. MBisanz ^talk 00:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Given since that whole WP:BITE thing says "Please do not bite the newcomers", which previously banned users are clearly not, it's pretty much by definition NOT BITEy, ennit? --Calton | Talk 00:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whilst it is indeed true that banned users are not, whilst the ban is in place, welcome to edit the encyclopedia, I don't think a response as hostile as that provided in ((Blocked user)) is justified: as MBisanz states, the template is extraordinarily BITEy. Anthøny 13:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - excessively hostile, and misleading title (the name implies this could be used for any blocked user, but it's clearly intended only for blocked sockpuppets). Terraxos (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Sockblock)) or replace all by socknlock and then delete. Too over the top. -- Avi (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:35, 25 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indefblockedip (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We really shouldn't be blocking IPs indef, 5, 10 years maybe, but as the devs indicated at [1] it generally should not be done. MBisanz ^talk 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree IPs should not be indefinitely blocked, but they frequently are and were before this template was created. IPs blocked indefinitely for any reason should be tracked as such rather than have their user pages deleted. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:34:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As an IP should never be blocked indef (as even "static" IP's occasionally change hands. However we need a way to tracked, in the rare instance they are in order to unblock them if needed in the future. (Hope that wasn't too confusing). NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per WP:BLOCK and WP:CON, these templates are already in use and active and should not be deleted under any circumstances because it would be difficult to be determined if this IP address was blocked indefinitely and not notified. --75.47.199.185 (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above -- Avi (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spam-warn-userpage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not actually a Test template, redundant to more general ((Spam-warn)) and ((Uw-spam1)), unused in current UTM/Test systems. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't know about this whole "Test template/UTM/Test systems" -- is there some official and bureaucratic requirement I overlooked? -- but no, it's NOT redundant to the other two warnings, as it's specifically written to cover spam pages disguised as User pages, which the other two warnings are not suitable. --Calton | Talk 00:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Amazingly I agree with Calton, this is not a duplicate as it does appear to cover issues not addressed in the current versions, viz user pages. It would be nice if the UTM version could be written to cover this too or that it would at least be incorporated into the UTM system and WP:TWINKLE, etc. I have no problem with the tag but will watch carefully how Calton uses the tag.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It serves a purpose and I don't think spam-warn can be effectively rewritten to cover this situation. The text could use a little tweaking to reduce the bite a bit in non-glaring situations.--Kubigula (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect to Template:Uw-bv. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Blatantvandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Poorly formed duplicate of ((test3)), does not fit into standard tiered nature of Test and UTM systems. Anything useful should be merged. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)))[reply]

• Keep. Not a duplicate (given that its wording does not assume previous vandalism, as ((test3)) does) nor poorly formed (as it contains more detail than the stark wording of ((test3))). Is there some underlying logic to this spate of these pointlessly bureaucratic and not-well-considered deletion nominations? --Calton | Talk 00:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have over 650 user warning templates (down from 800 some when I started), so I'm going through, seeing which are out of date, duplicates, dumb, etc, to try to make sure all are in-use accurate templates. MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Neutral. I still use this every so often. If you can show me one that works just as well that is in the uw template group, let me know. Wizardman 01:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

((Welcomevandal)) and ((Uw-test3)) and ((Uw-vandalism3)) seem to cover its purpose just as well. MBisanz ^talk 01:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of this template is to skip the early uw-1's and the like with this one if a user's vandalism is especially obvious and disruptive. t3 and uw-3 are part of a sequence that doesn't go with bv all that much. Plus, bv would go with t4 and uw-4, not 3. Those three you offer I don't find to be ample substitutes, basically. Wizardman 01:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, uw-bv works as a duplicate. Withdraw keep, move to no vote. Wizardman 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Extremely useful in communicating (to AIV and other users) "do not escalate through the normal sequence; this is extreme vandalism; block next time." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((uw-bv)) (I know, this is just a dream) -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be acceptable; I can't see a significant difference. The redirect should be kept; the name is memorable, and redirects are cheap. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((uw-bv)) The differences between this template and ((uw-bv)) are entirely minor: 1. This template has "|left" on the icon. 2. This template lacks the optional "icon=" parameter to omit the icon. 3. This template says "Please stop, and consider" instead of "Please stop. Consider". 4. This template requires "Thank you." at the end. 5. This template does not use the second unnamed parameter to append personalized text where "Thank you" is located. Anomie⚔ 23:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. Uw-bv has a few extra optional bells and whistles and there's no need for two versions.--Kubigula (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Template:Uw-bv per above, This template appears to be the same. --75.47.199.185 (talk) 06:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((uw-bv)) per above. (Merging without actually preserving anything from this template is superfluous, it implies preserving history which isn't important for a procedural template unless we are actually taking something from this and using it on the target).--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((uw-bv)). PhilKnight (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2008 (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.