April 8
Template:Akira
- 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Akira (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only links four articles (besides the author) together, much better served by strong interarticle linking. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The few relevant articles are prominently linked in Akira (manga), and this navbox provides little added benefit to navigation. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Seems mildly useful, but could use more content. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no more relevant content that could be added, which is why it's at TFD. There used to be links to individual character articles, but the articles all got merged last October or so, and the links removed. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The three articles in the template seem to be good candidates for a merger. --Farix (Talk) 13:25, 12 April 2009 (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.
Template:Un-retired
- 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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Un-retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Useless template which strikes of attention-seeking. It's quite obvious that you've un-retired when you begin editing again. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as very unnecessary. Anyone who had watchlisted the user page of a retired and now returned user will become aware of said user's return when that user removes ((retired)) from his/her user page, begins editing again, begins receiving and responding to talk page messages, and so on. Anyone who had not watchlisted said user's user page will either not care or will be a passerby with no reason to assume, in the absence of big templates, that said user is or ever was retired. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redundant, function is same as said above. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, redundant, if one is not retired anymore, remove the
((retired)) (or similar retired tags) from the userpage. MathCool10 Sign here! 16:52, 9 April 2009 (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.
Template:Abdul Qayyum Ahmad
- 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 discussion was delete, and in line with the spirit of Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy will be requesting oversight for this and the user page Skier Dude (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Abdul Qayyum Ahmad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Useless template, could not be used in any articles. This kind of thing belongs in the userspace. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (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.
Template:Actions
- 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 discussion was Keep as there seems to be a clear consensus. Non-admin closure. --MathCool10 Sign here! 02:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Actions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Orphaned; can't really see any possible use for it. The doc suggests use on "your own User page, or perhaps a subpage or a workshop page". But you would probably not want to take most of the available actions on any page, really. Also, it lists "undelete", which is bizarre. This, that and the other [talk] 07:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a specialized tool, for special cases. I rarely use it but when I do, it's what I need. If you never use it, it will never affect you. Please don't throw away tools. — Xiong熊talk* 18:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I might have mentioned that of course it will always appear to be little or not used. An editor will usually subst it, which leaves no backlink; and when the work is done, delete it altogether.
- Black Falcon, you may have missed the pagename feature. This puts the several action commands on another page from the one to which it refers. Note that in the examples given in this template's documentation, the target page is Wikipedia talk:Sandbox. (This chosen deliberately in the example for obscurity.) — Xiong熊talk* 03:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the impression that this template just duplicates the standard editing interface (at the top and left of the editing window) visible to administrators ("post" and "undel" require an extra click to reach). Perhaps I've missed something? –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Xiong's explanation (thank you, by the way, for clarifying). I had indeed missed the "pagename" feature and was under the impression that the template produced links only for those pages on which it was transcluded. Although this template is not something that should appear in namespaces intended for readers (e.g. category, article, portal), it could be useful for individual users and perhaps even WikiProjects. –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No you have not missed anything. This template is a duplicate of the standard editing interface. I believe that the only purpose of this template is for convenience: users who spend most of their time editing one page could put it on their userpage, then just go to their userpage and click the correct link to do the action for that page [i.e. they would put it on their userpage just to save a few clicks when going to take action on that one page :-)]. I would have said Delete but if this template could be useful for somebody then it should be kept. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've been working with this template's /doc page, and this deletion is unnecessary. Also per Xiong. MathCool10 Sign here! 16:49, 9 April 2009 (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.