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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((ArticleHistory)), unused except for one template message page. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Portals are not articles... which suggests that "ArticleHistory" is the wrong name for the concatenated template... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed here, so I requested a move. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused for its intended purpose and redundant to a widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((ArticleHistory)), unused except for one template message page and one talk page, but it shouldn't be a too big problem to remove/replace it there. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Barely used and redundant to a widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to ((ArticleHistory)), unused expect for one template message page. The Evil IP address (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unused for its intended purpose and redundant to a widely used template. --RL0919 (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template that finds out one language's text direction (for example, Arabian is written from right to left). Useful for Commons, where templates are usually translated and this finds out the language's direction, but useless here because Wikipedia doesn't translate templates. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, Template:Kremlin.ru (and all the sub pages) say that they have been nominated for deletion, however when I click to find the template's entry, it directs me to this one (Template:Dir)...I looked at Template:Dir, and it has these three characters (ltr) and on Template:Kremlin.ru it has the same three characters...can someone tell me what is going on? Donatrip (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see my comments below. the problem with the TFD tag was that this template was transcluded, including the tag, onto the other one, so I put it (the tag) in noincludes. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 16:39, 30 April 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Translated tag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See commons:Template:Translated tag for what's it's used for on Commons, the source of this template. It's useless here as Wikipedia doesn't translate templates. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See below. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 16:36, 30 April 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per pretty much the same arguments as on #Template:LangSwitch. See commons:Template:Autotranslate for what's this template's purpose on Commons, it doesn't work here as well. Only use in Template:PD-chem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), where it can be removed (and when being at it, most of its subpages should be deleted as well, if this discussion is closed as delete. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see my comment below. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 16:36, 30 April 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not only that it doesn't work, it's also pointless for Wikipedia. This is a template copied over from Commons where it's used to allow the localization of strings into the language set in the user's preferences, because Commons is a multilingual project. However, this Wikipedia is clearly English, so there's no point in localizing here. The only real use of the template is in ((In category)), where it can be removed. If it's decided to delete this template, Template:Fallback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:GetFallback (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:GetFallback2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) should be deleted as well, as their only purpose is for this template. The Evil IP address (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was trying to make it work but it didn't. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 16:35, 30 April 2010 (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 discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Whig Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New but orphaned template created for the article Whig Party of Indiana, which was speedily deleted via WP:CSD#A7 Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:10, 30 April 2010 (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 discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template no longer in use. Brian Powell (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2010 (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 discussion was Delete as not a sufficiently well-defined grouping, but no prejudice against creation of a related template, if the scope can be rigorously defined. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I nominate this for deletion as being a highly problematic template which seems to seriously violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Reminder that this is named InternetTerrorism. Terrorism suspects are mere suspects; innocent before being proven guilty - this one crosses the line in a big way as it appears to group them together to create 'guilt by association'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, this is definitely problematic in its current format, especially considering the BLP aspect. The scope is ill-defined (we don't have an article on "Internet terrorism"), and there isn't a clear argument that a template is needed to navigate between the various BLPs included because of the disparity in the alleged actions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, first of all are you asking for it to be deleted or renamed? The fact you object to its name (and would prefer AllegationsOfTerrorismAndtheInternet presumably? Certainly changeable) is no reason to delete it. Also note that it only lists people convicted on terrorism-charges, so this is certainly not an issue of "guilt by association", they have each been judged guilty on their own merits...that's even more ludicrous than saying that ((O.J. Simpson murder trial)) should be deleted because it's unfair to name victims that he wasn't convicted of killing. That would be a better argument than simply "Here is a listing grouping people convicted on terrorism charges for their online activities, which lists their nationality and sentence with a brief description of their crime". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 11:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Chris, I'd like to know what it means - whether it applies to Operation Aurora, Spammers or what? At least one individual named on the template has clearly marked 'overturned' on it, so it looks like I've upset somebody, and they're incoherent. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were spammers convicted of terrorism offences? It seems like a pretty clear demarcation - and it lists only convictions, and I am the one who added the "overturned" to comply with BLP. Try less personal attacks, more logic. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, nominator appears to be coloured by the fact he nominated these two templates for deletion because both appeared on the article Malika El Aroud, and there is a dispute over whether she is properly labeled "al-Qaeda" or not; so he removed both templates from the article (likely to be reverted, but I'm not getting involved) and nominated them for deletion...seemingly neither informing the creator, or the article's editors. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 11:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, by coloured, you're implying my judgement is clouded. No, the template was not transcluded in the Aroud article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I think it is good that the issue has been raised here. It certainly is not self-apparent to all who the category is meant to cover, and the criteria therefor.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Such navigation aids aren't necessary in any way, and they tend to be abused, as in this case. On this template we find the Nottingham Two (originally I found the two separate BLP articles there, which I have since merge per WP:BLP1E). These two were accused of "commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism", and after about a day the police knew they were innocent. OK, so we have an accusation of "terrorism", but what does this have to do with the internet? Nothing, actually. One of them legally downloaded a document from a US government website and sent it to the other. But the police only knew that after he explained it to them. They were arrested because one of them had the file on his office computer and the other apparently interfered with the arrest. I make this a weak keep because the template actually helped me identify and fix a serious BLP violation. But I don't think that its navigational uses outweigh the potential damage it does. Hans Adler 23:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sherurcij. Ray^Talk 21:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too ill-defined to be a useful navbox. In the absence of any definition of "Internet terrorism" (such as might be provided by an article on the subject), it is difficult to say what would or would not belong on this template. I also note that arguments based on the supposed biases of the nominator should carry little to no weight in a deletion discussion, and "per X" votes based on such arguments should be disregarded entirely. --RL0919 (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2010 (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 discussion was Keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I nominate this for deletion as being a highly problematic template which seems to seriously violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Reminder that this is named BelgianTerrorism. Terrorism suspects are mere suspects; innocent before being proven guilty - this one crosses the line in a big way as it appears to group them together to create 'guilt by association'. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeeed; having lived in a particular European country is not a sufficiently strong grouping point to warrant a navigation box. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It's no different than "Belgian Prime Ministers", it's "Alleged Belgian Terrorists"; the only difference is that these are alleged, and as with most templates - as it grows, it picks up a "Wrongly accused" section as well. It shows at a glance a quick history of Belgian counter-terrorism and offers the reader of one article the use of others to gain context for whether there are serious terrorism/counterterrorism issues in the country, or whathaveyou. We have templates for most/many terrorist groups, and countries - such as ((Symbionese)) for example. Or take ((CIA activities in the Americas)), does it constitute "WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP" by somehow suggesting that because the CIA was involved in Bolivia, therefore they are also involved in Canada? Readers are expected to click through and read the articles for themselves; if there were redlinks in ((BelgianTerrorism)) it would be one thing...but simply listing the articles of people arrested on terrorism charges in, or upon leaving, Belgium is quite another. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 11:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refer to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that "but there are lots of other equally bad articles out there"? I don't see how that applies, I have not pointed to any articles or templates I would consider of poor quality - instead I have pointed you to the fact that grouping a nation's people in a template is not uncommon, nor is grouping people by shared characteristic..per ((American Governors-General of the Philippines)), ((People currently in space)), in fact the template looks very much like ((People who have walked on the Moon)) or ((Piracy in Somalia)). Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's really the word 'alleged' which causes the problems. I would have no issue if the template was carefully entitled without that nebulous word. You make it sound as if it's no big deal for such a 'not-alleged terrorist' template to pick up a few innocent ones, which are clearly labelled as such after the event, but I'm saying it is - that is in fundamental violation of WP:BLP]. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

He was alleged, now for each of them, it was the allegation of involvement which made them notable enough for an article...so it's hardly a BLP issue to say they're alleged to be militants in the War on Terror. You can create a "Wrongly accused" category for any so proven, but the template itself meets all necessary policies. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sure. I'm not saying there were no allegations, but allegations are in no way objective, and fails to meet the standards set by actual 'proven guilt through independent judicial investigation or trial. Unless this is addressed, I warrant that the template is used to suggest guilt, and thus may violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 19:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, nominator appears to be coloured by the fact he nominated these two templates for deletion because both appeared on the article Malika El Aroud, and there is a dispute over whether she is properly labeled "al-Qaeda" or not; so he removed both templates from the article (likely to be reverted, but I'm not getting involved) and nominated them for deletion...seemingly neither informing the creator, or the article's editors. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 11:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sherurcij. The template has clear inclusion criteria, and I remind people that whether you want to wish it away or not, terrorism is a real phenomenon, and our readers will want to know about it. We should not be in the business of removing entire categories of information and study from our navigational aids simply because it is conceivable that it may be subject to abuse. Ray^Talk 21:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The key for this type of template is to have clear inclusion criteria so as to not create confusion and BLP issues. Assuming that can be done, there is no reason a template cannot cover negative subject matter. Unlike the "Internet terrorism" topic of the template immediately above "Belgian terrorism" strikes me as a subject for which reasonably clear definition should be possible. It can always be brought back here if the criteria become so enmeshed in dispute that a neutral template seems impossible, but see no evidence of that so far. --RL0919 (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2001 Maryland Terrapins football (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Falls straight into WP:CRUFT; seasonal conference championships are not notable enough to warrant an entire navbox, just a mention in a season's article. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not really a notable enough grouping for a navbox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clutter, minimal navigational aid. Teammates in a random season are not defining of an athlete. Resolute 04:14, 3 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete. Deletion of ((Nomorelinks)) was suggested in one comment; it should be nominated separately if editors wish to pursue deletion of it. RL0919 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:More links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This doesn't really make sense as a counterpart to ((nomorelinks)); if additional links are required then there should be a standard, visible cleanup template for that purpose. I don't believe that this is genuinely necessary when we already have ((refimprove)) though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this adds a ton of blank lines to an article, because of the formating of the HTML comments, and is useless, since no one will ever see it. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both ((More links)) and ((nomorelinks)). For one thing, they both basically say "If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here", which besides being counter-intuitive, also discourages people from being Bold. Also, on the documentation for ((nomorelinks)), it says "The purpose of this template is to discourage spammers and inexperienced Wikipedians from adding links normally to be avoided.". Do you really think spammers and vandals are really going to care about this? See also the above comment.--vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:05, 6 May 2010 (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 discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FAC talkbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused since some time (it doesn't even use standard formatting yet), completely redundant to ((subst:FAC)), which looks much better. The Evil IP address (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This falls under T3 as a substantial duplicate of an existing and far more widely-used template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no objection to its removal. I created talkboxes as a potential solution to the banner style notices that often took up half a page of talkspace. But they never caught on and there are better solutions out there now.--*Kat* (talk) 05:30, 2 May 2010 (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.