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. Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good GIF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template gives horrible advice, giving an invalid reason why these images should be kept in GIF format instead of having them easily converted to PNG. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it comes across as horrible. I created it as discussed here with Sfan00_IMG who seems to be a prolific expert on images. The point is that some GIFs could be fairly easy be re-created from scratch (geometric shapes + letters from standard fonts), so let's go ahead and tag those for replacement with efficient storage formats, but some other websites use GIF originals for complex designs. Template:Good GIF only intended for the latter image files, uploaded here under fair use provisions, e.g. school logos; the point is to discourage editors from tagging them inappropriately. What did I get wrong, please? – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, these images can easily be converted to PNG without any loss of quality. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 00:15, 20 February 2012 (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 the ones which are simple frontends to a "pas de" template, after replacement with one of the "pas de" templates. no consensus for the others. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Allegro Brillante (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Barber Violin Concerto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Concerto Barocco (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Concerto DSCH (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Diamonds (ballet) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Divertimento No. 15 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Donizetti Variations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Fancy Free (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fearful Symmetries (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:In G Major (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:In Memory Of... (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:La sonnambula (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Le tombeau de Couperin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Stravinsky Violin Concerto (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:The Four Temperaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Steadfast Tin Soldier (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Who Cares? (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Agon2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Allegro Brillante2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Apollo (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Apollo 2 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Concerto Barocco2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Concerto DSCH2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Coppélia2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Diamonds (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Divertimento No. 15 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Divertimento No. 15 B (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Donizetti Variations2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Emeralds 2 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Emeralds (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fancy Free2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Fearful Symmerties (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:In G Major2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:In Memory Of...2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Interplay2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:La sonnambula (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:La sonnambula 3 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Le tombeau de Couperin (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Le Tombeau de Couperin2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ocean's Kingdom (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ocean's Kingdom 2 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ocean's Kingdom 3 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rubies (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rubies 2 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Stravinsky Violin Concerto2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Swan Lake (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Swan Lake 2 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tarantella2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Four Temperaments 2 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Four Temperaments (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:The Steadfast Tin Soldier2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tschaikovsky Pas de Deux2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Union Jack (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Union Jack 2 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Union Jack 3 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Union Jack 4 (3 columns) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Who Cares?2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Template:Ocean's Kingdom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Swan Lake (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

an unused and somewhat obfuscated way to format text, would be better to just expand this and not use a template given the limited number of potential uses. Frietjes (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of these templates and have no objection to the deletion of any of the templates whose names end in (3 columns) nor to the deletion of any of the following:

All of the preceeding are obsolete and I had intended to mark them with ((Db-author)) eventually, but I would ask repectfully that the following be retained:

In the course of this discussion it was agreed to merge the following:

into one big list:

• List of New York City Ballet 2008 repertory.

There are similar merged lists for 2009–2012:

One of the main concerns expressed concerning these mergers was to optimize screen space, and doing so without a set of templates — it will be finite in number — is not practical. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the ones Robertgreer suggests keeping, per previous discussions on the subject, unless some new rationale is presented for deletion. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, that they are all redundant to the ((pas de ...)) templates, for example, you can replace ((Agon|...)) with ((Pas de huit|Agon|...)) and you get the exact same output. there is no need for a separate template for each ballet. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Frietjes, then. This isn't an appropriate use of templates. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 21:55, 21 February 2012 (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 for multiple reasons:

• Zakouski2: Delete; deleted as G7 by Vejvančický (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Zakouski: Delete; deleted by Plastikspork (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Zakouski2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not necessary, since one can just use template:pas de deux directly. this one would have very limited use, and is overly complicated when there is a much more transparent way to achieve the same format. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see why the template ((pas de deux)) is named that way, it looks like it could be used generally, since there's nothing ballet specific in it. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after adapting its instances to ((pas de deux)); it's just a partially hardcoded instance of that template. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  then why would the same rationale not apply to most of the templates listed in the TfD above? Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not quite the same as ((Pas de deux)) and the devil is in the details. ((Zakouski)) reads ((Pas de deux|[[Zakouski (ballet)|Zakouski]]|(({1))}|(({2))))} and it is within the (ballet)| segment that the devil lies. Zakouski by itself leads to a disambiguation page, and this is true of the titles of the ballets in many other templates (there are a smaller number that simply don't conform to regular pas de deux, pas de trois, pas de quatre formatting.) If you will look at the List of ... articles mentioned above you will see that ballet titles re-appear throughout at random. These templates are a simple, safe and sure method of avoiding inadvertent links to disambiguation pages — I would argue the only method of doing so (Template:Zakouski2 is obsolete and I have flagged it with ((db-author)).) Three of the templates bear no relation to ((Pas de deux)), ((Pas de trois)) or any other template as they include the names of the rôles as well as parameters for the members of the cast; they are ((Coppélia)), ((Swan Lake)) and ((Ocean's Kingdom)). — Robert Greer (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (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 after replacement with a simple thumbnail image with caption. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zvezda aft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

gigantic and unused. it's hard to see how this could be used in an article, given the gigantic size. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, all fixed. --Z 09:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(used in Zvezda (ISS module)#Interior) --Z 09:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fixed"? So are we going to have an article for probably fire fighting equipment, looks like breathing masks? The links in the image are banal in the extreme, and losing the lot to just include an image normally (or even better, simply listing important equipment underneath in an accessible caption) would be perfectly acceptable. Preferable, even. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete: The original nomination rationales are now entirely moot (it isn't "gigantic", it's just a normal sized pic with an image map, and it is in fact used in an article). However, one-transclusion templates serve no purpose, so it should simply be WP:SUBST'd into the article that uses it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chris Cunningham, the links are banal, mostly not working, and the entire setup is worth less than nothing. Having it as a thumbnail is better. --Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2012 (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:APS Zakynthos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All this is is a redirect to an article, Zakynthos F.C. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:CSD G5, "uncontroversial maintenance". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:34, 21 February 2012 (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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ornattukunnel is the one of the main muslim family in Kerala. (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is not a template Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - As per T3: Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion. Salvidrim! 16:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Per T3 as noted and G5, "uncontroversial maintenance". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:32, 21 February 2012 (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) 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original upload date (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Personal template, which could be subst. Given specfic date unlikely to see wider usage. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems pretty useless to me. Delete --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:29, 21 February 2012 (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) 03:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Original caption (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Personal template , which could be subst , Not likely to see wider use. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst and delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:30, 21 February 2012 (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) 03:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tay-Young (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single usage, why could this not be put as a direct link in the article? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's just a youtube link. Salvidrim! 13:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete: One-transclusion templates serve no purpose. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:30, 21 February 2012 (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; deleted as G6 by Fang Aili (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Adventure games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:WikiProject Adventures (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

No longer relevant/in-use after associated WikiProject has been merged with WP:VG. Salvidrim! 06:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedily delete as obvious "non-controversial maintenance". — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yea, I debated sending to CSD but I felt like it didn't quite match the criteria. Salvidrim! 07:31, 21 February 2012 (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) 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another overly specific maintenance tag. This does not seem to be a widespread enough problem to warrant a whole template. ((unreferenced)) or ((refimprove)) should do the job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I created this template at the request of User:OrangeMike (who I will ask to comment here). I have no comment on the matter except that I don't really understand the criticism of the template being too specific. Surely the more specific a cleanup template is, the better chance the issue has of being resolved? ((unreferenced)) or ((refimprove)) would seem rather vague in comparison. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - surely specificity rather than vagueness is a good thing? --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this and keep doing this. We should delete the general tags and only allow tags that point to a specific problem. We could perceive this as the tagging system evolving. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overly specific. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite aside from the overly-general name and the garishness of including two icons, if specific unreferenced assertions need to be flagged then it should be done inline. Having topic-specific refimprove tags would open a can of worms larger than the Earth itself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete - I believe this particular concern would be better addressed as an in-line tag than a cleanup banner. Salvidrim! 13:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is arcane enough that it should be discussed on the talk page of the article, whether or not some kind of inline cleanup tag is used. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's too specific for a (in my eyes) minor problem that could also be handled with other cleanup templates. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:44, 22 February 2012 (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 merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship infobox request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Merge to ((WikiProject Ships)). Currently, using the needs_infobox=yes field on that template makes this template appear — but most other WikiProject templates simply put a "This article needs an infobox" field in the template, instead of spinning off a whole other template on top of that. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merger. Also note that the template is not currently tagged for deletion. (I'd tag it myself but I'd be scared of messing it up...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I would prefer a consolidated approach. —Diiscool (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There was a reason this template was retained after setting the project banner for the box parameter. See User talk:Brad101/ShipSand to see what the dilemma was. It was thought that since the banner shell was to collapse project banners it wouldn't have been right to ram the box into the shell. I'd prefer that that option remains available. Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per my above statement. Brad (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although the ship infobox is part of WP:SHIPS, "ramming" it to the collapsible multiple-project template kind of gives an idea that the article is missing other infoboxes as well. Since it's almost universally the only infobox in the article, I would prefer to have the request (or more precisely an option to use it) as a separate template. Tupsumato (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Uhhh, yeah, ships guys, that's exactly what happens when every other wikiproject template includes needs_infobox=yes. If you dislike that then argue for it centrally: there is no good reason at all to simply ignore that consensus for your own project. If the request must be standalone for some extreme edge case then ((infobox requested)) already exists and this is wholly redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ((infobox requested)) is too generic. Specific instructions for ship infoboxes are given in ((Ship infobox request)) Brad (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge obviously, per Thumperward. The project banner templates include this feature for a reason. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:23, 21 February 2012 (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) 03:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional closing comments - There is, of course, some merit to the argument that the template is useful, and should be reworded. However, there is consensus that this template is simply too vague, and that it's better to use more specific templates for tagging articles which are "not encyclopaedic". Basically, if an article is not encyclopaedic, one should give a more specific reason, which is why we have so dozens of more specific maintenance templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NOT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Also too vague. "May contain material not inappropriate…" okay, what material? Where? Did you discuss this on the talk page? I have never seen this template lead to talkpage discussion of what is unencyclopedic. Morover, I get the feeling that this template was sometimes confused with ((notability)), as this template used to be called ((unencyclopedic)). The first few uses I looked for seemed to be confusing it in such a way, and it doesn't look like the naming helped. I feel that the wording's just too vague, either way. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it looks like it should be for any WP:NOT violation, from the name of the template. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' Previous deletion discussions

1. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_7#Template:Unencyclopedic
2. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_22#Template:Unencyclopedic
3. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_16#Template:Unencyclopedic
4. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_21#Template:Unencyclopedic

The re-naming of this template helped greatly as this template was previously a focus of much contention and drama, prior to it's rename notability was one of those problems, so perhaps if Ten Pound Hammer got the feeling it was confused with ((notability)), then that is likely because of an historic use of the tag. That this template does not lead to talkpage discussion is true, but it also true for almost all such templates with a talk option.

• Weak keep, serves a useful purpose if used correctly. Especially recommend that the ((NOT|section)) be kept as this is specific and therefore more helpful. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is, though, even after the rename to ((NOT)), many of the transclusions seem to date from when it was called ((unencyclopedic)), and as a result, they still seem to be incorrectly using it as a substitute for ((notability)). So renaming this hasn't helped. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone could go through the historic tagging. It's used on less then 500 articles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I went to three pages that use this template at random and I couldn't see specificly what it refered to. Two of them had red-linked talk pages. It is like a co-worker says to you "There is something about you today I don't like. You better fix it." and then walks away leaving you worried. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How predictable it is to have a template useful for not-so-experienced editors to use nominated by an experienced editor who finds templates which are useful for not-so-experienced editors to use.Curb Chain (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no possible reason for this. It is too vague. If you see something you don't consider proper, you can remove it, or give it a more defining tag so people know what in the article you are referring to. Dream Focus 11:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too vague and no use for it. If something was WP:NOT then it would be tagged under speedy deletion or taken to AFD. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Did I make a mistake?)} 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although I think I've used this in the past, the parts of WP:NOT that necessitate cleanup already have specific cleanup tags. ThemFromSpace 17:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think its worth noting that this template is transcluded onto quite a number of pages. Since this appears to be heading for deletion, perhaps we can organize some sort of template roundup/redirection where the current transclusions are replaced with their more specific counterparts before the actual deletion is carried out. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started going through the transclusions. Its easy work but will take some time to go through them all. ThemFromSpace 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the rest. Some were simply a means of swapping out for another specific template. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apparently the deed is done, but I think this was putting the cart before the horse. The template's fate should have been decided before removing it en masse. LadyofShalott 02:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just used it on an article about a science book, to note that the article was mostly a set of recipes or how-tos, contrary to WP:NOT, and certainly I created a discussion about it on the talk page. This template is an important tool. Edison (talk) 05:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've also recently used the template[1] on an article that appeared to have no single clear subject. There remain a number of WP:NOT issues that don't have separate templates of their own, and it's useful simply to call attention to articles on subjects that can't support a standalone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And tell me how that's not redundant to the "single coherent topic" tag. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete another useless maintenance tag. If an article is "not appropriate for Wikipedia", then AfD it. Don't just slap a drive by tag on it and leave it to rot. Resolute 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the topic of an article is not appropriate, or if there is no suitable content in an article, it should be nominated for AFD or PROD. A template such as this should be used where only parts of an article are unsuitable, and removing this template could result in problems being unaddressed because of lack of relevant template, or use of ((cleanup)) which is more vague than this one. Peter E. James (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Too vague, if it is WP:NOT then it should just be speedy deleted or AfD'd JayJay^{Talk to me} 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Just like ((cleanup)) it's too vague a tag to be useful. If an article violates part of WP:NOT, then more specific tags can be used. --MuZemike 03:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia is not a lot of things and many newer users are unaware of our intricate policies. A quick read over WP:NOT is beneficial for many users and this template serves that purpose. I've used it in the past when I was more active in NPP and I recall some good results. N^oformation ^Talk 06:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete salt, tenderize, and serve with a side of waffle fries. Another useless generic cleanup template with no value whatsoever. The template is way too vague to be of useful in any way. There are many more specific templates that better address the issues with an article {i.e. Template:Advert). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very vague. "What does it specifically refer to?" ~Feedintm^Parley 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Too vague to be actually useful; there are more specific templates and processes. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too vague to be useful. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : Just found an article that is sort of like a manual and probably violates WP:NOT. The article is probably salvageable however and I do not wish to propose it for deletion without a discussion period. This template is acceptable as a means to initiate that discussion. There may be other templates that could work too but this one fit the purpose and was the first I found after 5 minutes of searching. Quite frankly I'm getting tired of people claiming templates don't serve a purpose or that are too vague. Usually it exposes lack of sufficient imagination to imagine the purpose or experience to know that sometimes vagueness is an asset. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Change Instructions; the instructions should say that anyone placing this template must explain the objection on the article talk page, and that anyone may freely delete the template if it was places without an explanation on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And how would that help? There were only about 100 transclusions as it was, and the ones I found were either drive-by tagged without explanation, or misused in place of ((notability)). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:26, 24 February 2012 (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.