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) 14:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Common typographical symbols (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Punctuation marks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Common typographical symbols with Template:Punctuation marks.
All of the symbols are listed more comprehensively on Template:Punctuation marks, and lots of pages are already transcluding that one instead. -- Beland (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realized the similarities between the two at the time I created this template. Feel free to merge. –RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 04:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Well, they look different to me and a merge would be L-shaped. However, if the creator and main editor is happy with merge, why should I argue? Thincat (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if these are merged, a switch should be implemented to choose between sidebar and footer representations -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2013 (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) 02:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This is a new user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Another template without serving any significant purpose. I guess this is placed on user talk pages with a Welcome message, yet this message is for anyone but the user. Its warning ("Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite") should be kept in mind when visiting anyone's talk page, not just new users, and learning the intricacies of Wikipedia does not only apply to new users. Then, how long is this supposed to remain on a user's page. Is it up to the user or the editor who added it to remove it? Are the editor's adding the message volunteering to serve as mentors or protectors for the new users? Personally, I'd be offended by the inclusion of such a message on my talk page. At least a welcome message is welcoming. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this should be added to all new user userpages, until their edits no longer show newbie tendencies, or 1 year elapses. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I can conceive of a template with this name being useful, especially if it were to be added by new users themselves. However, as it stands there seem to be no circumstances under which using the template would be beneficial. Thincat (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I understand and support the spirit of this notice, but there doesn't seem to be any process to remove these notices. Is it time based? Some editors edit very little and after a year, may still be inexperienced whereas an active editor will become accusotmed to Wikipedia after a much shorter time. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Templates nominated for deletion as it appears these templates are part of that Wikiproject. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm confused as to how this violates policy. Even if it is seldom used yet, how does this harm the project or violate policy? If a new user is making mistakes and getting templated a lot, then I could this being used. As to when should it be removed, when should the "welcome" template be removed? I don't see it as a huge issue regardless, but I just fail to see a rationale being advanced to delete other than a subjective WP:I don't like it. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As someone that has welcomed thousands of new editors, while I have not used this template, I have run across numereous situations where it would be beneficial to the general environment that a newbie works in. Many newwbies run into problems almost right away. Veteran editors could post this template as a "heads-up" to other editors to be considerate of the newbies novice condition. Or any one of dozens of other uses where this template would come in handy. I dont see any reason to delete this template. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps it ought to be added as part of a welcome template then? -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have struck out my "delete" above because it is clear I have misconceived the message in the template. To me it read (and still reads) in a very snarky way but obviously other people here do not see it like that and so presumably it is not taken badly by recipients either. I have checked and the person who created the template went on to use it in what is clearly a very well-intentioned manner. Apologies to all concerned. Thincat (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My concern was that this template seems to be slapped on randomly because a user is new rather than for new users who may be having some problems and some impatient editors may be letting them have it. If my talk page was immediately tagged with this after a few edits, it would scare me off because it would make think I'm being watched for anything I might do wrong. Again, shouldn't we "assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite" in all our interactions, not just new editors?. If kept, this should be used appropriately and removed accordingly. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:35, 6 June 2013 (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) 02:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edited by a new user (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure what purpose this template serves. When it is placed in an article, are editors supposed to excuse shoddy work by a new user, not revert an edit if it is improper or incorrect because it was done by a new editor. Do we keep the tag up even after we fix something? Are we supposed to communicate with the new user when we see this tag? Where I have seen it, it's often after a single edit of a new user or IP without much edit history, but also nothing "persistent" and rarely recent by the editor within the article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete violates WP:OWN, why is a new user taking ownership of an article? Why would we need a template other than ((new unreviewed article)) or ((underconstruction)) or ((inuse)) ? -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Entirely unsuitable as an edit notice which should relate to the article, not to its editors. Thincat (talk) 09:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Although the in-use and under-construction templates should work in theory, in practice, we do see new articles being worked on get splatted with tags, and nominated for speedy or regular deletion despite the tags being present. I'm not sure that yet another tag will prevent this from happening. Is there any stats on the effectiveness of this tag? -- Whpq (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they didn't create the article, then they're claiming ownership of the article, and there should be no claims of ownership on articles. If they did create the article, then we have ((new unreviewed article)) for that. In either case, there's ((copyedit)) -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree that slapping this template on articles is problematic, especially if applied to an existing article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've dropped a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention#Templates nominated for deletion as it appears these templates are part of that Wikiproject. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is duplicating the efforts of underconstruction with the added dimension of wp:ownership, so I can see why this is probably not helpful. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with all above. ```Buster Seven Talk 20:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is a case of trying to use deletion to solve a problem that ought to be addressed by editing. Just add the same "You are welcome to assist" language that's used in ((underconstruction)) and the perceived OWN problem is solved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2013 (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) 02:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data NAFTA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Country data OECD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Per prior consensus at WP:WikiProject Flag Template to not repurpose logos for use in the same context as real flags when using the ((flagicon)) and related templates. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:44, 29 May 2013 (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 relisted on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 8 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:13, 8 June 2013 (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) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Candice Glover (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Phillip Phillips (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recent winner from the most recent season of American Idol has unnecessary with only minor sign-up of recording label. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, too soon to have any major content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough to navigate between yet. -- Whpq (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2013 (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) 14:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Boldklubben Frem squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Squad-template for a Danish third-tier team. Not enough links to provide useful navigation, full of red-links and of the six blue-links, two points to the wrong article. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, no need to navigate between so few links. GiantSnowman 13:06, 29 May 2013 (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) 14:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Great Seljuq Empire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"Country data" template of an historical empire whose only use is to include a flag image that is unhistorical and made-up. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the Great Seljuk Empire.gif; this image and duplicates of it have been repeatedly deleted as modern and probably copyrighted creations; no valid encyclopedic purpose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Constantine ✍ 15:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and because the image is unused anywhere on en.wiki, there is no need to create a new country data template to facilitate its use with ((flagicon)) et. al. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:42, 29 May 2013 (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 consensus is that a category is better, and that listing all the singers in a single navigational template is not the current convention for other nationalities. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Persian traditional music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Falis WP:NAVBOX. Totally unnecessary template, uniting some Iranian singers chosen randomly. A category is more appropriate. Farhikht (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not a valid reason to be a deletion candidate. Reasoning provided is subjective - 1. The template does not violate guidelines for Navboxes 2. Use of a category as suggested can not organize the various information currently contained in the template 3. Provides wiki users who are familiar with the Iranian classical music an easier means to locate famous musicians using less clicks. See advantages under Wikipedia:NAVBOX - AlexGWU (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, too diffuse, better served by a category. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion is not a show stopper. It can be resolved by breaking down the names into alpha order.Templates are collapsible and provide a much improved look to any page.AlexGWU (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2013 (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) 03:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or modify - I agree the list of artists would be a lot easier to maintain in a category, and it makes the template rather hard to navigate. If keeping, I would eliminate the names and just leave the link to the list of artists, or a link to the appropriate category or categories. Could probably do without the template at all, just linking from the individual artist to their specific genre, and then link from genre pages to related articles and categories. Don't really see this kind of templates in other genres. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2013 (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 consensus is that a category is better, and that listing all the pop singers in a single navigational template is not the current convention for other nationalities. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Persian Pop Music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Falis WP:NAVBOX. Totally unnecessary template, uniting some Iranian pop singers chosen randomly. Could be promotional for some of these artists. A category is more appropriate. Farhikht (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not a valid reason to be a deletion candidate. Reasoning provided is subjective - 1. The template does not violate guidelines for Navboxes 2. Use of a category as suggested can not organize the various information currently contained in the template. 3. An easier means to locate Iranian pop musicians using less clicks. See advantages under Wikipedia:NAVBOX - Also if Farhikht believes its promotional then why suggest a category replacement of the same information? - AlexGWU (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 138 pop singers in category:pop singers in Persian Wikipedia, let's imagine only 100 of them are notable and can have a page in English Wikipedia. Can we put all of them in this template? What is the criteria?Farhikht (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the time comes when there are 100 or more entries. The template can then be improved by restructuring it alphabetically such that it is not cluttered. That is perfectly acceptable. There are improvements around Wiki all the time. AlexGWU (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, too diffuse, better served by a category. Frietjes (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusion is not a show stopper. It can be resolved by breaking down the names into alpha order.Templates are collapsible and provide a much improved look to any page. AlexGWU (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2013 (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) 03:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or modify - I agree the list of artists would be a lot easier to maintain in a category, and it makes the template rather hard to navigate. If keeping, I would eliminate the names and just leave the link to the list of artists, or a link to the appropriate category or categories. Could probably do without the template at all, just linking from the individual artist to their specific genre, and then link from genre pages to related articles and categories. Don't really see this kind of templates in other genres. -- Beland (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2013 (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 userfy and merge with ((keypress)) if needed. I will move them to userspace and post a note on the talk page for ((keypress)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DS/Wii key press (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Electronic arrow button key press (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Plaintext works perfectly fine and is much simpler to edit. Templates made in good faith but I don't think they add very much to video game articles articles. It's easier to just type ABXY and so on. TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 13:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the templates do more than just add plaintext. Template:DS/Wii key press in particular makes use of CSS classes to add styling. These templates should be kept, or at least, not be deleted until there is significant feedback from members of WikiProject Video games. Senator2029 ➔ Talk 03:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Both are new and unused, so their use is not apparent. ((DS/Wii key press)) at a minimum need to be moved, as it is a subtemplate of the deleted ((DS)). ((DS/Wii key press)) can probably be merged to ((key press)) with a switch, as the only difference is the border styling. --  Gadget850 ^talk 11:14, 26 May 2013 (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) 03:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Template:Key press, I say. Keep things simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beland (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (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.