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).

The result of the discussion was keep. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Decline-IP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is virtually never used. And it does not indicate what part of the privacy policy requires that Checkuser not link accounts to IPs - and I can't find such a part; it appears to conflict with practice too. Elvey^(t•c) 20:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that it's fair to say that 283 transclusions is virtually unused. The checkuser policy states:

The disclosure of actual checkuser data (such as IP addresses) is subject to the privacy policy, which requires that identifying information not be disclosed except under the following circumstances:

With the permission of the affected user;

Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to non-checkusers to allow the making of IP blocks or rangeblocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers or network operators; and

Where it could reasonably be thought necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.

Also, it's certainly not in conflict with practice. To do so would likely be a privacy policy violation. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with ((decline)) - This template has only been used on four SPI cases according to this, the rest of the transclusions are on Template:Done/doc and pages where that doc is transcluded, and on Wikipedia:List of discussion templates. Mike V makes a good point so this definitely shouldn't be deleted but it warrants merging IMO. --TL22 (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ToonLucas22. Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 05:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reasons given for deletion are false. The template is used, although rarely. The Checkuser policy clearly requires that Checkuser not link accounts to IPs, as explained by Mike. And, the statement that template "conflicts with practice" is entirely false. As a SPI Clerk, I can say that it is common practice to decline CheckUser requests when it is requested to link IPs with named accounts. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Vanjagenije and Mike V.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mike V and Vanjagenjie. In my opinion, we shouldn't fiddle with SPI-related templates without agreement from the CU team. Things work fine as they are and the process is not overly bureaucratic. Moreover, a merge with ((Decline)) would just be making busywork. BethNaught (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Keep. Snow close. NE Ent 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Facepalm (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unfortunately this template is not being used appropriately. It is being used almost entirely for very big mistakes on part of other editors, which for new editors this can be WP:BITEy and for more experienced this could be WP:UNCIVIL. For the appropriate uses of this template, such as noting a ridiculous mistake on one's self-part, we have the much less intimidating ((self-trout)), and for others' silly mistakes, a normal ((trout)) is much more appropriate. TL22 (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has already been discussed at length at the previous attempt at deletion and the same argument was advanced then. Templates aren't uncivil, editors are uncivil. If there is an issue with editors using this inappropriately and in an uncivil manner, deal with that through the normal process for uncivil users. I also disagree with the premise its being used for mistakes of other editors, I've largely seen it used in self-deprecating humour. WCM_email 14:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Template:Facepalm which was the 3rd time of nomination, now been nominated 4 times. The template itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with templates. Regards, WCM_email 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per all the previous "keep" reasons in all the previous discussions. — Ched :  ?  15:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the previous discussions. Wee Curry Monster sums things up quite well. MarnetteD|Talk 16:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with this notion "Templates aren't uncivil, editors are uncivil". In a nutshell if you use the template, you should be held responsible about how it is used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per the overall consensus at the previous deletion discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The project's operating language is English. Body language, hashtags, lolspeak, emojis, hieroglyphs and other modes of communications are therefore not appropriate. Note that, while English is a lingua franca now, gestures like this do not translate well to other cultures where they may have other meanings. Andrew D. (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This has been discussed (multiple times?) before and it has been a clear consensus that this is not [all the reasons given for deletion]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all of the previous closures:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepalm
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepalm (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepalm (3rd nomination)
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Berean Hunter: These AFDs have nothing to do with the template. This is a template, not an article, hence it is at TFD. --TL22 (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have to admit that I did blindly nominate this template for deletion. I would withdraw, but there is a legitimate Delete vote so I can't. --TL22 (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW Keep per above, doesn't meet criteria for template deletion. ansh666 05:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Facepalm keep. The template is used in far too many places; deletion will cause disruption due to the pages that will then be "broken" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (I just tried to use it, and was confronted with the TfD notice, which is larger than the template itself, in the page preview.) Anyway, there is some usefulness in using visual aids to convey what words sometimes do not. But everyone, please play nice with this template. If the template documentation does not already have some cautions about not misusing it, it should. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 14 December 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(discuss) 17:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:2012 Vancouver Whitecaps FC disciplinary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template since 2012 JMHamo (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. I could see this as being useful as a general table header template, but apparently it's not needed for that either. Frietjes (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2015 (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).

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).

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:S-unn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template appears to be redundant to ((s-npo|union)) which is more frequently used. It also doesn't seem to be in line with the colour scheme used for other succession boxes as the colour is shared with the one used for for-profit business positions rather than other non-profit positions. Graham (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's an existing box for this? I have no objection to deletion if this is so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no objection, Bushranger, would this be eligible for speedy deletion per WP:G7? Graham (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 12 December 2015 (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).