Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 12 August 14 >

August 13[edit]

Template:FC Bayern Munich squad 2013 FIFA Club World Cup[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not needed. We don't have tournament squad templates for clubs, only international competitions, and even then only the major ones. GiantSnowman 13:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unused and apparently unneeded. - MrX 13:45, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MovedtoMainspace[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only five former-draft articles, so no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 13 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:LepTalk[edit]

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. BethNaught (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 13 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Outreachwiki case study[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coincidentally, I'm working on expanding this right now, and planning to do a few more. I don't know that the template is vitally important, but for whatever it's worth, it won't be single use for long. -Pete (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peteforsyth. - MrX 13:47, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NORtalk[edit]

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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment has WP:NORN been informed of this deletion nomination? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The purpose of a template is that it will be used in multiple places. If this is only going to be used on WT:OR, the template code can simply be placed on that one page. - MrX 13:51, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:NFcleanup[edit]

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. Alakzi (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 21 transclusions, so lacking community take-up. Undated, so may stay on talk pages far longer than necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and how would you adjudge that? This would only appear on articles that use a lot of non-free images. Do we have so many articles that greatly violate image use policy that we should expect a lot of transclusions? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has WP:NFCR and WP:WPFU been informed of this nomination? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Problematic template since it's arbitrary to judge what would be a large number of pictures removed.Algircal (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Links to a non-existent FAQ and makes some heavy-handed assertions. Also, it does not seem to be widely used. - MrX 13:55, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ni-eb[edit]

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. Consensus to delete; can be incorporated into {{Expand}} later if desired. Miniapolis 22:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this should be handled by one of the {{expand}} templates, perhaps it should be rebuilt to be {{expand free reliable source}} with switches for EB1911, CIA World Fact Book, FOLDOC, etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The website is no longer available and the template is only used on one page.- MrX 15:24, 22 August 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).

Template:PIDSAC[edit]

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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been on Talk:Tourism in Indonesia since August 2006. Unused elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Someone had an idea nine years ago but didn't follow through. - MrX 14:00, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Past nicotw[edit]

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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "___________ of the month" template that was last used nine years ago. - MrX 14:02, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:House Races 2006[edit]

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from a nine-year old planed project, Wording includes "Please do not put a cleanup tag on this page" and "see the project page, currently a draft." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I think it would be a good idea to delete that template, since the probability of it being useful at this late remove is approximately zero. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misrepresentation of policyAlgircal (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a real wikiproject. It was userfied. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:05, 16 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Edu review[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just five pages, none of which have been edited since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Last used over three years ago. - MrX 14:04, 22 August 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).

Template:Simpsonsportalarticle date[edit]

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. Alakzi (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just eight talk pages, to indicate that the respective articles appeared on a minor portal, five to ten years ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Last used about eight years ago. - MrX 14:08, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:2016candidate[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template has one link. That link should already be present in the text of every article that this template would be placed on, making this template extraneous. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • KeepThere is a series box for the 2016 presidential election, which is too large and contains too much information to be placed on individual pages. The intent behind this is to have a sub-series box to demark each candidate's involvement, in a uniform manner, in this election. Creating a series box for each of the 21 major candidates is premature (some have extant ones from previous years), and thus this fills the purpose of marking candidacy. Spartan7W § 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the usefulness or utility of this template. MaynardClark (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - extraneous, just a continuation of this user's style experimentation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extraneous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is clear and helpful for people looking at politicians. Probably best to take all the unsuccessful candidates after nominations by Republican and Democrat candidates. Oscar248 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is useful for those who are researching a politician. Also, it may be hard to keep track to the large number of people running for the presidential election.  11Block |talk 21:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful for future extensions. Bringem Young (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This will be more and more pointless as time passes. Within a year, we'll be down to two a few individuals and then once the election occurs, down to a President for whom this is meaningless. I doubt people suggest keeping these for people no longer running (as it will be "was"). People can click on the links from the individual articles and find out more about their personal campaigns which is tons more useful than a general single link to the main campaign page. There's a ridiculous bias in acting as if only the current US president's campaign matters and there's zero need for this kind of template for past year campaigns (would we really need a link to United States presidential election, 1788–89 for all these candidates?) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template seems like a useful navigational aid. It is admittedly redundant at an article like Bernie Sanders which mentions his candidacy in the lead paragraph, but almost all of the other lead paragraphs for other candidates lack such a mention in the lead paragraph.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename this is extremely WP:BIAS-named. The US presidential election process is not the only place where candidates appear for 2016 elections. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template seems like a useful navigational aid.--ML (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never been done for any other election US or otherwise, 2016 or another time. I think it would be WP:Bias and WP:RECENTISM Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but I think it needs improvements - make 2 boxes for Republicans and Democrats and put there each candidate.Itsyoungrapper (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Will be deleted anyway after the election is over.Algircal (talk) 03:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename and get rid of the year in the template so it can be used for future elections. (Delete redirect, replace all transclusions with new title). Also, either "US" or "United States" should probably be added to the name. Steel1943 (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One link does not make a navbox, and one fact does not make an infobox. Is this supposed to be some sort of barnstar? Wikipedia should not emblazon biographies with superfluous emphasis, over and above the {{United States presidential election, 2016}} template, in the name of demarking participation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a useless template that simply repeats a fact that is already covered in the article and, considering the length of infoboxes, is almost always above the template that is supposed to inform people of it. Aclany (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unnecessary when election is already covered in article, and how eventually there will only be two candidates Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP!!!! 96.254.7.229 (talk) 18:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) :)[reply]
    Please read WP:JUSTAVOTE. --TL22 (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its well built and simple. Beneficial to the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colton1755 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Superfluous to articles where they'd be applied. Junky. IHTS (talk) 08:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is poorly-conceived navigational aid. The title is sloppy, and the template duplicates categories and existing links to other candidates. It's US-centric and of little long-term value. - MrX 11:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extraneous Zarggg (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it looks like a silly page badge. And "2016 candidate" for what? +mt 22:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You evidently have looked at the name of the template but not the template itself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Template names shouldn't be ambiguous. There are many elections scheduled next year, see list of elections in 2016. And no, I don't want to see page badges for these candidates as well. +mt 01:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - use a category. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepIt is useful for navigation and people doing research. It also shows that the person is running which is important and there are attempts to marginalize that information on some candidates pages. It helps remove bias among candidates by showing the same content for each one. Jadeslair (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extraneous.Djflem (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- not needed. Can be expressed in text form. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not required Victuallers (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not required, recentism, only one link, and unevenly applied (for example, not on Jeff Boss, Jack Fellure or Robby Wells) Origamiteⓣⓒ 22:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete template and move information to each candidate's infobox, along with the date range that the person was a candidate. This information (including date range) is important enough that it should receive special emphasis at the top of the article, and the infobox is the proper place for this to happen. This is the more true because bias against minor candidates can cause the information to be de-emphasized in the text by opponents of the candidate. --Richard T. Fowler 184.210.238.9 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB: A corollary to my argument is that, until the information has been moved/added to a person's infobox, we should keep the template on that person's article. --Richard T. Fowler 184.210.238.9 (talk) 11:42, 1 September 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:STLcollaboration[edit]

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 (without prejudice to recreation if the project becomes active again). (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unused, outdated template for a WikiProject with practically no participation. It would be better for someone to recreate this if needed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This template is not being used to add recurring messages to pages in a consistent way, to add boilerplate messages, or to create a navigational box. - MrX 15:31, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:StageCollab[edit]

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. BethNaught (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording is "This is a current Stagecraft collaboration!". Has been on Talk:DMX512 since August 2011‎. No other uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was made in 2011, but project has really been dead since 2007 judging from talk page. Better to recreate this if needed. Has no archival utility. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am doubtful if this was ever useful, but if it was then it has long since been outdated. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:56, 14 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Staticip 1[edit]

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 redirect. We don't userfy official notices unless they're not gonna be used. Alakzi (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent fork of {{Static IP}}. Used on only four IP-user talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay to delete outright - fork, not documented, and hardly used Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Staticip_1. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason has been given for deletion. "Used on only for IP-user talk pages" is certainly not a reason for deletion. Nor is "hardly used": I sometimes use it, and what harm does the existence of a template do just because it is not used very often? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I can, but the fact that I can doesn't mean that I have to. I ask again, what harm does the existence of an alternative do? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or userfy - Essentially duplicates an existing template and is rarely used. JamesBWatson can add it to his userspace. - MrX 15:37, 22 August 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).

Template:Student needs help[edit]

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant to {{Help me}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 13 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:RHCPCOTWPast[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Narrow scope. Unused. - MrX 15:42, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Related interface messages[edit]

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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_25#Template:Related interface messages. ~ RobTalk 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I intended this template to help with documenting the long tail of interface messages that are too minor to be listed in {{MediaWiki messages}}, though I'm not sure how many groups of interface messages there actually are that use of this template would be appropriate on. If there're enough to justify it, though, the functionality from this template could easily enough be rolled into {{Interface explanation}}, in which case this template would be wholly redundant. 「ディノ奴千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:49, 13 August 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).

Template:Cite Merck Index[edit]

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 pending the outcome of the RfC. Alakzi (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 13 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:New message[edit]

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. BethNaught (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous to "new section" link. Only 20 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since it's intended for use on user talk pages, and thus, is a nice template to allow user talk page customization, regardless of it being redundant to a link on the top of the page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some editors like to use it, and what harm does its existence do? We don't need to delete something just because there's another way of doing it: having alternative methods is fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JamesBWatson as one of those editors who likes to use it. No harm is being caused by its existence. While I could place the code of the template directly on my user talk or create a userspace template page were it to be deleted, such deletion would harm efforts by others looking for an easy-to-find/easy-to-use "leave a new message by clicking here" link like I was not too long ago. I disagree that it is superfluous to the "new section" link. The "new section" link is easy to understand for editors who have been around a while (even a short while). But, as an editor who often interacts with newer, inexperienced editors, I can tell you that it is not easy to understand for a lot of them. Messages left in unrelated sections, or at the top of the page, or at the bottom of the page without a section heading are very common. The use of this template has significantly decreased the number of improperly-formatted messages on my talk page by giving new users a clear, obvious button to click on to leave me a message in a new section. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 16:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a problem with the talk page interface, it should be resolved for the whole of Wikipedia, not just 20/25,978,047 user talk pages, and 0/4,947,715 article talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. For now, though, there's no reason to delete this template if its helping some of us. Wikipedia interface changes don't happen overnight. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 06:08, 21 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Jokebook[edit]

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. Alakzi (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This one is harmless and may actually help lighten the mood. Support placing it on ANI in place of the instructions at the top of the page that so few people read anyway. - MrX 20:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the very least, userfy to the space of its creator and user. No reason to delete something which would be wholly inoffensive in user space. BethNaught (talk) 13:21, 3 September 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Keeping discussion[edit]

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. Alakzi (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can move it to my subpage. --Ochilov (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the {{talkheader}} and add a switch for turning on the instructions to keep things threaded -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to Ochilov's userspace. No reason not to let him continue using it even if you want it out of Template: space. BethNaught (talk) 13:19, 3 September 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:IRC canvassing[edit]

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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 13 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Motto[edit]

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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_25#Template:Motto. ~ RobTalk 23:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant wrapper of {{tmbox}}. Just 45 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 August 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).

Template:Iwc1-nom[edit]

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. Arguments to delete are clear as to what harm is done by keeping this template around, and the keep voters do not address these arguments. As for Sj's comments, it is not part of the TfD process to orphan a template first and then nominate for deletion. TfD is designed to assess consensus before orphaning. ~ RobTalk 22:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial 2005 event. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to be in use. A bit hasty, for no reason other than you don't like it. I would try removing it from those talk pages first; then if no one puts it back, delete as unused. No reason to police what articles can and can't commemorate on the talk page. – SJ + 03:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Trivial it may be, but so what? What harm does it do? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ancient contest. If we keep this kind of record of every contest, drive, etc. since 2001, talk pages will fill up with all kinds of junk at the top. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A nomination for a Wikipedia contest from ten years ago does not merit being permanently memorialized with a template. - MrX 15:54, 22 August 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).

Template:Former-country-collaboration[edit]

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. ~ RobTalk 22:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 13 August 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).

Template:Beer-project-member[edit]

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 Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_25#Template:Beer-project-member. ~ RobTalk 23:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{User WikiProject Beer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not conform to UBX -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In use, including by active editors. UBX style is not mandatory. No maintenance necessary since 2011. Oppose mandatory uniformity. BethNaught (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not one of "mandatory uniformity", but of the harmfulness of redundant templates. (this one has only 31 translcusions, BTW). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This template is a simple instance of {{tmbox}}. As far as I can see it is accessible. Does it need maintenance? Please step back from your somewhat dogmatic "redundancy is harmful" position and explain what actual harm this template is doing. BethNaught (talk) 13:24, 24 September 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).

Template:Connected contributor[edit]

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. Clear consensus to merge. As I've already done some work towards merging these together, I'll finish this off. Mdann52 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Connected contributor with Template:Connected contributor multi.
No need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - but this will take some work - the multi one doesn't display the "otherlinks" field, which is really important in the simple one for showing diffs where COI is actually disclosed, and editors need to be able to see that field. I often avoid using the multi template because of that. I do worry about the work of doing the merge at the article level (the fields are labelled differently in the two templates), but I don't know how that works. That work may make the merge prohibitively difficult. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with more or less the same reservations as Jytdog – the merged result should have all the functionality of the single-user version. Like Jytdog, I avoid using the multi version because it is more limited. This merge should have been done long ago. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming it's done intelligently per Jytdog's comment. I'd like to confirm/point out/complain that the multi template doesn't appear to allow inclusion of a diff to a disclosure. That is to say the otherlinks param is busted, or not documented correctly. Brianhe (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having a single template with full functionality instead of two templates with partial functionality just makes sense. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Levdr1lp / talk 04:55, 21 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Editing Friday Chosen[edit]

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 mark as historical. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last updated March 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 August 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).

Template:HockeyAID[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 13 August 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).

Template:Currentapplecotw[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 13 August 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).

Template:CCOTM[edit]

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. ~ RobTalk 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 13 August 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).

Template:CCWD[edit]

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. ~ RobTalk 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:42, 13 August 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).

Template:AL-SR[edit]

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. Alakzi (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Essentially unused. - MrX 19:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please delete: not only is this template unused, the project for which it was designed has never been used, it seems. BethNaught (talk) 20:35, 13 September 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).

Template:Admin help-inappropriate[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. Didn't know it existed, and normally, a hand written note is preferred over a template for this kind of situation, to create a dialog and see what the real problem is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't this be a susbstitution template? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this appears to be inappropriately worded and styled. It should be a regular talk page comment instead of a box. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Dennis. This is kind fo dickish and I can't imagine ever using it. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If someone needs admin help, they don't need another template in their face. - MrX 19:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a terrible way to respond to someone who is asking for help. ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:09, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:ActiveDiscussMC[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 August 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).

Template:MCBnom[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been on Talk:Protist since May 2008, on Zygote and Mutagen since September 2008‎ and on Talk:Phospholipid since December 2008‎. Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month is marked as historic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 13 August 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).

Template:NJnom[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unused, apparently not needed. - MrX 19:43, 19 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PKOLSPC[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unused, apparently not needed. - MrX 19:42, 19 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Pwbsac[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content is "This article is a current selected article candidate on West Bengal portal....". Has been on Talk:Birbhum district since October 2006‎ and on Talk:Bengal since March 2007. No other uses. Linked discussion page is a red link Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Infrequently used template that has not been used for more than eight years. - MrX 17:17, 22 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sorry[edit]

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 33 transclusions suggests lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What is wrong with having 33 transclusions? That means that 33 times some editor or other has decided to use it. Why would depriving those few editors who choose to use it of the ability to do so benefit the project? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • By removing the maintenance overhead, and the bewildering choice offered to editors trying to find a template to use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because it's stupid. Just say your sorry. We don't need a template for every word a person might utter. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per JamesB, Also for reasons of propagating WP:CIVILITY and WP:Wikilove ♥ Melody ♥ 22:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologizing is good, but I don't think a one word template with a smiley face serves much purpose. I'm also puzzled about why it's left aligned in a longish gray box. - MrX 19:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A strange template; I think it would be more effective to just say "Sorry!" in normal text. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:WIKILOVE. Btw, WP:ADMIT says that this template is a good idea for apologizing, and even transcludes it. --TL22 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both are essays, with no formal standing; the later is by the same editor who made this template, has few incoming links from other guidelines or policies, and will be just as meaningful (or not) without the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because they are essays doesn't mean they can't be cited (see WP:ONLYESSAY). Plus imagine a case where an editor apologizes with the "Sorry" template and then explains his apologies below the template. That is a perfect circumstance for using the template. In conclusion, this template is useful if used properly. --TL22 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • They may indeed be cited; I merely pointed out that they have no formal standing. A cursory glance through a random subset of the templates current transclusions shows it most often used with no accompanying text. Where there is accompanying text that would work just as well without the template. And to reiterate, a mere 33 transclusions - around five a year - shows that the community has not adopted this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is your transclusion number minimum to constitute community adoption? I remember you used the same argument over a template that had around 50-100 transclusions (which isn't bad IMO), plus that is not valid grounds for deletion. --TL22 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you really suggesting that this template has been adopted by the community at large? Contrast with {{Done}}, which has 53,740 transclusions, or with {{Resolved}}, which has 12,393. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like the idea of having a template that a person can easily and quickly use to say they're sorry about something. However, I feel this template is way larger than it should be, and can be distracting in a discussion. I would suggest something more like {{Thank you}} or {{Done}}. It can fit right in line in text, and thus it isn't distracting. I feel editing the template in this way would also make it more appealing to use, thus increasing its transclusion count. JaykeBird (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the sentiment of WP:DTTR: a personalised individual message carries much more influence than a template. Leaving a vandalism warning for an established contributor is often a mark of scorn because it's so generic and can give the impression that you're not interested in discussion. In somewhat the same manner, the use of this generic template can give the impression that you're making a pro forma apology. Just leave a personal note: "Oops, I'm sorry that I did X; I should have done Y". Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 4 September 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Snowed in[edit]

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 no consensus. Alakzi (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not opposing because I really don't care, but consider for a moment that...surprise... nobody is snowed in during August. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per Shirik, it should not be unexpected that no one is snowed-in in August (or indeed, at any point in the year, if there hasn't been a weather event), so stating it is "unused" is rather not useful in this case -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Couldn't someone in the Southern Hemisphere be snowed in during August?"...William Is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that English-speaking countries in the Southern Hemisphere are Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, it would only typically concern New Zealand, and only those that live in the Southern Alps in most cases, so there would be a greatly reduced affectable population of editors. Further, it would require a recent weather event, which has not happened. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Both of the above comments appear to be made with a northern-hemisphere bias. Meanwhile here's an article from Radio New Zealand dated the 8th of this month: Snowfall warnings for north and south. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dear wife and I visited Switzerland in September 1997 and we went to somewhere on a mountain (The mini Matterhorn might have been the local name for it) near Zermatt and there was snow on the ground. That's in the Northern Hemisphere. Of course on some remote Russian island in the arctic circle could be getting snow....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I said, any time of year because it does require a recent weather event. Without a recent weather event, there would not be a possibility of being snowed in -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a different title and delete redirect or weak delete. I'm WP:ASTONISH-ed that the template at this title had nothing to do with WP:SNOW. Steel1943 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Shirik. Low transclusions do not necessarily make a good deletion rationale. ♥ Melody ♥ 22:58, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I could see this being used, its not currently winter-time in the English speaking world so I can see why this isn't being used atm. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell that to the people of South Africa. Australia and New Zealand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, to be fair, it is highly unlikely you'd ever be snowed in in any of those places, with the exception of the South Island of NZ. Alakzi (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed there, when I said English speaking world I meant the areas where you would be likely to get snowed in. I would expect this template to be used more during the European/North American winter. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. I dream of horses (T) @ 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted above, it can't currently be used in most of the English-speaking world; I can imagine English-speaking Indians perhaps having Himalayan snowfalls as well as far-southern Kiwis having ordinary winter weather, but those two groups are still a small number compared to the population of potential users in February. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with having userspace templates of this sort, even if they're not often used; unless they're truly redundant (saying the same thing in a manner that's equally complex), they shouldn't be merged or deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. As a second choice, userfy: no legitimate reason to delete a template in Template: space when it would be wholly inoffensive in user space. BethNaught (talk) 22:24, 4 September 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:PunkCOTMvoter[edit]

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. ~ RobTalk 06:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to the project page "the next winner will be selected on May 1, 2009". Clearly a dead project. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No longer serves a purpose.- MrX 19:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bebblebrox and a possible case of WP:CANVASS. --TL22 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 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).

Template:APSWI assignment[edit]

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. ~ RobTalk 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banner for defunct, 2013 editing drive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment shouldn't there be some general banner for assignments, instead of a specific one for each collaboration, so that you just add switches to indicate which collaboration and what time period? ; that would lead to better tracking of school projects across wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can a generic template be built, and replace all specific use templates with intermediate transclusions of the generic one? (like stub-type meta template, or WikiProjectBanner meta template) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obsolete and underutilized. - MrX 19:38, 19 August 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).

Template:Banrevert[edit]

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. There is a fundamental disagreement over whether templates should be deleted due to low usage, and we're unlikely to resolve that here. Concerns that the template is redundant to {{BannedMeansBanned}} and others have not been addressed, which is explicitly a valid reason for deletion at WP:TFD#REASONS. Beyond that, most editors appear to think that any template of this type is unnecessary. ~ RobTalk 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, as this is general policy, and its target audience are unlikely to comply. Only 11 transclusions, showing lack of community uptake. (Content is "Posts by banned or blocked users will be removed from this article and its talk page. Blocked users please adhere to Wikipedia's blocking policy and refrain from block evasion and/or sockpuppetry."). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually, there are at least 15 transclusions, including transclusions via redirects. However, whatever the number, the fact that there are that many transclusions shows that editors sometimes use the template. Just because they don't often do so is not a reason for preventing them from doing so on those occasions when they wish to. As for "its target audience are unlikely to comply", my experience is that, while nothing is guaranteed to stop sockpuppeteers from coming back with new sockpuppets, being told "any editing you do will be a waste of time, as it will just be reverted" is one of the methods with the highest success rates. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • [1] Reports 11 transclusions now, as it did at the time of nomination. Even with 15, a minisule number given the potential 4,944,766 [and growing], it's pointless. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per JamesB and lack of transclusions being insufficient grounds for deletion. ♥ Melody ♥ 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - template creep. This presupposes that banned editors and sockpuppets are unaware of the policy, that they would care about the policy, and that they'd check the talk page and pay attention to the banner in a sea of beige. Alakzi (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{BannedMeansBanned}}. As noted above, we simply don't need a banner template to express this basic concept. However, the name itself makes me think of BannedMeansBanned; I initially assumed that this was going to be redundant to that template. The name itself would work fine as an alternate name, i.e. as a decent redirect. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alakzi (indef blocked by selfrequest but anyway). Template creep. --TL22 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 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).

Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series[edit]

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 Withdrawn. Wrong target, sorry. A simple note to that effect, on my talk page, would have sufficed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series with Template:Infobox reality talent competition.
Per suggestion in the previous TfM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ficha de videojuego[edit]

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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in English. Unclear purpose, but appears to have been created for use at Paul the Whale, which lacks notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as a test page. The editor is clearly unfamiliar with Wikipedia operation, and has created an erroneous template. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is English Wikipedia, not Spanish, all messages should be expected to be able to be read by nominally all users, thus needs to be in English, since nominally all users read English, and that is the only language they are expected to know on English Wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 14 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vandal move[edit]

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. Alakzi (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially redundant in functionality to {{Db-move}} (except the redirect is tagged instead of the page to be moved.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Ecuadorian dogs[edit]

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 deletion under criterion G7: One author who has requested deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created and only contains red links, it really serves no purpose in that form. Doesn't appear to be in use (WP:TG), and I'm not sure where it would be used.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this template, and also in this 2 next weeks will go to create that 2 articles totally traduced from Wikipedia in Spanish. And will go to be in use for that 2 pages--Vvven (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finished 1 article, i invite you to check--Vvven (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close or Withdraw as one of the articles, formerly a red link, now exists.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Template links pages that have nothing to do with each other; in other words, related by categorization, not by association.Algircal (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But exists in Wikipedia, for example, Template:American dogs, Template:Brazilian dogs, Template:French dogs, Template:Japanese dogs, Template:Bulgarian dogs, ect. the same templates, about other countrys--Vvven (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to a userspacedraft location -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry create this template and it pass, this template should be removed because the other red link is a bad joke on wikipedia, because the article in the Spanish Wikipedia is about a breed of dog that reading it obviously a dog street. then I agree to delete the template--Vvven (talk) 15:08, 14 August 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). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_13&oldid=1219383220"