Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

Shortcut: WP:TFD

Deletion discussions

Deletion today Deletion yesterday Articles (by category) Templates Images & media Categories (active) User categories Stub types Redirects Miscellany Deletion review
Deletion policy
Process – log – tools Guide – Images – Admins

edit

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

How to use this page

What not to propose for deletion here

The majority of pages in the Template: namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

Speedy deletion candidates

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.
Stub templates

Should be listed at Stub types for deletion.
Policy or guideline templates

Templates that are associated with particular Wikipedia policies or guidelines, like the CSD templates cannot be listed at TfD separately. They should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant guideline.
Userboxes

Should be listed at MfD, regardless of what namespace they reside in.
Template redirects

Redirects for discussion.
Renaming a template

Requested moves.

Reasons to delete a template

The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
The template is redundant to a better-designed template
The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
The template violates a policy such as NPOV or CIVIL

Templates for which none of these apply may be deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

Listing a template

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process (replace TemplateName, not including the namespace identifier "Template:", with the name of the template to be deleted unless otherwise noted):

Tag the template

Add one of the following two codes to the top of the template page (the first for most templates, the second only for inline templates):

{{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

{{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}

Do not change PAGENAME to the actual name of the page. The command "subst:" requires the text "PAGENAME".
Do not substitute either template.
If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, either put the notice on its /doc (template documentation) sub-page inside <includeonly>...</includeonly> markup; or put the notice on its talk page (without such markup); or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask an admin to add the notice to the template.
If placed directly into the nominated template, use <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TFD notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template.
Do not mark the edit as minor.
Include in the edit summary the phrase
TfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#TemplateName]]

If the template has been nominated before, use "TemplateName (2nd nomination)", "TemplateName (3rd nomination)", etc.

If you are nominating multiple related templates, replace TemplateName in the edit summary with an informative discussion title, and use {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|TemplateName}} or {{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|TemplateName}} instead of the versions given above, using the same discussion title for TemplateName (but not for {{subst:PAGENAME}}, which must remain the name of the template being TFD tagged). If you were nominating a lot of navboxes about American films, you might use "American films by decade", for instance, as the TemplateName.

If a template is intended to be substituted, wrap the {{tfd}} or {{tfd-inline}} template in <noinclude> tags: <noinclude>{{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}</noinclude>

The TFD template, in the form {{tfd-inline|literal name of template|TemplateName}}<br />, should be added to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TFD, using the same TemplateName value and edit summary as the template(s), and the actual name of the template (minus the "Template:" prefix). Note that it is {{tfd-inline}} followed by a line-break; the wording of {{tfd}} is not suitable for category use.

List the template at TfD

Follow THIS LINK to edit the section of TfD for today's entries.

Add this text to the section, at the top:

{{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~}}

If this is a multi-template and multi-category nomination, see {{catfd3}} instead (please read its documentation; the parameters it uses are not the same as those of {{tfd2}}).

Make sure to replace TemplateName with the the same value as used in step 1, above (usually the template's name, excluding the "Template:" prefix).
Use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion entry for [[Template:TemplateName]]
replacing TemplateName as above.

III.

Notify users.

Consider adding

{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} ~~~~

on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page. Use an edit summary such as Adding notification of deletion discussion entry for [[Template:TemplateName]]
replacing TemplateName as above.

It is considered civil to notify the creator and main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find them, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please understand the deletion policy and explain your reasoning.

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This means the template text should be "merged" into the articles that use it before the template page is deleted.

Templates are rarely orphaned (made to not be in use) before the discussion is closed.

1 How to use this page
2 Discussion
3 Current discussions
4 Old discussions
- 4.1 November 27
  - 4.1.1 Template:US statements
  - 4.1.2 Template:Denver Silver Bullets managers
5 Completed discussions
6 Archive and Indices

Current discussions

December 5

Template:Jimmy Giuffre

Just a few albums and mostly redlinks Cosprings (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

December 4

Template:Germaine Seden

Template only contains one article, a future album that was deleted. Tassedethe (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:NCIS character

This template was mainly used in the LoC for one-paragraph character summaries[1], from where I have removed it now. There a few other individual NCIS characer articles (currently under AfD) where I boldly replaced this template with the usual {{Infobox character}}. I.e. this template is orphaned now and redundant anyway. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Powerpuff Girls

Seems a little small for a template. Not much you can add here; I tend to believe that templates should have at least five "main" entries. I don't think even adding Craig McCracken or Genndy Idon'tknowhowtospellthatname onto here would save it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Four articles are always borderline for the necessity of templates. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

December 3

Template:Explicit

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 debate was speedy deleted per request of creator. --El on ka 22:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We do not post warning templates on articles that have content that may not be appropriate for some. WODUP 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground for minors. Certain topics are explicit inherently; we don't need to put a warning on, say, blowjob. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete: My old newbie mistake, delete immediately.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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:DTFD

The three interconnected "Talk thread deletion notice" templates (Template:DTFD, Template:DTFDB and Template:DTFDN) are unnecessary. They are intended to serve as notice prior to thread deletion on article talk pages--the user is instructed to use all three in the same instance. There is no requirement for prior discussion of harmful talk page entries listed in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; any inappropriate talk entry can be deleted by any user. In fact, if a talk entry contains a personal attack or a legal threat, or if it contains personal information, using these three templates would slow down the process and expose the harmful entry to a greater number of viewers. Instead of having these three templates, deletion of the bad talk entry is recommended by WP:TPG. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: DTFDB is used at the bottom of the DTFD red box like the bottom of the occo box. See User talk:Example for useage. As for DTFDN, I will let that go as per WP:DTTR. It is meant to be for things that are disputed or may not be clear-cut, anything else may be removed by anyone. Besides, it may not warrent total deletion but some stuff should be removed. One editor once suggested to me to remove the vowels from insults, especially insultive slurs.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:ImageCopyrightVandal

This recently created template is a poor substitute for any one of a number of well known, well used templates that convey more, relevant information to the user whose talk page it is added to. AussieLegend (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete There are better and more informative templates that can be (and are) used. The tone of this message is also not the best. Looks to me like saying "Stop what you're doing right now. We don't like it", and that's not the way it should be done even for a warning. WP:BITE? Chamal ^talk 12:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. I can imagine a situation in which this template might be appropriate, one where a series of other templates were sent to a user who continues to upload copyrighted images. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In such a case, surely the appropriate action when all the existing templates have failed would be to list the user at WP:AN? If the user has ignored all the other templates, what is the likelihood that he or she would respond to this one? --AussieLegend (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:VandalNoticeSmall

This recently created template is a poor substitute for {{Repeat vandal}}, which more correctly reflects current policy in a less confusing way. If deleted, two redirects created at the same time ({{VNS}} and {{PlzIndef}}) should also be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Redundant template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:LDSInfobox

Moving from MFD, where template was listed by mistake. Original MFD discussion is copy-pasted below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any LDS Church-unique info this template conveys is now more comprehensively conveyed in Template:LDSGAinfo (see, for example, redundancy on Gordon B. Hinckley). The biographical info is better presented in Template:Infobox Person (see WP:GA Thomas S. Monson) and any succession info is already presented in the Template:Succession boxs at the bottom of each article. -- Eustress (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tentative support for deletion, so long as someone commits to add Template:LDSApostleshipinfo to the presidents of the church pages, since this nominated template currently contains the information that would regularly be presented there for apostles who were not presidents. This is relatively complicated, but Template:LDSGAinfo does NOT contain the same information as Template:LDSApostleshipinfo—one contains apostle ordination date and one contains membership in the Qof12 date. Some people think these are always the same, but they are not, and some people have been apostles for years without being a member of the Qof12. In the end, I can't really say that I think this proposal is accomplishing much, since one template will be deleted but another will have to be added to all the pages it is on anyway. I suppose it could be seen as a type of standardization, but at the same time it's also a bit of a make-work project for someone. I think the nominator and I discussed this at one point; I just can't seem to remember where it was. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep No exact counterpart, and it seems designed for a small subset compared with the full "person infobox." If the above is correct, and this infobox would be more useful if added to, why not? Collect (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Whiggishness

This template, though well-meaning and employed on at least some of the five articles it is in use on accurately, the template amounts to a POV-pushing template - the Whiggish view of history is a significant strain of historical thought. To specifically call it out in this form gives the false impression that we are unusually biased against this POV, and that this POV is considered unacceptable for Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to have a template that treats a given perspective as a specific problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Too specific, a bit POV pushing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Trivializes a complex political point of view. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:!vote

Duplicates the functionality of {{not a ballot}}. Brought here instead of speedy deletion because:

The "birthdays" of these templates are close together (but {{!vote}} is younger)
{{not a ballot}} survived a TfD at one point (though it was a speedy keep)
The templates are not identical stylistically, and the WP community should choose which is better rather than simply throw one away.
A desire to avoid drama if at all possible. Thin boy 00 @076, i.e. 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The two templates obviously duplicate each other's functionality, but that's a reason for a merger, not a deletion. We should simply settle on the wording and style (perhaps a combination of the two), place the updated code at Template:Not a ballot, and redirect Template:!vote. —David Levy 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect to Template:Not a ballot since that's the older one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge and keep the redirect. These are near duplicates; we only need one. It might be useful to look at merging {{rally}} as well; it's not an exact duplicate, but close. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Merge to {{Not a ballot}} per the above. I think that template is pretty good as it is, actually - but adding the reference to WP:Canvassing is probably a good idea as well. Terraxos (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2

Template:Johnny Test

Cast templates seem to be discouraged, especially given that none of the cast is primarily associated with this show. Remove the cast and you have just the creator and list of episodes, as the page on Johnny himself was redirected. Not enough for a template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom: not enough articles primarily related to this topic for a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete absolutely per nom. Two directly related articles (main article, LoE) don't need a template.– sgeureka ^t•c 18:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox UK school2

Unused. Appears to be a user test.

Redirects to the above.

Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong Delete this is in fact speedy-able (it is a hard-coded instance of {{Infobox UK school}} with no transclusions), but only after being tagged for seven days -- so tagged (in other words, admins, don't try to speedy this immediately). --Thin boy 00 @093, i.e. 01:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- WP:SNOW? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Kill Bill character

Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - always standardise, where possible. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:SVU Season 4

All but ~~one~~ two SVU episode articles have been merged/redirected/deleted per lack of demonstated/demonstratable notability in the past two months. The season-specific templates are just redundant now, as the season pages already list the names of the episodes. Also included in this nom are

Template:SVU Season 6 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:SVU Season 7 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Template:SVU Season 8 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

– sgeureka ^t•c 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. Obvious. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete all, episodes were redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The result of the debate was speedy keep per the snowball clause. As a note: inappropriate use of a template doesn't inherently warrant its deletion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Smallcaps

Re-nominating: previous nom was here, and was closed early due to a now-corrected technicality. This purely-presentational template is purportedly for "name/surname disambiguation in lead sections, and all-caps words or pronounceable acronyms", but none of those require small caps and in few cases would it seem to be desirable. We shouldn't encourage users to experiment with presentational markup like this by having templates for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Though if you don't like its use in certain places, remove it. It looks like this template is largely used within other templates (thus the high transclusion count). But I can't see a reason to delete templates like "Smallcaps" or templates like Template:Red simply because people might mis-use them. They're still more convenient than the actual HTML markup, and that's the point of having templates in the first place. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep per MZMcBride. This seems a useful template, and I'm not aware that the usage of small caps is deprecated. (I noticed the template was up for deletion from its use in the FA Dalek, where the text "(pronunciation (help·info) "dah-leck", IPA: /ˈdɑːlεk/)" seems useful and attractive to me, in a belt-and-braces manner.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per the two above comments; this template definitely has legitimate uses, a few mishaps aren't a good enough reason for deletion. Chris DHDR 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep, but move the inline styling to WP's CSS and apply as a class. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the advantage of moving this CSS into a WP wide class, i don't see it ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
speedy keep, one can readily think of many valid applications for displaying certain items in smallcaps font, eg commonly seen in linguistics articles to denote grammatical tags/functions. The template is a handy and simple method for doing so. Clearly there are many practical implementations already for this template, there's no experimentation going on — if there are any cases of 'inappropriate use' then deal with those separately, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.--cjllw ʘ TALK 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since when was this a speedy keep criterion? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" seems to apply (there may not be an active dispute, but please don't try to make a policy on presentational style by deleting a template which applies a contrary, but accepted, style). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  - The mainspace transclusions all appear to be inappropriate, given the MoS's stance on keeping markup simple; I'd neglected to consider the template's use in other templates, which is why this will probably be kept, but "this has many useful uses" is not a speedy keep rationale and I reject the assumption that I was acting in bad faith or trying to circumvent discussion by bringing this here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
    - I have made no assumptions of bad faith; however, the effect of your proposal would be as I described. In the light of your acknowledgement of other uses, and of the likely outcome, I sgegst you withdraw it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      - Meh. It's generating useful commentary, which will help to clarify the template's purpose. If you want to NAC it then be my guest, but it means having to flag an admin to take the TfD tag off it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep as per the two above comments. VVVladimir (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep this template seems to be used a lot in displaying latin text (such as here) and it seems to work well. I don't see why it should be deleted. Wikitiki89 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep -somehow this must redirect to the {{aut}}-template which I use in refs, since a link to this discussion pops up there (awful). If the two templates are the same I'm against deletion of either one of them. Woodwalker (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep nomination breaks too many pages. Grue 15:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-LOC

Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:PD-LOC. The few remaining uses have all been nominated for deletion as nonfree or invalid source.Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Makes sense to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hold discussion until no transclusions remain. We don't want one of these images to survive IfD only to not have a © tag. --Thin boy 00 @098, i.e. 01:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment It's my understanding that as part of template-deletion, we can move that remaining uses be bot-subst'd. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep as it's a valid copyright tag. If it is deleted, rewrite one of the existing PD-(c) templates to make it clear that post-1923 expired-copyright items can use that template instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But this template does nothing that {{PD-US-no renewal}} doesn't do. By the way, only 2/100 uses (before I retagged them) had to do with non-renewal. The rest were misc other PD reasons, and a few weren't PD at all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete. That "or for another reason" text invites serious potential problems. What's needed is a "copyright holder failed to do some specific thing, 1923-1978" tag, without the guesswork. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. If that template comes into existance then I may change my opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is already available as {{PD-US-no renewal}}. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism

90% of content already in Template:Campaignbox India terrorism, also article Terrorism in Mumbai is enough. TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Process comment Shouldn't a "TfD" notification template be put on the template itself? Since I oppose the deletion and created the template, I am conflicted on doing this, but I think there should be a time extension on the deletion until this is done. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

see history of the template--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom--Adrian 1001 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Template is useful to connect the historic occurrence of terrorism in Mumbai and as a substitute for "See Also" material in the related articles (so that when there are updates we have a central place instead of having to go to each article). While some content (not 90%) is also covered in the India campaingbox, the India campaign box is limited to actions after 2001. I feel a localized template was warranted. Furthermore, I opened a discussion topic on the page of November 2008 Mumbai attacks (the latest attacks), so I feel that a TfD is a bit premature and harsh (to the content - don't worry, I am not taking it personal ;-), perhaps letting the community express itself outside of process would have been more useful than opening a deletion discussion right away. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep for now - despite the fact that all the links in this template are already included in {{Campaignbox India terrorism}}, I think it is actually useful in its own right, as it singles out the attacks in Mumbai. Perhaps most preferable would be to separate the attacks in the 'India terrorism' box by location, which would remove the need for this template - but if that one remains as it is, this one seems worth keeping as a Mumbai-focused alternative. Terraxos (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It serves a useful purpose for a narrative. The only issue is whether it is duplicative of the other infobox. It might be nice if there were other "submenu" templates for, say, Delhi, or other geographic areas of India particularly affected by multiple attacks. So it was part of a pattern of information presentation, and not a singular exception. Make sense? --Petercorless (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Cerejota and Terraxos. The nomination doesn't seem to have any reasons why it shouldn't exist, as we're replete with redundant navboxes and navbox-like things. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep Terrorism in Mumbai does have its own unique components as compared to Terrorism in India, the template serves a useful purpose (the fact that it includes pre-2001 incidents is important. Kaushik twin (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:604 Records

Record label templates seem to be discouraged. What if one of these artists leaves the label? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nom.--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Terrorism in Central Asia by country

This navigating template makes no sense, because already there is "Terrorism in" in general template for Asia (Template:Asia in topic): Template:Asia in topic. Including those six countries. --91.77.93.43 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment This nom was misplaced, I moved it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Stan Lee

Too broad a template, and hardly links anywhere on Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually thought I was making a useful template. *sigh* Just delete it, don't really care. J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)}

Delete Too broad. Does the above comment count as a G7? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sydney image with region labels

I had already typed a long winded reason but the thingy I use for XfD screwed up and lost it. I was saying how the template mixes esoteric definitions with ubiquitous ones (eg. St. George with Eastern Suburbs. Just because it has a wiki article doesn't mean it is an accepted or even known definition), how it changed the area of Eastern Suburbs to exclude Bondi Beach and something called 'South-eastern Sydney', while it is interesting Bondi Beach gets its own region (equal in status to North Shore, Western Sydney...) I frankly haven't got a clue what SE Sydney is or when I moved there. I think there are serious problems with maintaining this template given its arbitrary current state, not to mention the lack of a ubiquitous definition of regions for Sydney. This is an edit war waiting to happen. Another point is its lack of usefulness, the only people to whom this would be of any benefit would be people already familiar with Sydney's geography, since the map is hard to place and confusing. This purpose would be far better served with individual maps on individual articles. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been linked to in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I created this template to reduce redundancy in the Sydney articles. Rather than deleting the maps, we should be correcting the labels to make them more consistent with reality. The template provides a centralised place where these labels can be updated. Without the template, we're going to end up with separate maps being maintained in different places. Perhaps a good place to start looking for labels to use in the improved template would be Regions of Sydney. I unfortunately don't have the time to improve the template at the moment, but to delete it would reduce the quality of the articles that use it, and negatively impact the maintainability of articles covering those regions. -- Mark Chovain 21:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should note you are the template's creator, no? The template is incorrect, and given the fluidity of the definitions in question, unmaintainable. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but did you miss the bit at the start where I said, "I created this template ..."? It is far easier to maintain this in one place than in a dozen. -- Mark Chovain 07:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Eep, my apologies. I have a tendency to read too fast and miss details, didn't notice it. I was rather surprised to see you seemingly omit the part, which is why I felt I should note it. Again, my apologies. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - no problem. But I should clarify: I created the template, but not the content. As shown in the History, I excised it from one of the regional articles, then replaced it in all the others. -- Mark Chovain 22:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep per Mark Chovain. Mark may be the creator, but he is right. Just because the template had one incorrect area doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater and delete it altogether. It serves a useful purpose showing vaguely where particular identified areas of Sydney are. The other terms "St George", "Eastern Suburbs", "North Shore", "Northern Suburbs", etc. are in common parlance in Sydney, and yes they do overlap - but that's not a reason to delete it. There is an article somewhere that explains what the regions are. Like Mark, I believe we should improve the template, not simply get rid of it. It is certainly not "unmaintanable". INTGAFW (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I consider my eyesight to be quite good, but could hardly make head nor tail of the overhead – in short, it is awful, completely meaningless. A simple map (with boundaries?) rather than a satellite image would be a great improvement, and vastly improve its usefulness. bigissue (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no boundaries - the terms do not represent a precise geographical area (unlike suburbs). The areas of Sydney described, apart from the one complained about above (which can easily be deleted) are commonly used and there are sources for them if you want to find them. INTGAFW (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete Too much WP:OR to be useful, unfortunately - much as I respect the work that went into it. Orderinchaos 02:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Orderinchaos, apart from "South East Sydney", of those terms are in common parlance in Sydney and are not original research. The areas themselves are not precisely defined but as they only indicate a general area, they are fine in the form that they are in. This image is really helpful and needs to be kept (but can be improved). INTGAFW (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete I think it would be better to start again with a completely new graphic, concentrating on accuracy and above all complete clarity. --Klein zach 01:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've seen reason's why this template should be improved, but no reasons why it should be deleted. If people want it improved, then they should go ahead and improve it. It's not perfect, but it fills a role, and is better than nothing. -- Mark Chovain 08:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Santa Clause

Template with only three links. Each film already links to the other. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Klein zach 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

December 1

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

This is named after a former admin, RickK, who apparently was exposed as a sockpuppet admin. It seems strange to be celebrating a long-term (three years) absent former socking admin, who, in the current days of Huggling thousands of edits a day, really isn't anything special when it comes to vandal-fighting. We have a much better barnstar that can be used instead, The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar, that doesn't unnecessarily make a saint out of a long-gone former admin. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Evidence, please? Skomorokh 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Evidence of what? His long-term absence or lack of reverts? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  - How about your extraordinary allegation that the editor in question was a sockpuppet? You seem to be going on nothing other than hearsay. Skomorokh 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    - RickK was not a sockpuppet. His account was compromised following his long term absence and as a result it was desysopped. The worst he ever did was a 3RR if I'm not mistaken. --Thin boy 00 @198, i.e. 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
      - I was going on what I have heard people say, and seen evidence for it. Seems odd Zoe and RickK would both be hacked at the same time, and have a similar history. But this point is irrelevant - it's a barnstar named after someone who left 3 years ago. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. I think this should be renamed - RickK is long gone and there are now many others who've done more to fight vandalism - but not deleted. (The sockpuppetry allegations come from Kelly Martin via WR, and so by definition aren't reliable.) – iridescent 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- How about renaming, or using this instead? – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  - I'd be inclined to just keep the unnamed one - however, as I've said on my talkpage this will cause spectacular drama and it's really not worth the hassle. Some principles are worth fighting for, but the name of a barnstar isn't one of them. – iridescent 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep — This isn't worth deleting, many people use this barnstar regularly regardless of whether the original creator is a sockpuppet. The principle of a barnstar is important, not it's creator. If anybody insists, it could be renamed, but it sounds like unnecessary hassle which can be avoided. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Really, clicking the move button is hassle? I'll do it myself, and fix all the redirects :-) We have a barnstar already that is for the same thing, but lacks the redundant name of RickK in it. People should use that one - we don't need two. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  - Touché. If you're up for it, you can do it, I just don't see much need for it personally. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep - This barnstar has been given to boatloads of editors. Deleting it would be a mess. Rename, but do not delete. لennavecia 01:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- See what links to it. The barnstar is substituted, so even if it was deleted, it wouldn't make more of a mess than any ordinary template deletion. – How do you turn this on (