Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 16

< September 15	September 17 >

September 16 edit

Template:POV-section-because 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unnecessary. — Jack · talk · 23:54, Sunday, 16 September 2007

Delete, use {{POV|section}} instead. Sebi _[talk] 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable. Carlosguitar 19:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete POV-section is enough. This one is easies to abuse. --Irpen 08:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need discussions of articles in mainspace. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:02, 22 September 2007 (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:POV-bit 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated by {{POV}}. — Jack · talk · 23:51, Sunday, 16 September 2007

Delete, deprecated template. No longer of use. Sebi _[talk] 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable. Carlosguitar 19:46, 17 September 2007 (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:Tofu Infobox 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was a single use template. Has been substituted into article. It has been blanked since July. — Balloonguy 23:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obsolete template. Sebi _[talk] 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and obsolete. Carlosguitar 19:46, 17 September 2007 (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:Weasel section 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 00:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deprecated; {{weasel}} can do this. — 129.215.149.98 23:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, use {{weasel|section}} instead. Sebi _[talk] 00:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable. Carlosguitar 19:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and I concur with Spebi's idea. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with parameter set since this is the form of name taken by a number of section-version templates. 132.205.44.5 21:55, 21 September 2007 (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:Republic of Korea armed forces 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Performs the same function as {{South Korean armed forces sidebar}}, and both seem to be used in the same articles anyway. We don't need two templates to do the same job. PC78 23:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:57, 22 September 2007 (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.

Templates that link to templates 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates only link to other templates. As discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Templates linking to templates, this is a bad thing. They are also unnecessary, even if the links are changed to point to articles; it is rare that one would want to navigate from Alberta Highway 2 to Quebec Route 337, and that can be done, without this template, through the provincial lists and Template:Canadian highways. There is no need to have these links, especially to templates, at the bottom of every road in Canada. — NE2 22:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Although some of the lists are quite long - like the Quebec one.--JForget 18:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the US*Delete. Long overdue. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Long overdue? What do you mean by that? Smcafirst | Chat at 16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No use what so ever other then to confuse people. Turlo Lomon 22:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-standard cross-space links, readers should navigate articles, not templates or categories. --Qyd 01:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah - confusing to say the least master son^{T - C} 01:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ok I find it more easy to navigate through templates then long lengthy (listcruft?) list like the ones of Alberta and Quebec. JForget 18:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with navigational templates, but with the fact that this ones contain direct links to templates. Templates may be transcluded in other templates, but templates should not be directly linked to from the mainspace (article space). If these templates would contain links to articles, they would be perfectly acceptable, and useful too. --Qyd 20:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; there's no reason to link to the list of provincial highways in Alberta from every Canadian highway. --NE2 09:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? All provinces form one nation. Linking Alberta Highways to other Canadian highway is perfectly fine. Smcafirst | Chat at 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I agree with JForget. It is like finding a needle in a haystack (and too troublesome) with a list. There is no problem with these master templates. These templates provide a convenient links to readers from one place to another across Canada. It would be too hard, again, to get from Peel Regional Road 2 to Durham Regional Road 37 (they are both Finch Avenue), but not directly linked together. You have to "pass" through the Finch Avenue article to get to the other). The template could let the reader to choose their region, and then use the templates to navigate. I don't see a problem with templates linking to templates, they are just plain useful, and act like a list. By the way, the "discussion" at the village pump was not much of a discussion as of earlier this week (haven't check it yet). It just contained 2 users' comments. A stronger concensus might be advised. Smcafirst | Chat at 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no discussions seeking a consensus, for the creation of any of the road templates at the centre of this discussion. And saying "The template could let the reader to choose their region, ..." you are assuming that the reader/tourist knows the local area as well as you do to make semi-blind jumps like that. The lead is supposed to be an overview of the entire Article, That is the place to also inform them that it may go by alternative names in other areas. You yourself made the second of these 2 edits to Finch Avenue on February 8, 2007 Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the lists are inefficient or confusing, they can be standardized for ease of reading. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 22:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice if someone wants to recreate in a technically better way, so be it. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep very useful, widely used RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 13:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing that applies from Wikipedia:Speedy keep. --Rschen7754 (T C) 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep & modify Instead of deleting it, let's find a way to modify them so they are more efficient. Jo9100 01:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way to do so without deleting them... What do you do, remove the transclusions from the template? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. There are ways. Jo9100's right. I have an idea. How about changing the links that are directing to the templates now to a link that direct to a list. (Sorry if my wording is not clear. I'll list an example as follows.) We can change the link {{York Regional Roads}} to List of York Regional Roads. The municipal road templates, we can start new articles. For example, we can change {{Roads in Markham}} into List of municipal roads in Markham (suggested title). What do you think? Smcafirst | Chat at 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Heck no. That's redundant to the functions of {{Infobox road}}. Furthermore, why would you need to link from an Alberta Road article to the Yukon road list? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with Qyd. I think an interprovince link would help to unify all Canada Roads' articles, and provide convenience to readers (you'd never know when will they need it). Afterall, we are together a country. And what does this have to do with Infobox Road anyways, it just confuses me and other readers. If these templates are confusing, infobox road is also very confusing. Smcafirst | Chat at 16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that would make them compliant, I would gladly change my vote in this case. Redundancy to infobox road has been discussed to exhaustion, it's not worth talking about here. --Qyd 15:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is a link into teh list in {{Infobox road}}. Why do we need extra templates to do so? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in essence, what you are talking about is creating a Portal on every page? no...not pretty. Wouldnt it seem simpler to make an ACTUAL Canada Roads Portal and link all Canada Road Article to that ? That discussion is already in progress on Portal talk:U.S. Roads. It would amout to the same number of mouse clicks to get to the article you desire AND it would be encyclopedic. It would have the side effect of moving the US Roads Portal out from the "Portals → Technology → Transport → North American Roads" space and a proper page would have to fill the North American Roads Portal space. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No... this is just one link. Nice, compact, and tidy. And put into the infobox, which eliminates the need for 150 links in templates at the bottom of the page. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no to Rschen7754. Why do you like to emphasize on using infoboxes? If so, why not just remove the template namespace and replace them with infobox? We are NOT going to have 150 links at the bottom of the article, we are going to SPLIT the templates once they get huge (over 50 links, maybe?). I must agree to Exit2DOS2000, links to articles on infoboxes are NOT convenient, and has a very ugly layout. You couldn't get from, say, Road #1, to Road # 99, without going through all the articles in between, or find it on a list (like finding a needle in a haystack). This is not what you call nice, compact, and tidy. Templates ARE nice, compact, and tidy, NOT infobox. Portals could be an alternative solution, still, not as good as templates. Smcafirst | Chat at 02:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I warn you that WP:FA will never accept large templates on an article. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder did you get my point on my previous comment? I said I am going to split (or re-size) the templates into smaller templates once they get large (like over 50 links). That way, it won't interfere with WP:FA.

Why yes I did. Specifically, the existence of any of those templates is bad. That is what FA will object to. It's why we dont have a template for the ones in the U.S. --Rschen7754 (T

C) 22:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, how do you explain {{Interstates}}? It's a template. FA does not object to templates (they do once they get long). Take a look at all FAs. Most of them have a template (if not 2 or 3 or more). For example, Redwood National and State Parks has 2; Hurricane Katrina has 1; Chew Valley has 1; and Dawson Creek, British Columbia has 2. Just to name 4. Some of these articles have templates exceeding 6 lines, and they still passed FA. Templates are the backbone of articles, not useless. If so, why are templates (and the template namespace be created) if FA rejects templates. No point at all. Smcafirst | Chat at 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Shouldn't link to templates from templates. Even if it was changed to link to lists my vote wouldn't change, it would be easier to type in where you wanted to go in the search box rather than try to navigate through all of that. Still not sure why the average reader would want to navigate from one random road to another. Any road directly related to the article should be linked directly in that article anyway. --Holderca1 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about roads indirectly related to the article? For example, Albion Road (Toronto) in Simcoe County is named as Simcoe County Road 50. I personally made a link bridging the two articles, and other users are complaining it as "ugly". Only templates could solve the problem. Smcafirst | Chat at 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really understanding the point you are trying to make here. The example you provided are directly related. If I am understanding you correctly, the two roads are the same road, just carry different names in different jurisdictions. Also, looking at your templates, I don't have the slightest clue of how to get from Albion Road (Toronto) to Simcoe County Road 50. If I am understanding what you are saying, it sounds like a succession box would be the way to go, such as the ones used at the bottom of Interstate X in State articles. See the bottom of Interstate 10 in Florida for example. --Holderca1 16:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the articles you mentioned, are all 3 segments formerly Highway 50? Why not merge all three into Highway 50 (Ontario) and have them redirect to it? All 3 are stubs and it appears the only claim to notability the three have is that they all used to be Highway 50. The route descriptions need to better explained, I had no idea what was going on from the articles, had to go find it on google maps to figure what order they were in. {{infobox road}} would also help out as well, that way you can link the articles together, i.e. the termini in the infobox would link to the next segment of highway. --Holderca1 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea to have the "succession box" for these 3 articles, but I am not sure how an Infobox Road would help. Apparently, Infobox Road only works with numbered routes, for example Highway 6 has two links linking to Highways 5 and 7. What about unnumbered routes, as they have it in Toronto? You need a template. Nothing can be done with an infobox. What are you going to do, make a link to a list again, or link them together by an alphabetical order? I don't know why people are focusing in infoboxes too much these days. Finding an article in a list is complicated, as you have other supplement information in a list. It just makes you get confused and lost easily. If this is the case, why don't everyone delete all the templates (and even the templates namespace), and replace it with infoboxes (and an infobox namespace) Smcafirst | Chat at 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are valid uses for templates such as {{fact}}? Because infoboxes are templates? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have used {{infobox road}} for unnumbered routes, see Wurzbach Parkway or Hardy Toll Road, most of the parameters are optional. I am still not understanding your point, you are opposed to an infobox that links to a list of articles, but you are for a template that links to another template that lists the articles(the template should be linking to that same list anyways, not another template). Also, no one has proposed deletion of the metro area type templates, so having a template with a link to all of Toronto's highways is perfectly fine in my book. Infobox road would work exactly the same way as the succession box, you list the termini of the road in the infobox. The termini of each of these segements would be the next segment. The infobox also provides additional key information to get a snapshot of road. Infoboxes are basically there for readers that don't want to read an entire article, they check out the infobox for the most important things about the topic and if they want the details, they read the prose. --Holderca1 12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting above is to replace infobox with templates, even though infoboxes are templates. Templates are easier to find other links than a list (since a list has other additional, and not needed information). Smcafirst | Chat at 22:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you understand what you are proposing. Take a look at the U.S. road articles and you'll see what we mean. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you mean... You are using templates for navigation in the Interstates articles. You are not using infoboxes to "bridge" the interstate articles. You are using {{Interstates}} Smcafirst | Chat at 12:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you are looking at a set of 50 or so articles that are not representative of the 10,000 or so road articles. Look at an article like Interstate 10 in Arizona or Texas State Highway 151, the infobox browse feature takes you to the next road in the sequence of that state's highways, the important intersecting roads are linked further up in the infobox box, and if you look to the section with the exit list, every intersecting road is listed. The I-10 in AZ article also includes a succession box at the bottom to take you to the Interstate 10 in California and the Interstate 10 in New Mexico articles. {{Interstate}} is only included on the parent interstate articles like Interstate 10 because it is a national network of roads and the browse feature won't work since you have some interstates that are located in only a single state and thus have that state's browse order attached to the infobox. Also, {{interstates}} does not link to every road article in the U.S. --Holderca1 13:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What additional and not needed information are you referring to?? If the list is done right, it should be well organized to ease finding the road you are looking for, which typically should be in numeric order. --Holderca1 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is, IF the list is set up right. Not many of the lists could actually set up right. If so, every list should be listed as a featured list. Also, some lists could get quite long, such as the Ontario one, and the Quebec one. Smcafirst | Chat at 12:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is preventing the list from being set up right. Organize by type of roadway, and then by numeric order (or alphabetic for nonnumeric roadways). If a list is too long, split it up among the type of roadway, Texas probably has more numbered highway than most countries, you can see how it is setup here: List of State Highways in Texas. --Holderca1 13:16, 28 September 2007 (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:Districts of Konya 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used anymore, obsoleted by {{Districts of Turkey|provname=Konya|sortkey=...}} — Bolo1729 21:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreed, obsolete. Carlosguitar 10:50, 18 September 2007 (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:Dakota Central Telecommunications Local Channels in Digital 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete WP:CSD G7. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 10:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to list TV channels on local cable TV systems, and Wikipedia is not a directory. The same creator has also created a similar template that has also been nominated for deletion for the same reason. milk the cows (Talk) 21:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MilkTheCows...Wikipedia is certainly not a directory and even if it was this template would be overkill. --MatthewUND^(talk) 05:38, 17 September 2007 (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:Remove the empty one 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete G7; author requests deletion, and nobody else has made significant changes to the template. --ais523 15:17, 17 September 2007 (U T C)

Template is not helpful or noteworthy - it is an empty template serving no purpose. . Gscshoyru 17:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... 'delete. This template is not useful as far as I can tell. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used and no conceivable use. If you aren't sure what template to put on an article, don't put anything and then look up the template. Mr.Z-man 19:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless and pointless. Template-cruft. --Farix (Talk) 19:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serves no purpose. Either an article needs a tag, and has one (or more), or it is not in need of any cleanup/content tasks, and should not have a huge, white "nothing" tag placed on it. There are more than enough cleanup tags to address issues in an article. In my opinion, this is a pointless template. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
clear cut delete Only taking up server space. Digital ^Ninja 20:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I created I say delete. Go ahead. Its already causing problems. I'm allowing you--Angel David 20:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm also going to sart the countdown! Ready!? 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1,0

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:Delaware-Route-stub 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 page.

The result of the debate was Move to WP:SFD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unnessecary.The template Template:Delaware-road-stub is already widely used on articles on roads in Delaware. Dough4872 17:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Considering a route is a road, but a road is not always a route, this template is superfluous and not needed, the all-encompassing "road" template is all that is needed. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to SFD. This is a stub template, and this is the wrong place for such a discussion. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to SFD per Rschen. This is a matter for WP:WSS. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 20:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be redirected? --NE2 22:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and move any discussion to WP:SFD, as per the instructions on stub templates at the top of this page. This is one of a large series of stub templates of its type which are being/have been dealt with in recent times. Just nominating one of them for deletion on the wrong pocess page isn't going to help anyone. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 17 September 2007 (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:CBS New Hampshire 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 page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template actually admits that CBS has no affiliates in New Hampshire; both stations on the template are actually based in Maine and Massachusetts. We've deleted several similar templates for networks serving New Jersey and Delaware for that very reason, so I see no reason why this one should remain either.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. Strafidlo 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to w9wi.com, Claremont NH-based station W12AF is a translator of WCAX 3 Burlington VT, a CBS affiliate. The template is incorrect and should be modified. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have added W12AF to the template. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, as the issue seems to have been dealt with. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:01, 19 September 2007 (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:Dinote 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 page.

The result of the debate was move to userspace. — Malcolm (talk) 00:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template not used on the mainspace anywhere only on user:dinote's user page. . ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following are only used on the user's page:

Template:Dinote1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Dinote-fruit-veg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Dinote-fungi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Dinote subject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Dinote dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) template:dinote moved here now
- Delete or Move into user's userspace. They appear to perhaps be lists of articles the editor is either working on, has contributed to, or stared. Even if they are just general interests, they can be moved into the user's space and transcluded just as easily. The last 5 don't seem to be linked to anywhere but here (or the editor's talk page), and they don't seem to be of such a scope that they would be relevant in any mainspace article and not be covered already by existing templates. Since the editor in question is relatively new (August 2), perhaps s/he simply doesn't understand about Template space usage. Perhaps a nice note on their page would be helpful as well. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Digital ^Ninja 20:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, move into Userspace. Good point, ArielGold. 68.101.123.219 02:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to userspace I think the user is just trying to experiment with this template but perhaps doesn't know how to transclude a template from the userspace. They should be moved to his userspace and then maybe we can fix a link and two for him so that he learn how to do this. --Kudret abi^Talk 09:31, 24 September 2007 (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:Monk and Template:Okie 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created by a newly registered account, who also created another template Template:Okie, "Approved by the state of Oklahoma Public School System". This template was then placed on the Monk article, which is not really appropriate. I can not see a reason for this template to exist, as it specifically states "article" and thus, the intention seems to be to use this in mainspace. Comments? Comments about the Okie template? . ^Ariel♥Gold 04:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Wikipedia is not Unencyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 12:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Not even funny enough for Uncyclopedia. MER-C 12:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added TfD to "Okie", whoever closes this should remember to delete that as well. 68.39.174.238 15:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't care that Oklahoma supports our articles, Delete the tags. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amended submission to show that the "Okie" template actually states the Public School System of OK is "approving" of the article. Which is obviously untrue, lol. ^Ariel♥Gold 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This are a little bit misleading, as it gives the reader the impression that OK approves the article, per ArielGold. Digital ^Ninja 20:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bad sporks of the equivalent Uncyclopedia templates. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Farix, useless templates. Carlosguitar 11:02, 18 September 2007 (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:Local Cable Channels on Midcontinent Coomunications System in North Central North Dakota 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted author request. Non-admin closure. Carlosguitar 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not appropriate to list TV channels on local cable TV systems, and Wikipedia is not a directory. — milk the cows (Talk) 02:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Not only is Wikipedia not a directory of tv channels, even if that sort of thing was ok here a template would not be warranted in this particular situation. --MatthewUND^(talk) 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we aren't a directory of any sort. Sebi _[talk] 05:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, do we really need a template with such an absurdly long title? Since it only seems to be used in one article, subst & delete. PC78 14:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Oh, and they spelled "Communications" wrong. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:09, 16 September 2007 (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:Controversial claim 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 01:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely inappropriate. An issue is either openly disputed, in which case it should be tagged with {{TotallyDisputed-section}}, or it tends to attract new disputes, in which case {{controversial}} (an HTML comment) should be subst'ed in if the point is to recommend visiting the talk page. Circeus 02:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Circeus' reasoning. Totally inappropriate notice. Sebi _[talk] 05:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Thanks, Codelyoko193 _Talk 14:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate self-reference and an unnecessary disclaimer. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't necessarily think this type of template shouldn't exist. It might be good to have a small template to alert users that a particular line, paragraph, or reference might be controversial. Digital ^Ninja 20:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what Template:controversial (which creates a big warning in the source when substitutted) is for. Circeus 23:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hat-notes are tacky. If the concept is controversial, deal with it in prose. If the inclusion doesn't have consensus, don't leave it in. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An inline message saying "ALERT ALERT CONTROVERSIAL VIEWPOINT" is very annoying to anyone reading the article. -Amarkov moo! 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inappropriate. TotallyDisputed-section and Controversial does the job better. Carlosguitar 15:08, 18 September 2007 (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:No consensus-section 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Malcolm (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to be acceptable as a cleanup template. Circeus 01:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Use {{POV}}, {{disputed}}, {{unverified}}, etc instead. This is far too vague to be of any use. Melsaran (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to existing templates... ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete templates listed by Melsaran does the job. Carlosguitar 15:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This template is useful when there are multiple small but contentious pieces in dispute for different reasons, or when the dispute is in regards to the structure or existence of the section, rather than the neutrality or factual accuracy of the article content. We have a situation over at Abortion that is not met by any of the above-listed templates. Photouploaded 16:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no consensus, it shouldn't be on the page, simple as that. Otherwise,i fail to see a reason {{POV-section}} and {{disputed-section}} can't do the trick. Circeus 00:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, if you need {{sectionexistencencedisputed}}, by all means be WP:Bold and make it!68.101.123.219 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC) (And delete.)[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.