Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 24

< December 23	December 25 >

December 24 edit

Template:2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season buttons 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season buttons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the season has not started yet, it is blank. the template is hidden in the 2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season page. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Netural - Whilst it isn't showing up on what links here, as Anirudh said it has already been commented into the 2011 North Indian Ocean cyclone season. So for that reason i feel the nomination isn't valid. However, we do not usually create the buttons until 1 or 2 storms have formed.Jason Rees (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it hasn't started yet. Button bars shouldn't be made until there is at least one storm, and it's generally useless until there are two storms with articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see the purpose in deleting a navigational device that will certainly need to be created again in a few months. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Concur with DGG, Jeepday (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2010 (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:RFMF 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 redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFMF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated, only three transclusions. Alternately, redirect to {{Mediation}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom Jeepday (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2010 (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:Ringgold Isles 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ringgold Isles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No need for template, all the article are merged into a single the article Ringgold Isles. Jeepday (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2010 (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:Chatterbox 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chatterbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template for tagging discussions as "non-productive" is inappropriate and rather rude. I declined to speedy delete it under WP:CSD#T2 because it does not claim any backing of policy, but it is nonetheless contrary to the spirit of consensus-forming discussion, which will often include significant repetition and viewpoints that a particular editor finds annoying. Tagging with a comment like what is shown in this template is more likely to inflame a discussion than improve it. RL0919 (talk) 06:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this will be helpful. Reh man 12:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Re-focusing an unproductive discussion takes a more constructive approach than just telling people to knock it off. The tone of this template is unconstructive. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I rarely object to a discussion instead of speedy deletion, and won't here, but I'm not so sure an explicit claim to represent policy is necessary to misrepresent policy. A template that says "Please consider typing in all capital letters in this talk page section" can't be T2ed? Well, anyway, delete, for RL's reasons, and because it fails to assume good faith, and because it's entirely unsupported by policy or guideline. --Bsherr (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would more than likely just be ignored anyway. -- œ ^™ 12:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like a hypocritical template to me. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Bsherr says, it fails to assume good faith. YardsGreen (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2010 (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.