Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 10

< March 9	March 11 >

March 10, 2006 edit

Template:Country IOC alias ANZ 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 keep. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are not pointless. There are a full set of pages (two for each IOC country code) that return the name of the country, and flag for the country, and are used by various other templates. Please see Template talk:Flagicon and Template talk:FlagIOC for examples of usage. The Olympic pages make heavy use of flags and country names and these templates were created to help efficiently create tables of results and medal winners, enabling page editors to simply use the IOC code to generate those flags at the same size, etc. In this particular case, the pages for the IOC code ANZ (used only for 1908 and 1912 games) were missing and I needed them for some work in progress. Please dig a little deeper before arriving at knee-jerk reactions such as "completely pointless". You proposed this deletion 3 minutes after I created the template. A message to my talk page would have helped. Andrwsc 23:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the reasons stated above. Grutness...wha? 18:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per Andrwsc. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful meta-template. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:09, 15 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:Yugohrhstyle 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. Kusma's reply to Jtdirl's objection seems rather reasonable to me. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yugohrhstyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused metatemplate, just a copy of {{infobox hrhstyles}} with some info filled in. Kusma (討論) 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Good call. BD2412 T 22:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 09:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason why specific countryboxes exist separate from the main box was to cover two problems: unique styling requirements which may require additional information not in the main box and to enable a single unique image to be kept in all country boxes, rather than have people add in different versions. When the main box was used, users kept making their own decisions on images which undermined the whole principle on developing a single series for each country with identical content, style, layout, design and image usage. It also caused problems with ensuring that legally correct images were used rather than illegal ones, with editors having to edit vast numbers of articles to change images to the one standard legal image. So each box for each country or type of post has one master image used which cannot be varied. I don't know who created this particular box here, but it is there as a resource that can be used for Yugoslav royalty. Deleting a valid useful box makes no sense. There should be a central page where such boxes can be listed so that users can be made aware it exists. Deleting it would be pointless and a waste of time. The hrhstyles box was designed primarily to be used in isolated cases where there is no individual box yet, or as the master design for country boxes. It was never designed and never intended to be the only box. Specific ones and it co-exist on WP all over and both are used by large numbers of editors. Obviously this one was created by someone who wants to use the boxes on Yugoslav royalty pages. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 00:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Such a central repository could just as well contain a guide how to use hrhstyles in specific cases, and list the images to be used, without the need to have specific templates for every instance. Kusma (討論) 11:04, 12 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:Greece 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 unanimous: delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. CG 21:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, singleuse metatemplate. --Golbez 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Chairman S. ^Talk 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pn Gizza^Chat ^© 06:15, 12 March 2006 (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 page.

Template:Web Hosting 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 unanimous: delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Web Hosting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created by User:Jard Yan Dooku, who created a number of the articles linked to in this template (most of which are currently being proposed for deletion). Besides the fact that Google and ColdFusion are not web hosting providers, there are many web hosting companies missing from this template and if they were all included, it would be too many to make this useful. howch e ng {chat} 17:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless & POV. Chairman S. ^Talk 09:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete False material and no longer used. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Mike _{(T C)} 01:32, 13 March 2006 (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 page.

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 a new listing on MfD. —Andux^␅ 02:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:God of War/POV Box edit

Template:User:God of War/POV Box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
"Template" does nothing to assist the encyclopedia. Also violates the WP:NPOV and WP:POINT policy amoung others. Usage wise, its only being utilized in one POV userspace article, and doesn't link to anything else. Clear violation of the usage for template space. Zero^Talk 15:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep; the place for user subpages is WP:MFD. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its being utilized as an template. But SPUI's correct; its formatting means its classified as userspace. I'll transfer it there. -Zero^Talk 16:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User subpages have been used for transclusion to simplify the code of the main page for a long time, and have never been seen as templates. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 16:46, 10 March 2006 (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 page.

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Probables for Asia Cup 2004: India edit

Strong Delete It is no longer even a "probable" since it was meant for a 2004 sports event. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaGizza. youngamerican (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2006 (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 page.

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Come on edit

Delete Someone could create a stub for this however, at Come on. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor grammar. BD2412 T 00:55, 17 March 2006 (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 page.

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 -> keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Click and Template:Titled-click edit

These use a CSS hack that doesn't work in all browsers to make it possible to click on an image and be taken to a page other than the image description page. While this can be nice in limited circumstances, its implementation is not. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 14:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - implementation is poor, and should be used as rarely as possible, though I can see it being used for a few purposes until a software feature is implemented. — Omegatron 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Images should work consistenly across the site. The people that created these should be instead approaching the MediaWiki developers to add this function, rather than hack it. -- Netoholic @ 15:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - universal accessibility is more important than clickable images. We should try to live without this effect until it can be done right. —Michael Z. 2006-03-10 17:17 Z
Weak Delete, sadly agree. There's already a bug/feature request in BugZilla, just gotta get it implemented/fixed: [1]. To be clear, I don't object to the idea of images being clickable and linking to places other than the image description, I object to the poor implementation (CSS hacks). —Locke Cole • t • c 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Because of the bug Gizza^Chat ^© 06:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should probably hold off on deleting and removing its uses for a week or two until we know whether the feature request is implemented. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: bugzilla:539 has been open since Sept 2004. I'm not sure that a couple weeks hold will change things. -- Netoholic @ 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's used on the images on the main page. Clicking these images and getting an image description page instead of going to the web site is confusing. If bug 539 is fixed it should be deleted as redundant. Gerard Foley 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The bug won't be fixed any time soon, and this CSS hack doesn't work some of the time. There are ways to add images using normal, valid CSS, but they would require a separate command for each image in the site-wide CSS. — Omegatron 05:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is an exceedingly kludgy hack, but it serves a viable purpose and does not seem to me to have any significant negative impact. I am all for accessibility, but... am I the only one baffled by the concept of an image link 'not working properly' in text only browsers and screen-readers for the blind? How could it 'work properly' in those instances... it's a picture! We don't ban images entirely and I don't see how this is 'less accessible' than that. Indeed, such browsers should (since they ignore the CSS) provide links to BOTH the image description page and the 'clickable' location... actually giving such users a choice, while we poor graphic browser users are deprived and forced to always go to the 'clickable' location. A working built-in replacement would be great. However, I don't actually see one of those currently. I'd also note that the large number of people using this template have clearly not been alerted by the tiny text banner on the talk pages of the two templates. If these are deleted without their input then re-creation seems inevitable. --CBDunkerson 02:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As to why it's important to link to Image pages, even for text only browsers and screen-readers for the blind... Per an addition to Wikipedia:Accessibility made by a blind Wikipedian, he suggests that "Detailed image descriptions, where not appropriate for an article, should be placed on the image description page". A visually-impaired person could follow the link and read what the image shows in detail. -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, very true... but irrelevant. This template provides a link to the image description page for blind users. It's us people who can see that are deprived of that. --CBDunkerson 03:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides this isn't intended for use on images in articles, where that would be true. Is the average user (blind or not) really going to want to see the image description page for a thumbnail of the meta-wiki logo? Anyone who needs to get there is probably going to be able to. the wub "?!" 09:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CBDunkerson's logic is based on some very incorrect assumptions. Accessibility is not only for 100% blind readers. Accessibility means equal access, or as close to it as possible, for all users. How can you say that showing the image link to non-CSS browsers give blind users an advantage, when you have gone to so much trouble to hide that link from some sighted users (i.e. "first-class citizens"). This is an after-the-fact justification for a kludgy workaround which has failed. Either everyone should have that link on the page, or everyone should not. Having links that only work right in some browsers is not an improvement for anybody, anyway. —Michael Z. 2006-03-15 03:24 Z
People who can see get the image. People who can't see or who are using a browser which can't display images get a link to a page which describes the image. Both get a link to the target page. Why is this bad? That is as 'close to equal' as possible. Not providing a link to the image description page for people who can't see the picture would be the 'inaccessible' / 'unequal' choice. No, people who can actually see the image don't get a link to the image description page, but they don't need to have it described to them... they can see it. That's equal. Giving blind users and text browsers no description of the image (or no notice that it exists) as you suggest would be unequal. --CBDunkerson 13:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lame excuse for the random output of a broken template. Please see below. —Michael Z. 2006-03-15 17:35 Z
Strong keep per CBDunkerson. It's a useful template; it's the best we've got. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a better implementation arrives on the scene. I don't doubt that these templates can be easily misused; perhaps their use on the main page is a Bad Thing, although the rendering of the main page in lynx does not seem so terrible to me. I created {{titled-click}} for use in {{featured article}}, and it seems to be pretty benign there. Lupin|talk|popups 12:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful in certain circumstances (I use it in my userpage, and of course it's on the main page too), and until there is a better way to create image links, it should be kept. Prodego ^talk 00:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

In case anyone is suffering from the misapprehension that the accessibility of the main page is not turned to poop by the use this template, below is what is presented at the bottom of the main page to a user of a non-CSS browser: including text-only browsers, screen readers, and other accessibility devices. Note links with misleading text like "wikt:Main Page" which point to image information pages. Great way for an "open" encyclopedia to mess with someone who already may have a difficult time using the Web in the first place.

I think this entire layout of this section could be replaced with just the plain links, and adding the project icons for visual browsers using CSS. I will have a look at this over the next few days to see if I can build a replacement, and report at Template talk:WikipediaSister. If we can replace this use of template:click with accessible HTML, please consider changing your votes to delete this template. —Michael Z. 2006-03-15 03:53 Z

If you add the icons with CSS won't that itself be an accessibility issue? Text browsers and screen-readers won't know the images are there at all - and thus can't go to the image description page to find out what the picture is of. Those image links are the equivalent of the pictures themselves for the non-graphics browsers... I seriously think that not including them would be a dis-service. Should the existence of all images be hidden from users of non-graphics browsers? If not, why is it so important to suppress images here when we don't do so normally? --CBDunkerson 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These images are logos or icons. They are a visual stand-in for the projects' identities. The linked WikiBooks logo could be replaced simply with the WikiBooks link, or it could have the alt text "Wikibooks logo". A link with the text "b:Main Page" and linking to the image description page is 1) a result of a bug in template:click, 2) unnecessary, 3) misleading. You are being an apologist for a broken template by calling it accessible. Call it a rose if you like, but random crap still stinks. —Michael Z. 2006-03-15 17:33 Z

I disagree with your position that we should hide the existence of images from users who can't see them. We don't do so elsewhere and it doesn't make sense to do so here... regardless of how vulgar the language used to say otherwise. That issue aside - the text displayed on the links is incorrect, but that's because Lynx apparently uses the image 'tool tip' as the text to display for image links (which is really an issue for image tool tips in general, rather than just these templates). A change could be made to the click template(s) to set the tooltip text to something else... displaying the target location in the tooltip is a nice way to differentiate for people who know that most Wikipedia pictures link to image description pages, but these templates are primarily for people who don't know that... who get lost when they click on an image link and don't arrive at the page implied by the visual image. It would be a simple matter to have these templates display the image link or some other text rather than the current tooltips. --CBDunkerson 18:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[text generated with Lynx, links entered manually, some whitespace removed]

Bottom of the main page looks like this in Lynx:

Wikipedia's sister projects                                                     
                                                                               
  Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia_Foundation, a non-profit                
  organization that operates several other multilingual and free-content       
  projects:                                                                    
                                                                               
wikt:Main Page
                                                                               
            Wiktionary
    Dictionary and thesaurus

b:Main Page

            Wikibooks
    Free textbooks and manuals

q:Main Page

            Wikiquote
    Collection of quotations

s:Main Page

           Wikisource
    The free library

Wikispecies:Main Page

           Wikispecies
    Directory of species

n:Main Page

            Wikinews
    Free content news source

commons:Main Page

             Commons
    Shared media repository

m:Main Page

              Meta-Wiki
    Wikimedia project coordination

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 page.

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 kept per WP:POINT, this also is not a CSD:G7 per not an accident. _→AzaToth 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User love you edit

Template:User love you (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Blatant violation of WP:TOE. And if someone who doesn't visit a userpage where this is located, they will be considered inferior to someone who does, and they won't feel love. It makes me sick how divisive this userbox is. Kill it with fire and permanately ban the moron who created this filth. --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 13:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love this userbox. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and BURN THIS TEMPLATE! I agree with D-Day, however, don't ban him for life, just about a month should do it. Recon0. (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when i first read this userbox i felt very uncomfortable ... in my pants.Lefty 20:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:TOE is not an actual policy. This nomination is most likely a WP:POINT--God Ω War 21:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This has nothing to do with WP:TOE and I agree this nomination is only to make a point. --Pilotguy ^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, LOL. Maybe we need a BJAOKN (Bad Jokes And Other Kept Nonsense)? :P —Locke Cole • t • c 03:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra Super Strong Delete, I agree with D-Day. Funnybunny 03:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crimethink. Herostratus 06:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This whole thing is pathetic. For one thing, it's a userbox. It's for fun. It doesn't matter. Secondly, don't ban the user who created this userbox, for gods sake! Sergeant Snopake, 13:28, 11/03/06
Keep userbox, but create a "This user hates you" one so both sides of the issue get their say. If we permit expressions of love and sexuality but not one of hate and disgust, all we do is reveal Wikipedia's inherent biases and arbitrary intolerance for hate. -Silence 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, delete User:D-Day for WP:POINT, then undelete him and merge into a section of an article on a broader topic, like List of users named after military operations. Then put a hat on it. -Silence 14:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I provide some convenient links for MarkSweep, the abusive admin:

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:User love you - some subst: work to be done,
Special:Deletepage/Template:User love you - safe to do after 1. is done - noone will notice (oh, you can save a copy in WP:BJAODN if you wish),
and Special:Blockip/User:D-Day while you're at it. --Misza 13 ^{T C} 15:27, 11 March 2006 (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 page.

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 keep (I withdraw this nomination). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User satanist edit

Restored as part of a blanket restoration of religion userboxes after a DRV debate produced a large consensus to undelete. However, while I was performing the undeletions, this satanist one in struck me as inappropriate. It is along the lines of "This user is a Nazi" or "This member supports the Ku Klux Klan". Satanism has stood for murder and several violent crimes. I think this userbox stands out as offensive and I recommend deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, religious discrimination and propagation of negative stereotypes. All religious userboxes may be deleted or reworded ("This user is interested in Satanism" rather than "This user is a Satanist") in the near future, but picking out a single one just because it's unpopular or has had negative connotations in the past (with an unrelated, and nonexistent, "movement" that really consisted of lobbing accusations at one another for centuries, and only recently became a genuine philosophical and religious view) is too close to bigotry for my comfort. Satanism does not stand for "murder" or "violent crimes" anymore than Paganism, Islam, or Discordianism does. Please actually read the Satanism article. -Silence 10:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can say that in Norway, satanism is often associated with Varg Vikernes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for him. Nazism was also associated with occultism, does that mean that we should ban all occult-related or -associated WikiProjects, userboxes, and users from Wikipedia on the off chance that they're nazis? How about all Muslims because of the bad rap they're getting for terrorism and violence lately? Judging an entire religio-philosophical group by its connotations in certain parts of the world, by the kneejerk reaction you have to its name, or by random individuals who have in the past used or referenced the word, is deeply biased. Every religion and philosophy has had people in it who should bring it shame (though not all of them became famous); as long as they are the exception, and not the rule, to judge all based on one is extremist silliness. -Silence 10:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and after reading that article, I see that Varg claims to be opposed to Satanism. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsy. :) -Silence 10:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, withdrawing nomination for now.

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 page.

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 all Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CVG rating templates edit

Delete all, per nom. -- Netoholic @ 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Yeah, I made them, but if it's against a policy then I want them gone. I just thought it was a good idea because I've seen a hell of a lot of articles use them (i.e. until recently GTA SA), albeit a less efficient way. Those articles should have the images removed too then, right?--Cyberdude93 21:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are a lot of articles that still use rating images. I've removed them from all featured CVG articles and (most) of the Good CVG articles, but there's still a lot left. I do bits at a time. Pagra shtak 17:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Funnybunny 03:26, 11 March 2006 (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 page.

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FF Tactics Character edit

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 page.

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. Also, the only file that used it was speedy deleted for being an empty image. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-CommonLaw edit

Template:PD-CommonLaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is used by only one article, and contains a redlink. I was not able to determine what is meant by "the common law legal authority"; probably this is made redundant by {{PD-USGov}}. Hairy Dude 00:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC) In fact, it seems as though the file that uses it (Image:Department_of_Justice_Scales_Of_Justice.gif) no longer even exists on Wikipedia. Hairy Dude 00:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not used anywhere and has that redlink as pointed by nominator. Gizza^Chat ^© 06:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a theory that the US government's stance on copyright is something that applies to all government bodies. If so, it's junk... and if not, it's incomprehensible. Delete. Shimgray | talk | 20:22, 13 March 2006 (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 page.

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 keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:afdnewbies edit

Template:Afdnewbies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not needed --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 21:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Could you expand on that please. Herostratus 07:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep He probably wants to delete it because it's a redirect to the (better named) {{AfdAnons}}. I hate having "newbie" in there, but it's probably not worth going through and fixing old *fd logs to correct at this point. Pagra shtak 16:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's been redirected to {{AfdAnons}}, I say keep it that way. Angr/talk 11:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)~~. It's always been a redirect, deletion should be requested at WP:RFD, not here. But I'd vote to keep the redirect anyway. Angr/talk 11:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; some people know the template by this name and may have to waste time finding the new name if it is deleted Wh e re ^(talk) 02:30, 16 March 2006 (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 page.