Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 10

< May 9	May 11 >

May 10 edit

Template:Kyle XY S1 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing links to this page, and it appears to be a test for what is now List of Kyle XY episodes. — Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --T_{Talk to me} 23:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to clarify, somebody originally created it actually as a template to transclude. I recently created List of Kyle XY episodes, which is a proper (and cited) LOE. Matthew 19:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears to be somebody use this template for experimenting something. Daniel 5127 03:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Is it possible to go ahead and speedy close this? It seems unlikely that anyone will want to keep it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:03, 16 May 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:Independant (politician)/meta/shortname 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not used anywhere, and is actually spelt wrong. The correct spelling is Independent. This template is linked to the template below. - Nick C 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedydelete? As well as the other template? Salaskan 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. ST47Talk 23:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just type the word in. –Pomte 03:30, 13 May 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:Independant (politician)/meta/color 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not used anywhere, and is actually spelt wrong. The correct spelling is Independent. This template is linked to the template above. - Nick C 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 17:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misspelling of {{Independent (politician)/meta/color}}. –Pomte 03:29, 13 May 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:Personalideas 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
An aggressive template directed solely at newcomers, very large and ruining an article heading unnecessarily, and very POV whether to place it or not. Also violates the spirit of Wikipedia; its openness. A warning can be placed inbetween  tags within the text, to not disturb readers but still forewarn potential editors. Also see the discussion at Template talk:Personalideas. Salaskan 17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just try adding "Meanwhile, please be bold in updating articles" to the end of the template. It's rather incongruous. Gracenotes^T § 18:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, WP:BOLD is another policy it clearly violates. Salaskan 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why not just say "Welcome to Wikipedia. Now, go back to MySpace"? Daniel Case 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment as creator of this template, I do not object to deletion at this point--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per author OKing it, and because {{needsource}} is much less aggressive. The Evil Spartan 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this template can be very useful to some article pages at WP, that have been heavily vandalized and spammed by 3rd parties for pure financial gain. Ironically, when I came in the first time to WP as a newbie, I made a mistake that got me into a lot of trouble. Believe me, a lot! If I had seem this template, I would have definitely NOT made any changes to a page, called "Audio mastering" (Notice that I already used this template). I am really glad I found it, and I want to warn newcomers that unreferenced information and personal ideas, have no place at this page. If you want to understand my on personal incident you can read the entire incident at the Community Sanction Notice Board. It has to be said, the "Audio mastering" was so much vandalized and spammed, that it came to a point that some of the spammers agreed to put their own names onto an unreferenced section of their own. Totally shameless.. The difference between them and me, is that I put someone else's name for ignorance of the WP rules. Here are just a few examples, see it for yourselves: [1]

[[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Please, as a compromise, vote to use it for certain situations. Thanks for your attention.Jrod2 21:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC) ::Comment Having seen {{needsource}} I think that is better than my template, to be honest. I stil don't object to deletion, really.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 21:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HisSpace, please consider this:

First, I think that {{needsource}} is too wordy and it wouldn't deter me to stop. Second, it doesn't give me the necessary warning to take a good look at what I am about to do. Remember, I am not advocating for this template to be used everywhere. I am suggesting limited use, and maybe applicable by sysop intervention only. If you read the incident I had with the notorious "Biggy P" at the Community Sanction Notice Board, you would understand why it could be necessary sometimes. Third, being called "spammer" would drive away more newbies, than newbie editors that might read this warning. Fourth, It will force people to enter referenced information (Very important). Fifth, Just because you know Wikipedia is editable, it doesn't mean that everybody knows that they can edit it. So, a warning like this will actually let people know that Wikipedia IS editable and encourage them to do it within WP guidelines. Thanks for your consideration. Jrod2 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment valid points. I'll change my opinion to keep.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these points aren't valid at all in my opinion. Even if you use this template sparingly, it is a very subjective matter where to place it and where not to. It is against the spirit of Wikipedia's openness. By the way, calling newbies who did not disrupt the process on purpose a vandal is a violation of WP:BITE, so that has got nothing to do with this template. Also, if you had an incident, that's a shame, but it doesn't justify the need for a massive forewarning template directed specifically at newbies to scare them off (which is in fact what it does). Salaskan 23:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Salaskan, wth respect, I see your concerns and they are valid, however, my proposal is NOT to make it "a massive forewarning template", but to make it available to sysops in order to warn new users, including those who are already experienced, engaged on an edit war to include unreferenced articles and links to other websites. If you read my incident you would understand how this is easily possible, and if you take a look at this warring edits:

[15] [[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], you will realize that a call for civility and good faith needs to be established. I made a newbie mistake on the "Audio mastering" page and I had no idea that I was stepping into a mine field where a major edit war was taking place. I chose to stay at WP to discuss and argue about my innocence, but regardless, I was still accused of spam, sock puppetry, you name it. The fact that my antagonizer was blocked and that I came out absolved by the the Community Sanction Notice Board from any wrong doing, indicates that I have a supporting case that clearly demonstrates what can happen to you if you don't know what you are doing. And only god knows, how many newbies have edited a page without the knowledge of rules, been accused of spam and driven away by over protective editors, never to come back again. We just don't know the rate of incidence. I hope you reconsider my proposal to use the debate template on extreme situations like the Audio mastering page and by either experienced members or a sysop intervention. if you'd like to tone down a bit the writing , I invite you to do so and that would be OK. But, keep in mind that since it is for special circumstances, it needs to be firm. Thanks again for your consideration. Jrod2 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and modify. A very good attempt to reach consensus, I must say. We could tone down the wording a bit indeed, and make it ONLY applicable by sysops. I.e. if a page is semiprotected, yet still some new registered users vandalise it, we could apply that template as a temporary measure. Let's list that in the /doc part? Salaskan 09:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on the template's talk page - the spam vandals that this is aimed at will just ignore it, and people who make honest good faith edits to Wikipedia should be instructed via their user talk pages as is the current practice, not bitten. QmunkE 14:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in response to some of Jrod2 (talk · contribs)'s points made above: first, this template cannot "force" anyone to do anything, especially not cite their sources. Second, I agree that {{needsource}} might not discourage spammers from editing, however it is only one step on the ladder (see {{test2}}, {{test3}}, {{test4}} etc) which are meant to serve as incrementally urgent warnings. It's much more useful to target these at specific individuals rather than subject all new users to aggressive warnings - if a large amount of vandals target a specific article got to request semi-protection. QmunkE 15:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dear QmunkE, respectfully, I don't understand your point because I am confused, so help me here. The "request semi-protection" takes me to a WP guideline page that gives me instructions to make "Sub pages". If so, do you believe that a newbie will be encouraged to contribute to an existing page by taking more steps? Then, let's use your suggestion on the Audio mastering page to see if: A) It's going to warn spammers, B) It's going to let newbies know that contributions to this page without verified information, it's not a good idea, C) It's going to re-establish civility among the participants of a highly debated page. That said, this would only apply to pages that already exist and it won't hinder the process of the creation of new pages by newbies and/or experienced editors at WP. Also, this would only be another tool available to sysops, when things get out of hand and order needs to be established (See examples:[29]

[[30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]) without the need to protect the page and thwart its evolution. Also, by being available to sysops only, it will not constitute "a massive forewarning template" as stated on Mr. Salaskan concerns. I pray you change your mind, and that instead, we focus the attention to the toning down of the wording of this template. If you agree, I urge you to make a suggestion. Thanks for your time. Jrod2 17:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. However, shouldn't the following be enough, since they are more specific?
- {{uw-spam1}} {{uw-spam2}} {{uw-spam3}} {{uw-spam4}}
- {{uw-unsourced1}} {{uw-unsourced2}} {{uw-unsourced3}} {{uw-unsourced4}}
- {{uw-ad1}} {{uw-ad2}} {{uw-ad3}} {{uw-ad4}}
etc. Those templates address individual issues much better, and you don't have to start warning with the first template. Really, if I got the template as a newbie, I would not be able to select my "crime" from that laundry list of offenses. Do you have any problems with the above-listed templates? It is probable that {{needsources}} should be redirected to one of them. Gracenotes^T § 17:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Gracenotes, I think I made the point that these templates are useless in the case of the "Audio mastering" page where I was also viciously attacked after making an unrefenced entry, otherwise, I wouldn't be here on this debate advocating for its LIMITED inclusion by SYSOP ONLY. If you are not entirely sure, as you said above, of what I am getting at, I urge you to please read this incident report at the Community Sanction Notice Board, where this newbie (me), got this experienced and most vicious sock puppeteer vandal blocked. The fact that I am functioning at WP and responding to you, indicates that the community was presented with a case that happens often enough. In addition, they also reviewed those false accusations made against me, found no fault and let me go. I certainly wouldn't be able to appeal to you for support to include this template today. Sorry, if I sound like I am ranting. Jrod2 18:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commented messages are more than sufficient for warning new users. We should welcome new editors, instead of chasing them away with a big, ugly box with a long list of rules. szyslak 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hello Szyslak, I would like to point out that the template is already working just fine at Audio mastering page, where dialog, civility, as well as the desire to spam with external links, have actually receded. This doesn't mean that there are no more attacks (See: [43]) but, it's nothing that the bot can't snap out. There are even new users showing up to create new dialog! (See [44]) But, they have all adhered to the call to stop adding nonsense and discuss why they need to change technical terms, especially those newbies. In my view the template works on a complex and rather technical page like the mastering page, and if you don't mind , I would like to propose my WikiProject Professional Sound Production members, to vote to keep or delete. Therefore, more time will be requested of this forum. I would appreciate you don't oppose that. BTW, did you read all my arguments on top? Thanks for your time. Jrod2 20:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gentlemen, I have been trying to clean up a page called Loudness War for the last 48 hours. At First, I Prodded it because I thought the lack of references and the English writing was poor. Since, as you Prod a page you notify its contributors, surely enough, a bunch of them came out to defend the article; 1 asked to modify, 1 to delete, the rest opposed deletion. The page had been edited in the interim by many newbies that were mainly adding to the spam and to the lack of references. I was asked to clean up the page. So, I did. I eliminated everything that was considered suspicious links and non neutral POVs that lacked of references. I even worked on the page text to improve and make it understandable in laymen's terms. The result was a clean, concise, and free of spam article page. For all that time and effort, one particular user going under the name Illuminatedwax came in and undo everything, re-posted the links and reverted much of what I did. I warned, I tagged him and gave him a chance to reflect. He still chose to remove tags and re-post links again. This is sort of vandalism from editors that feel they "own" a page is what prevents newbies from contributing anyway. The aforesaid editor, perpetrated this action twice.

The Test. I am going to revert Loudness War to that clean, spam-free state I had going on the page before. Let me apply this template as it's working so far on the Audio mastering page, and we'll see if order and civility is re-established to Loudness War. Also, newbies will now have to think if their contribution is properly referenced or not. If this works, I urge this forum to please support including the use of this template to chaotic and troubled pages like the Audio mastering and Loudness War with sysop assistance only. Thank you .17:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Test. It run into a problem with a couple of contributors who are bent into allowing spam links to remain at the "Loudness War". They deleted the template yesterday. As pre-caution, I am running a request check on them at the request Checkuser. This means that I need more time. If these 2 users are proven guilty, they will be out of the equation and the experiment will resume. Thanks all for your patience. Jrod2 14:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This template is aggressive and unnessesary. How hard is it to just place a warning inside ?Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 12:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hello hondas, I will appreciate if you can comment on my remarks and arguments to keep, and not by the look of the template. I know it seems this thread is long, but maybe you'll find out that: A) We are not looking for this to be "a massive forewarning template" B) We wanted to be Limited Use, and C) Applicable by Sysop Only. Thanks for reading all this. BTW, The test had to be put on hold due to a couple users bent on deleting any templates (including those meant for spam) from the test page. Meantime, I'd like to report that the template seems to be working fine at the Audio mastering page. Thanks for your patience. Jrod2 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template in question is currently transluded onto five pages on Wikipedia. If this gets deleted, I advise you to just subst it.Hondasare^{GOOD (talk)} 14:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks for the advise Hondasaregood, I will, if this is the case. Jrod2 15:25, 21 May 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:Infobox Cape Verde 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same exact reason as Infobox Israel(below). — MJCdetroit 16:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused and would only be single-use. This is for the actual article, not templatespace. –Pomte 03:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infobox Cape Verde has been deprecated by [45]. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 08:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - 52 Pickup 12:00, 16 May 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:Infobox Israel 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a redirect of Infobox Country and by its nature it is single use. Its goal (I assume) was to save 3kb worth of space in the article. About a year ago, all country templates such as this were converted over to use one standard—{{Infobox Country}} and all the parameters were placed inside the articles. Placing the parameters inside makes it easier for the average editor to add information to and it ensures that every country article uses the same standard. Before standardization, many countries' articles had various looking single use templates. Now a reader see the same basic look from country to country. This template is a step back ward and if it survives it will only change over time (usually for the worse) from the single standard look of all other country articles. — MJCdetroit 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Salaskan 17:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Doron 23:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the discussion in Template_talk:Infobox_Israel should be kept somehow (perferably copied into Talk:Israel, as it includes a long dispute that was resolved following a RfC--Doron 05:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on that point. —MJCdetroit 11:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's not even linked to in Israel, at least not anymore. A single use template should not exist. The Evil Spartan 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infobox Israel has been properly deprecated by [46]. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but retain talk page - perhaps as a subpage of Talk:Israel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 52 Pickup (talk • contribs) 11:58, 16 May 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:VancouverSchools 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these schools aren't notable, and will never need an article. A navigation box isn't necessary when a category exists. — GreenJoe 15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most articles are already in place. A navbox serves, as the name says, for navigation, and has its advandages over categories. --Qyd 15:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A template that does nothing more than what the category already accomplishes. I agree that categories and templates can co-exist, but only where the template organizes the information in a different and helpful way -- here, the template simply replicates the category and is redundant. Too many articles are infested with superfluous templates, and this is a classic example. Skeezix1000 15:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qyd; as well, the box helps to illustrate where work is needed. Categories are great for tracking information that is already present, but do not help in pointing out what is missing. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is in use, and presents a nicely-standardized format used by many school boards. --Stéphane Charette 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GreenJoe 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bully. Thanks for trying to shoehorn your view of what is valid and not valid. In the meantime, note that "presents a nicely-standardized format" is a very valid reason in itself. In addition, navigation boxes are a common way on Wikipedia to link articles together that are very closely related. Other than categories, which are used to group together schools from the same province. In this case, the province (category) is BC, and the school board (NavBox) is Vancouver. Why must we spend 90% of our time fighting deletions? Is there a quota for people to submit a certain number of articles or templates for deletion per month? Look at the articles that use this template: would deleting the template make the article better, or worse? I think most people would agree the article gains in having a useful (and standardized!) navigation box, therefore let's not delete the navbox! --Stéphane Charette 17:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It would be great if you could refrain from name calling; please limit your comments to the content of the discussion, as opposed to other contributors. Thanks. Skeezix1000 12:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Qyd. Helpful navigation template. The articles already exist; if the schools are notable, then nominate them for deletion, and if they're deleted, remove them from the template. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Evil Spartan 16:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful, not incredibly obtrusive. ST47Talk 23:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : (1) this template follows guidelines as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada; (2) schools are just as notable (or should be just as notable) as many other articles in wikipedia; (3) way too many articles are nonimated for deletion; (4) navigation boxes are a common way on Wikipedia to link articles together that are very closely related; (5) article about schools introduce wikipedia to students and end up providing them some feeling of ownership.--Mr.Badlands 02:44, 17 May 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:OCCSB 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these schools aren't notable, and will never need an article. A navigation box isn't necessary when a category exists. — GreenJoe 14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Another example of templatecruft. Skeezix1000 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is in use, and presents a nicely-standardized format used by many school boards. --Stéphane Charette 20:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GreenJoe 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bully. Thanks for trying to shoehorn your view of what is valid and not valid. In the meantime, note that "presents a nicely-standardized format" is a very valid reason in itself. In addition, navigation boxes are a common way on Wikipedia to link articles together that are very closely related. Other than categories, which are used to group together schools from the same province. In this case, the province (category) is BC, and the school board (NavBox) is Vancouver. Why must we spend 90% of our time fighting deletions? Is there a quota for people to submit a certain number of articles or templates for deletion per month? Look at the articles that use this template: would deleting the template make the article better, or worse? I think most people would agree the article gains in having a useful (and standardized!) navigation box, therefore let's not delete the navbox! --Stéphane Charette 17:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It would be great if you could refrain from name calling; please limit your comments to the content of the discussion, as opposed to other contributors. Thanks. Skeezix1000 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same argumnet is for the OCDSB below. cmacd 13:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The Evil Spartan 16:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : (1) this template follows guidelines as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada; (2) there is no category equivalent to OCCSB; (3) schools are just as notable (or should be just as notable) as many other articles in wikipedia; (4) way too many articles are nonimated for deletion; (5) navigation boxes are a common way on Wikipedia to link articles together that are very closely related; (6) article about schools introduce wikipedia to students and end up providing them some feeling of ownership.--Mr.Badlands 02:44, 17 May 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:OCDSB Schools 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of these schools aren't notable, and will never need an article. A navigation box isn't necessary when a category exists. — GreenJoe 14:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A perfect example of a superfluous template. Skeezix1000 15:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is in use, and presents a nicely-standardized format used by many school boards. --Stéphane Charette 20:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid reason. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GreenJoe 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bully. Thanks for trying to shoehorn your view of what is valid and not valid. In the meantime, note that "presents a nicely-standardized format" is a very valid reason in itself. In addition, navigation boxes are a common way on Wikipedia to link articles together that are very closely related. Other than categories, which are used to group together schools from the same province. In this case, the province (category) is BC, and the school board (NavBox) is Vancouver. Why must we spend 90% of our time fighting deletions? Is there a quota for people to submit a certain number of articles or templates for deletion per month? Look at the articles that use this template: would deleting the template make the article better, or worse? I think most people would agree the article gains in having a useful (and standardized!) navigation box, therefore let's not delete the navbox! --Stéphane Charette 17:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly review Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It would be great if you could refrain from name calling; please limit your comments to the content of the discussion, as opposed to other contributors. Thanks. Skeezix1000 12:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there are some schools that are not considered notable, thay can be not linked in the template. (left as black) Thus becoming unlinked in the articles(s) for the ones that _Are_ notable. A navigation box is a very good way to present the information in related places, perhaps more useful than a catagory if presented in all relivant places. It also avoids the need to place the same information in multiple places where it can get out of sync.cmacd 13:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. In fact, half of the articles already do exist. The Evil Spartan 16:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : (1) this template follows guidelines as per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada; (2) there is no category equivalent to OCDSB; (3) schools are just as notable (or should be just as notable) as many other articles in wikipedia; (4) way too many articles are nonimated for deletion; (5) navigation boxes are a common way on Wikipedia to link articles together that are very closely related; (6) article about schools introduce wikipedia to students and end up providing them some feeling of ownership.--Mr.Badlands 02:43, 17 May 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:Thanks for welcome 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. Aquarius • talk 15:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely use. Welcomes are only given to new users, who are most likely unfamiliar with editing pages, let alone replying on the appropriate talk page with a template they had to search through categories to get find. On the occassion a returning or established user is welcomed by a template in a new account, it is unlikely he would reply via template. ALTON .ıl 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom †Bloodpack† 05:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Salaskan 17:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, any new user who wants to repay their welcome can and will do it easily with text. Daniel Case 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is not the same logics applied to the various "welcome"-templates? // habj 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The welcome templates often contain a great deal more information (and sometimes formatting, like {{welcomeg}}) than one would want to repeatedly type by hand. Giving a new user that information with a template is relatively quick and painless, and gets the job done. Hand-typing it every time wouldn't really make sense, and would probably deter a lot of casual welcomers!--Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete How is a new user suppose to understand templates right away? Delete per nom. --T_{Talk to me} 23:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Half a dozen of independent users have actually found the template and used it, see Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Thanks for welcome. Using it is, of course, a giggle; see for instance User talk:Ratónbat. Writing the same text without the template would lose the whole point. // habj 13:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Wikihermit. GreenJoe 15:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Daniel Case. Over-templatfication. Just type it (surely this is easier than endlessly searching for a template). The Evil Spartan 16:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deleting this would break User:TomasBat/Welcome, which contains text instructions for using this template to thank the welcomer for the welcome (this is presumably how all the new users found this template in the first place). I'm not sure how this will affect the outcome of the TfD. Maybe userfy the template? --ais523 16:43, 11 May 2007 (U T C)
Delete New users won't be able to find it, if they do find it, why wouldn't they just type "thanks," and besides, it makes implications that the user will like Wikipedia ;-). --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 17:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. ST47Talk 23:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makes it seems like a newbie has to jump through hoops to be accepted in the community, or at least to me. Gracenotes^T § 17:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh! Keep. This template is a WikiWikiWeb:ClueByFour, used by regulars who would like to remind people of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars ;-) If decision is to delete in template namespace, please userfy (to my userspace if noplace else). Thanks --Kim Bruning 23:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm busy fighting an urge to give you a welcome template now... Userfication would seem like a good option, and if this is closed as userfication the nonlink on User:TomasBat/Welcome should be updated. --ais523 08:02, 14 May 2007 (U T C)
Delete per nom. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 03:11, 16 May 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:User Bloodpack/quality 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 after move to userspace. –Pomte 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencylopedic, used by one user only for amusement on user page. It was recently moved from the userspace. Should be either subst'd onto the user page or moved back from template namespace, but delete from Template namespace. — Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sorry i didnt know thats why its hooked it up to my userspace only, not categorized, and not intended for public consumption. Its for personal use only †Bloodpack† 02:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done, sorry for the trouble and happy wikiying! †Bloodpack† 04:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the Template, which now redirects just to Bloodpack's user space, can be speedily deleted under Criteria R2. --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 00:33, 11 May 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.