Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 16

< May 15	May 17 >

May 16 edit

5 templates for speedy deletion 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 speedily deleted Gracenotes^T § 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Transnistria/History edit

I have created this template to organize a series of articles about Transnistria, but subsequently we managed to merge all its items in other templates :Dc76 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Transnistria/Territory, Template:Transnistria/Conflict, Template:Transnistria/Politics, and Talk:Transnistria for details. Noone but me has ever editted these templates. I am not an admin, so I can not delete. Therefore, asking for help. :Dc76 22:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. :Dc76 01:16, 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:NorthAmNativeVerified 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! 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template based on the rejected WP:NATIVE policy, which says that the United States or Canadian government must recognize a Native American tribe to include them. For the many reasons outlined on the talk page of the proposal, this is a bad idea. Also see related {{NorthAmNativeUnverified}}, also up for TfD. -Amarkov moo! 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot a bit of my argument. A template to say that something is verified is unneeded; that can just be done by citing a source in the article. -Amarkov moo! 22:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merely a subset of WP:V. The template can be corrected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk • contribs).
Delete - per nom and my same rationale at the related TfD discussion. alanyst ^/talk/ 22:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply the mirror image of the other template and, as such, the comments I posted there could be, but will not be, repeated here. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 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.

Clean-up of templates needed 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 redirected as it is. I believe all issues have been addressed. CMummert · talk 03:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this here procedurally as I'm not sure of a better place, someone can move it somewhere more appropriate, but please notify me....

I was doing some cleanup at Special:Wantedcategories and found XXX articles pointing to Category:Articles lacking reliable references from article. Research let me to discover that {{More sources}} has been redirected {{Refimprove}}. It looks like several of the articles with the tag in the format of {{more sources|article}} with or without an additional date parameter are now being categorized into this wanted category. Also articles with the tag in the format of {{more sources|section}} with or without an additional date parameter are now being categorized into Category:Articles lacking reliable references from section. It appears that additional variants may also exist. Similarly, since {{sources}} was a redirect to {{More sources}}, and that became a double redirect, which now also points to {{Refimprove}}, it's use is resulting in a great number of articles going directly into Category:Articles lacking reliable references rather than the monthly groupings, such as Category:Articles lacking reliable references from May 2007. I don't see any discussion regarding any of this anywhere, so I am assuming that we just have some people being bold, which is OK, as long as nothing breaks. Since these are all protected pages, I don't want to just start reverting other admins, but I would like to have a centralized discussion instead of contacting people individually. I believe that we need to do one of the following:

revert these changes
modify {{Refimprove}} to accomodate it
have a bot do cleanup of everything

I don't very much care which solution is chosen, but I believe that the current situation will not do. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have not tagged the templates for fear of breaking the redirects and messing up 1000+ articles. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I redirected {{moresources}} towards {{Refimprove}} following some brief discussion. Clearly, this has caused some problems that I didn't envisage. Personally, I would prefer the change wasn't reverted, because the templates appear to have been created for the same purpose. Is the option of improving {{Refimprove}} viable? Addhoc 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew there had to be a discussion somewhere, sorry I didn't find it sooner. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support the redirect to {{refimprove}} that was also discussed at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Project_Proposal. Do what everclean up is needed to keep it. Jeepday (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3 - In my opinion, due to the number of variations involved in the template calls of the 2 redirected templates with multiple parameters, I think that trying to account for all of them would make {{Refimprove}} unnecessarily complicated with conditional syntax/parser functions. I think that it might be cleaner to involve the bots (or at least AWB). If we put together good requirements for substitution, the bots should be able to get most of them in a few passes and then just a few will likely remain for manual fixing. I'm happy to put the requirements together if a bot operator will work with me on this. I'm not sure if behaviour will be able to be changed enough for the redirects to remain in place after the clean-up is done, or if they will require constant maintenance which would require deletion in the future. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category:Articles lacking reliable references from article and Category:Articles lacking reliable references from section are empty. I asked SmackBot to date the articles in [[Category:Articles lacking reliable references. Once that is done I think this can be closed. CMummert · talk 13:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rich Farmborough has said he'll get SmackBot to date the tags. [1] CMummert · talk 03:02, 30 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:TAMUAD 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 of both. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is nothing but a redirect to TAMUAD, a main namespace template. Suppose the best thing would be to move the actual template to the actual template namespace and then TAMUAD should be deleted. Once this is done, I can add the template to the articles where it belongs so it actually gets use. — Joe I 21:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Real template *appears* to be at Template:UAD...but it's rather confusing. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 08:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I missed that. Delete both then. Joe I 03:02, 18 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.

Extraneous shared user 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 close and delete. If four of the five have been de-transcluded, and the fifth is a work in progress, there is no need to keep the templates. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About TFD's structure

If the outcome for this discussion is keep or no consensus, then all templates will continue as they were
If the outcome for this discussion is delete, then first all instances of the deleted templates will be replaced, and then they will be deleted.

The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether or not the templates are worth keeping in the long run—and then implementing the solution. While the consensus should be enforced as soon as possible, there is no rush.

Taken care of by {{DynamicIP}}. -- Avi 20:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of by either {{ISP}} or {{SharedIP}}. Avi 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of by {{ISP}}. Avi 20:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of by {{SharedIPEDU}}. Avi 20:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of by {{SharedIPEDU}}. — Avi 20:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are not many transclusions of {{Proxy}} or {{RotatingUserIP}}, and the Cambridge and Oxford templates appear to be... well, I won't say what I think they are. They can easily be replaced by {{SharedIPEDU}}. Delete those; however, redirect {{Ipowner}}, since it is transcluded on a large enough number of pages. Also if needed, merge content (but not prose). However, the alternative ones appear substantial enough. Gracenotes ^T § 20:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What if they aren't educational IPs, but owned by a given company? Or military? Or municipal? - Denny 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what {{SharedIP}} is for. -- Avi 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone going to bot-replace all of these that get deleted? - Denny 01:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes... I've added a notice up top. This is perhaps one of the most misunderstood aspects of TFD. I don't think that any current template handles only military, or only municipal, and if they did, it would be not needed. Gracenotes ^T § 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Concern raised above bt Gracenotes. Where there are only a few tens, I'll do it manually, and {{Ipowner}} will be redirected until such point as it is either manually or bot-replaced by {{ISP}}. -- Avi 01:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all IPs belong to an ISP or an educational institution. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what {{SharedIP}} is for. -- Avi 00:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can you assume the IP is shared? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per large number of transclusions and the fact that I might want to use one of these some day. Nardman1 01:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you want to use one of them if there's another alternative that works just as well? For record-keeping things such as this, there's no reason to not have consistency. There aren't two AFD templates for nomination. Gracenotes ^T § 01:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. –Pomte 11:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oxford and Cambridge were being used for tracking, evaluation and statistic purposes, but considering the note below, that's now shot. Nice to have been told about it, per process </sarcasm>.--Alf ^melmac 09:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- - As far as I'm aware, most Wikipedians don't have the ability to read minds... don't exactly see the value of such info, either. Gracenotes^T § 13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment agreed - foolish haste. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have substituted {{ISP}}, {{SharedIP}}, or {{SharedIPEDU}} for all of these templates except {{Ipowner}}. That will take more time. -- Avi 03:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - relisted by Avraham (talk · contribs) for some reason ... ? Gracenotes^T § 02:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the reason that this wasn't closed, most likely. Is the misunderstanding still persisting?

Alf: why do these two universities need tracking and not any others? If there's a strong need, maybe add parameter-dependent tracking categories to {{SharedIPEDU}}. –Pomte 06:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Pomte, this was never closed. It would be nice to get some closure (no pun intended) on this. -- Avi 12:19, 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:Copyrighted for Bashar Zidane 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! 05:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A non-image copyright tag, used on a now deleted image (verified by what links there). Please can we just snow this? Iamunknown 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, couldn't be more useless. Punkmorten 14:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no rationale given. –Pomte 13:48, 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:Greater Moncton 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 no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real point to this template (why these schools are organized in this way), as there is no organization or anything like that which includes all Francophone and Anglophone schools in the Greater Moncton area. It would be better to categorize New Brunswick schools into their appropriate districts; the templates Template:NBDistrict1Schools and Template:NBDistrict2Schools have been created by myself and could be used as an alternative, since these two districts are the ones that cover the Greater Moncton area. — Yvesnimmo 19:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are the schools each notable for article creation? {{NBDistrict1Schools}} has too many red links to be useful, and {{NBDistrict2Schools}} can do without private and other schools in the meantime until those articles get written. There may not be an organization that includes schools of both languages, but there is an intuitive reason to list all schools in one templates: navigation. The Francophone and Anglophone schools can be in two separate sections of the same template, as there aren't too many of them. –Pomte 13:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)¨[reply]

Keep Flubeca (t) 12:48, 22 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:Individual sexual orientation 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! 05:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template has many issues. The first is, it is vague. ALL people have a sexual orientation. Why is every person to ever live not included in it? The usage of the template seems to indicate it is being used to flag certain historical figures for whom it is speculated may have been gay. While such discussion, insofar as it is reported in reliable sources IS important part of wikipedia articles, the existance of this template is a problem. Why are ONLY certain historical figures listed? It seems to serve a largely inflamatory purpose, why do we need to "out" historical figures in this way??? The information should be part of articles as appropriate, but this template is too much an invitation of non-neutral and sensationalist addition to the articles in question, and needs to go. Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea what arbitrary process the individual who came up with this used to get these names together btw. Maybe darts and a blindfold? Quadzilla99 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, any historical figure I could think of was included on the list — if they either had a separate article on their sexual orientation, or a substantial section within their main article on it. It's not a complete list, but I had hoped that, over time, more names would be added. *** Crotalus *** 07:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, guaranteed arbitrary set of loosely connected individuals.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs)
Delete. What criteria were used here? I see a couple unrelated people with varying degrees of fame, plus an obscure emperor who ruled for four years and nobody cares about. -Amarkov moo! 23:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Elagabalus was included because the historical evidence for his homosexuality is especially strong. Other figures were included if either we had separate articles on their orientations or on sex scandals they had been involved in, or the main article had a substantial section to that effect. *** Crotalus *** 07:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That's the most random list of people I've ever seen. :) Why would someone reading about Jesus' sexuality need a link to an article about Hitler's sexuality? Pax:Vobiscum 11:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The template has, as far as I can tell, no redeeming value. Its use, thus far, appears to be to tag articles about people whose sexual orientation has been questioned for some reason. I might vote to keep it if its name were changed to "Template:A list of people for whom someone has felt it important to ask questions about their sexual orientation based upon a thin fabric of supposition and innuendo"? :-) — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Note: I am the template's creator.) This could be useful to people researching the sexual orientations of historical figures. *** Crotalus *** 07:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, quick before it grows to include all the biographical articles that we already have that already mention the subject's sexual orientation, which must be several thousands! We already have extensive lists and categories covering the matter. Creator seems sadly uninformed about the size and scope of Wikipedia, or is sadly lacking in imagination, or fails to understand the purpose of templates. Xtifr _tälk 09:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it will help in removing stereotypes that homosexuals suffer, besides it will prove that sexual orientation does not affect the work or limit the performance of the person in any role that he/she performs in the society, only facts and no vague conclusions should be put up....the article should be neutral and the decision of the sexuality should be left to the reader............
- Delete It would never help in removing stereotypes, because it makes homosexuality more notable than heterosexuality.. Furthermore, the choice of included figures seems arbitrary.
Delete This posthumous outing device is being used to push a specific agenda as the above editor inadvertently has shown. The article on Lincoln, for example, reflects only a small minority view that is rejected by the vast majority of Lincoln historians -- even the couple that find some merit in the effort end up damning it with faint praise. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize: I think a category should be created like Category:Sexual orientation of individuals for these articles. This template does seem to be an overuse of templates, but I don't see how it can cause harm as long as it is only used on articles about the sexual orientation of specific individuals. Q0 17:28, 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:D.C. Statehood Green Party/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. Orderinchaos 20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

obvious typo for Template:D.C. Statehood Green Party/meta/shortname (w/o trailing slash) ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely typo. –Pomte 21:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:17, 20 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:PD-ThaiGov 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, per good argumentation. >Radiant< 09:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governmental documents ineligible for copyright according to the Act include ระเบียบ ข้อบังคับ ประกาศ คำสั่ง คำชี้แจง และหนังสือโต้ตอบของกระทรวง ทบวง กรม หรือหน่วยงานอื่นใดของรัฐหรือของท้องถิ่น and คำพิพากษา คำสั่ง คำวินิจฉัย และรายงานของทางราชการ (loosely, rules, protocols, announcements, orders, memorandams and rulings). These are very unlikely to contain any relevant media (as they usually consist of text) and the template is unlikely to serve its purpose as an image copyright tag. Note that there are images currently using this template which actually are copyright violations. — Paul_012 ^(talk) 10:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More information from UNESCO (specifically Chapter I, Section 1, Article 7): "The followings are not deemed copyright work by virtue of this Act : (1)news of the day and facts having the character of mere information which is not a work in literary, scientific or artistic domain, (2)constitution and legislations, (3)regulations, by-laws, notifications, orders, explanations and official correspondence of the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units, (4)judicial decisions, orders, decisions and official reports, (5)translation and collection of those in (1) to (4) made by the Ministries, Departments or any other government or local units." Doesn't seem to apply to photographs or other images. I'd recommend copying the links to the images, notifying the uploader (they all seem to be from one uploader), deleting the image copyright tag and replacing it with {{ no copyright holder | day = {{subst:CURRENTDAY}} | month = {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} | year = {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} }} --Iamunknown 03:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:59, 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 Babylon 5 episode 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! 05:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A series specific version of {{Infobox Television episode}}, all uses have been replaced. Time to delete. Jay32183 02:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing unique about this template compared to the standard television episode template. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could've sworn we had already deleted this... ^demon^{[omg plz]} 08:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant, Template:Infobox Television episode does everything necessary. Pax:Vobiscum 11:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again... -- Phoenix2 ^{(talk, review)} 16:18, 20 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 Seinfeld episode 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! 05:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A series specific version of {{Infobox Television episode}}, all uses have been replaced. Time to delete. Jay32183 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. There's no reason to keep it now. Steveo2 11:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could almost be {{db-g6}} housekeeping? Punkmorten 15:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep epesodes get vandalised a lot so it is needed. Djarra 12:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant/deprecated/now unused. –Pomte 14:03, 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:dnb 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. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one sentence 'credit' used on a total of three templates, as two used the same /doc page. I've subst'd the message (the Css/Javalink stuff on {{hidden}}. Freeing this template into 'unused status'. These are the two actual use diffs 1 Hidden/doc 2 Hidden infoboxes should there be some expansive use for this down the road that I fail to comprehend. FrankB 00:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sentence is redundant to Wikipedia:NavFrame, so a 4-word link ("This template uses NavFrame.") there should serve. This documentation is more clutter-ish than helpful at a template-specific level. Saying "dynamic navigation box" can be confused with {{dynamic navigation box}}, which doesn't even use NavFrame. –Pomte 13:59, 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:Spoiler 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 discussion to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Please comment there. Kusma (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy underlying this template is currently being debated at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Presumably a decision to nuke this policy would have an effect on the template as well, and so may be of interest to y'all. Phil Sandifer 00:45, 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.