Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 12

< May 11	May 13 >

May 12 edit

Template:Irish Military Insignia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete per common sense. Happy‑melon 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Military Insignia}} is deprecated (and now gone) due to lack of proof that copyrighting military insignia violates international law. The same applies to this template. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (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 classical composer edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was difficult to sum up in one bold word :D.

This is a complicated issue; at first sight there appears to be considerable consensus against, and precedent for the deletion of, infoboxes designed for use on articles about classical composers and musicians. However, as was very eruditely pointed out by CenturionZ_1 here, the series of TfDs that have led to this nomination are in fact largely built on each other and have as their foundation a nomination with only one contributor. The "consensus" that wikipedia's articles on classical musicians should not use infoboxes is also based on an extremely outdated series of running discussions which strike me as poorly-organised and difficult to follow; in much the same way as these TfD noms, later parts of the discussion build on the "consensus" of earlier threads such that the actual body of unified editors who are clearly and unequivocally selecting one choice based solely on the evidence and not under the pressure of prior 'consensus', is much smaller than it at first appears.

The appropriate use of infoboxes on wikipedia articles has grown in popularity in recent times; there are now over 1,500 individual infobox templates in use on the english wikipedia. The use of infoboxes is by no means ubiquitous, but the absence of an infobox is more commonly due to a general lack of attention to an article, than to a consensus not to add one where it could conceivably be placed. WikiProject Composers does not have ownership of the articles within its scope, or over any class of articles generally; consensus established amongst its members cannot be held to override broader community standards. User:Gretab authored what I consider to be the most insightful comment on this issue here: WikiProject Composers cannot work at odds with the wider wikipedia community, because it is an integral part of that wider group; it must ultimately yield to any broader consensus. There is, however, currently no explicit wikipedia-wide consensus that infoboxes 'should' or 'must' be used in any context. That may change, indeed there is some evidence that it is changing; and consensus can change generally over a much shorter timeframe than the ten months since the most recent substantial discussion on the subject. For the time being, however, the community of WikiProject Composers represents the widest consensus available on this issue.

All these things considered, I can see no advantage in setting a firm precedent here against an infobox for classical musicians. I have deleted the template in part because of the significant consensus below, but mainly because of this insightful comment. The use of shaky precedent and ancient consensus to supress discussion on this issue must stop. If I had the authority to do so, I would instruct WikiProject Composers to conduct a fresh, open and widely-publicised discussion over the merits and demerits of encapsulating pertinent and useful information in a bespoke infobox, customised to their requirements. As it is, I can only strongly recommend that they do so. Such a discussion would only be hindered by an ongoing edit war over the deployment of such templates, which would be inevitable if this template were left undeleted. This deletion, and those before it, would therefore be considered a precedent for the deletion of similar templates only while such discussions were ongoing.

In a nutshell, then: delete the template but encourage the members of WikiProject Composers to re-evaluate its potential, in a discussion which considers the views of the wider community and the encyclopedia's readership as well as the WikiProject's own editors. Happy‑melon 14:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for the use of this box (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Lead section). This template (renamed from Template:Classical composer) was recreated for the fourth time (in much the same form as the previous ones) on 10 May. It was deleted for the third time here on 2 May. Would it be possible to delete it again and put blocks on both names to prevent it being recreated? Thanks. — Kleinzach (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This has been discussed for many times in various projects (Opera, Classical and Biography or Composers), and the last time I checked we all agreed that the infobox for the composers are not needed. I support for the template-infobox to be deleted - Jay (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the above and many previous discussions. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions, and because the template is not currently used. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions, consensus is clearly against the use of this infobox.--Beloved Freak 17:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions.--Berig (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous discussions. Libs (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The nom's canvassing makes me rather uneasy given the circumstances. A few remarks:

Comment: I informed those who took part in the last Tfd. In WP:CANVAS its says: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a small number of editors are considered "friendly notices" if they are intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion . . . . For example, to editors who have substantively edited or discussed an article related to the discussion . . . " --Kleinzach (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to be specific, two things bother me slightly:

The editors who you canvassed to were predictably opposed (at least for the most part) to divergent templates. True, they did come together naturally in the previous TfD; but this doesn't make it proper. Imagine if, in canvassing for an XfD, I sorted through a long list of comparable XfDs and picked the one which happened to have an unusually strong degree of inclusionist representation. The present case is less extreme (as you didn't choose from a long list), but still objectionable in my view.
The canvassing doesn't seem neutral to me; it seems both partial and misleading. "This was recreated", "I have put this up for its 4th consecutive deletion" -- clearly the messages are meant to draw attention away from the differences (between this template and the previous one) and frame this as a mere repeat in which editors can comfortably !vote to delete without studying the new template.

These are relatively minor qualms; I'm not saying you acted in bad faith or did something egregiously inappropriate. But I do think it wasn't the best decision. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: This template was recreated under the same name - Template:Infobox composer - then moved to the present name. I remember there was a redirect, but that seems to have been removed now. (I can't find a deletion log). --Kleinzach (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There was essentially only one TfD for this, not three. The other two were for Template:Infobox composer -- obviously somewhat related, but not very pertinent to this discussion given the gaping difference in scope.

Comment: I understand that all versions of this template were for the same purpose - for putting a biographical infobox on the articles of classical composers. I haven't been able to access the previous versions (has XDanielx?) but from memory I think they were much the same, give or take a few fields and the colour of the bars. So I don't understand what is meant by a "gaping difference" . Also note this box was also called Template:Infobox composer before the name was changed. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't blame you; I was just able to see them with Special:Undelete. Let me know if you want the full text of the old templates emailed (or I could temporarily restore them or something). For a bit of context, the template now in question (Template:Infobox classical composer) is 2531 bytes, while the recently-deleted Template:Classical composer was 482 bytes and Template:Infobox composer (which was deleted about 19 months ago) was 1296 bytes. (That's just the templates, not documentation or TfD notices or what not.) Obviously character count isn't a great reflection of a template's quality, but it gives us some idea. The subject of this TfD also has much more extensive documentation than any of the deleted ones did. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is clear that User:CenturionZ 1, who created the new template, was well aware of the old one and believed the new one was appropriate still. The user decided to take a wikibreak after some heated debate on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers and likely won't be able to participate.
- The prior TfD was for this, a very minimalistic template with little effort put into it. The current template in question is much more comprehensive; the two are not really comparable. User:Woohookitty wrote:

I'm the admin who deleted it. This box is substantially different than the one that was proposed before. So I'm a bit stuck on how to handle this. I read the discussion above but I can't tell what the consensus is or if it's changed from the previous consensus.

- "Not in use" arguments aren't really pertinent as this template has only existed for a couple days, so this essentially comes down to whether this template should be preferred over the more general Template:Infobox Musical artist. I don't really have an opinion on this, but the closing admin should be careful not to mistake this as a repeat of the previous TfD. (And certainly not as a repeat of three TfDs.)

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The Template:Infobox Musical artist is used for popular music artists. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm somewhat confused... you seem to be right based on the template documentation, but which template do you suggest using for classical music artists if not this one and not Template:Infobox Musical artist? The last TfD resulted in deletion "per the other one", which resulted in deletion "per the other one", which resulted in deletion per redundancy with Template:Infobox Musical artist. I've skimmed the old discussions but don't see an obvious alternative besides no infobox. Could you clarify? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. There is no infobox for classical music artists because of the consensus against the use of (specifically) biographical infoboxes on all the classical music projects. --Kleinzach (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Danielx that the "not in use" arguments aren't good ones against the Template because it's so new. But its overall "non-newness" is why those of us on the anti-infobox side say that there's been three previous TfDs for this type of template: the differences among the various classical infoboxes are largely beside the point, since the consensus is against all biographical classical infoboxes. If they're full infoboxes with many fields, they tend to distort nuance (about such things as was Beethoven classical or romantic) and downplay scholarly arguments. If they're small infoboxes just with birth and death dates, they just reproduce the first sentence of the lede. (This basically repeats what I said below, but I believe a bit more eloquently). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussions on WP:Composers: mostly either reproduces the lede or adds information that is open to interpretation or not particularly important to understanding the article. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (p.s. despite the current flood of deletes, I ask that it not be closed under WP:SNOW, because there are some who would like to keep (who have made their opinions known elsewhere), and even if they are unsuccessful, their ideas might shape how information is presented about classical composers in the future) -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I take Myke Cuthbert's point. However if SNOW is invoked and presumably the template is simply deleted but not blocked - with the probability that a box maker will soon see an opportunity for creating one - doesn't that make this time-consuming Tfd basically redundant? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw -- I'm not against Salting; in fact I think it's a good idea -- salts can be undone, but someone would need to show that consensus has shifted (it's possible) and propose an "Article (Template) for Creation" rather than just creating again and having others make a TfD to oppose. I think if we are going to salt though we should give people who are for the infobox the full five days to make their case for it, so that people arguing for it in the future can call upon past support to make their case (just as those of us against are calling on past opposition in part to make our cases). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of SALT but it looks like the way to go - more appropriate than fixed-term blocks. --Kleinzach (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template is very comprehensive and it look likes it is very helpful (for its given sample within its page), I think people here are considering the fact that a previous non-expressive and non-comprehensive version of this article was deleted. --Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 11:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, and any template added to Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and a few others is quickly deleted, but this template would be useful for the many composer articles that are using various other infobox templates. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "there is no consensus..., and any template added...is quickly deleted." -- isn't that the definition of WP:CONSENSUS: edit + revert + edit = new consensus? -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the many composer articles . . . using . . . other infobox templates" No. Very few of the 7,000-odd articles on classical composers have any kind of infobox. For example, there are 557 articles in Category:French composers but there are only 8 articles with bio-infoboxes (1.4 percent) on individuals primarily known as composers (rather than philosophers, chess players, organists etc.) --Kleinzach (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The terms of such a template need to be worked out beforehand, given the issues encountered in previous iterations. Until then, this should go. Eusebeus (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Kleinzach, the mess over composers articles is obvious, having such a infobox would rather improve than being redundant. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 21:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin - Whatever you decide, please try to make this a final decision somehow. 4 TfD votes is enough. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:00, 20 May 2008 (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:Footballers' Wives character edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's used only by one article and once. It seems to be an copy of {{Infobox character}}. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already replace the infobox in the single article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. -Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 11:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - orphaned [replaced in the only article it was used in] and therefore useless. Infobox character works perfectly well for any TV show character, we don't need specific infoboxes for every TV show. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 14:18, May 17, 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unneeded. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 22:02, 17 May 2008 (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:Irish states since 1171 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page-bottom navigation template appears in principle to be a good idea, but it has been the subject of a long-running edit war, and I see no sign that it is capable of reflecting the different points of view on some contentious issues.

The point of dispute on the talk page concerns whether the 1919–1922 Irish Republic should be listed as a "state", or in a see-also section. There are arguments on both sides, depending on how one assesses what is a nation-state (de facto control of territory? international recognition? constitutional legitimacy? democratic legitmacy? ), and an edit war has been running for at least 6 weeks.

An article can discuss these issues, but a template is inevitably a summary, and it seems that whatever anyone does with this template, it will be regarded by some faction as POV-pushing. The template is intended to be a navigational aid, but it's not essential to navigation, and if it is simply going to generate POV disputes it would be better to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this template is totally unsuited to dealing with overlapping POVs in any NPOV manner. It demands a single "correct" interpretation of the status of Ireland after the First Dail established the Republic - and the solution favoured by the majority of disputants favour a British propagandistic interpretation which is manifestly incorrect. IMO. Sarah777 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the politics it is a classic example of the flagcruft that is poisoning Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I quite agree about the flagcruft, but I'm afraid that your comment about "a British propagandistic interpretation" is also the sort of thing that poisons wikipedia :( There are other ways of assessing whether the 1919-21 Irish Republic should be labelled as a state, such as whether it had de facto control of its territory and whether it was internationally recognised. Your attempt to cast all those who disagree with you as "British propagandistic" is a blatant assumption of bad faith, and an attempt to polarise the debate into a political headcount where everyone has to fall into one political camp or the other. Decisions on wikipedia are made by WP:CONSENSUS, but it is not possible to reach any sort of consensus if editors approach an issue from the starting point that that other participants must be either angels or devils. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all fine and dandy in theory BHG; an analysis of the Irish/British disputes will show that the line up is pretty strongly along national lines and British POV dominates not because of any Wiki-principles or rules but because of British numerical superiority. Let's not cod ourselves. These things are not decided by any consensus in practice, but by a vote. 70 - 30 is a vote, no matter how one spins it. Consensus is a myth on Wiki when it comes to issues certain issues. Sarah777 (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And right on time Matt Lewis, HERE, makes my point for me. Sarah777 (talk) 01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a useful template, deleting it would be an OTT reaction to the current edit war. I have made a change to the template - added group 'Notable declared states'. I hope this will be an acceptable compromise to all. Snappy56 (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - As BHG notes, the template would be better as an article that can properly represent the issues. In this instance, I also agree that the template was not representing an Irish POV.... --Bardcom (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it represent any POV? Methinks not.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is nothing wrong with the template per se, simply the attitude of chronically problem children.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Sarah777. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful template. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Per Bardcom. -Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 11:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is this information avaliable, succinctly, in any other single page or template? I found the material quite useful. --Jza84 | Talk 12:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Snappy56 and Traditional unionist. Edit warring aside, this is a pretty useful navigation template. (And with Snappy's "declared states" compromise, I think it's largely OK from a POV perspective.) Guliolopez (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful navigational template between articles on related topics. It's inevitably going to be subject to POV edit-wars, and I don't think much can be done about that, but hopefully with Snappy's modification it should be a bit less contentious. Terraxos (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2008 (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:HeavyMetalMusicInfobox edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate template. There is already an Template:Infobox Music genre and this template was created to reflect the personal views of the creator. Views that were not agreed to in the discussion page of the genre in question. This personalized template also uses a formatting style that is different then the formatting agreed upon by the WikiProject Music genres and the WikiProject Musicians.. Libs (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, per nom. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons given above - bad and unnecessary template. Terraxos (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:14, 19 May 2008 (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:Tagalog Wikipedia edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 14:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Self-refential template just repeats the functionality by the interwikilinks at left.. Damiens.rf 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems completely redundant to interwiki links.--Beloved Freak 17:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Olaf Davis | Talk 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Kleinzach (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 22:00, 17 May 2008 (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:3RR5 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete all those which have not been requested to be kept, as general housekeeping. Any reasonable request to restore one or more of them should probably be granted. Happy‑melon 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these templates are obsolete blocking templates using non-standard formatting, many include out of date references to policy and instructions to users. They are not used in any of the current warning schemes or warning pages. . MBisanz ^talk 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the nomination statement. Additionally, these templates do strike me as quite unnecessary: the existing range of (in use) templates sufficiently cover the bases of blocking in all areas covered by the templates, which seem to constitute over-long branches. They're also out-of-date (I don't think they've been touched by the recent revamp to warning templates as yet), and many don't seem to be in use. Anthøny 15:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - have been superseded by more up to date templates.--Beloved Freak 17:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~all~~some The older "test templates" have been kept because some people prefer them, but since this batch deals specifically with blocking and admin use messages, it makes sense to be more strict on their use. -- Ned Scott 21:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to support keeping any of these that have a reasonable argument by those who use them. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Really old. Even speedy delete with G6 would do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep vbc-t (I like it because it puts the length of the block in big letters on top) and get rid of the others, which I agree have been superseded. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Spam5, Spam5i, Advert5. these are used alot--Hu12 (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{tpv5}}, {{spam5}}, {{advert5}}, as those warning series are still being used. Reword if necessary. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete some Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 12:01, 15 May 2008 (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:Lang5 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, obsolete blocking template. Not on current UTM listing. MBisanz ^talk 10:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as obsolete and not needed.--Beloved Freak 17:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 22:00, 17 May 2008 (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:Vbc edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep Happy‑melon 14:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, non-standard, unused blocking template. MBisanz ^talk 10:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't know ... I use it for longer-term blocks (or at least the {{vbc-t}} variant. It makes the time period of the block that much more obvious to the blockee, and breaks up the monotony of the orange or transparent ones on pages with many, many block notices. Daniel Case (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (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:Article5i edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 14:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, non-standard duplicative template, not in use.. MBisanz ^talk 10:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since we have standardize these templates, we better keep it this way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2008 (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:Blank5 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep Happy‑melon 14:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete template, nonstandard, not in use on current UTM page. MBisanz ^talk 10:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the {{blank}}→{{blank2}}→{{blank3}}→{{blank4}}→{{blank5}} series is still in active use, and is a nice alternative to the UTM templates. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Titoxd. --Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 11:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, still has some use. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 22:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect blank-blank4 to the {{uw-delete}} series and {{uw-vblock}} for blank5 since people apparently still use them even though they are redundant templates. Mr.Z-man 09:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that. Part of the reason that some users still use these templates is that they don't like the new uw- templates due to their unnecessary graphical content. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:01, 20 May 2008 (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.