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.
Navigation template fails several tests: There is no article on the topic of the template, the topics do not refer to each other to a reasonable extent, the subject of the template is not mentioned in each article. Binksternet (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over-enthusiastic templating.
Keep or Rename This nav box is important for finding Conservatism articles in the U.S. It could be improved by renaming to "Conservatism in the United States", for which there is an article Conservatism in the United States, and expanded accordingly. Lionel (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better handled as a category than a navbox. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Over-categorization. TFD (talk) 05:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not a cat. With all due, are you just voting to delete Conservatism-related stuff? Lionel (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am aware that WP uses the terms Categories, lists, and navigation templates. But it is the same thing - grouping or categorizing articles together. In both these recommendations there is the possibility of grouping countless articles and no clear way of determining which articles belong. With respect, I have created and worked on articles about conservative topics and have voted to delete articles about non-conservative topics. See btw the comment for the template "British Left" on this page: "Huge template - too big to ever be of use anywhere". TFD (talk) 03:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should we delete this one too while we're at it? Looks kinda like American Conservative Mvmts. Do all of these articles refer to each other? Absolutely not. Lionel (talk) 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The far right in post war Germany, similar to the far right in other countries, consists of a small number of groups and notable individuals. Do you really think that are only 22 notable social conservatives in the U.S., and that you can provide a non-contentious list? TFD (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TFD. Please. We're not discussing categories. We're not discussing social conservatism. We're discussing American Conservative Movements. And... It's a nav box. Lionel (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No topic article. Not a cohesive collection of articles. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2011 (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.
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.
This is an unnecessary level of abstraction as only one template ({{infobox rally}}) uses this code for its styling. Predates the general unification of infobox styling under the {{infobox}} system. Can simply be substituted on the one calling template to remove all transclusions before deletion. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - then change those articles affected. Then I support. Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2011 (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.
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.
Hatnote. No reason to create a text-fixed variant. {{for}} does the job well. See, e.g., tthe one and only revert needed: Subtalar joint. -DePiep (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it isn't used for disambiguation I'd argue that the "hatnote" in use on that one article is pointless anyway and can be removed entirely. This obviously doesn't serve any disambiguatory (definitely a word) purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I changed the hatnote into {{for}} before nominating this one here. So, whether the that page should have a hatnote or not: this specific one is superfluous. -DePiep (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RELATED. This should be a "See also" link or maybe a navbox, but it isn't disambiguating anything. — Bility (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2011 (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.
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.
Delete: Orphaned, pointless duplication of simple wiki markup. — Bility (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2011 (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.
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 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Merge with YGM. Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I expected this, and saw that the previous creator of this template did request it deleted personally long ago. But to say that it has no practical purpose...well, why not allow users to implement Twitter account details much like they incorporate e-mail addresses and let us tweet each other from Wikipedia like with e-mail? This follows the same general principle of receiving mail, the only difference is getting a "tweet" instead of an e-mail. An argument could be made for Facebook as well, and why there should be a Facebook template (with many more users than Twitter). I made the template when I saw a user comment on another user's talk page that there was no template for tweeting, but he wanted to tell her that she had a new tweet. I deemed that this would be useful. That's why I went about creating it. If the general populus disagrees, so be it, but that's my opinion. CycloneGU (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a YGM template as a concession to the ubiquitous use of email as a messaging system on the Internet which predates the Web itself, let alone Wikipedia. It is an exception to our general guidelines on user communication (i.e. "please keep it on-wiki"). Expanding it to include Twitter (or Facebook, or any other social networking app) is not a good idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already used it to notify someone I had tweeted them (since at the time I noticed they were not tweeting but were editing Wikipedia). –anemoneprojectors– 00:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The tweet was Wikipedia-related. The template isn't anything to do with using Wikipedia as if it's a social networking site, it's notifying somebody that you contacted them off-wiki, just like with the "you've got email" template. –anemoneprojectors– 21:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the diff in question for notational purposes. CycloneGU (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rebuild This should just be rebuilt if it is to tell people they have Wikipedia related messages. It should take an option, "tweet", "email", "SMS", etc. If there are other such non-Wikimedia template message reminders around, they should all be merged. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it might be a good idea to merge with {{You've got mail}} so there's an optional parameter for tweets. –anemoneprojectors– 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amenable to that if a good way can be found to merge them. I'm not good with scripting and determined a new template was the way to go in my case, but a merge and added scripting can then include Facebook as well in the mix. CycloneGU (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
However, it would be nice if someone could code in the combinations.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 02:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be pretty easy. I'm going to roll out a new sandbox for YGM soon, which is much easier to read. Feel free to leave suggestions for what needs implemented on the template talk and I'll get them added. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:43, 26 March 2011 (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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator following agreement with creator. Sebwite (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose mergingTemplate:Google Street View with Template:Google Inc..
This navbox lists a relatively small number of articles pertaining to Google Street View. These are the only such articles on the subject. Therefore, it is more practical just to list them as a single line (group) in Google Inc. If one day, there are a significant number of more articles relating to GSV, then this could be split again into another navbox. Sebwite (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The Google Inc. template is already too comprehensive. I think we could just keep the Google Inc. template in Google Street View article. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of merging, renaming it to {{Google Maps}} and expanding it to include all articles pertaining to Google Maps (such as Google Earth, Google Moon, Google Mars, etc.)? Street View is a feature of Google Maps, so all these articles would fit there. Sebwite (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
