Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 7

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< August 6 August 8 >

August 7 edit

Template:USHistory-collab 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 discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; and it appears that there have never been any nominations for its use since creation in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 August 2015 (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:Usertalkclean 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 discussion was userfy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete - no uptake. Alakzi (talk) 08:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use it, but i don't really suppose that matters if its in the template namespace ~Euphoria42 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't moving it to the sole user's userspace (with or without a redirect) work? I have several templates that I use (subst) with some regularity in my own userspace. ansh666 06:33, 13 August 2015 (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 article ban 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 discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one article-talk page. We shouldn't be shaming people in this manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst one archive use and delete as being completely, completely unnecessary. Alakzi (talk) 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without any doubt whatever. Not a remotely suitable template. It is questionable whether it is ever a good idea to post a message to an article talk page announcing that a particular editor is banned from the article, but making it a prominent as this is totally unacceptable. As far as I can make out, the template was used just three times in 2006, and never again. One of those uses totally dominated the talk page of an article with a huge display of ban notices about three editors, only one of whom has edited since 2006, and that one not since early 2007. No justification for keeping that at all. I have boldly done what Alakzi suggested: subst in one archive use, add "tl" to two others, and I have simply removed the one example of triple use on a current article talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is a very punishment-minded template. I can only imagine a very restricted scenario where this would be necessary, i.e. when the ban is unnaturally long (say, two years), the list of watching editors is unnaturally fluid (say, they might leave, never return and the banned editor knows it or risks testing it) and the banned editor's wrongdoing is unnaturally severe (more severe than an aggressively rude edit warrior who vandalizes to make a point). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2015 (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 currently sleeping 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 discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Alakzi and Pigsonthewing: I don't use these types of notices, but I believe that there are several "editor not presently available" themed templates . . . do we have a list of the alternatives? I assume there are several comparable alternatives. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is close to a hoax. And Wikipedia talk pages are as distant from an IM app as it gets. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The time frame of absence is too small to warrant a template. Brustopher (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2015 (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:WPGTCollaboration 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 discussion was deleted by RHaworth per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last nomination was January 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 7 August 2015 (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:NRHP generator pretty-good request 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 discussion was delete. Unopposed, disregarding sock comment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discourages editing. Outdated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 7 August 2015 (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:NRG 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 discussion was keep. Note: wording changed to "was the subject..." Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 7 August 2015 (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:Notable list 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 discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on two list-article talk pages. Hence no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 7 August 2015 (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 unavailable 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 discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only two user pages, one from 2014. Redundant to other "away" templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 7 August 2015 (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:Mc 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:No edits 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 discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on four user-talk pages; clearly has no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is this even appropriate? What if you use your account only for preferences settings, and not for editing? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst existing users and delete. Okay with just deleting. Doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose and has very few uses. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there is really the need, use a bot plus a category. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2015 (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.

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places collaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All three should be deleted. - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:17, 27 August 2015 (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).

Template:WPZOO Collaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The linked "collaboration" page was last edited in 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (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).

WikiProject Dogs' Collaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both unused. The page linked to by the latter says "The next collaboration will be chosen on March 31, 2013". Also apparent duplicates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (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).

Template:WPTULSAcollaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Related project moribund sine 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2015 (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).

Template:Wikiversity-t 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 discussion was delete: consensus and G7. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Softdelete or userfy in case the author wants to start using it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Created the page. Please delete it. The template is as useless as the project itself. - - Sidelight12 Talk 07:36, 7 September 2015 (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:WikiProject Update Watch Template 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).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2015 September 17. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template for a proiject whose last activity was in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep delete the wikiproject first. This is the wrong way around -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We tend to keep inactive wikiproject pages. However, this template is unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WPBANNERMETA has a setting for inactive wikiprojects. As long as the project exists, its project banner should exist. If you delete the project, then the project banner can be deleted. An alternative would be to merge the project into one of the other cleanup projects, which would also mean there wouldn't need to be a separate template. But as things stands, the template should not be deleted while the project exists. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:Wikipedia Club Pune 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete, consistent with precedent on these nominations for defunct project-related templated; there is no consensus that the project must be deleted before its templates. Can be restored if the project is revived. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard WikiProject banner, for a defunct project (last talk-page edit 2012), and used on only four article talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep delete the wikiproject first. This is the wrong way around -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We tend to keep inactive wikiproject pages. However, this template is non-standard and barely sued. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can convert the banner to the standard WPBANNERMETA. Not every project uses that anyways. WPBANNERMETA has a setting for inactive wikiprojects. As long as the project exists, its project banner should exist. If you delete the project, then the project banner can be deleted. An alternative would be to merge the project into one of the Indian Subcontinent or Spoken Wikipedia wikiprojects, then there wouldn't be a need for a separate project banner. But as things stands, the template should not be deleted while the project exists. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:43, 9 August 2015 (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).

Template:WikiProject Animals Collaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2015 (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).

Template:WPCats Collaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete; can be restored if the project revives. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording is "This article is currently the collaboration project of the month for WikiProject Cats." Used on two articles, to which it was applied in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could be used in the future. I intend to revitalize the project when I graduate from school in less than 1 year. --Tea with toast (話) 04:21, 11 August 2015 (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).

Template:WP-Arch-peerreview 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only seven articles, having been applied in 2006-2010. Not useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:WPSUPERN 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:WPJournalsCotW-Talk 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).

The result of the discussion was delete, consistent with precedent for these nominations. Can be restored if the collaboration revives. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording is "This is the current Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week". Used on just six articles, from 2006/2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is only the wording when on the current CotW. It becomes a past-tense notice after the week has elapsed. What would you replace it with? I wouldnt mind a generic notice. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:23, 8 August 2015 (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).

Template:WikiProject Kent improve 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:WPABMP 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says "...is WikiProject Australian biota's Monthly Project Article for December 2006. This article will continuously be improved throughout the month ..." Has been on Talk:Corroboree frog since Nov 2006. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:Wikibox Talk 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 discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 7 August 2015 (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:WP London showcase 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 discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It isn't just unused; it is usage-phobic. Let's say I want to use it. How? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2015 (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:WBCnow 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording is "This is the current Wikipedia Book Club collaboration! Please help improve it." Has been on Talk:The Razor's Edge since May 2006. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:WikiMagic 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 discussion was Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only transcluded on a single user page (of the user who created it in 2005, and who last edited in October 2009). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This template covers too many different functions.Algircal (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, per nom. Alakzi (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2015 (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.

Final Fantasy user warning 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete all. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All overly-specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - they appear to have found no use and the WikiProject is now defunct. Alakzi (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unusable. Wrong format. Better alternatives available anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2015 (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:Good Job 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).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, may be worth pursuing various thoughts on how to make it more useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 37 uses (which may be Subst:). Not linked to from any current 'Wikipedia:' space page, so not likely to be found or used again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe convert it into a "job well done" barnstar and swap article talk uses with {{Press}}? Alakzi (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and convert to a WikiLove-compatible message. Seriously, why should our choices be either (1) a barnstar for distinguished such-and-such and extraordinary due diligence in what-not or (2) a kitten, dog, pig, cake, coffee, tea, etc.? Can't us Wikipedians say thanks like normal humans? So far, I've resorted to custom messages but this one is simple and efficient. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be nice if this template was used more often—I just found it for the first time. If Sources were made a bit friendlier, might not be any need for this one, though.   – czar 20:23, 7 September 2015 (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).

Template:Isrev 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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only three uses, which seem to date from 2008. Redundant to, say. {{In use}}, or simple hatnote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it has proven unnecessary. Alakzi (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:European history current collaboration 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).

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Broad consensus in many discussions of unused collaboration templates has been in favor of deletion; no desire expressed from the wikiproject for the move, but the template may be restored to any title on request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:FAF 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).

The result of the discussion was Deleted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in three archived talk pages. Not linked to from any current documentation/ project pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:Fb notice 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).

The result of the discussion was Deleted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary. Only used on four articles' talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to have been a failed experiment. Alakzi (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:Hapgry 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).

The result of the discussion was Userfied to User:Downdate/Hapgry. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rdundant to various user boxes. Only used twice: once by a user who hasn't edited for several months, the other several years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:Game log talk (basketball) 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 discussion was Delete; deleted as G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use, linked page was deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 7 August 2015 (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:Glastonbury rumours 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 discussion was delete. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific; only two uses. Probably redundant to {{Crystal}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 7 August 2015 (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:GFDLexempt 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 discussion was Delete; deleted as T3 by MLauba (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. May be Subst: if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 7 August 2015 (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.

Genetics collaboration 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 section.

The result of the discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 7 August 2015 (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:Imperial-meetup 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 discussion was moved to Wikipedia:CONTRIB/Imperial/Invite, near where the rest of the info about this gathering is kept. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 7 August 2015 (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:Iambusy 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 discussion was Redirect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Busy}}, which has over 1,850 transclusions, to this template's mere seven. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 7 August 2015 (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:Currentmicrosoftcotw 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 discussion was delete - uncontested. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used (I removed the only instance, from an article to which it was added in July 2013) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 7 August 2015 (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:Formermicrosoftcotw 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 discussion was delete - uncontested. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 7 August 2015 (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:Image talk commons 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 discussion was delete. Consensus is that this template is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only six transclusions, in the nine years since creation. Clearly has no community support and is not needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't know if there was a time when Commons images were red-linked on Wikipedia, but it's not the case now; therefore, this banner isn't needed. Alakzi (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as en: talk pages of Commons: files are categorically exempt from G8. Even if they weren't, {{g8-exempt}} would be a more appropriate template. I am soooo tempted to go all WP:POINTY and just delete all 6 uses then nominate the template for speedy deletion under {{db-t3}} as being redundant to {{g8-exempt}}. But I'll be WP:CIVIL and respect the process instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:56, 19 August 2015 (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:Chill 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).

The result of the discussion was subst archived uses; redirect to {{calm}}. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Calm}}, which has over 1100 transclusions, to this template's mere seven. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect to {{calm}}-- 06:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and change existing uses to {{calm}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This template is used in only one non-archive page. In order not to change archives, either subst and delete or mark as historical. BethNaught (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2015 (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).

Template:Be civil 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).

The result of the discussion was subst archived uses; redirect to {{calm}}. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{Calm}}, which has over 1100 transclusions, to this template's mere thirty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not that I really care, but I would argue that "CALM" was redundant to "BE CIVIL", considering that the latter was created 2 years earlier. CALM just seems to have been used more frequently after it was created. It would also argue that "CALM" is used more like a friendly reminder, while "BE CIVIL" is set up more as a warning before a potential block.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why this was "Be Civil" and was a warning, and not "Be Calm" which is the other template. Unless you think {{vandal4}} is not helpful.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Didn't even know this one was here. I agree that the "Be Calm" message of the other template is more likely to get the desired results. That said, I wonder if a switch can be added to the other template to add the words If you are attacked, or someone is rude, please just ignore it since that could be useful in some circumstances (and the option would be apparent in the documentation, likely leading to more use.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to {{Calm}}, which is a better template. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 1 September 2015 (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).

Template:GitHub 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 discussion was merge. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:GitHub with Template:Github.
Very similar templates with confusingly near-identical names. 38/101 uses respectively. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. Apart from the label they are completely identical. —Maths314 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, ending up with how {{Github}} works: Having two templates is totally confusing, but the end result should be how the {{Github}} template currently works as the displayed content is more informative and consistent with the {{YouTube}} template, for example. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would however use {{GitHub}} as the name because it is the official spelling. —Maths314 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally agreed, {{Github}}'s behavior and {{GitHub}} as the preferred name. Though, Codename Lisa already fixed the {{GitHub}} template so it produces the same output as {{Github}}, which is great. We might also want to implement |link= template parameter in the same way as {{YouTube}} does it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I did? {{Github}} still says "repository". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear enough – referred to outputting "on GitHub" separately from the repository link, in {{GitHub}}. To be precise, I'd suggest that we end up with "XYZ repository on GitHub" as the template's output, which IMHO should be the most informative. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike with {{Github}}, {{GitHub}} is being used for arbitrary links on GitHub not just links to repositories. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm, could we go with something like having a |repo=yes/no parameter in the merged behavior? That could also be accomplished through the redirection to the destination template after the merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed (I am not sure that is the only/best way but I have not researched it extensively either). I am all for the merger but I believe care should be taken in doing it right as it was tried once before and reverted. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With that parameter in place, we could have {{GitHub}} and {{Github}} continue working as before the merger, and ask one of the bot owners to create a task that would replace all {{Github}} instances with proper |repo=yes/no-including invocations of {{GitHub}}. As a result, we should have zero disturbance as a result of the merger, and a stable final result, whose instances the editors would refine further over time in various articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is certainly possible to define one in terms of the other and then have all usages subst'ed (via bot, etc.). It should be noted that though neither of the templates is that highly used, currently {{Github}} has 101 tranclusions (the one to be defined in terms of the other) vs. only 42 tranclusions for {{GitHub}}. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as maintenance action. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, keeping preferred functionality and naming as specified above, if possible. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  09:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Github to GitHub and GitHub to Github, redirect it to GitHub and tag with {{R with history}}; and add support for full URLs in the original Github. Alakzi (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as no-brainer, details can be worked out on one of the template's talk pages. No real need to leave this TfD open. I can has cheeseburger closure? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge however, it should be noted that a merge was attempted in the past and it was unmerged because they did not perform the same function. {{GitHub}} is being used for arbitrary links on GitHub while {{Github}} is restricted to linking to repositories only (similar to {{SourceForge}}). 50.126.125.240 (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2015 (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:Universal Science Fiction 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 discussion was listify, as with the CFD outcome. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of science-fiction films released by Universal from the 1930s to the 1980s. I'm guessing it was created as an analog to the Universal Monsters template, {{Universal Monsters}}, but hose horror movies are somewhat related, whereas Universal Science Fiction films have little in common with each other besides their studio. Trivialist (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, an interesting listing of one studio's science fiction films, probably appreciated by fandom. Randy Kryn 3:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
See WP:INTERESTING. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's actually quite useless. It confuses and misleads readers into thinking that Universal Studios are particularly special when it comes to science fiction.Algircal (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USEFUL. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I created this template, so pardon me if I whine a little. Several studios specialized in certain genres and got very good at them. MGM musicals and Warner Brothers crime dramas are two other examples. There should be a checklist for genre fans. Inkwell765 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't you make a checklist by hand off wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't here for you to list your favorite movies.Algircal (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to keep the navbox though. {{MGM musicals}} and {{Warner Brothers crime dramas}} are also unsuitable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, what solid proof do you have such as in citations that discuss Universal Science Fiction? Cf: WP:NOTFACEBOOK, NAVBOX 4Algircal (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. Is that the only source which discusses Universal Science Fiction has having a unique characteristic? Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 4#Category:Universal Science Fiction films where the closer decided that the identical category should be deleted then listed. Even if a list is created, this navbox would still be redundant to the list.Algircal (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a nonindepth, passing mention and doesn't establish Universal Studios have generated science fiction films worthy of a notable separate article. Template fails WP:NAVBOX 4.Algircal (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep supplying nonindepth, passing mentions. The navbox does not have an article so fails WP:NAVBOX 4.Algircal (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for navigation. A category would simply list the films alphabetically; the template provides grouping by time-frame (30s, 40s, etc.) which makes finding films by era much simpler. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that it passes WP:NAVBOX. The articles should be related to one another, not just happen to be genre films all made by the same studio. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (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:Cloud gaming 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 discussion was keep. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 09:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any modern online game or gaming software as some element of 'cloud' (saving, high scores, servers etc) this is not defining. Category:Cloud gaming is fine. Delete. Vaypertrail (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be about game-streaming services where you play on a remote server from your console, not services which allow you to save your high scores or game saves on a remote server, or online multiplayer games. In this respect, I think this is a defining characteristic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not appear to violate policy or guidelines. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:50, 11 August 2015 (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:Hudson River corridor 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).

The result of the discussion was delete, precedent holds. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Templates of roads in a geographic area have been deleted multiple times in the past due to the fact categories better handle the need and the templates are clunky and pollute the What Links Here function. In addition, this template also has the subjectivity as to what road or rail lines can be considered to be along the "Hudson River corridor" between New York City and Albany. Dough4872 02:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral, as creator, just because it was one of my early attempts at creating a template and I'm sentimental about it, enough so to not want it deleted—although the nominator makes very good points in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems a perfectly reasonable navbox, and does not fall foul of WP:NENAN. No argument is advanced, as to why roads are different to other topics in this regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we keep this it will open a can of worms for other templates to be created of roads and railroads following a river corridor between two cities. Also note this template arbitrarily focuses on the roads and railroads following the Hudson River between New York City and Albany as opposed to the whole river. It is unnecessary for templates to exist for roads and railroads along a river corridor between two cities as there is a lot of subjectivity as to what two cities to choose and for what roads and railroads are defined to follow the river "corridor". Dough4872 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NAVBOX 4, since no article on Hudson River corridor exists. User:Pigsonthewing makes no sense considering the navbox navigates nonroad infrastructure as well. 68.148.186.93 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the template is badly named in any case, there is no indication this is supposed to be for roads, instead of any network running along the Hudson River Valley, including shipping -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary navbox and per the IP editor above. --torri2(talk/contribs) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2015 (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).

Template:Adventist Academies US 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 discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large template that is more appropriate as a list page and/or category, per guidelines. torri2(talk/contribs) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles relate to single, coherent subject, which subject is mentioned in every article, and is the subject of its own Wikipedia article, and if not for the nav template, editors would be inclined to link many of the related articles in a "see also" section. While the articles do not refer to each other in any significant degree, that guideline is not an absolute requirement of WP:NAVBOX. I would improve the template to group schools by region or grade (of the students) or some other meaningful grouping, in lieu of using alphabetical sorting (which duplicates category sorting) but that flaw is minor and not fatal. Navigation between the entries will be more easily facilitated as a nav box than as a simple category or separate list of schools, especially if the nav box is improved as indicated above. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if for no other reason to prevent "see-also-itis" as Etamni pointed out. Note - prior to my commenting here this discussion was 2-3 "yes" recommendations away from me doing a "non-admin snow-closure" instead of participating in the discussion. If 1-2 other editors also say "yes" and no new "delete" recommendations show up, I would invite experienced editors to snow-close this rather than waiting around for an admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:32, 19 August 2015 (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:Children's ball games 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 discussion was delete. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to and fully included in {{children's games}}68.148.186.93 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it might not always be transcluded. It's easier to edit in pieces, anyway. Lollipop (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this comment is about. The template is a WP:NAVBOX, has nothing to do with transclusion, so why would it be easier to edit in pieces.Algircal (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  07:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary and duplicative of the function of categories. --torri2(talk/contribs) 00:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak temporary keep for long enough to do a total reorganization of this and other related templates into lists-pages, categories, and perhaps a single large navigation template. However, an RfD should happen first to get all interested parties participating. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean WP:RFD? What you exactly are you proposing?Curb Chain (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an WP:RFD. I don't have a particular proposal in mind, I just think it's best to handle all related templates as a group. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:42, 24 August 2015 (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:Imre Kertész 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 discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Alakzi (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough links to provide useful navigation. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alakzi (talk) 08:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As frequently happens with notable authors whose native language is not English, we frequently see these templates that are intended as a navigation aid between articles on the author's works, but nobody ever writes more than a handful of articles on the works themselves, perhaps because this is English Wikipedia and most of our editors don't read and write the language the works are written in. As a Nobel laureate, I doubt anyone would claim that Imre Kertész is not notable, and it is likely that, if written, well-sourced articles on any of his works would survive notability challenges. I suspect that eventually, most of those articles will be written, but it might be 50 years before that happens. So how many of those articles need to be written before it makes sense to use a template nav-box? How many editors who create templates for authors they are interested in need to be bitten and driven off before we realize that deleting prematurely-created nav templates is bitey and harmful to the project as a whole? Etamni | ✉ | ✓  08:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NENAN which suggests a "rule of five". It's a little pointless to have a navbox for an author and just two of his works. Personally, I'd like to see at least one more link. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice for un-deletion or re-creation when the list of works becomes longer. 5 would certainly be long enough, but I would listen to arguments for 4. 3 would be pushing it a lot and 2 is right out. Better yet I would encourage those who support this template to write better-than-stub-class articles for at least 3 of his other notable works so the links in the template turn blue. That would render my "delete" recommendation void and would probably turn the tide on this discussion entirely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 19 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_7&oldid=1138533778"