|
Closing instructions
Current discussions
[] December 4
-
Template:NCIS character (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
This template was mainly used in the LoC for one-paragraph character summaries[1], from where I have removed it now. There a few other individual NCIS characer articles (currently under AfD) where I boldly replaced this template with the usual {{Infobox character}}. I.e. this template is orphaned now and redundant anyway. sgeureka tc 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:The Powerpuff Girls (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Seems a little small for a template. Not much you can add here; I tend to believe that templates should have at least five "main" entries. I don't think even adding Craig McCracken or Genndy Idon'tknowhowtospellthatname onto here would save it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters (Broken clamshells Otter chirps HELP) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral Four articles are always borderline for the necessity of templates. sgeureka tc 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
December 3
-
Template:DTFD (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
The three interconnected "Talk thread deletion notice" templates (Template:DTFD, Template:DTFDB and Template:DTFDN) are unnecessary. They are intended to serve as notice prior to thread deletion on article talk pages--the user is instructed to use all three in the same instance. There is no requirement for prior discussion of harmful talk page entries listed in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines; any inappropriate talk entry can be deleted by any user. In fact, if a talk entry contains a personal attack or a legal threat, or if it contains personal information, using these three templates would slow down the process and expose the harmful entry to a greater number of viewers. Instead of having these three templates, deletion of the bad talk entry is recommended by WP:TPG. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 Keep: DTFDB is used at the bottom of the DTFD red box like the bottom of the occo box. See User talk:Example for useage. As for DTFDN, I will let that go as per WP:DTTR. It is meant to be for things that are disputed or may not be clear-cut, anything else may be removed by anyone. Besides, it may not warrent total deletion but some stuff should be removed. One editor once suggested to me to remove the vowels from insults, especially insultive slurs.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:ImageCopyrightVandal (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
This recently created template is a poor substitute for any one of a number of well known, well used templates that convey more, relevant information to the user whose talk page it is added to. AussieLegend (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There are better and more informative templates that can be (and are) used. The tone of this message is also not the best. Looks to me like saying "Stop what you're doing right now. We don't like it", and that's not the way it should be done even for a warning. WP:BITE? Chamal talk 12:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I can imagine a situation in which this template might be appropriate, one where a series of other templates were sent to a user who continues to upload copyrighted images. Binksternet (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:VandalNoticeSmall (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
This recently created template is a poor substitute for {{Repeat vandal}}, which more correctly reflects current policy in a less confusing way. If deleted, two redirects created at the same time ({{VNS}} and {{PlzIndef}}) should also be deleted. AussieLegend (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:LDSInfobox (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Moving from MFD, where template was listed by mistake. Original MFD discussion is copy-pasted below. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters (Broken clamshells Otter chirps HELP) 05:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Any LDS Church-unique info this template conveys is now more comprehensively conveyed in Template:LDSGAinfo (see, for example, redundancy on Gordon B. Hinckley). The biographical info is better presented in Template:Infobox Person (see WP:GA Thomas S. Monson) and any succession info is already presented in the Template:Succession boxs at the bottom of each article. -- Eustress (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tentative support for deletion, so long as someone commits to add Template:LDSApostleshipinfo to the presidents of the church pages, since this nominated template currently contains the information that would regularly be presented there for apostles who were not presidents. This is relatively complicated, but Template:LDSGAinfo does NOT contain the same information as Template:LDSApostleshipinfoone contains apostle ordination date and one contains membership in the Qof12 date. Some people think these are always the same, but they are not, and some people have been apostles for years without being a member of the Qof12. In the end, I can't really say that I think this proposal is accomplishing much, since one template will be deleted but another will have to be added to all the pages it is on anyway. I suppose it could be seen as a type of standardization, but at the same time it's also a bit of a make-work project for someone. I think the nominator and I discussed this at one point; I just can't seem to remember where it was. Good Olfactory (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No exact counterpart, and it seems designed for a small subset compared with the full "person infobox." If the above is correct, and this infobox would be more useful if added to, why not? Collect (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:Whiggishness (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
This template, though well-meaning and employed on at least some of the five articles it is in use on accurately, the template amounts to a POV-pushing template - the Whiggish view of history is a significant strain of historical thought. To specifically call it out in this form gives the false impression that we are unusually biased against this POV, and that this POV is considered unacceptable for Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to have a template that treats a given perspective as a specific problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:!vote (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Duplicates the functionality of {{not a ballot}}. Brought here instead of speedy deletion because:
- The "birthdays" of these templates are close together (but {{!vote}} is younger)
- {{not a ballot}} survived a TfD at one point (though it was a speedy keep)
- The templates are not identical stylistically, and the WP community should choose which is better rather than simply throw one away.
- A desire to avoid drama if at all possible. Thinboy00 @076, i.e. 00:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- The two templates obviously duplicate each other's functionality, but that's a reason for a merger, not a deletion. We should simply settle on the wording and style (perhaps a combination of the two), place the updated code at Template:Not a ballot, and redirect Template:!vote. David Levy 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2
-
Template:Johnny Test (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Cast templates seem to be discouraged, especially given that none of the cast is primarily associated with this show. Remove the cast and you have just the creator and list of episodes, as the page on Johnny himself was redirected. Not enough for a template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters (Broken clamshells Otter chirps HELP) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom: not enough articles primarily related to this topic for a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:Infobox UK school2 (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Unused. Appears to be a user test.
-
Template:Infobox UK person (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Redirects to the above.
- Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete this is in fact speedy-able (it is a hard-coded instance of {{Infobox UK school}} with no transclusions), but only after being tagged for seven days -- so tagged (in other words, admins, don't try to speedy this immediately). --Thinboy00 @093, i.e. 01:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:Kill Bill character (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Orphan. Magioladitis (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:SVU Season 4 (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
All but one two SVU episode articles have been merged/redirected/deleted per lack of demonstated/demonstratable notability in the past two months. The season-specific templates are just redundant now, as the season pages already list the names of the episodes. Also included in this nom are
-
sgeureka tc 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:Smallcaps (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Re-nominating: previous nom was here, and was closed early due to a now-corrected technicality. This purely-presentational template is purportedly for "name/surname disambiguation in lead sections, and all-caps words or pronounceable acronyms", but none of those require small caps and in few cases would it seem to be desirable. We shouldn't encourage users to experiment with presentational markup like this by having templates for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Though if you don't like its use in certain places, remove it. It looks like this template is largely used within other templates (thus the high transclusion count). But I can't see a reason to delete templates like "Smallcaps" or templates like Template:Red simply because people might mis-use them. They're still more convenient than the actual HTML markup, and that's the point of having templates in the first place. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per MZMcBride. This seems a useful template, and I'm not aware that the usage of small caps is deprecated. (I noticed the template was up for deletion from its use in the FA Dalek, where the text "(pronunciation (help·info) The template Smallcaps is being considered for deletion. "dah-leck", IPA: /'d??lek/)" seems useful and attractive to me, in a belt-and-braces manner.) Josiah Rowe (talk contribs) 17:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per the two above comments; this template definitely has legitimate uses, a few mishaps aren't a good enough reason for deletion. ChrisDHDR 18:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but move the inline styling to WP's CSS and apply as a class. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- What's the advantage of moving this CSS into a WP wide class, i don't see it ? --TheDJ (talk contribs) 20:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- speedy keep, one can readily think of many valid applications for displaying certain items in smallcaps font, eg commonly seen in linguistics articles to denote grammatical tags/functions. The template is a handy and simple method for doing so. Clearly there are many practical implementations already for this template, there's no experimentation going on if there are any cases of 'inappropriate use' then deal with those separately, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.--cjllw ? TALK 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Since when was this a speedy keep criterion? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion" seems to apply (there may not be an active dispute, but please don't try to make a policy on presentational style by deleting a template which applies a contrary, but accepted, style). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- The mainspace transclusions all appear to be inappropriate, given the MoS's stance on keeping markup simple; I'd neglected to consider the template's use in other templates, which is why this will probably be kept, but "this has many useful uses" is not a speedy keep rationale and I reject the assumption that I was acting in bad faith or trying to circumvent discussion by bringing this here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have made no assumptions of bad faith; however, the effect of your proposal would be as I described. In the light of your acknowledgement of other uses, and of the likely outcome, I sgegst you withdraw it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Meh. It's generating useful commentary, which will help to clarify the template's purpose. If you want to NAC it then be my guest, but it means having to flag an admin to take the TfD tag off it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per the two above comments. VVVladimir (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this template seems to be used a lot in displaying latin text (such as here) and it seems to work well. I don't see why it should be deleted. Wikitiki89 (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -somehow this must redirect to the {{aut}}-template which I use in refs, since a link to this discussion pops up there (awful). If the two templates are the same I'm against deletion of either one of them. Woodwalker (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
-
Template:PD-US-LOC (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
Per Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_15#Template:PD-LOC. The few remaining uses have all been nominated for deletion as nonfree or invalid source.Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Makes sense to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters (Broken clamshells Otter chirps HELP) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hold discussion until no transclusions remain. We don't want one of these images to survive IfD only to not have a © tag. --Thinboy00 @098, i.e. 01:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's my understanding that as part of template-deletion, we can move that remaining uses be bot-subst'd. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as it's a valid copyright tag. If it is deleted, rewrite one of the existing PD-(c) templates to make it clear that post-1923 expired-copyright items can use that template instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- But this template does nothing that {{PD-US-no renewal}} doesn't do. By the way, only 2/100 uses (before I retagged them) had to do with non-renewal. The rest were misc other PD reasons, and a few weren't PD at all. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. That "or for another reason" text invites serious potential problems. What's needed is a "copyright holder failed to do some specific thing, 1923-1978" tag, without the guesswork. Gavia immer (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment. If that template comes into existance then I may change my opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-
-
Template:Campaignbox Mumbai terrorism (|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)
90% of content already in Template:Campaignbox India terrorism, also article Terrorism in Mumbai is enough. TheFEARgod (?) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- Process comment Shouldn't a "TfD" notification template be put on the template itself? Since I oppose the deletion and created the template, I am conflicted on doing this, but I think there should be a time extension on the deletion until this is done. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- see history of the template--TheFEARgod (?) 12:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
|
