- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May 27, 2006[edit]
Template:Japanese (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rarely used template for Japanese text which was made to mimic similar Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese templates. Japanese article editors have come up with an unobtrusive template to write text in articles that fits within the style guidelines of WP:MOS-JA that doesn't clutter articles with large tables. --Kunzite 23:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I myself am an editor of Japanese articles and use the more appropriate inline ((nihongo)) template. The ((Japanese)) template just takes up space. -- Tangotango 05:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -Quiddity 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Jusjih 15:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- REDIRECT to :Template:Nihongo. Although taking up more space does make this template clearer, and good for fast-facts lookup as most table sidebars should be used for. 132.205.93.89 21:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that will work as they use different formats. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's only one page that uses it in the main space. (Hentai) We can redirect after it's deleted. The rest of the uses are inclusions in other asian language templates or talk pages. --Kunzite 23:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be best to go through all of the pages that use it and fix them before this template is deleted. I can do that if no one else is willing. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We should convert Hentai's entry to nihongo and remove the japanese. And Pending the outcome of this vote.. template namespace instances can be deleted and the other non-main name space uses can be substed. How's that? --Kunzite 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There used to be more, but there are more specific templates now, so this template is usually replaced by a more specific one when the opportunity arises. However this template is easier to use than the more specific templates. 132.205.94.148 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All the more reason to delete as it's been made obsolete! How is it easier to use? Also how does it fit into WP:MOS-JA which calls for a "English (Japanese characters rōmaji)"-style format? I don't see where it does. One of the suggestions brought out in that TFD was implemented (albeit modified) an is being used ~4000 pages now. --Kunzite 03:07, 1 June 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Japanesename (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template for Japanese text which was made to mimic similar Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese templates. Japanese article editors have come up with an unobtrusive template to write text in articles that fits within the style guidelines of WP:MOS-JA that doesn't clutter articles with large tables. --Kunzite 23:01, 27 May 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Japanesename noimage[edit]
Template:Japanesename noimage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template for Japanese text which was made to mimic similar Chinese, Korean, and Vietnamese templates. Japanese article editors have come up with an unobtrusive template to write text in articles that fits within the style guidelines of WP:MOS-JA that doesn't clutter articles with large tables. --Kunzite 23:01, 27 May 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus to delete (leaning keep) BD2412 T 23:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Listadmins[edit]
Template:Listadmins (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is nothing but an odd inclusion of part of Wikipedia:List of administrators that, if for some reason was needed, could be used by just using ((Wikipedia:List of administrators)) to a page. This is only used on a user page, as far as I can tell. Delete. Ral315 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is very useful, because you don't have to type the long version. Plus, if this template wasn't created, then the long name wouldn't work either. --GeorgeMoney T·C 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you mean, "if this template wasn't created, then the long name wouldn't work either." - the long version would work just fine, I can assure you. The onlyinclude tags do fine in articles as well. – Xolatron 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Double transclusion is not great, and if the only reason for it is to save a few keystrokes, it's not worth it. I can't imagine a case where one would need to type this so often that it would be onerous. FreplySpang 18:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and FreplySpang. Kusma (討論) 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I created this in response to a request here. GeorgeMoney and NoSeptember apparently find the general concept (transclusion of a sub-part of a list of administrators) helpful. For myself the full list is fine, but I didn't see any harm in linking the particular section. My understanding from Brion is that 'double transclusion' isn't really a concern. That said, the same info can be transcluded directly rather than through the template - so if this isn't likely to be used by many people the longer transclusion link would serve as well. --CBDunkerson 20:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 20:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has potential to be useful DannyM 20:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has potential. -- Tangotango 05:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "long" version isn't that much longer (22 characters), would work fine without this template, and probably is only used on a few pages at best. This template has only one instance of transclusion... in GeorgeMoney's test page. While it's good that this template is substed into the long version when used, if it is used at all, I can't imagine that it is used on too many pages. – Xolatron 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Vote Changed (below)[reply]
- Keep. May have some uses (a list of only admins who are currently active, without all the extra information). Let's see what people do with it, it was just recently created. NoSeptember talk 15:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you transclude Wikipedia:List of administrators currently, you get only the partial list. This template does not cause the partial list. The arguments for keeping this because it displays only a partial list are irrelevent in my opinion; all the template code has is ((Wikipedia:List of administrators)) – Xolatron 16:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that if the template hadn't been created, then no one would have set up the long version to work as a template. --GeorgeMoney T·C 21:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I suppose you're right. But do we need the template anymore? It isn't really a big deal though. – Xolatron 23:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would it help by deleting it? It doesn't waste space on the servers, and it is very useful. --GeorgeMoney T·C 23:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since you seem confident that it is used, and if so then it must be substed, which is good, and there's not anything really wrong with it, so if people are using it, then lets keep it. – Xolatron 04:25, 31 May 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User QRVS[edit]
Template:User QRVS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This userbox links to a dead wikiproject, which I was once of. Most Users who had it have now taken it off. No reason for keeping it around. The Gerg 16:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I created the project. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (✍) (☎) (☺) 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; nonsense that doesn't belong in template space. Ral315 (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the Wikiproject was found to be the same as CVU, and was deleted; if General Eisenhower would like to keep the template, might as well just userfy it. Master of Puppets That's hot. 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WikiProject is actually marked rejected, so this has no use. --Rory096 18:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 20:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom DannyM 20:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 21:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Keep--QRVS was al right. I removed my name because I new it would die. I might re-add my name.--Gangsta-Easter-Bunny 20:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - And Gangsta-Easter-Bunny, please stop with the images already. --Cyde↔Weys 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or userfy - historical interest. --70.213.250.24 04:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And I don't think anons can vote (crossed out anon vote). 70.213.250.24, if you are a user, please log in, thanks. – Xolatron 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. --Rory096 21:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Anonymous_anonymous_Have a Nice Day 13:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, since the Wikiproject has been rejected. However, as Master of Puppets mentioned, if General Eisenhower really wants to keep it the template can always be userfied.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:32, 1 June 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was redirect to Template:es icon. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Sp icon[edit]
Template:Sp icon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant to more widely used and ISO 639-1 following Template:es icon. PoptartKing 15:39, 27 May 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was subst and delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Emergency-user-shutoff[edit]
Template:Emergency-user-shutoff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unneccesary fork of Template:Emergency-bot-shutoff. Rory096 06:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom --GeorgeMoney T·C 06:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as there is no reason to delete. Sophy's Duckling 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure there is; its a silly waste of space that doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia in any way, and its not amusing enough to keep around despite that. Not to mention its unoriginal (and indeed, a GFDL violation) because the code is based on the template that Rory mentions in his nomination, but there's no credit given by General Eisenhower. Besides that, the idea of a humourous takeoff on the bot-shutoff template was originally used on Rory's userpage in raw code form. Bad all around, I think.--Sean Black 20:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep same thing Sophy. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) (✍) (☎) (☺) 17:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; template space is not a playground. Ral315 (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete takes up unneccessary template space. Userfy it if you want to keep it, I guess. Master of Puppets That's hot. 17:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. FreplySpang 18:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Ral.--Sean Black 20:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can understand why a bot needs this, but what is the actual use, it's a waste of space DannyM 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete. Those who use it can keep it, but it seems to be a waste in template space. – Xolatron 14:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Somewhat popular. I was just about to put one on my user page. Freddie 00:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant. The "popularity" does not change the usefullness or lack thereof of the template.--Sean Black 18:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's actually used on only one page right now, for that matter. --Rory096 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and Delete funny, but a waste of Template space. The Gerg 18:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -Quiddity 18:24, 29 May 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:IRC clients msdos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Usused by what links here and google for word combination. SeventyThree(Talk) 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:GoT character[edit]
Template:GoT character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Usused by what links here and google for word combination. SeventyThree(Talk) 05:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- 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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:In Wikipedia[edit]
Template:In Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Function has been migrated to template:selfref per netoholic on talk page.
Delete as redundant. I'm checking/depopulating the last 9 occurances now. done. Quiddity 04:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Also delete Template:In this project as same. -Quiddity 04:17, 27 May 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Germany infobox[edit]
Template:Germany infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy Delete. This template has not been used in long time. It was replaced with the Template: Infobox country standard. There was nothing on the talk page either. MJCdetroit 03:56, 27 May 2006 (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 page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 21:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Jamaica infobox[edit]
Template:Jamaica infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy Delete. This template has not been used in long time. It was replaced with the Template: Infobox country standard. There was nothing on the talk page either. MJCdetroit 04:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy per nom. -Quiddity 04:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. Sophy's Duckling 14:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A uniform infobox, when practical, is preferred. harpchad 20:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. - Nick C (Review Me!) 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unused template --Polaron | Talk 05:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. —Nightstallion (?) 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obsolete template--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and harpchad. -- Slowmover 18:44, 2 June 2006 (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 page.