< March 19	March 21 >

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCA Coops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've merged most of the articles on individual houses into the main USCA article; most of the links are now redirects to the same place. — Αργυριου (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Most of the houses are not notable enough to warrant their own article. The template would be reduced to just three links which is rather pointless. —dgies^t_c 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless/poor scope. –Pomte 04:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete both ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bsm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I propose ((bsm)) and ((esm)) be deleted for the following reasons:

• They are not being used on any article.Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Bsm Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Esm
• ((smallcaps)) makes these templates obsolete.
• The templates, when used individually, produce unbalanced HTML. I consider this to be harmful.

I suggest that any remaining use of these templates be replaced with ((smallcaps)).

— Kevinkor2 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being deprecated. Arkyan 16:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment They were being used before you edited all of the articles where they were in use. I chose to use them for the reason given by User:Owl on the template talk page--((smallcaps)) does not always display correctly. I don't have an opinion about whether the unbalanced HTML issue outweighs the formatting benefits of bsm/esm, so I am not "voting".--Hjal 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, Hjal; I removed them from nine articles/pages starting at 15:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC). Special:Contributions/Kevinkor2 (contributions) I apologize for not mentioning this in the nomination. --Kevinkor2 09:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm a little biased because I'm the one who imported them from Wikiquote, but the example given here shows that both templates have their place, in my opinion. ((bsm))/((esm)) are parameter-less, so they can't screw up pipes being passed through, unlike ((smallcaps)) can. The unbalancing issue is a real one, but a lesser evil: you can say the same about the wikicode's double/triple apostrophe trick for italics and bold text. I have had to fix unbalanced italics/bold text many a time as a result. Urhixidur 17:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unneeded, and I second the considered harmful. From the talk page:

• Whenever there's a parameter with an equal sign, define it using 1=. This problem has always existed, and always will. Pipes that are within templates or wikilinks will not count as different parameters, and those that are not within templates or wikilinks can be represented by ((!)). See here for my explanation of it. In my opinion, however, the benefits of ((smallcaps)) outweigh these quirks. The quirks are ubiquitous anyway.

• And that's why. Gracenotes^T § 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. If done correctly, there's no difference. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept proposal, but the smallcaps template needs much better documentation. I followed the guidance regarding the "1=" syntax that was illustrated on the bsm page, and it worked on the school district article where I had originally used the bsm/esm pair. However, I don't understand why it works and don't want to have to learn how to figure out template syntax on my own. (The indented paragraph above is a complete mystery to me.) I would suggest that however this discussion is closed, that one of you who is knowledgeable enough go to the smallcaps page and provide sufficient guidance to allow relatively inexperienced editors to use it correctly. If the bsm/esm templates are going to continue to be used at Wikiquote, you may also want to include an explanation about why smallcaps should be used here instead, so they aren't brought back again.--Hjal 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete they are of no good to the encyclopedia. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.--Wizardman 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greenvehiclesection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - don't see the usefulness of this template. I've nominated the category it adds for deletion as well. --Vossanova ^o< 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Maintain the template and the category - nowadays the people ask for green vehicles, green vehicles sections and fuel consumption in the auto shows and nearly to green car sections in the auto shows, have just appeared only green auto shows. People can look for green auto show to follow and the auto shows are ordered by date. So one can look for the green auto news for the month in the green auto shows. They are useful and in the future they are more and more essential --Altermike 18:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is usefull for me and other people I have interchanged information about green vehicles and green auto shows. --HybridBoy 18:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is this user's first edit - potential sockpuppet. --Vossanova ^o< 19:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Old user, trained in other wikis. Find this template useful and gives reasons, instead of speculations. --HybridBoy 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - differentiating between green and non-green vehicles is somewhat POV, and skews the focus of lists of cars and auto shows. Gracenotes^T § 03:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.[Editor's note: please don't vote twice] Differenciation is clear between green and no green vehicles. If only uses gasoline is not green. In any case, the motor show must include explicitly the green section (as in Geneva Motor Show). --HybridBoy 08:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please state your boldface decision to keep or delete just once. You're welcome to add comments and discussion points but restating your decision makes it appear as though you are "voting" multiple times. --Vossanova ^o< 13:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you prefer, I don´t talk. Sorry, but I cannot when our health and environment are at risk. Because of this, I love green cars and information about them --HybridBoy 14:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful and not very neutral either. Prolog 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the only thing this template seems to do is add a category (which isn't too difficult to just place at the bottom) and insert a piece of ugly green text that doesn't really make any sense in context, from what I've seen where it's been transcluded. Did I mention that the unique choice of colors makes my eyes bleed? Because it does. Axem Titanium 04:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ug! Horrible, ugly template must go! This is being used for article content--we don't do that. Plus, it's maldesigned (which I will fix only in the unlikely circumstance that the template is kept). I'm all in favor of green vehicles, but this discussion isn't about green vehicles; it's about this ugly and inappropriate template. If you want to add information about green vehicles to articles, use your words (as I constantly remind my four-year-old). I am, however, neutral on the category. Xtifr _tälk 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. " the only thing this template seems to do is add a category (which isn't too difficult to just place at the bottom)". OK, I can add this category. But one proposed the category for deletion. " and insert a piece of ugly green text that doesn't really make any sense in context, from what I've seen where it's been transcluded." Did I mention that the unique choice of colors makes my eyes bleed? Because it does. Axem Titanium. You can propose and draw alternatives, I heard and see. "Not useful and not very neutral either." Prolog. So one can propose delete the hybrid vehicle category, it is not neutral (and other ones). --Altermike 14:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without the category and the horrid coloration, this template boils down to three words. There is absolutely no reason to have a template to insert three words into an article! Xtifr _tälk 23:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was userfy. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NoEditUserpage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Another pointless CSS hack. I move that we nip this one in the bud, as it's not yet used on many pages. — kingboyk 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being pretty much useless per nom. Arkyan 16:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Userfication is not the solution to all our problematic pages. Picaroon 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Assume good faith, assume no intention of vandalism. Picaroon 02:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not because CSS hack, but because it may discourage boldness and assume bad faith. Gracenotes^T § 03:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per its a way to prevent. One could say dont mess with my user page, however this is a better way. I assume. --Masterpedia 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - harmless when kept to userspace. It's on my userpage and I simply added it as my page has been vandalized literally dozens of times now. While I take the AGF point, it at least makes people think before they edit someone's userpage. Note: this should never be placed on a talk page - Alison^☺ 04:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how people need to be reminded to think before editing a user page, outside of the context of bad faith edits. Although if someone is angry at you, a little trinket on your user page is probably not going to change that. Who knows. Gracenotes^T § 04:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy - Failure to assume good faith towards people who have a legit reason for editing the page, and unlikely to deter anyone who does want to vandalize. But it's mild enough that it should be allowed to live in userspace. —dgies^t_c 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it seems more like flamebait which would have the paradoxical effect of increasing the amount of vandalism. Axem Titanium 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If people want special CSS effects in a compact template, they can use their userspace. - grubber 15:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : (what is userfy?). --Altermike 14:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  See Wikipedia:Userfication. Picaroon 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:DENY; not useful for desired effect as deterrence power can arbitrarily increase or decrease depending on who manages to read the ALT text. –Pomte 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete ^demon^{[omg plz]} 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HallmarkHoliday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I usually close these, not nominate. So bear with me. :) This one screams POV template to me. I think it's sufficient to have the list in the Hallmark holiday article. — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, inherently POV to be tacking this on to articles. Arkyan 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the holidays on this navigational template are all considered hallmark holidays, but this template seems to imply that they are solely a subset of this phenomenon, when this is not the case. These holidays (as concepts) clearly have a hell of a lot of context outside of being a hallmark holiday. Gracenotes^T § 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list in Hallmark holiday is disputed as well. –Pomte 05:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the original creator of some of the holidays listed in this list. I understand that there may be certain POV concerns, but I would assert that this list is generally accepted by the American public, which the article specifically notes as the context of the term. Furthermore, the navigational template, is completely out of place. It implies that they are a subset of some well-defined structured data, which is clearly not the case. I created these holiday articles while trying to increase the robustness of the Hallmark Holiday article, but this should not be extended in the fashion that it has. It seems we are all, at least, in agreement that the navigational template should be removed. Could someone with the expertise to do this properly please remove it from all effected pages?
• Delete We only need a list and possibly a link in the "See also" section. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 11:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. kingboyk 13:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Borindia table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is not helpful or noteworthy. — Nv8200p talk 04:23, 20 March 2007 (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.