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. While those !voting delete or redirect do have a point that we probably have too many minor variations on the same topic of "this article is being worked on, please don't delete", support for deletion is not there. The larger issue of whether this proliferation of variations can be condensed should probably be brought up as an RFC elsewhere for a more in-depth discussion. Anomie⚔ 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:In creation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete. Yet another case of "overtemplating". It encourages the use of article namespace to work on drafts when they are better off being worked on in User namespace or under the auspices of a WikiProject. The template makes it harder at WP:NPP as well. Finally, the template, along with others of a similar ilk, do nothing to further the improvement of Wikipedia. See also the deletion discussion for ((New page)) at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_27#Template:New_page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete. This template is used by me and a handful of experienced editors to avoid hasty deletion nominations while creating articles. What it does to improve the encyclopedia is to facilitate the creation of articles, which is the whole point of the project. It was well received and in fact someone gave me a barnstar for creating it during a period of overzealous nitpicking of established editors by inexperienced NPP-ers. This is the way we choose to contribute to the encyclopedia. It is not against policy and I'll continue to use this approach, template or no template, so please don't try to take away our tools for the benefit of wikignomes in training. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the impetus for my creating the template was this incident, wherein the now-banned Treasury Tag was making a WP:POINT out of badgering me and other editors who were trying to create new articles. Without a template other editors and I will simply remove speedy deletion tags rather than dealing with mindless process, and having a template is a lot less contentious that WP:IAR. I see no evidence that this and other similar templates have ever seen widespread abuse, so the effort to get rid of these handy editing aides on principle in defense of the red tape around here is just bureaucracy WP:CREEP. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion is easily contested by using the "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". That will prevent immediate deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging bad nominations, then giving an avenue to contest them, doesn't help. The point is to avoid the confrontation, not to go through lots of red tape in response to a misguided nomination. Normally I'd summarily remove a misplaced deletion tag on an article I'm working on, as it's not worth my time or anyone else's on Wikipedia to jump through silly hoops over bad process. That can create some friction and impetus from the likes of Treasury Tag to make a kerfuffle out of it. In the case I pointed to, he and another editor edit-warred to restore the speedy tag, it went to AN/I, and then someone nominated it for deletion out of spite despite the article's clearly meeting the notability standard by then. This template is supposed to avoid that kind of procedure-hounding. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how this template makes things harder for new page patrollers, all it does is inform them that the creator is actively working on the draft. It just deters the deployment of unneeded cleanup tags (i.e. orphan, uncategorized, expand-section) that new page patrollers tend to add. There really isn't anything problematic by having a message asking that the patroller hold off on adding cleanup tags while the expansion is in progress. There are also no requirements whatsoever forcing users to start drafts in userspace. It is recommended but it is not required. Nor are editors required to have a completed draft done in one edit. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't this redundant with ((underconstruction))? With or without being in combination with ((new unreviewed article)) ? 70.24.251.224 (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to ((underconstruction)) . If it was really in bad shape, then use ((in use)). 70.24.251.224 (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yet another case over overly zealous nominating of maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hey, I can use this one, previously I've used { {construction} }, which is a veritable recommendation that people edit conflict up the works. MANY experienced content writers prefer to build in mainspace. Carrite (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Urgh. We have far, far too many minor variants of ((under construction)). "I was being harrassed by someone who is now banned" is a poor rationale for creating a new template. We need to get out of this mentality whereby the first thing someone does when they get bitten in the process of developing an article is to draw up yet another version of the same template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a little condescending regarding my efforts to improve the encyclopedia. We all have our own opinions and neither I nor my mentality are going away anytime soon. Treasury Tag was not the only article tagger around, or else we wouldn't be talking about it now. The contentious issue of inapt speedy tags was creating a new fuss on AN/I every week or two so I did something constructive to fix it instead of just whining about it there. The under construction template lists four or five variants, each pertaining a distinct situation: existing articles undergoing renovations, new articles in process of successive saves, and so on. The extra server use seems worth it, as a having an extra template to use seems a much better option than recurring flameouts and edit wars. Nevertheless, if anyone objects to having five flavors of the same template they're welcome to combine them as a housekeeping matter, but that seems more trouble than it's worth, particularly because the under construction template cautious people not to mess with it without alerting the twinkle user base. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I certainly don't want to belittle your efforts, but this is the same rationale that everyone comes up with when their own variant of this sort of template is nominated. A firm push to get these all merged once and for all is on my todo list. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think a merge / redirect would be controversial, as long as it preserved some ability to signal this particular circumstance, which is a new article that's going to get patched up promptly with the assertion and/or sourcing to verify notability. People don't have any strong desire for the template for its own sake, just to have the ability to avoid speedy nominations of articles while they're busy typing into the editing form. That's a different circumstance than an already-viable article that is under construction and needs to avoid edit conflicts, typically for hours or even a couple days. Perhaps if you updated the under construction template first, then asked about merging / deleting the others... I would even support that! - Wikidemon (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tagremover (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to ((under construction)) which certainly is adequate to indicate that major work on an article (whether new of not) is in progress. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have tightened up the wording substantially. Hopefully it is now clear that this is a different thing than the IN CONSTRUCTION flag, which invites participation of others. This is basically a back off for a minute please flag with an expiration time counted in hours rather than days. It should be set to "go stale" by bot in 3 hours or something like that, in my opinion. This is a useful and very different flag. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant to other tags, and if the page was nearly created, it would be better to start a userspace draft and then move it until it survives an afd! mabdul 11:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the creation process, I think. MANY content creators (including me) start things in mainspace and build there. It has nothing to do with "surviving an AfD," everything to do with keeping rambunctious New Page Patrollers from graffiti tagging In Creation work. This is a Back Off Jack I'm Just Getting Started flag, "Construction" is something quite different, indicating work in progress with which others are invited to help. Carrite (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep perfeectly logical tag that describes a common situation and helps to avoid unnecessary conflict of course we should just be able expect users to WP:AGF new pages and for them to take a moment to check histories to identify if the creator is someone whos a regular contirbutor or someone new then make decisions but the tools dont work that way its quick del tag and run to the next page process.. Gnangarra 10:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, articles not ready for mainspace belong in userspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus. Support for deletion is not there; the "votes" are evenly split, and neither side has offered any particularly compelling reason. The larger issue of whether this proliferation of templates saying something along the lines of "I'm working on this, please don't delete it yet" can be condensed should probably be brought up as an RFC elsewhere for a more in-depth discussion. Anomie⚔ 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hasty (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete. A serious case of "template creep" that does nothing to further the goal of Wikipedia. It also has a very narrow brief: "This template should only be applied to short articles with insufficient content for assessment purposes. It should never be applied to attack pages, copyright violations, obvious tests, vandalism, patent nonsense and other unsuitable material." and "It is requested that a short grace period of ten minutes from the time of the last edit be given to allow for the possibility of active expansion that would remediate the tagging basis.". What is this? The War of the Templates? It is real handy for the inclusionists... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...or am I being too hasty... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This template was created to allow users to contest a speedy-deletion of a newly-created page. Remember that while any other editor can remove a speedy-deletion tag if they think it's unwarranted, by our process and policy the article creator may not. The template was created as a way to say "hold it, I'm working on a stub - yes, it looks like an A7 candidate now but I'll make it clearer soon."
  Editors have said in the past that this is unnecessary because creators shouldn't make stubs - they should just make their page offline and not post until it's a full-blown article. That position is hostile to new users, though, and not in keeping with our other policies. There is no consensus for that standard for new pages.
  The other argument against this template is that it should be unnecessary because admins know not to pull the trigger on a speedy-tag prematurely. This also has proven unrealistic.
  I would prefer to change the CSD policy so that article creators may also remove a speedy-tag (as long as it's in good faith, not a copyvio, etc). Teaching new users that they can't remove a speedy-tag but expecting them to know about and find this tag is very clumsy. Until that policy change is made, I think this template serves a purpose. Rossami (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Speedy deletion can be contested by the page creator via the talk page and the speedy deeltion template is set up extremely well for facilitating this process. WRT admins "pulling the trigger too early" I don't think this is the case {am I reading yr comment correctly?) I have seen articles kept with the speed deletion tag for over 24 hours. By this time Google has got it in its grasp and the article is cached and made available to 7 billion people. Hmmm, we need to somehow put off the bad editors and keep the good ones! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • By its transcluded content this template should be applied only by an uninvolved editor and thus not by the creator. —teb728 t c 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Were you trying to set yourself with your last line? I ask because your nomination appears to be the epitome of a hasty nomination. It's obvious you do not understand the background or purpose of the template, which implies an apparent failure to spend sufficient time to search out that background and purpose. I am far, far, far from an inclusionist mind you, and the template itself contains an agreement with a speedy deletion deletion basis, so this part of your nomination makes no sense I can divine.

  Anyway, for those readers who might not know, there is strong consensus, following umpteen discussions at WT:CSD, that articles should not normally be tagged for speedy deletion on the basis of CSD A1 (no context) or CSD A3 (no content) moments after creation because some people start an article and then add content. See the footnote to both criterion This applies as well to other criterion, such as CSD A7, though not quite as frequently (you can sometimes see by what's present in the new article that there is no hope, without waiting for what might be placed in a few minutes). For these reasons, we also suggest to newpage patroller generally to not tag moments after creation, and suggest working from the back end of the patrol log. See the explicit banner and following notes at the top of Special:NewPages. This, of course, does not apply to copyvios, attack pages and the like, thus the exclusions from the template's ambit, as quoted by Alan above for reasons I also do not understand. Despite this consensus, we daily get multiple A1s, A3s, A7s, etc. taggings seconds after creation. That's the background.

  So, to the purpose of the template. When you come across an article that has been "hastily tagged", and you agree with its basis but believe insufficient time was given to the creator, who might be working on the content immediately after first posting, this tag is placed, advising exactly the haste issue, and that if the missing content we hope for is not added within a short time frame, the article will resume normal deletion consideration. Alan, I'm not sure what you consider "further[ing] the goal of Wikipedia," but I think this template does that admirably.

  One more thing to note. A common template deletion basis is lack of use. Unlike most transcluded templates, you cannot just click on what links here to check frequency of use because the template is always removed from an article within ten minutes, either by deletion or the speedy being declined. So even if it's used 50 times per day, at any given moment it may be unused anywhere.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first line was my attempt at humour. I don't think I am very good at being humorous... I will have a think and give a linger reply soon. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see nothing wrong with prompt addition of speedy tags given some of the absolute rubbish that I have seen on new page patrol. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor do I, when it's appropriate, when it's not obviously rubbish, and we do indeed get a lot of obvious rubbish. How does that address the issue? If this template is applied to obvious rubbish it's being misused. What about when an article created 15 seconds ago with an empty ((Infobox scientist)) in it and no other text is tagged as having no content under A3? Shouldn't we wait a few minutes to see whether the |notable awards= field is going to be populated with a Max Planck Medal and some content written?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite I agree that something of this sort seems to be needed, since some people seem intent on deleting articles the second they are created, while content is still being added, but the wording and style of the template needs work. Perhaps there should be a message saying that the authors of the article should consider using ((in use)) or ((underconstruction)) ? 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Arrgh. Policy creep at its worst. Speedy deleting should not be some game of template-trumps where successive editors add increasingly baroque bits of boilerplate which end up shunting the whole article off of the first page. If the speedy deletion process needs to be refined then that should be done on policy pages, not templatespace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what that means. I do know that we have a terrible problem with new editor retention and we we also have a terrible problem with all the crap that gets created and that the interplay between the two means that new page patrollers inevitably, while tagging 1,000 crappy articles that should be deleted, end up cutting corners and tagging 5 articles that shouldn't be and that this template is one of the few ways we have to address that issue when we come across it that may help retain that good new editor and that good new article while allowing the speedy deletion to still take place if the edits needed aren't made. When someone says something is "policy creep" without explaining how it is policy creep, without actually tackling the merits, it is a meaningless assertion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy creep is any time that a new process is created. The template implies a new process (a discriminatory ten-minute grace period for new articles). Now, either that needs properly codified at WP:SPEEDY (in which case the process has crept slightly, but at least we don't need a template), or it is to be ignored as a non-process, in which case it is pointless. I really do appreciate that we've got serious problems regarding new pages, but ad-hoc new policies are unlikely to be the solution to that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I know what policy creep means. There's no new policy whatever involved. This template is a mechanism to implement the long-standing consensus on hasty speedy tagging, both from text on it already in WP:CSD and the top of newpages, the numerous discussions on its talk page which led to that language being added to policy pages regarding hasty taggings (as linked in my first post), and where the creation of this template itself was discussed to deal with the problem of users not following the consensus on hasty taggings, and to address the actual problem that hasty taggings result in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:CSD says "administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation", but that's basically all it says. And to be honest, failure to properly apply brain before speedying articles should be something taken up with the responsible admin. I don't see that this template does that much to head off the problem: I could understand if it added pages to category:hasty speedy taggings and had a patrol watching that category to rescue what they could, but it doesn't. So it's sort of like a ((hangon)) but without the actual hanging on. Are there maybe technical ways around this (having the page deletion function hide A1 / A3 / A7 until >10mins after creation), for instance? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, that's not all it says. I supplied a link in my first post so that people would not wonder where I was talking about (as well as pointing to the top of Special:Newpages). Of course, policy comes from practice and consensus, which I've already discussed as flowing from the numerous discussion on this issue in addition to the express language. Wikipedia is not a place with strictly construed policies given the treatment of statutes. Your post misses the point of the template's purpose. It is not for rescuing articles by the person placing the tag or later reviewer. This is for the problem seen every hour of every day of that subset of new articles that cannot be assessed by what's in them, which were tagged moments after creation. This provides a ten minute window for the creator to add content that would obviate the tag, while the speedy remains in the article. It simply provides the time that should have been given in the first place if tagging had been done in accordance with consensus. The creator either adds content that obviates the tag, or they don't, in which case the speedy is acted upon without interruption since its remains. The template informs the administrator of the ten minute period as well. The fact is, once tagged, few admins check whether an article was given sufficient time. I 100% agree that it would be better if we had an automatic ten minute delay before A1 or A3s showed in articles (but not A7s; that's a bad idea because many A7s can be determined from what's in them, without wait; many A7s are quite blatant), but that too has been discussed and we've never determined a proper technical means for A1 and A3s, and this would still be needed for appropriate uses in other criterion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Tagremover (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reads like a WP:POINTy essay disguised as a template. Useful only as a wag of the finger toward editors you don't like. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, what? If you understand the template's function, how does that make any sense? This has saved actual articles from deletion that should not have been tagged so quickly, while fostering not driving away new editors, all without letting articles that are not fixed in the ten minute period escape deletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' If a second person reviews a speedy and still thinks it valid it should just be deleted if they dont remove if they have doubts then PROD or AFD are better options rather than this tag Gnangarra 10:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So frustrating. At this point I'm sure I sound shrill. Yet this is yet another opinion where the reasoning shows you actually do not understand the purpose of the template, because your rationale addresses something other than the situation where this template is appropriate. A person posts an article with little or no content or context. They may be actively working on it over the next few minutes, and yet, against clear consensus not to do so, it is tagged moments (often literally less than one minute) after creation. An admin then comes along, does not check that the article was tagged so quickly and deletes based on the content (or lack thereof) present at the three minute mark. I've unfortunately deleted articles in this state a few times myself. All this template does is try to give the creator a ten minute window—time they should have been given in the first place by consensus—to place content that obviates the CSD tag's basis. If they don't do so, normal deletion consideration continues. Your reasoning speaks to content already present. In the normal course a second reviewer should indeed delete the article, or remove the tag entirely, change to prod or take to AfD as the case may be. This is not in that ordinary course of consideration because the creator wasn't given enough time to add their full content because of the hasty tagging; the consideration of deleting, removing, prodding, taking to AfD shold be considered after we see what the creator would have posted in the few minutes after creation, not before.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Fuhghettaboutit. I would reset the "ten minutes" to "one hour" as it used to be (see the instructions). JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, written too, pardon the pun, hastily. Waiting an hour for certain speedies has never been a part of policy, and this makes it seem it is. Get the policy change consensus first, don't try to backdoor it via a template. Accordingly, I'll be ignoring anything with this on it and speedying it anyway, provided of course that it really does fit the criteria. If we get a policy change made, then we make this template, not the other way around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a policy consensus that articles should not be deleted ten minutes (not one hour) after creation. —teb728 t c 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a policy, it is a footnote saying it is "suggested as good practice". If it is a policy change, where is the discussion? Regardless, non-ready pages should not be in mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Helps remind admins of policy not to delete hastily. —teb728 t c 22:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Law sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to ((sidebar)) + ((law sidebar style)). Frietjes (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather that these were simply substituted as-is than a template created for the style. We need to try to get out of the idea of contrived per-domain colour schemes, and codifying them in style templates doesn't aid in that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant. mabdul 11:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney campsite infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant to template:infobox park or template:infobox building or template:infobox hotel. Frietjes (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant and overly-specific (to one company). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Andy Mabbett. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the redundancies. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Zangar (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant. mabdul 11:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Utah War (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template has only 2 links, that appear to be unrelated. No other source, that I'm aware of, considers the Salt Creek Canyon massacre to be part of the Utah War, and neither of the other two Wikipedia articles involved, Utah War and Mountain Meadows massacre, mention the Salt Creek Massacre. I left a note on 2 of the 3 involved articles asking what is the connection, in 3 weeks nobody has responded. Dave (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not enough or a navtemplate. mabdul 11:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nationalist Republican Alliance/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Green Party (United States)/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Prohibition Party (United States)/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Constitution Party (United States)/meta/linkedabbr (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Nationalist Republican Alliance/meta/linkedname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Constitution Party (United States)/meta/linkedname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/linkedname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front/meta/linkedname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Libertarian Party (United States)/meta/linkedname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All these templates are redundant and unused. The meta template "x/meta/shortname" (eg ((Democratic Party (United States)/meta/shortname))) handles all naming and linking situations when used in other templates such as ((Infobox election)). I would have nominated these under as speedy deletion (T3) cases, but they do not quite function the same as the shortname\abbr templates, even if they are used in the same way. Zangar (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't remember what these were for; if they're unused, kill 'em. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countryname (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated; was used only in Template:Infobox school (and Template:Freemasonic Lodge which copied from it). Paul_012 (talk) 08:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, don't know why it is still protected ;) mabdul 11:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was redirect Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia-link (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to a feature of MediaWiki. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think this should exist in this manner, we already have an interlang link template (((Ill))), and that actually indicates if you're going to be dumped into a non-English page. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((Ill2)) or rewrite into something similar to ILL that indicates the language being linked to. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikisource German (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure why we would link to a German text on the English Wikipedia, but if this is a useful thing to do, we should make a more robust template that can link to any Wikisource, not just the German one. This is a head-scratcher. Also: only used on one page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overspecific, redundant to ((Wikisourcelang)). Hesperian 05:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Good point, Hesperian. Replace and delete. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Zangar (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delelte, redundant. mabdul 13:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was Closed as per WP:SNOW by nominator Gnangarra 10:57, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Commons-species (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Commons category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Commonscatmore (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikibookssub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikinews category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikinews portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikiquote (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikisource (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikisource author (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikisource portal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikisource publisher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikisourcecat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikispecies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikiversity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wiktionary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wiktionary pipe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wiktionary category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wikiversity-r (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to ((Sister)), which also provides more links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nom for several templates and many are protected. I will come back and update which ones need to be marked for deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, convert to wrappers. Hesperian 05:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty speedy keep we are trying to keep things simple - ((Wiktionary)) is simpler than ((Sister|Wiktionary)). Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep, redundant (in sense that can use something else to do the same job) is not necessarily bad (a piece of pipe can pound a nail in, that doesn't mean eliminate hammers). The specific templates like commons are clearer about the purpose than sister with a parameter. I don't see a compelling reason to change all those occurrences just because we can. RJFJR (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They are much more intuitive than the alternative proposed. I have no objection to converting them to wrappers though. I think ((commons)) and ((commons cat)) together are more widely used than ((sister)). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all; there is a worrying tendency going through TFD recently that templates should be deleted because they are "redundant", regardless of whether the proposed alternative will make things easier for our occasional editors (not everybody edits several hours a day 7 days a week). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The suggested replacement is much more cumbersome to use, and you have to supply the full text manually. Who wants to type " ((sister | project=wikiquote | text=Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: [[q: | PAGENAME | DISPLAYTEXT ]]))" instead of typing "((Wikiquote))" or even "((Wikiquote|PAGENAME|DISPLAYTEXT))"? The template appears to have been designed for use as a meta-template, with text supplied by a calling template, not for direct use in an article. E.g., ((wikiquote)) is implemented as a wrapper for ((sister)), and this is as it should be. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep by the same logic, having templates at all is redundant, because you could just type the wikitext in by hand. Josh Parris 03:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Ningauble above. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RJFJR. Redundant isn't necessarily bad. -- Ned Scott 02:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• In a perfect world, ((sister)) could automatically detect sister links in other wikis and link to them automatically. But then, in an ideal world we wouldn't manually need to specify interwiki links at all as MediaWiki would detect them. Right now, ((sister)) has significant technical deficiencies (including the longer syntax, per Ningauble) that it should only be deployed in cases of particularly dense sister site linking. Otherwise, the individual templates are easier to use. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile on Keep. We are better off with ten easy to use templates than one more complicated one with ten features. Resolute 16:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per duh. Also will someone please close? It's placing horribly cluttering messages across millions of articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously. And what is so wrong with having multiple ways of doing the same thing? -- œ^™ 10:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While standardisation of templates is a good idea (e.g. for Semantic Web purposes), usability can't be sacrificed, and the simpler nature of using these templates is a good reason to continue using them. The ideal solution would be to convert these templates so that they cause the display of a specific implementation of ((sister)) (e.g. substing ((Wiktionary)) would produce the code of ((Sister))), but I don't know if that's possible, while the current situation definitely works. Nyttend (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Close Per WP:SNOW. The only consideration now is if these can be made wrappers... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wide image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete/merge/redirect with ((Panorama))--the only difference is that the latter has a height function. Why do both of these exist...? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TfD notice not added--template is protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete ((Panorama)) requires the height parameter, so definitely different functionality. If you don't specify height, it will not work (if I'm reading the code properly). It can't be redundant if it has different functionality. The coding for "Wide image" is much more complex than Panorama, so it seems they are not alike. 70.24.251.224 (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there's also a ((Wide image-noborder)) 70.24.251.224 (talk) 05:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ((Wide image-noborder)) is definitely a pointless fork, and should be redirected to ((wide image)). As stated above, ((panorama)) does indeed have a different purpose and syntax; I don't think a merge is possible yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just added the TFM template. You can always request that it be added, either by placing a request at the talk page accompanied with ((editprotected)), or by making a request at WP:AN. Nyttend (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not every widescale image is a panorama photo, a Panorama is a stretched photo or combination of photos that if put onto a cylinder would meet and create a flawless image such as this one, wide image is used for files and charts such as this one that are not meant to meet up at the ends, and as mentioned above the coding for the two are entirely different, despite there similarities, these are not the same. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep wide image allows for wide image to be inserted within the text, panorama is for images to be set across the whole screen, as described above wide image is for smaller fields of view panorama is for 360 deg views. Gnangarra 10:18, 25 March 2012 (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.