< April 22	April 24 >

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! 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template appears not to be in use. — meco 22:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also seems to fall afoul of WP:NDT. Xtifr _tälk 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, rather straight-forward case of a disclaimer template. Gracenotes^T § 02:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed and isn't used. Jmlk17 06:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly pointless and unused. Felixboy 11:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. 1. Not Needed (As per Wikipedia:Content Disclaimer 2. This is why it is a weak delete - not all people remember to go to official government centres to have their Mushrooms examined. Booksworm Talk to me! 16:56, 26 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anaheim Ducks Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless. Just a recreation of ((Anaheim Ducks Roster)). The latter is the accepted template, while the nominated is just a copy. — Jmlk17 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless. - hmwithtalk 07:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. The smaller size was explained by the creator here, but it is unused and even so, there could be a small option instead of two separate templates. –Pomte 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I really don't see why somebody would make a copy of ((Anaheim Ducks Roster)). AppleMacReporter 22:16, 23 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-admin fwarn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

I'm nominating this template pursuant to the discussion at WT:UTM#Template to say a user has been reported for the reasons stated there. In brief, I believe this is a well intentioned template that is turning out to be largely counterproductive. A person receiving this template will have been reported to AIV and will therefore either (1) be blocked, in which case s/he has no opportunity to reconsider their behavior or (2) not be blocked, in which case they presumably come away thinking their vandalism was not that bad and they may learn how far they can push the envelop without getting blocked. --Kubigula (talk) 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think these templates are a bad idea. It effectively tells the vandal that they cannot be blocked by the person who has warned them and that they now have a window of time to vandalise as much as possible before their inevitable blocking. It also has a bit of "I've gone and told teacher about you" feel to it which doesn't help. ((uw-vandalism4)) seems a perfectly acceptable final warning- there is then no need for any further communication until a block notification is posted. WjBscribe 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mirroring WJBscribe's concerns completely. Naconkantari 03:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Copying my comment from Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace: I've been seeing this ((fwarn)) template on user pages before I block them, and I'm thinking maybe we should delete it. A lot of people who make WP:AIV reports do so improperly, and we remove the reports instead of blocking. If someone receives one of these messages and then doesn't get blocked, that's worse than just getting ((uw-v4im)) and not getting blocked. And this inevitably happens, we don't block on all reports but getting this warning and then no block definitely sends the wrong message: "go ahead and vandalize with impunity, nobody cares". So yeah, delete. — coelacan — 03:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also a userspace template, ((User:Tuxide/Sandbox/non-admin fwarn custom)). I'll go ask Tuxide if they'd be willing to db-user it. And there's a Category:Fwarn recipients. Can we treat that category's existence as dependent upon this TFD outcome? — coelacan — 03:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for letting me know...people are using ((User:Tuxide/Sandbox/non-admin fwarn custom)) ??? I thought it was broken, so I'll db-user it anyways. Tuxide 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As proposed.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per coelacan's argument. – Riana ^ऋ 03:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or modify it so that it requires a link to the report/discussion as an argument. It's more informative if they can actually see where the report is so they can contest it. Tuxide 04:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we really want vandals being pointed towards WP:AIV so they can go and remove themselves from it? WjBscribe 04:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course. It'll just be another reason for them to be blocked. Tuxide

  I would hope that if they've been reported at AIV its on the basis that their conduct already warrants a block... WjBscribe 04:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm actually one of those non-admins who uses this template, but more as a notification than as a warning. Sometimes I go to AIV, and sometimes I bring it up on IRC depending on how interesting the activity is. Seriously, you wouldn't find an administrator using ((non-admin fwarn)) anyways. I see nothing wrong with removing non-relevant template messages as long as someone can back you up. My thoughts are that such a template should be "toned down" so that people don't use it as a level 4 warning, but more as a notification. Tuxide 04:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the hope that the vandal will contest it? I've seen bad reports on AIV. I just remove them. If someone is obviously vandalizing, what's the point of them contesting it? And if it's not obvious vandalism, we remove them (as happens when one person in a content dispute wants us to block their opponent, a common report). — coelacan — 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not answering the obvious vandalism question—I've yet to see someone contest such a thing. I've used it when reporting 3RR in the past, and from what I've seen, those get contested. Tuxide 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, that's a good point and I think a 3RR-specific template would be a good idea. Pointing someone to the report at WP:AN3 can be helpful. — coelacan — 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the template creator, I use it a lot because it lets people know that Wikipedia's not simply a place for them to run amok and there is accountability. I even feel that vandals may be testing the waters and may come back as valued contributing members if they know that articles are guarded so seriously. I don't think we should point the vandals to WP:AIV, but I made it so as to say, "Look, you're not going to vandalize Wikipedia without consequence. You've been warned." I think you can let Vandals know that there is a method/hierarchy here without giving them the blueprint. We non-admins who police vandals have no tools whatsoever besides persistence. Let us keep at least one. BrianZ^(talk) 04:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the template I use to demonstrate accountability: ((uw-block)). I don't understand what you want with this template. You report them to AIV, they get blocked. If they don't get blocked, and they sometimes don't, then this template makes things worse. Please read my first comment above and reply to those points; it seems you've overlooked them. — coelacan — 05:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Useless. - hmwithtalk 07:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We have plenty of useful final warning templates, and this doesn't add anything useful to them. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: I was initially dubious of this one (at WT:UTM), but think that the WP:BEANS factor is a bit too significant. Let's not use a template as a crutch for process problems. Gracenotes^T § 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As I commented at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace I feel that this template is not useful for two reasons. Firstly, the advice it gives (which currently reads "please reconsider your behavior" and has previously read "be careful and serious from now on") is pretty much an irrelevance because, if a correct WP:AIV report has been made after a final warning, then however the user reconsiders their behaviour, they are still going to be blocked. Secondly, and more importantly I think, the thing that this template says is effectively you are about to be blocked. Now telling that to a vandal surely has the potential of making them up their ante to try and squeeze in as much vandalism as possible before the inevitable block occurs. Also I agree with what Coelacan says about sending out the wrong message if a user is not blocked after this template has been given to them. Will (aka Wimt) 16:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we were going to delete this then what about Template:Reported which is essentially the same? GDonato (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or merge I use the template more to notify users that they have been reported to an admin but not to say they are going to be blocked which sometimes doesn't happen. Maybe we need to create or merge this template with the temp:reported one to create a more neutral message that simply says you have been reported? -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-As said above, it's just going to draw the vandals attention to AIV. Sometimes removed reports aren't even noticed. Also, if they violated a final warning, they're going to be blocked, so why say "you may be blocked". We already warned them, they didn't listen. It's not they may be blocked. They will be. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 23:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've now included Template:Reported in the nomination, being bold following various comments here that called attention to this identical-in-purpose template. — coelacan — 00:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - I would have included it in the nomination if I had been aware of its existence.--Kubigula (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have complained about it earler, had I known. ;-) — coelacan — 04:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not really useful other than to possibly instigate something? Jmlk17 06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep for Template:Reported only - I have found it useful to post on a vandal's talkpage while WP:AIV has a backlog... In some of these cases, it has promoted the vandal to stop vandalising before an administrator considers a block. Chrisch 12:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a vandal has been reported to the AIV then it is most likly that he/she will be blocked even if the user stops vandalizing after being notified of the AIV report. -Mschel 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I used to use it, but I now think it only feeds the troll. As a side note, I have no problem with people using the template if it is on their user space (I have a similar one myself for times of endless vandalism on an article and no admin nearby), I just don't think the template space should contain templates that might reveal being troll feeding. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Keep the ((reported)) as I regularly use it and its handy instead of typing the message informing users they're reported, however, I say delete for the other one but keep the ((reported)).Tellyaddict 16:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you need to tell them they've been reported at all? WjBscribe 17:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WJB at the very beginning of this TfD. Do you really think that putting such a template will accomplish anything besides the unrepentant and chronic vandal going after you? --Valley2city^₪‽ 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's no use warning someone for whom it is too late already. As said before, this will not deter the vandal from further disruption, as nothing they can do could prevent a block if one is justified. I also agree it will give out the wrong sort of message to the vandal if a block is not put into effect, much like several consecutive ((uw-v4)) would. --Anna512 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISBN-13 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

MediaWiki software now recognizes ISBN-13s, so obsolete. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This template might be thought to have two benefits:

1. Allow you to click on an ISBN-13 and be taken to Special:Book sources, like you can with an ISBN-10.
2. Provide a whatlinkshere to find uses of ISBN-13.

In fact, you already get #1 for free via Mediawiki now, as RevRagnarok points out, and #2 doesn't seem worth transcluding the template all over the encyclopedia. (We have 80,000 ISBNs now). It also makes it harder to verify ISBN check digits. A system like SmackBot, or Rich Farmbrough's off-line wikitext checking software, would have to do extra work to handle the curly braces when it parses the ISBN-13s to add the proper hyphenation and to verify the check digit. EdJohnston 03:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete--as originator, and beg yer pardon actually, this was made unnecessary about a month after it's inception, and most occasions for need were built into book templates by the time the system software began handling them directly. I'd meant to db author it, but dropped the ball, obviously. Cheers // FrankB 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, good idea at the time. Rich Farmbrough, 07:07 23 April 2007 (GMT).
• Delete as above. Andy Mabbett 09:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy and Strong Delete Completely unnecessary and obsolete. Jmlk17 06:43, 24 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 converted to WP:DEFCON. --Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Duplicate of the WP:DEFCON template, with an entire project noincluded in the tempate. — Naconkantari 02:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historicalize and deprecate - This separate template isn't needed. I do like the design, however; we should send it to ((Wdefcon))--Ed 02:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming "historicalize" means "delete at once, salt, and bury under 1600 metres or coal seam", I concur with Ed. --Tony Sidaway 03:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Fine. If you want to send it to defcon please do. I have no problems with that. In fact, it would probably be better there. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, I don't know how to move it. Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť^(Talk) 03:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to DEFCON-Duplicate not needed (and neither is the bureaucracy on the page). I like the template though, so move it. --TeckWiz is now R ^ParlateContribs_@(Let's go Yankees!) 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sigs have been changed in this edit BTW, not that it matters...--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 03:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete before April 22nd if possible, then nuc it. (Must be nice to have time to waste.) // FrankB 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept, that JPEG image (which has nasty, visible artifacts) should be replaced with a SVG image. *** Crotalus *** 05:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to ((Wdefcon)): My reason is that of Ed and Crotalus combined. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC) 11:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to defcon Looks like a good template. Upgrade it so it works with Defcon and it's okay. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done I've upgraded it to work with Wdefcon. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 23:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, or convert into a new Wdefcon format Appears to be a cross between the less useful half of Wdefcon and the worst part of Esperanza. --ais523 16:00, 24 April 2007 (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 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. Templates should not misrepresent policy. >Radiant< 08:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Neither a speedy deletion criterion nor likely to become one. —Cryptic 01:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - references A7, which it's not. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This may qualify for A7, depending on whether or not the list is in print, but even where it does, it doesn't need a seperate template. -Amarkov moo! 03:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary, A7 covers this fine. – Riana ^ऋ 03:51, 23 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.