< March 17	March 19 >

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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what the use of this template is. It appears to be an indication that the user is a single-purpose account. There's only one transclusion so far, and that's the creator of this template, who appears to have no other contributions. — sunstar net^talk 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while a template like ((spa)) might be useful in individual debates, being a single purpose account is not a blockable offense (and WP:SOCK even allows accounts for controversial issues), and there should not be a template that marks this. Disruption may be a good reason to block, but this in itself is not a bad thing, per se. That seems to be the intended use, but I have no idea why the author would tag him/herself with that... odd. Gracenotes ^T § 21:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That is not even inherently bad, much less blockable. And appropriating the format of the indefblock template at least implies blocking. -Amarkov moo! 22:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am somwhat kerfuddled mentally over this, so I'll refer to the above comments to back up my reasoning. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only one user is using it, and it is pointless if you ask me... --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 01:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I subst'ed the template on his userpage. I still can't see the purpose of this template though... --sunstar net^talk 23:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what's the point? spa's are bad to begin with. Is this some WP:POINT demonstration? Part Deux 23:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Assumes bad faith. Someone who !votes in DRV today might make a good contribution tomorrow. We also have templates to identify possible SPAs in debates. If they are disruptive, there are plenty of ways to handle that too. —dgies^t_c 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like a personal problem to me. Daniel Case 01:22, 24 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 all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have all been deprecated since October, have a suitable replacement, and have no transclusions or significant incoming links. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. They (and the other templates proposed by demon) have no links, plus have been deprecated, accordingly redirects wouldn't serve any meaningful purpose. Addhoc 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sweep into the trash A pretty obvious deletion, really, just a bit of housecleaning. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if an admin feels bold, he/she can speedy delete by WP:CSD#G6. I strongly recommend it. Gracenotes ^T § 01:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About time we got rid of these. Delete. >Radiant< 10:30, 19 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 all, per both the debate and CSD G6. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have all been deprecated since October, have a suitable replacement, and have no transclusions or significant incoming links. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Addhoc 19:04, 18 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 all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have all been deprecated since October, have a suitable replacement, and have no transclusions or significant incoming links. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 15:02, Sunday, 18 March 2007[reply]

Comment: Indefblock-vandalism and BBIH were added after nom opened. They were similarly related and had been orphaned the next month. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indefblockeduser-nocat added as well. Last one I swear, as it's the last deprecated banning template. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Addhoc 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and any other user-specific templates you may find and add on later. No point, really. -Amarkov moo! 22:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, unnecessary. Khoi khoi 03:20, 19 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 per long-standing precedent. >Radiant< 10:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warningimages[edit]

Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. — — Jack · talk · 15:02, Sunday, 18 March 2007

Delete. Who decides what is offensive or not? -Amarkov moo! 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too clumsy. A more elegant solution is required. Addhoc 15:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - am I a bad person for laughing when I saw that template? Gracenotes ^T § 15:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NDT. Gavia immer (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:NDT. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no disclaimers. And besides, younger readers love that stuff! --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 23:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -If this template is deleted, some solution must be found. Imagine this: Kid sees article with an image that he shouldn't be seeing. Kid tells parent. Parent tells places like the media. Media gives Wikipedia a bad rep. Wikipedia is banned in places like schools. A better solution must be found. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 23:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We've been WP:NOT#CENSORED for at least two years, and probably longer de facto. I don't think that a "solution" is that important. -Amarkov moo! 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I can imagine two cases for that:
  1. Kid sees a picture of a penis in a penis article. Oh noes! The press'll get in a frenzy!
  2. Someone vandalizes an article with a bad picture.
    1. They contact the OTRS, and the situation is resolved... with patience.
    2. A member of the press publishes an article exposing vandalism on Wikipedia. Everyone else says "duh".
    3. A member of the press posts a thoughtful (and undoubtedly novel) commentary on the pros and cons of the open knowledge model. Everyone nods solemnly, pretending to think profound thoughts, and moves on.
- That's all, really. Will all due respect to humanity in general, if someone's stupid xor overprotective, we can only hope that everyone else won't be. Gracenotes ^T § 01:51, 19 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any precedent to create such a template. While interesting, and having these for each day forever would be cool, it's hardly encyclopedic and has only a few uses. Thus, it should be deleted. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 13:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having one for each day would be interesting, although I fear a complete absence of focus on past events. We already have mountains of lists to do this, and we don't need templates. Gracenotes ^T § 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Navigation templates are not useful for things unrelated except for being on the same day. Our date articles do just fine... -Amarkov moo! 15:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons listed above and eurocentricism. Addhoc 15:47, 18 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 all, per debate and CSD G6 (housekeeping). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the template contents were only used in one article, so contents have been copied into article, leaving the templates obsolete. — WOSlinker 12:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not currently used, probably not useful in the future. Addhoc 15:49, 18 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cast and crew and film studio are unnecessary in a template, being redundant to article information and not directly related. There are only 5 articles dealing with The Devil Wears Prada, which can all link to each other in the article and in a See also section. –Pomte 11:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as there is more than 3 articles related to the film it should be removed and hello it's easier to use template than looking at See also section.--HW-Barnstar PLS 13:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the purpose of templates should not be to communicate content (as an extremely general generalization; infoboxes might be an exception, but then again they don't communicate information, their parameters do), so when all items in this template related to communicating information are removed, there are just 3 links from one The Devil Wears Prada article to another, and that can easily be put in See also or in prose. Gracenotes ^T § 14:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely; don't substitute. The Meryl Streep article lists every film she has appeared in, and a chunky template for each film isn't required. Addhoc 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before every actor article is clogged with a template about every film they have starred in. There is a search box to the left for a reason, and, failing that, click on the wikilink that is already there. --Steve _(Stephen)^talk 21:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, don't substitute Just another infobox which clogs up space. If you look at this in the context of the people involved, you would add this to the article for every actor that was in the film. Imagine if there was one of these templates for each and every film documented on WP within an actor's profile. The articles would get enormous and also clogged with Infoboxes. thewinchester 08:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. Not just the actors, but also the studio articles would be ruined if per-movie templates were to be inflicted upon them. This sort of horror, while presumably well-intentioned, must be nipped in the bud! Xtifr _tälk 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, navigational template should only be used for things that are linked by a defining characteristic -- we can't have one for every single film. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I say this as the person who wrote and created the articles about both the book and the movie. I was flattered when this template was created, but I really didn't think it was necessary. Struck me as rather fanboyish, actually, and given that I'm trying to cut the movie article down to size any K I can get back from this is fine. As for Hotwiki's objection, all the relevant articles are multiply linked from each other to begin with, and I got rid of the See Also section in the movie article when it was suggested in PR. Daniel Case 01:21, 24 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding articles have been deleted. — Punkmorten 09:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Neier 00:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much use as a navigational template. Gracenotes ^T § 02:24, 19 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 all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of redirects and pieces of old code. Routeboxint, Routeboxint/quick and Routeboxus redirect to ((Infobox Interstate)), ((Infobox Interstate/quick)), and ((Infobox U.S. Route)), respectively, and are no longer used. The remaining templates are unused fragments of code. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom • master_son^{Lets talk} 04:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- NORTH ^talk 05:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 03:08, 21 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another showspecific infobox that could be replaced with ((Infobox Television episode)). --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, excuse this cliché, but per nom. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Addhoc 15:55, 18 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nonfelpful infobox on private company; only lists directors, only one of whom is notable enough for a WP article — UnitedStatesian 01:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless more directors' pages are added. There's no point to have an unused template. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this company is, from what I've read, not notable enough for a template. Gracenotes ^T § 03:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we had more director's articles, then sure, but otherwise it's useless. Don't subst, just delete. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:35, 19 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 I guess the redirect works as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of more widely-used Template:Distinguish. — jnestorius^(talk) 00:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically a duplicate of the other more common one. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
#REDIRECT Template:Distinguish ((r from Gracenotes))
I've made the redirect. Unless others object, nothing more to do except close this. Note: it's a redirect to a protected page so it might need to be protected too. — coel acan — 15:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second the redirect (or second your second of my first), since there kind of isn't a reason why we would need two templates for this, or that anyone who objects would do so intelligently and/or seriously. Gracenotes ^T § 15:51, 18 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. However, the other two templates were not nominated for deletion and should be listed to establish consensus on them. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded. All Survivors that were voted out played twice and were only voted out once are listed here. That means all other that played twice were voted out, making this template redundant.--TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 01:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the table is pointless and obviously redundant as TechWiz said. It should be deleted, and fast! Survivorfan101 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does not look redundant to me as it's a separate list of names. But it is unnecessary as a template and should instead be a list in some article if it is significant. There are too many templates on each Survivor's article and this one in particular doesn't provide a strong link between the contestants listed. I would support deleting ((Survtwice)) and ((Survnovote)) as well. –Pomte 15:06, 25 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. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Small and unnecessary. — A Link to the Past (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost completely useless - just add the link to see also. Addhoc 20:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, See Also will work. But Kirby's so cute! Hence the weakness of this delete. Gracenotes ^T § 21:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Totally useless. thewinchester 08:45, 19 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.

March 18

Template:DRV-user

Template:October 2006 Deprecated See Also Templates

Template:October 2006 Deprecated Warning Templates

Template:October 2006 Deprecated Banning Templates

Template:Warningimages[edit]

Template:6 July 2005

Postcode Templates

Template:The Devil Wears Prada

Template:2006 J. League Division 1 Results

Obsolete road infoboxes

Template:Infobox Wonder Showzen episode

Template:Aramark

Template:Confuse

Template:Survouttwice

Template:Kirby misc