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 debate was delete Happy‑melon 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite cd notes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This seems redundant with Template:Cite album-notes. If I'm missing something, let me know. —Chowbok ☠ 16:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There are only 35 articles that use ((Cite cd notes)), and ((Cite album-notes)) has lots. All that ((Cite album-notes)) is missing is an author= parameter for those occasions when the author is identified. RossPatterson (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect: use a key template for the same fuctionality. Update/revise ((cite album-notes)) to be useful with author parameter. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most albums are CDs. Martarius (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The creator of Template:Cite cd notes (Grover cleveland) requested and received changes to Template:Cite album-notes to make it possible to delete Template:Cite cd notes, back in June 2007. "author=" wasn't requested, but first= and last= were, and they were provided. RossPatterson (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Template:Cd booklet is a redirect to Template:Cite cd notes with no articles using it, and should probably live or die with Template:Cite cd notes. RossPatterson (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2008 (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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Merge-school (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessarily redundant to the many existing ((merge)) and ((mergeto)) templates. This is a huge template compared to the existing, and doesn't seem to add anything that can't be done more specifically with more precise tags, like notability, and the smaller merge templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP This template is in use by over 500 schools. Yes, it could be globally subst'd but it is useful in its own right: It also has the advantage over normal merge templates in that it doesn't require the proposer to take the time to identify "the appropriate locality," leaving the definition of "appropriate" up to those who discuss the issue. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reason given by davidwr.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stated above. Template is useful for the intended purpose. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Very usefull. Burningclean _[speak] 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Usefull template, widely used. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the above; in addition, I think it adds value to the existing merge templates, as it flags it for attention of members of Wikiproject Schools -- Ratarsed (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, duplicate, also pushes a mergist pov, a cabalistic one we don't need. Wizardman 01:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Inquiry: What exactly is it a duplicate of? It's distinctly different from the templates in WP:MERGE to be useful. The key thing about this template is that the proposer doesn't have to specify in advance the target of the merge. This can be quite handy if he doesn't know the way the locals group schools - e.g. by city, by independent school district, by county, or whatever.davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why propose a merge if you don't even know where to merge it to? If someone doesn't know what the target would be from the article, which would seem like it should be a very rare thing, then they should start a discussion first to figure out where it going. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To bring attention to the article. If I see a stub for "Jean Paul Elementary School, Paris France" and, not being from France, I have no idea what the appropriate merge target is, I can do one of several things:

Nothing, implying consent to the status quo, which would be false if I wanted the article merged.

Research the French school system and put up a specific merge tag. That takes time.

Talk about it on the talk page, which would go nowhere for a low-traffic page.

Use a non-specific merge template like the school merge template, in hopes that someone from France would see the article and either make it more specific or mention a good target on the talk page.

PROD the article for deletion, but maybe I don't want the article histoyr deleted.

Nominate the article for AfD and see if a consensus to "merge to ___" arises. But maybe I don't want the article history deleted.

If you don't know enough about French schools, you don't have the time or inclination to learn, you want the article to not exist as a stand-alone article, and you don't want the article history deleted, a non-specific merge template such as this is the best option. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep many school articles need merging into school districts and similar. However, it's not always clear where it should be merged (the school district, the school list on the city article, the parent college?), so this template is a useful fork of other merge templates. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2008 (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 debate was no consensus Happy‑melon 20:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-presumed-ast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unneeded license template.. Kelly ^hi! 16:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure that it's unneeded. I see that, before anyone informed me, it was removed from the various images on which I had placed it and those were all marked for deletion. Could someone please properly explain what is going on here? How is it "unneeded" if its removal is causing the deletion of multiple images? And shouldn't someone have asked me what this was about (if it was at all unclear) before first removing this from everywhere I used it? - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was only used on one image (at least when I checked) and that image is also on the Wikimedia Commons. Kelly ^hi! 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that the intent is not to lose numerous images, but to use Commons images. If so, that's fine. - Jmabel | Talk 01:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry for all of the relists. Just lots of GFDL stuff. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:31, 20 May 2008 (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 debate was no consensus Happy‑melon 20:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-presumed-ca (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unneeded license template - all images using it have been obsoleted by Commons images with better licenses.. Kelly ^hi! 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:44, 20 May 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template linking two shows for a possible non notable television show. Half of the template, including the main article, is a red link. — Undeath (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I can't find anything on Google that shows the series, so I am almost certain it's non-notable. Agreed that a template is useless if most of the links are red linked. It might become notable in time, though. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete template is unnecessary and does not add any value to the two articles (one of which now redirects back to the other). If notable, seems like it should all be in one article anyway, and considering the first series hasn't even aired yet, it seems a bit crystally to go around making a template for its supposed sequels.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (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 debate was keep Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GFDL-1.2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

License template obsoleted by ((GFDL)). The three images that use it have all been moved to Commons and will be deleted here shortly. — Kelly ^hi! 01:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - ((GFDL-1.2)) is not the same as ((GFDL)): GFDL allows any future version of the licence to be applied to the media, whereas GFDL-1.2 clearly specifies Version 1.2 and no other versions. Media uploaded with GFDL-1.2 should not be changed to GFDL without consent of the copyright holder. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 06:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I understand your point perfectly but I think you missed mine. The license is not used here at the en Wikipedia, and I'm not sure why we want to keep it around when users making new uploads should be using ((GFDL)) instead. Kelly ^hi! 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to force uploaders to use ((GFDL)) - ((GFDL-1.2)) is a perfectly valid licence. I use it myself on Commons, and until I transferred the last of my images, only a couple of weeks ago, I used it here. I may still use it if there are any of my images which for whatever reason are not suitable for Commons. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This TfD has been listed at Wikipedia talk:Copyrights —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 14:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As long as GFDL-1.2 and no future versions is considered to be an acceptable license, there is no reason to delete this. Dragons flight (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason ((GFDL-1.2)) is hardly used is because last month all of its image uses were move to ((GFDL-1.2-en)) which includes the historical "Subject to disclaimers". However we should want people using GFDL-1.2 rather than GFDL-1.2-en moving forward. Dragons flight (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per others. The FSF encourages authors to license their G*L works with the "future versions" clause, but it is strictly optional as the clause isn't part of the license itself. If it is formally decided that GFDL images do not belong here and must be uploaded to commons, then we can think about nuking both templates, but deleting just one doesn't make sense to me. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:50, 20 May 2008 (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 debate was Speedy close/keep per WP:SNOW, and the fact that this is a blatant bad-faith nomination from a user who is now blocked for other such attacks. Non-admin closure. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:30, May 23, 2008 (UTC)

Template:User 911truth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template schizophrenics twoofers use to spread their neo-nazi propaganda. 24.81.198.252 (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Are you sure you know what means neo-nazi? Can you explain more the "similarities" between neo-nazis and peple who want the truth about 9-11?--Ilhanli (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This should be listed in WP:MFD rather than here. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's helpful to know when you're dealing with somebody who would want to use this.—Chowbok ☠ 00:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and speedy close - abusive nomination. (Nominator has been blocked for two weeks for personal attacks elsewhere.) In any case, this is a useful template, and should be kept; if someone else wants to nominate it, they should take it to WP:MFD instead of here. Terraxos (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, see WP:UGH. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 04:04, 23 May 2008 (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 debate was redirect Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is bound to be a controversiol one for two reasons: 1) it looks like a stub template, and therefore might be better served at SfD; 2) it's a high-use, protected template. But there are good reasons for nominating it, and for doing so here.

Firstly, this isn't a stub template - indeed, its name has caused problems for WP:WSS for some time with people mistakenly treating it as if it were a stub template, and with people proposing or going ahead with splits of it by subject and then expecting WP:WSS to clean up any mess (even though it's not covered by our project). For that reason alone, a change of name would be nice, though that's hardly justification in itself for a change. It is however justification for bringing it here not to SfD.

The second, more important point is that it serves exactly the same purpose as ((Expand-section)), and as such is redundant. I would like to propose redirecting this to ((Expand-section)) to reduce redundancy, but keeping the current name as a redirect since it is clearly widely used. With a less high-use template, I'd feel happy enough to propose this via the template's talk page and do it myself if there was agreement to the move, but given the usage issues with this one, I feel a full TfD is preferable. — Grutness...wha? 01:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nomination. It is confusing to have these two templates—the distinctive visual appearance of each one would seem to imply some fundamental difference in how the pages that use them are handled, but that is not the case. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom, particularly since it's misleading to have a stub section in a non-stub article. Her Pegship (tis herself) 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion of this right now, but I could have sworn we had a big to-do about this in the past. If I'm thinking about the right template, does anyone have any links to the past discussions? -- Ned Scott 05:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; there is a gradation of priority here: ((sectstub)) is for sections that are empty or nearly empty; ((expand-section)) is for sections that need information to be added. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's completely inconsistent with the WPesque jargon use of "stub" otherwise, so is hardly a good reason for keeping a template with this particular name. If such a distinction is desirable, it should be made much more explicit, and under a different name, please. Alai (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to ((expand)) ((expand-section)). The big to-do Ned Scott is thinking of is probably the one for Template:Expand, although there have been deletion discussions for several variants of this basic content, resulting in a lot of redirects to ((sectstub)) [1] and ((expand)) [2]. We only need exactly one wording for this basic concept, and it might as well be one that doesn't evoke confusion with article stubs. For that matter, some of the current redirects are probably marginal as well, though that's outside the scope of this discussion. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per nom. Almost completely redundant to ((Expand-section)). Agreed that it would have to be redirected, as it is used fairly often. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom - we don't need two templates for this purpose, and the nominator gives good reasons why the other one is preferable. Terraxos (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom - I agree that we don't need two templates for this purpose, and Expandsect is more intuitive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect – as per nom. Jared Preston (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2008 (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.