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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Robelbox/C1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:/box-footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:/box-header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos City/Malolos History (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos City/Malolos Cityhood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos City/Malolos Barangay (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos City/Malolos Government (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos City/Malolos Reference (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos City/Malolos External Links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos/box-header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Malolos/box-footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These are relics of an old version of Malolos City. User:San anjelo seemed to be unaware of WP:MoS, and the changes were reverted. These templates will never be used anywhere, and so have no purpose. RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, deprecated. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632 doc page (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and not needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite 1633 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and no, we don't need templates for this level of cite book examples. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 06:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment meets WP:CSD#T3. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite 1632pb (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and I'm not sure of its use anyways. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as orphaned and unnecessary. Plastikspork (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment meets WP:CSD#T3. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphan unnecessary template Ricky81682 (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as it is now completely orphaned. Plastikspork (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2009 (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 to delete. JPG-GR (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I believe this template violates policies and guidelines, specifically: WP:CONSENSUS by stating that its rules must be followed in case of dispute; WP:3RR by stating that editors are exempt from it in certain arbitrary circumstances; WP:NOTVAND by claiming that persistent revert may be handled as vandalism even though they aren't; WP:VOTE by basing its claimed bindingness on a straw poll. Generally speaking, although I am sure this template has been created as a result of difficult debates, it stands out as "flying in the face" of Wikipedia's principles. LjL (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retire (don't delete, it's too much of a historic and linked-to page to do so) I have been around since the template was created and as a Polish admin, I've seen its good and bad sides. On the plus note, it has given us some guidelines on how to deal with naming and revert wars, back in 2004. On the minus note, it has a series of problems:

• (1) it contradicts our newer WP:NCGN policy (see discussion here) and as such creates an inconsistent precedent
• (2) as a precedent for deciding naming of entities disputed between editors of different nationality by vote, it allows editors of large countries to consistently outvote those from smaller ones (Germany has population twice as numerous as Poland and the bias shows in the vote; I don't even want to think what a similar vote, let's say between Russia and Lithuania, would look like...)
• (3) it is a little know exception to 3RR, sometimes respected, sometimes not...

In the past, before NCGN got estabilished, this template served to calm edit wars in a controversial issue. Now, it seems that it is no longer needed. PS. Technically, this is more of a policy than just a template... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, the point, really is precisely that it feels like a policy masquerading as a template. If it is a policy, then it should be marked as such (and face the consequences of having policies saying "except when it relates to Danzig/Gdansk"); if it's not a policy, then it has no reason for being, as it contradicts several actual policies. I'd have, of course, nothing against keeping it (not under the current name) on the talk page as a rule of thumb on when to use the various names, but definitely without any reference to trumping 3RR and various other things; merely as a notice on consensus about best practices on a debated issue. --LjL (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retire per Piotrus. Mike R (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retire per above. We have newer, broader policies on disputed geographic names (as already noted), and no particular evidence that the broad Wikipedia community wants the older, specific restrictions to continue even in the face of newer policy. However, the historical reach of this policy is wide enough to keep the template around for historical reasons. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the template. The removal would only become an excuse to revise, ignore and edit-war further over the naming again. Changes to the template can be made - and in the past were made - without chancing to metaphorically throw the baby out with the bath-water. It's not like the supposed patriotism in the content area has ceased after 2005 - not at all. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only change I'd find sane is to remove all the wording implying the template is policy, and instead merely use it as a notice/helpful hint to editors about previous consensus on the topic of which name to use in various circumstances. Edit wars and such really shouldn't be "solved" by making an ad-hoc exception to all rules, and making that in itself a rule. --LjL (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. Sciurinæ (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst into Talk:Gdansk as part of the record, link to this discussion and delete - or mark ((historic)). We do want the editors of ten years from now to have some idea of what we are talking about. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict, written before the "mark historic" suggestion was added) My reasons for nominating for deletion, though, had to do with the fact that I find it a violation of policies, so just subst'ing it but otherwise leaving it intact won't fix that... unless you mean subst'ing while tagging it as "kept for historical reasons" (or the most appropriate template for the purpose). --LjL (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving it intact (like other outdated comments on talk pages); but linking here, with a comment "this is what we used to do, and here is where we changed our minds." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gdansk vote came in 2005 after a year of disputes in that regard and after yet another revert war. This vote was finally something pragmatic and concrete rather than idealistic and abstract. It had enthusiastic support from all sides and comparably great participation but the outcome, predictably, did not suit everybody, especially those wanting to press "Gdansk" into the time period from 1308 to 1793. Therefore natural loopholes were to be demonstrated just to do away with it all.

This is an area where every year is fought about to get just the tiniest big of gain. For example, when the vote states "use the name Danzig between 1308 and 1945" it is also fought about whether the year 1308 necessarily falls into that range ([1]) and as well as whether the year 1945 does ([2]). The area includes year-long edit warring ([3]) and it's not too odd that a sourced text of a memorial inscription is manually changed from "Dansk" to "Gdańsk" only to have the Polish name one more time.[4] This naming pushing is not always unilateral: [5]. Describing the Gdansk vote as Template:Historical, it would look outdated and give the anarchy in the topic area even more leeway.

The Gdansk vote is and has always been treated as at least a defining guideline ("To avoid further edit wars, an enforcement is also voted on, allowing the revert of edits that violate the guidelines determined by this vote."), just not put into the category of guidelines (and how could it be? The category did not exist at the time of the vote, nor did the category for policies). It coexists with the well-established more general Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and can be headed with Template:Subcat guideline as a regional guideline for naming conventions. Sciurinæ (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing consensus is a lot harder than taking a poll. So are most things worth doing. --LjL (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard? Impossible. What fragments of consensus there exist between the two factions are in WP:NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The conflict with NCGN is only partial; the claim that biographies of Germans (whatever that means in the context) should use Danzig, and biographies of Poles (same caveat) should use Gdansk/Gdańsk. If this is retired, we should certainly discuss it (including the 1308-1945 rule, which should terminate with the fall of the city to the Red Army) in the relevant sections of NCGN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, to use historical names in historical context is part of WP:NCGN (Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historic name when discussing a past period), the Gdansk vote is explicitely mentioned at WP:NCGN#Use modern names(..likewise Gdańsk is called Danzig (the detailed decisions at Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply to that dispute..) and the "Poland section" says nothing different (When a city or other place is mentioned in a historical context, if there is no common English name for it in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name with the current Polish name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the place is mentioned). The template specifies the period of using Danzig or Gdansk and is extremely helpful to avoid edit wars as they were common before. Concerning personal names maybe we should use the same periods to avoid any dispute about nationality. However the template might be revised on the WP:3RR as a vote is not supposed to surpass this guideline (Maybe it was a result of ongoing editwars in the past and a little exaggerated). HerkusMonte (talk) 06:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep until a discussion gaining "community-wide" attention/participation, which should at least equal the attention/participation back when the Gdanzig rule was agreed on, overrules parts or all of it. TfD is certainly not the place to reach such a broad attention/consensus, it must be the other way around that the rule is discussed first and the template is then adapted accordingly. I can't see how WP:CONSENSUS is breached by keeping the Gdanzig rule and the resulting template - in my view, the opposite is true: the consensus pillar was given even too much weight regarding the other pillars (esp WP:V) - from this angle, I agree with the nominator's rationale regarding WP:VOTE. Regarding WP:3RR and WP:NOTVAND: The exemption from 3RR and the treatment of persistent breaching of the Gdanzig rule as vandalism is, in my view, nothing but the occasional execption from the letter to enforce the spirit, which is precisely what WP:IAR was designed for. The unambiguous statement that edit war about the town's name will by no chance result in anything different than what the Gdanzig rule said is effective as long as the rule is unambiguous - the Gdanzig rule thus limited the edit wars to articles on persons whose ethnicity is uncertain or disputed. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might not have been very clear about the way I think it violates WP:CONSENSUS, I think I might have been clearer on the talk page. Anyway, I really do not believe that WP:IAR is intended to let us create more rules that breach existing ones; after all, it's quite strictly about ignoring rules, not making more of them. As for gaining more partecipation, please feel free to advise me about the best venue for achieving that that won't be seen as forum shopping; however, I do believe existing mainstream policies are supposed to reflect consensus, and if this awkward template goes against them, then it's almost by definition breaking consensus (regardless of the policy-dubious vote-counting having taken place years ago). --LjL (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with your rationale "WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus is not in numbers" that you outlined at the template talk page, thank you for clarifying. Anyway, in this case, one had to dump the results of not only the Gdanzig rule, but also eg the Macedonia and Judea/Samaria rules. I have no argument with the Gdanzig rule being reassessed - my support for the rule is not unconditional - but I think deleting the template is the wrong way and TfD is the wrong forum. Regarding IAR: The primary sentence I had in mind when writing the above was "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." 3RR is designed to prevent edit wars, and if an excemption from 3RR is better to reach that goal than enforcement of its letter - the better. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; an appropriate consensus should be gathered to repeal this. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that's what I've done by listing it here (the template itself does warn it's being listed, after all), and what has been fostered by relisting it. I find these "keeps" based on the fact there is no consensus a bit weird... "keep because I'm not seeing any other !votes"?! Perhaps other people just don't care. --LjL (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The fact that the wording of this template may not be 100% consistent with the wording of WP:NCGN is a curiosity that should perhaps be fixed one day. The attempt to do that would, in my opinion, required a widely-advertised discussion, possibly at WP:CENT. Since I'm not seeing a burning issue here that needs resolving, just a long-term inconsistency that might some day lead to problems, I don't see enough reason to hold the very big discussion. The Gdansk vote is no longer mentioned as a specified exception in the WP:3RR policy document anyway. I would support taking out the '3RR' clause and the 'vandalism' clause from the present wording of the template, but urge keeping the template itself. EdJohnston (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R from 1632 character needs article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to Category:1632 series redirects needing articles, template space should not be used to mark article requests. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete unnecessary obfuscation. Plastikspork (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632 place referenced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Tagging every location because it was used in some alternative history fiction is pretty inappropriate. Scaled up, this would be nightmare. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — highly inappropriate; can't leave this around per WP:BEANS. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (who orphaned this thing)[reply]
• Delete per above. Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632 person referenced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's pretty inappropriate to tag all uses of every individual for their usage in alternative history fiction. Even if completely hidden away, this could be better achieved through some userpage list or something. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as hightly inappropriate; I've orphaned it an deletion should include the two redirects to it:

• Template:1632 referenced person and
• Template:1632 Referenced person

Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the redirects as housekeeping (they were completely unused) Plastikspork (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure they were unused ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the whole thing is a mess. Plastikspork (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom - none of these templates is suitable here - Wikipedia is not 1632pedia Nick-D (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632 institution referenced (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's pretty inappropriate to tag all uses of something in the real-world for its usage in alternative history fiction. Scaling this, it would be a nightmare. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as totally inappropriate; I've orphaned it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632 character guide (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unnecessary as many of the templates and categories should soon be gone. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete orphan and unnecessary. Plastikspork (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above; not helpful. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632 series categories navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused unnecessary template. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as above. The whole cloud should go. It's an exercise in building a template based language. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned and really not useful. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete orphan and pointless. Plastikspork (talk) 07:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• deltee - bad idea. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Orphaned inappropriate template. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a bad idea. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is used to replace redlinks with bold text. I fail to see the advantage of this over a redlink (indeed, since redlinks encourage the creation of a new article to fill the gap, the template may even discourage this). Furthermore, as the template replaces redlinks with bold text, it also violates WP:MOSTEXT. GW… 08:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment some users think that redlinks are wrong and endeavour to remove all instances of such... 76.66.192.64 (talk) 05:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not the issue here, but those users should read WP:REDLINK. --GW… 15:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom, if it doesn't exist, either create it or don't link it, kthx. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Cybercobra (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elkins' Germany (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only six pages, and quite a short references. Text could be written out on those pages. Classical geographer (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please give this a chance. I only created this a month ago and am in the process of translating a large number of German geographical articles, many of which need authoritative references like this, so it's use is likely to rise significantly. I would be grateful if it could be kept for now and perhaps it's use reviewed in a few month's. Thanks. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Subst current uses and userify the template. The template can be useful for keeping track of references but we should not use templates that do nothing but make it more difficult for the average editor to understand what's going on. Bermicourt, I suggest putting this templates and others like it into your userspace and subst them in to save on the repetition. See above for what's happening with the 1632 series templates that try the same thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, please don't template-ify citations, even high use ones, to promote clarity in editing. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely the main purpose of templates is to cut down on repetitive editing. H:T says

"A template is a page created explicitly for transclusion - the MediaWiki process of including the contents of one page within another page... templates are designed specifically for that purpose, usually for repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of Wikimedia articles or pages."

That is the sole purpose of this template: to cut down on repetitive work. It's currently used on 12 articles and will eventually cover dozens - it's a key reference! Please help me understand why we are making extra work for editors by deleting useful templates and asking them to re-type stuff every time, when their time is surely better spent on adding to the sum of human knowledge. I have contributed nearly 1000 articles to Wikipedia, but may lose interest if I have to spend more time on nugatory repetition of references. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subst it then and keep it in your userspace. I have User:Ricky81682/Template:Harrison I created because I keep citing a single book for a number of articles. You don't need to keep it as a live template out there. That doesn't accomplish anything but create additional difficulty for other editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriate use of templatespace. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is rather horrid. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete now orphaned. Plastikspork (talk) 07:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Publication order table/TBWCDROM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates shouldn't be used for article content. They really shouldn't be used for content in other templates. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gazettes order note (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates should not be used as a substitute for consensus discussion. Orders should be determined organically, not through who gets to the template first. That and templates shouldn't masquerade as article content. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete now orphaned and per nom. Plastikspork (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ring of Fire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think we can survive without this one. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete boilerplate article text; and misleading, since ring of fire refers to the Pacific Rim. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. I've cut from article space; I see one use on a page that should be deleted; the copy of a blog posting of an interview... Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Plastikspork (talk) 18:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BPsection:The Grantville Gazettes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

With this edit, this template is now an orphan. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it has been now been subst on the one article which included it. Now an orphan. Plastikspork (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632 series publications count (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not appropriate. Only use is another template that seems more complicated and unnecessary. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as only use is in (now) orphan templates Template:BPsection:The Grantville Gazettes and Template:BP GG lead section. Plastikspork (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BPsection:About the Gazettes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Template namespace; "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator's rationale. Templates should not be used as a home for article content. More broadly, the set of articles that transclude this template seem to have a promotional tone and lack any third-party evidence that the books are considered important. If the text in this template were simply moved to the respective articles, we would have a new problem. I suggest that published third-party commentary would need to be found to justify keeping the articles on the Grantville Gazettes. EdJohnston (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See the table that is at Template:BPsection:The Grantville Gazettes. I've put Grantville Gazette VIII up for deletion, but if somebody's up for the rest, more power to them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. Note that it is now an orphan after subst in each article. Plastikspork (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:1632GGbook (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

a now-orphaned franchise-specific under-construction tag; had been left on pages for a year and a half. delete. Jack Merridew 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Assume good faith. A year and a half is just a start. Just kidding. Delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Plastikspork (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per reasoning given at the TfD for Template:Gustavus, which applies here. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (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 Magioladitis (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hebrew University template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains all red links and has existed as such for about 8 months. Navbox only used in one article. Masonpatriot (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --GHcool (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, link farm. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2009 (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.