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) 23:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Patient safety organizations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate "template" of nothing but external links; used only one two articles Patient safety and Patient safety organization, and seems be being used in a highly inappropriate fashion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would it be useful to pare back to only those entities with Wikipedia articles? I know the World Health Organization has one... Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An completely inappropriate mess. 2005 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm, nor is it a directory. I also don't see the need for this template as it doesn't contain any information that could not appear in a "see also" section or within the body of an article. ThemFromSpace 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "An completely inappropriate mess" Arrogant, aren't we now? Ryanjo (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP is not a linkfarm etc, and I support Collectonian's description of it as a completely inappropriate mess. – ukexpat (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. WP:CSD#T2. Template blatantly misrepresents established policy, nothing more than a Spam Template.--Hu12 (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space, spam. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:54, 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 redirect JPG-GR (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Michigan Wolverines athletic teams (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant based on the "athletics" section of Template:University of Michigan. Again, I suggest a merge and redirect. Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Redundant template. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per nom, redundant. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:56, 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 redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is redundant based on the existence of Template:Michigan Wolverines basketball. I suggest a merge and redirect. Muboshgu (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Redundant template. - Masonpatriot (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Almost every professional and college sports team has a template for their coaching history.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And this one still will... the issue is whether there needs to be two templates that contain the exact same information. We should default to the more comprehensive template. - Masonpatriot (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All of these organizations have comprehnesive templates and almost all of them include the coaches. Nonetheless, it is standard and almost a matter of policy to have a separate coaching history template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment From what I see at User:Masonpatriot/Templates_created#College_coach_navboxes, you are familiar with the convention of attempting to have such navboxes for all coaches.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Sure I am familiar with the practice of having coach navboxes, and as you've pointed out I've created a bunch of them. That doesn't mean I don't recognize when a temlpate is redundant and the information is presented elsewhere in a more comprehensive way. For example, all of the active NBA team teplates do it in this fashion and don't have separate coach navboxes (i.e. Template:Boston Celtics).
• Strong redirect, per nom, completely redundant. Just because one user made all these templates doesn't mean they all shouldn't be deleted/redirected (pro-tip: they should). Axem Titanium (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Axem, you missed the point. I created Michigan, which is at issue here. He created a whole bunch of others. The debate is not about his creations, but about mine.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the move is to remove university coaching template in favor of a single unifying franchise/university template, I can go with it. I am just use to seeing coaches with a bunch of dedicated coaching history templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment First, I agree that this is redundant. But, what about schools that do not have the general basketball program templates? In those cases (like Beilen's former school, Richmond), a coaches' box is not redundant. Are we for getting rid of all schools' coaches templates without regard to redundancy -- or is this discussion limited to only those schools that do have general basketball program template? Also, if the coaches' template is deleted, I think the general basketball program template should replace it on the individual coaches' pages. -Kgwo1972 (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My vote is limited to this template only, since there is a more comprehensive alternative (and keeping both does not add anything to WP). In the absense of a more comprehensive "program navbox" I support the coach navboxes. - Masonpatriot (talk) 00:27, 4 August 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 author request and unanimous opinion here. Amalthea 20:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-cite (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Horribly misguided template, going against some of our basic policies. "However, adding citation templates are considered disruptive edits and are disliked by the community."? Umm, no, citation tags are one of the basic cleanup tools: adding uncited text is the problem, not pointing out these problems. The template continues by pointing the templated reader to "disruptive editing". We don't need templates which go against our core policies. Fram (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In additon to the problems pointed out by Fram, the template could easily be read to mean that using templates such as ((cite book)) or ((citation)) constitutes disruptive editing, and by extension, citing sources in any way, shape, or form constitutes disruptive editing. This template is a case of forbidding a particular tree, while forgetting that the reader of the template is looking at a forest. --Jc3s5h (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above; do note that the author of the template means ((citation needed)) — see here. Still a very Bad Idea™ — Cheers, Jack Merridew
• Delete - This dangerous template discourages the enforcement the WP:Verifiability policy, which is one of our core policies. EconomistBR 17:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Yes, I know that it is badly worded, but can anyone figure out a better wording? The creation comes out of people using the fact tag obnoxiously. I would appreciate any help with this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears if my intentions were misguided. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:02, 27 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 speedy delete as orphaned and per recent discussions on the plentiful 1632-related templates. JPG-GR (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:32TOC-beg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate template that was used to create full copies of works' TOC with links to sections; i.e. what a normal TOC does. This served to cement a whole lot of franchise spam into Wikipedia and present an impenetrable template syntax to wiki-editors. Now orphaned. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:32st (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:32st/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:32s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:32color (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

associated w/((32TOC-beg)) and was used to create/colour part of the tables. now orphaned and highly inappropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Get rid of the lot, per nom and per my other deletion comments related to 1632 stuff. Please note, I have nothing against an article, or even a few articles, about 1632 and ancillary works, but they need to be standard wiki fare. ++Lar: t/c 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, inappropriate use of template space. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing Admin — Please delete this redirect: Template:32stitle to ((32st)), too. Thanks, Jack Merridew 03:30, 31 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.