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. Ruslik_Zero 17:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Chuck character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Appears to be mostly redundant to ((infobox character)). Although there are fields in this template which are not in the generic character template, it's not clear that all are entirely necessary, and why those that are necessary couldn't be merged with the more generic character template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — usages should be recast as ((infobox character)) invocations. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree. This infobox provides a number of relevant pieces of information that are more specific to Chuck than is appropriate for the generic infobox. Additionally, there are some 15 characters for this series that use the template. Also, why was this flagged before ANY discussion at all took place on the template's talk page? Ambaryer (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Some hundreds of such show-specific infobox templates have previously been deleted, so you should be prepared for a similar outcome, here. This body of past precedent is much of why such things are dealt with expeditiously. Jack Merridew 00:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For prior related discussions, see this search link. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks; I got 303. Not a bad guess ;) Jack Merridew 01:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the place for discussions; no prior discussion is required. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Actually, it includes things that we've come to remove from the general infobox character template because they are contradictory to WP:WAF.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ((Infobox character)) exists and more than sufficient - the added fields to this one are unnecessary and were removed from the main box for a reason - the infobox, like the article itself, is not for excessive in-universe and show-specific focus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 15:11, 9 June 2010 (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 Resolved Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect-distinguish/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This documentation page for the template: ((Redirect-distinguish)) is obsolete as it can be (and has been) replaced by the much more complete documentation page here Template:Other uses templates - documentation as is consistent with most of the other "Other uses templates". Captain n00dle\^Talk 21:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe you just need to replace it with a transclusion of the main documentation. The reason for doing that, rather than how you had it before, is that it will allow for interwiki-links and categories to be placed on the doc page, without editing the main template. Of course, this isn't a big issue if the template is not protected, but it is helpful if the template is fully protected in the future. I believe I have it set up properly now. Can we close this? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make an excellent suggestion, Thank you and please feel free to close this issue. Captain n00dle\^Talk 19:00, 5 June 2010 (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 Userfied by author Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marking your user/user talk page everything you go for sleep would be overkill. Not used, and not necessary. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Might as well be a dual nom with ((AFK)), which suffers from the same problems. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean "every time" you go for sleep? Doesn't matter anyway, I moved the templates to my userspace since I'm the only one who used them. -PatPeter 01:38, 5 June 2010 (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 Userfied by author Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, uncommon, "AFK" is more necessary in live video games rather than here at Wikipedia because everything that you want to see is logged within the page histories, so it's impossible to miss stuff. The Evil IP address (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Furthermore, the wording is troublesome in the extreme - it looks like an attempt to be able to put a hold on anything that the user might disagree with so long as said user ducks out for a while. That's not really how consensus works. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Template moved, cite above. -PatPeter 01:38, 5 June 2010 (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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 17:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nothing that requires an own template, simple wiki syntax. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh... doesn't harm anybody. Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that this template has one tranclusion on an archived talk page. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is simple syntax as long as the editor happens to remember the name of the file. I suspect we'd find a lot more instances of this being used if we could search for all the times it has been subst'd. Deleting this would also mean that we should get rid of other nice shortcuts like ((fixed)) and ((;))).  7  04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per 7. It saves time, and is actually quite helpful, things like ((tick)) are fairly simple syntax, but who wants to search for the image name, figure out what size to put it on, etc every time they use it, when they could just have a template? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is hardly used and isn't likely to be in future. As such, it doesn't belong in templatespace. Here is a complete list of all transclusions including substitutions: only three uses altogether anywhere. As for what harm it's doing, it's encouraging even more stupid badges and awards to be added to templatespace without considering whether they're needed or not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry? As the nominator said, if anything this is redundant to simple wiki code, so I'm at a loss as to how this could encourage anything... And it's a pretty long-standing practice to post this on new admins' talk pages. Juliancolton (talk)

• If people want to post each other silly images on their talk pages then so be it. However, that doesn't mean that they need to create templates for such a purpose. As for this being "long-standing practice", it may be common to post the image but not this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How does the project benefit from deleting this template? Juliancolton (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Templatespace is supposed to be for tools which are useful to the project and widely used. Obscure little badges and jokes likt this don't belong in templatespace for the same reason that only certain userboxes belong in templatespace. With only three uses, all of them historic, keeping the template is unlikely to mean it sees more use, which is criteria #3 on the short list of reasons to delete at the top of the main TfD page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - pretty commonly used as a subst'd template, certainly doesn't harm anything. Over a hundred instances of the image being used, probably as a result of this template. ILIKEIT, so sue me. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There are only three uses of this template, including the substituted ones. People seem to be getting confused between nominating the image for deletion (which nobody is doing) and nominating this obscure template which happens to use the image. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete barely used and not complex enough to warrant this template. Garion96 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or Move to User:UBX or whatever. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Plastikspork- userfication would be fine, failing that, keep, per 7 and Kingpin- it's a useful shortcut and would probably show up as linked on dozens of pages if it weren't substed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again (really?), the caption for the image isn't changeable, so you can search for exactly how many times it's been used including substitutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This seems to be another one of those Wikipedia traditions, and typing ((adminshirt)) seems to be easier than typing [[File:Admin T-shirt.svg|thumb|Here's your free T-shirt!]] as the template does. Pilif12p :  Yo  15:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This inevitably appears after a successful RfA. The recipient may delete it later (hence the low numbers found).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template does what a template should do: provide a shorter way to insert a message onto a talkpage. Not detrimental to the project. Wikipedia:Template messages does not prohibit templates that are "not complex" enough. Jarkeld (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it were actually being used, I'd say keep, but a single use on a single user archive doesn't indicate that it is necessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it is substituted; that is why it is "used" only once. Airplaneman ✈ 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The link above indicates that it was only substituted 3 times, so still not really used that I can see? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. Sorry for the confusion, Airplaneman ✈ 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – a simple alternative to remembering the file name. Airplaneman ✈ 15:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per letting us have just a bit of fun, some IAR, and giving admins a t-shirt after a stressful week. Userfy if everyone else wants it gone, I guess. —fetch·comms 13:21, 10 June 2010 (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 T2 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:557-broadway(2).jpg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was in use in one article, there substituted now. Should not be used in this way. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2010 (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:SIG#NT Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Confusing signature, user template that doesn't belong in template namespace. May be userfied if wanted. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, the user who made the template is indefblocked/banned --B (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now being edited by another editor using it for the same purpose. N/A0 00:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or Delete as not appropriate for templatespace. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2010 (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 support deletion; default to keep. JPG-GR (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Di-fails NFCC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template violates Wikipedia speedy-deletion policies and causes the speedy deletion of files/images that do no merit such automatic deletions. It defies Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for files. According to CSD, a file that, for instance, violates NFCC8 does not merit speedy-deletion. (Although, according to NFCC, such a file still merits normal deletion.)

Other than that, this template is redundant, as other specialized and better templates already replace its function. For instance, images which violate NFCC7 are speedy-deleted via ((Di-orphaned fair use)). NFCC1 violators are addressed via ((Di-replaceable fair use)). Etc. Fleet Command (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:CSD#F7 and WP:F#Enforcement both permit deletion of images which fail the NFCC, and this template implements that. Indeed, it gives a more lenient than required treatment. NFCC#10a, #3a, and several others also don't have their own template, but this versatile one covers all bases. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am afraid I don't think so, dear Stifle. You seem to have misunderstood.
    1. First, WP:F#Enforcement merely speaks of deletion but does not explicitly mention speedy-deletion. It is WP:CSD that is our reference for what should be speedy-deleted and what should not.
    2. Second, as for WP:CSD#F7, no, it does not authorize speedy-deletion of those that violate any NFCC criterion; it strictly speaks of violators of NFCC 10c.
    3. And last, yes, there are no speedy-deletion templates for certain NFCC items such as 3 and 8. There should not be. They do not merit speedy-deletion. Please do note that we do have quite a lot of policies in Wikipedia that require certain contents to be deleted, but not all of them require speedy-deletion. Speedy-deletion is only a mean of attending to extreme cases.
  • Fleet Command (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Invalid fair-use claims tagged with ((subst:dfu)) may be deleted seven days after they are tagged" refers to all of the NFCC, not just #10c. Unfortunately, if you're going to persist with tortured misreadings of policy, there is little hope in me convincing you that yes, we do delete fair use violations after 7 days without further discussion, the 52 files in Category:All disputed non-free Wikipedia files being examples which will meet this fate in the next week. If you say that none of the NFCC are reasons for speedy deletion, then why do ((di-replaceable fair use)) and ((di-disputed fair use rationale)) exist? Stifle (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, dear Stifle, I hope you would not mind directly answering several questions? If you don't, here they are:
        1. Is WP:CSD the definitive source of knowing what merits speedy-deletion or not?
        2. Which clause of WP:CSD authorizes speedy-deletion of images that require digital cropping or downsizing, or images that in any way violate NFCC 3b?
        3. Which clause of WP:CSD authorizes speedy-deletion of non-free images which do not have any contextual significance, as required by NFCC8?
        4. Which clause of WP:CSD authorizes speedy-deletion of non-free images of which multiple copies or variations are uploaded to Wikipedia?
      • Thanks, Stifle. Fleet Command (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:CSD is one policy/page that allows deletion of Wikipedia pages without discussion on an XFD. Others exist, including WP:PUF, WP:OFFICE, and WP:BLPPROD, as well as, in this case, WP:F. If you object to it being called speedy-deletion, I don't mind, but you'll note that "speedy deletion" is not referred to in Template:Di-fails NFCC, just deletion. All deletions must be authorized by policy, and WP:F is the authorizing policy behind this template — it says that a file "in use in an article and uploaded after 13 July 2006 that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted" (not my italics). If this was to mean "will be nominated for FFD", it would have said "will be nominated for FFD". Nothing in policy requires that a rule for deletion be enumerated in one specific place to be effective. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The main objection still remains: These other methods that you introduced also do not authorize discussion-free deletion of contents that violate NFCC8, NFCC3a or NFCC3b via this template. WP:PUF is not discussion-free. WP:OFFICE and WP:BLPPROD do not apply to NFCC violations at all! (If you feel that they do, please quote from them.) As for WP:F#Enforcement, it explicitly states "Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion." It means that I'm obliged to ask you to answer questions 2, 3 and 4 above. Fleet Command (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:F clearly spells out what may be deleted; as I already said, there is no requirement that all reasons why something might be deleted be set out in one specific place. If your [complete mis]reading of "deleted" is "nominated for FFD", then I am unable to help you. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

              • Now, now, Stifle. Please pace yourself. You are one of the very respected administrators here and it would deter your standing to use substandard language like this. Take a break and whenever you are ready, tell me how I am misreading it:

                WP:F#Enforcement explicitly states "Deletion criteria for non-free content are specified in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion." I read CSD and found no ground for speedy-deleting violators of NFCC8, NFCC3a or the others that I mentioned. If feel otherwise, please clarify me by directly answering questions 2, 3 and 4.

                Fleet Command (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • As I explained above, the fact that deletion criteria are set out in one place does not preclude them from being set out elsewhere.
                  And please quit with the patronizing, faux-politeness while failing to get the point. I appreciate that you want the template deleted, but if I have not by now convinced you that it is a valid template and should be kept, I will have to resign myself to the fact that I will never succeed in doing so as you are so set in your opinion, and will hope that consensus among other contributors here will be to keep the templates. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, there is nothing faux-polite or faux-anything-else about me. If you had visited my user page, you'd have seen that for a long time now you are one of the only three Wikipedia Administrators for whom I hold the most respect. Do not assume good faith in me; Be Certain of Good Faith! I'm not faux-polite; I am polite; because I respect you!

  Back to our discussion: Granted, you told me that there are many other avenues of deletion and I acknowledged. (Indeed, I once again studied Wikipedia Deletion policy and Wikipedia Image Deletion Guideline.) So, for the third time, please, quote a policy page – any policy page, not just WP:CSD – that sanctions speedy or discussion-free deletion of:

  1. Non-free images that are large and require to be downsized.
  2. Non-free images that a Wikipedian has felt are of no contextual significance.
  3. Non-free images of which multiple copies or variations are uploaded to Wikipedia.

  Fleet Command (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:F.

    At this point in time, if I have not convinced you, I will not be making any further attempts to do so, as I would consider it futile. I'll leave it to the closing admin.

    P.S. thank you for specifying me as one of your most-respected admins.

    Stifle (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Okay then. The closing admin it is... See you around.

      Fleet Command (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. --The Evil IP address (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Believe it or not, I actually use this thing... o 0 -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I am afraid that is not a good reason. Yes, I did use it twice, but then I noticed that its use might not be morally correct, as it helps getting around FfD and speedy-delete files that must not be deleted prior to a discussion in FfD. Fleet Command (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Valid template per speedy deletion criteria. Garion96 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Garion96, I asked several questions from Stifle. You'll find them above. Could you please answer them? Thanks. Fleet Command (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this template doesn't refer to any CSD criteria; it refers to an entirely different policy which requires the file's deletion 48 hours after notification. Stifle referenced the policy several times in the above discussion. CSD does not apply; this policy is more like PROD on steroids. Saying it violates CSD policy is like saying that using salt violates sugar restrictions in a diet - completely different topics.--~TPW 20:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection Stifle only mentioned WP:F#Enforcement (he did mention WP:PUF, WP:OFFICE and WP:BLPPROD but they obviously don't apply here). However, WP:F#Enforcement explicitly states:

Fleet Command (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per TPW. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions → Per X

    — Fleet Command (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • The alternative would be to take the words out of TPW's mouth and write what he said all over again… if you agree with someone else, you agree. I don't think you should be frowned upon for doing that. Typing "per x" saves time and avoids too much redundancy. I don't agree with that part of the essay in most cases. Airplaneman ✈ 15:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright then. I registered an objection with TPW. How about you give an answer to that? Fleet Command (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2010 (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 to ((External links)). Ruslik_Zero 08:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Source Style (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

External links should not be used as references, and this is already covered by ((unreferenced)) (or using ((nofootnotes))). —fetch·comms 23:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is just ((nofootnotes)) rephrased by the looks of things. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to ((unreferenced)) (or using ((nofootnotes)). Airplaneman ✈ 16:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would be remiss if I didn't offer the following information for consideration. It is being suggested that this template is substantially the same as ((nofootnotes)) and/or ((unreferenced)).

First ((nofootnotes)) implies that information contained in the External links section might serve as a reference if an inline citation pointed to it. Furthermore in the absence of a ^{[citation needed]} within the body of text or the inclusion of a quotation therein, no requirement for an inline citation is demonstrable. Regarding the ((unreferenced)) tag, Although technically accurate to the situation, many editors who are unaware that external links do not serve as a reference will remove the ((unreferenced)) tag under similar arguments as above (ie no requirement for an inline citation). I will demonstrate these assertions below as well as situations where the ((Source Style)) formerly called ((Sourced wrong)) tag has been effective for consideration. Notice the actions taken to each particular tag.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Calcagni&diff=next&oldid=361963567
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Shahade&diff=361951945&oldid=351144529
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Cubitt&diff=362228413&oldid=359737444
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Ericson_%28actor%29&diff=362222123&oldid=362069034

My thanks to everyone motivated enough to add comments to this section.My76Strat (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per all, furthermore (not that it matters for this decision) bad capitalization. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the capitalization above is, as you say, "bad". I qualify however, the presentation on the template itself is grammatically correct, in my opinion. FWIW My76Strat (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I think this is redundant to ((nofootnotes)). In any case, that template is a little clearer for new users to understand. Robofish (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with the others, it seems wholly redundant to ((nofootnotes)), while being less clear. If an editor removes the nofootnotes tag claiming it is "referenced", then you replace it and explain it to them. Making another template isn't going to fix that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, and there is the ((Linkfarm)) template for inappropriate external linking. Abductive (reasoning) 08:38, 13 June 2010 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Out-of-date fork of ((Taxobox)). Unedited since 2008; single instance in article space. Clearly no consensus for widespread adoption. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—The "unranked" levels in the taxobox accommodate these just fine (e.g., eudicots).--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with ((Taxobox)). Robofish (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – redundant to ((Taxobox)), which it can be replaced with. Airplaneman ✈ 15:16, 9 June 2010 (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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template from August 2008. There is also Template:Portaltitle/doc, half in French. Fram (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, looks like someone copied this template from some other wiki. I think ((Portal)) should fulfill their wishes now more than enough. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused and redundant. Robofish (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unused, redundant. Airplaneman ✈ 15:15, 9 June 2010 (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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Categories for conversion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - if this template is deleted, then the category can under CSD G8 as being populated by a deleted template.

If a category is to be converted into anything else, it's probably a list; for that situation, we have the almost never used ((cfl)). I think that 2 templates for a situation that nearly never arises is too much. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The text of the template says clearly "conversion into an article", not a list. It may be seldom used, but it is clearly not the same as converting into a list. Od Mishehu, you should be more careful before you nominate maintenance templates. If you don't know what it is for, ask. Debresser (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (unfortunately): I'd love if we could finally have move support for categories, so that it's no longer necessary to convert a category to an article, but that one can just move it. However, we still need that, so keep. Also, rather the ((Cfl)) should be deleted/orphaned since it's basically the same as this one (converting to an article). --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - acceptable alternative, and occasionally useful. If anything, the other template should be deleted, as it's less flexible. Robofish (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2010 (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. Author Requested.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Do not substitute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It appears the only purpose of these templates is to generate the phrases, "Please substitute this template" and "do not substitute this template". I don't see why a template is needed, and it would be better to just add say ((substituted)) to the template in question, since that would also add it to the necessary category. In addition, ((dns)) is easily confused with "domain name server" and ((sub2)) is easily confused with ((sub)). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this can really be replaced with simple wikisyntax. --The Evil IP address (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as creator. Samwb123^{T (R)-C-E} 21:06, 4 June 2010 (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.