- 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. Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Good GIF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template gives horrible advice, giving an invalid reason why these images should be kept in GIF format instead of having them easily converted to PNG. ANDROS1337TALK 21:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry it comes across as horrible. I created it as discussed here with Sfan00_IMG who seems to be a prolific expert on images. The point is that some GIFs could be fairly easy be re-created from scratch (geometric shapes + letters from standard fonts), so let's go ahead and tag those for replacement with efficient storage formats, but some other websites use GIF originals for complex designs. Template:Good GIF only intended for the latter image files, uploaded here under fair use provisions, e.g. school logos; the point is to discourage editors from tagging them inappropriately. What did I get wrong, please? – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is, these images can easily be converted to PNG without any loss of quality. ANDROS1337TALK 00:15, 20 February 2012 (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 for multiple reasons:
AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Zakouski (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
- Template:Zakouski2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
not necessary, since one can just use template:pas de deux directly. this one would have very limited use, and is overly complicated when there is a much more transparent way to achieve the same format. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see why the template ((pas de deux)) is named that way, it looks like it could be used generally, since there's nothing ballet specific in it. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after adapting its instances to ((pas de deux)); it's just a partially hardcoded instance of that template. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- then why would the same rationale not apply to most of the templates listed in the TfD above? Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not quite the same as ((Pas de deux)) and the devil is in the details. ((Zakouski)) reads ((Pas de deux|[[Zakouski (ballet)|Zakouski]]|(({1))}|(({2))))} and it is within the (ballet)| segment that the devil lies. Zakouski by itself leads to a disambiguation page, and this is true of the titles of the ballets in many other templates (there are a smaller number that simply don't conform to regular pas de deux, pas de trois, pas de quatre formatting.) If you will look at the List of ... articles mentioned above you will see that ballet titles re-appear throughout at random. These templates are a simple, safe and sure method of avoiding inadvertent links to disambiguation pages — I would argue the only method of doing so (Template:Zakouski2 is obsolete and I have flagged it with ((db-author)).) Three of the templates bear no relation to ((Pas de deux)), ((Pas de trois)) or any other template as they include the names of the rôles as well as parameters for the members of the cast; they are ((Coppélia)), ((Swan Lake)) and ((Ocean's Kingdom)). — Robert Greer (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2012 (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.
Template:Zvezda aft
[edit]
- 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 after replacement with a simple thumbnail image with caption. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Zvezda aft (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
gigantic and unused. it's hard to see how this could be used in an article, given the gigantic size. Frietjes (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (used in Zvezda (ISS module)#Interior) --Z 09:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fixed"? So are we going to have an article for probably fire fighting equipment, looks like breathing masks? The links in the image are banal in the extreme, and losing the lot to just include an image normally (or even better, simply listing important equipment underneath in an accessible caption) would be perfectly acceptable. Preferable, even. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Subst and delete: The original nomination rationales are now entirely moot (it isn't "gigantic", it's just a normal sized pic with an image map, and it is in fact used in an article). However, one-transclusion templates serve no purpose, so it should simply be WP:SUBST'd into the article that uses it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Chris Cunningham, the links are banal, mostly not working, and the entire setup is worth less than nothing. Having it as a thumbnail is better. --Muhandes (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2012 (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.
Template:APS Zakynthos
[edit]Template:Ornattukunnel is the one of the main muslim family in Kerala.
[edit]Template:Original upload date
[edit]Template:Original caption
[edit]WikiProject Adventure games Templates
[edit]Template:Ship infobox request
[edit]
- 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Ship infobox request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Merge to ((WikiProject Ships)). Currently, using the needs_infobox=yes field on that template makes this template appear — but most other WikiProject templates simply put a "This article needs an infobox" field in the template, instead of spinning off a whole other template on top of that. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merger. Also note that the template is not currently tagged for deletion. (I'd tag it myself but I'd be scared of messing it up...) - The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I would prefer a consolidated approach. —Diiscool (talk) 22:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was a reason this template was retained after setting the project banner for the box parameter. See User talk:Brad101/ShipSand to see what the dilemma was. It was thought that since the banner shell was to collapse project banners it wouldn't have been right to ram the box into the shell. I'd prefer that that option remains available. Brad (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per my above statement. Brad (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the ship infobox is part of WP:SHIPS, "ramming" it to the collapsible multiple-project template kind of gives an idea that the article is missing other infoboxes as well. Since it's almost universally the only infobox in the article, I would prefer to have the request (or more precisely an option to use it) as a separate template. Tupsumato (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhh, yeah, ships guys, that's exactly what happens when every other wikiproject template includes
needs_infobox=yes
. If you dislike that then argue for it centrally: there is no good reason at all to simply ignore that consensus for your own project. If the request must be standalone for some extreme edge case then ((infobox requested)) already exists and this is wholly redundant. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:22, 19 February 2012 (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) 03:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional closing comments - There is, of course, some merit to the argument that the template is useful, and should be reworded. However, there is consensus that this template is simply too vague, and that it's better to use more specific templates for tagging articles which are "not encyclopaedic". Basically, if an article is not encyclopaedic, one should give a more specific reason, which is why we have so dozens of more specific maintenance templates. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:NOT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Also too vague. "May contain material not inappropriate…" okay, what material? Where? Did you discuss this on the talk page? I have never seen this template lead to talkpage discussion of what is unencyclopedic. Morover, I get the feeling that this template was sometimes confused with ((notability)), as this template used to be called ((unencyclopedic)). The first few uses I looked for seemed to be confusing it in such a way, and it doesn't look like the naming helped. I feel that the wording's just too vague, either way. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Previous deletion discussions
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_7#Template:Unencyclopedic
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_March_22#Template:Unencyclopedic
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_16#Template:Unencyclopedic
- Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_January_21#Template:Unencyclopedic
The re-naming of this template helped greatly as this template was previously a focus of much contention and drama, prior to it's rename notability was one of those problems, so perhaps if Ten Pound Hammer got the feeling it was confused with ((notability)), then that is likely because of an historic use of the tag.
That this template does not lead to talkpage discussion is true, but it also true for almost all such templates with a talk option.
- The problem is, though, even after the rename to ((NOT)), many of the transclusions seem to date from when it was called ((unencyclopedic)), and as a result, they still seem to be incorrectly using it as a substitute for ((notability)). So renaming this hasn't helped. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps someone could go through the historic tagging. It's used on less then 500 articles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think its worth noting that this template is transcluded onto quite a number of pages. Since this appears to be heading for deletion, perhaps we can organize some sort of template roundup/redirection where the current transclusions are replaced with their more specific counterparts before the actual deletion is carried out. ThemFromSpace 17:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started going through the transclusions. Its easy work but will take some time to go through them all. ThemFromSpace 17:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the rest. Some were simply a means of swapping out for another specific template. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - apparently the deed is done, but I think this was putting the cart before the horse. The template's fate should have been decided before removing it en masse. LadyofShalott 02:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete another useless maintenance tag. If an article is "not appropriate for Wikipedia", then AfD it. Don't just slap a drive by tag on it and leave it to rot. Resolute 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic of an article is not appropriate, or if there is no suitable content in an article, it should be nominated for AFD or PROD. A template such as this should be used where only parts of an article are unsuitable, and removing this template could result in problems being unaddressed because of lack of relevant template, or use of ((cleanup)) which is more vague than this one. Peter E. James (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too vague, if it is WP:NOT then it should just be speedy deleted or AfD'd JayJayTalk to me 03:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Just like ((cleanup)) it's too vague a tag to be useful. If an article violates part of WP:NOT, then more specific tags can be used. --MuZemike 03:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is not a lot of things and many newer users are unaware of our intricate policies. A quick read over WP:NOT is beneficial for many users and this template serves that purpose. I've used it in the past when I was more active in NPP and I recall some good results. Noformation Talk 06:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete salt, tenderize, and serve with a side of waffle fries. Another useless generic cleanup template with no value whatsoever. The template is way too vague to be of useful in any way. There are many more specific templates that better address the issues with an article {i.e. Template:Advert). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very vague. "What does it specifically refer to?" ~FeedintmParley 01:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Too vague to be actually useful; there are more specific templates and processes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 07:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too vague to be useful. – sgeureka t•c 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : Just found an article that is sort of like a manual and probably violates WP:NOT. The article is probably salvageable however and I do not wish to propose it for deletion without a discussion period. This template is acceptable as a means to initiate that discussion. There may be other templates that could work too but this one fit the purpose and was the first I found after 5 minutes of searching. Quite frankly I'm getting tired of people claiming templates don't serve a purpose or that are too vague. Usually it exposes lack of sufficient imagination to imagine the purpose or experience to know that sometimes vagueness is an asset. Jason Quinn (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Change Instructions; the instructions should say that anyone placing this template must explain the objection on the article talk page, and that anyone may freely delete the template if it was places without an explanation on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2012 (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.