[go: nahoru, domu]

Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 13

[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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, redundant template JMHamo (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:35, 14 August 2015 (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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on only five former-draft articles, so no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:30, 13 August 2015 (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. BethNaught (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:26, 13 August 2015 (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 keepOpabinia regalis (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 13 August 2015 (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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:24, 13 August 2015 (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 deleteAlakzi (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 21 transclusions, so lacking community take-up. Undated, so may stay on talk pages far longer than necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:23, 13 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was delete. Consensus to delete; can be incorporated into {{Expand}} later if desired. Miniapolis 22:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 13 August 2015 (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).
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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been on Talk:Tourism in Indonesia since August 2006. Unused elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:11, 13 August 2015 (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. (nac) Alakzi (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:01, 13 August 2015 (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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from a nine-year old planed project, Wording includes "Please do not put a cleanup tag on this page" and "see the project page, currently a draft." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 13 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just five pages, none of which have been edited since 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:47, 13 August 2015 (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).
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 deleteAlakzi (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Used on just eight talk pages, to indicate that the respective articles appeared on a minor portal, five to ten years ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:32, 13 August 2015 (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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template has one link. That link should already be present in the text of every article that this template would be placed on, making this template extraneous. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as extraneous.Djflem (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2015 (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 (without prejudice to recreation if the project becomes active again). (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 10:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 13 August 2015 (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. BethNaught (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wording is "This is a current Stagecraft collaboration!". Has been on Talk:DMX512 since August 2011‎. No other uses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 13 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was redirect. We don't userfy official notices unless they're not gonna be used. Alakzi (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent fork of {{Static IP}}. Used on only four IP-user talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Okay to delete outright - fork, not documented, and hardly used Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Staticip_1. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I can, but the fact that I can doesn't mean that I have to. I ask again, what harm does the existence of an alternative do? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2015 (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).
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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Redundant to {{Help me}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 13 August 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_25#Template:Related interface messages. ~ RobTalk 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I intended this template to help with documenting the long tail of interface messages that are too minor to be listed in {{MediaWiki messages}}, though I'm not sure how many groups of interface messages there actually are that use of this template would be appropriate on. If there're enough to justify it, though, the functionality from this template could easily enough be rolled into {{Interface explanation}}, in which case this template would be wholly redundant. ディノ千?!? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 19:49, 13 August 2015 (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).
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 pending the outcome of the RfCAlakzi (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 13 August 2015 (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. BethNaught (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous to "new section" link. Only 20 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since it's intended for use on user talk pages, and thus, is a nice template to allow user talk page customization, regardless of it being redundant to a link on the top of the page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some editors like to use it, and what harm does its existence do? We don't need to delete something just because there's another way of doing it: having alternative methods is fine. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JamesBWatson as one of those editors who likes to use it. No harm is being caused by its existence. While I could place the code of the template directly on my user talk or create a userspace template page were it to be deleted, such deletion would harm efforts by others looking for an easy-to-find/easy-to-use "leave a new message by clicking here" link like I was not too long ago. I disagree that it is superfluous to the "new section" link. The "new section" link is easy to understand for editors who have been around a while (even a short while). But, as an editor who often interacts with newer, inexperienced editors, I can tell you that it is not easy to understand for a lot of them. Messages left in unrelated sections, or at the top of the page, or at the bottom of the page without a section heading are very common. The use of this template has significantly decreased the number of improperly-formatted messages on my talk page by giving new users a clear, obvious button to click on to leave me a message in a new section. --Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 16:14, 19 August 2015 (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 userfyAlakzi (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This one is harmless and may actually help lighten the mood. Support placing it on ANI in place of the instructions at the top of the page that so few people read anyway. - MrX 20:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At the very least, userfy to the space of its creator and user. No reason to delete something which would be wholly inoffensive in user space. BethNaught (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2015 (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 userfyAlakzi (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 13 August 2015 (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 Unanimous delete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:45, 13 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_25#Template:Motto. ~ RobTalk 23:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant wrapper of {{tmbox}}. Just 45 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. Arguments to delete are clear as to what harm is done by keeping this template around, and the keep voters do not address these arguments. As for Sj's comments, it is not part of the TfD process to orphan a template first and then nominate for deletion. TfD is designed to assess consensus before orphaning. ~ RobTalk 22:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial 2005 event. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 22:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_25#Template:Beer-project-member. ~ RobTalk 23:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to {{User WikiProject Beer}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 13 August 2015 (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).
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. Clear consensus to merge. As I've already done some work towards merging these together, I'll finish this off. Mdann52 (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Connected contributor with Template:Connected contributor multi.
No need for two templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - but this will take some work - the multi one doesn't display the "otherlinks" field, which is really important in the simple one for showing diffs where COI is actually disclosed, and editors need to be able to see that field. I often avoid using the multi template because of that. I do worry about the work of doing the merge at the article level (the fields are labelled differently in the two templates), but I don't know how that works. That work may make the merge prohibitively difficult. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with more or less the same reservations as Jytdog – the merged result should have all the functionality of the single-user version. Like Jytdog, I avoid using the multi version because it is more limited. This merge should have been done long ago. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming it's done intelligently per Jytdog's comment. I'd like to confirm/point out/complain that the multi template doesn't appear to allow inclusion of a diff to a disclosure. That is to say the otherlinks param is busted, or not documented correctly. Brianhe (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having a single template with full functionality instead of two templates with partial functionality just makes sense. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Levdr1lp / talk 04:55, 21 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was mark as historical. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Last updated March 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:27, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 22:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Collaboration of the month templates are a distraction to Wikipedia community organizers trying to build engagement. Almost always (19 out 20 times) these do not work at all, and when they do work, it takes a lot more than a template. I feel sorry for those who invest time in testing these without knowing their history of low success. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deleteAlakzi (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:11, 13 August 2015 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has been on Talk:Protist since May 2008, on Zygote and Mutagen since September 2008‎ and on Talk:Phospholipid since December 2008‎. Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month is marked as historic. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 13 August 2015 (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).
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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 13 August 2015 (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. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 13 August 2015 (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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content is "This article is a current selected article candidate on West Bengal portal....". Has been on Talk:Birbhum district since October 2006‎ and on Talk:Bengal since March 2007. No other uses. Linked discussion page is a red link Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 13 August 2015 (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 deleteOpabinia regalis (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only 33 transclusions suggests lack of community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologizing is good, but I don't think a one word template with a smiley face serves much purpose. I'm also puzzled about why it's left aligned in a longish gray box. - MrX 19:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A strange template; I think it would be more effective to just say "Sorry!" in normal text. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:WIKILOVE. Btw, WP:ADMIT says that this template is a good idea for apologizing, and even transcludes it. --TL22 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both are essays, with no formal standing; the later is by the same editor who made this template, has few incoming links from other guidelines or policies, and will be just as meaningful (or not) without the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because they are essays doesn't mean they can't be cited (see WP:ONLYESSAY). Plus imagine a case where an editor apologizes with the "Sorry" template and then explains his apologies below the template. That is a perfect circumstance for using the template. In conclusion, this template is useful if used properly. --TL22 (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • They may indeed be cited; I merely pointed out that they have no formal standing. A cursory glance through a random subset of the templates current transclusions shows it most often used with no accompanying text. Where there is accompanying text that would work just as well without the template. And to reiterate, a mere 33 transclusions - around five a year - shows that the community has not adopted this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like the idea of having a template that a person can easily and quickly use to say they're sorry about something. However, I feel this template is way larger than it should be, and can be distracting in a discussion. I would suggest something more like {{Thank you}} or {{Done}}. It can fit right in line in text, and thus it isn't distracting. I feel editing the template in this way would also make it more appealing to use, thus increasing its transclusion count. JaykeBird (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the sentiment of WP:DTTR: a personalised individual message carries much more influence than a template. Leaving a vandalism warning for an established contributor is often a mark of scorn because it's so generic and can give the impression that you're not interested in discussion. In somewhat the same manner, the use of this generic template can give the impression that you're making a pro forma apology. Just leave a personal note: "Oops, I'm sorry that I did X; I should have done Y". Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2015 (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 consensusAlakzi (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 13 August 2015 (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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 06:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:28, 13 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ RobTalk 06:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Banner for defunct, 2013 editing drive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment shouldn't there be some general banner for assignments, instead of a specific one for each collaboration, so that you just add switches to indicate which collaboration and what time period? ; that would lead to better tracking of school projects across wikipedia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can a generic template be built, and replace all specific use templates with intermediate transclusions of the generic one? (like stub-type meta template, or WikiProjectBanner meta template) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obsolete and underutilized. - MrX 19:38, 19 August 2015 (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).
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).

The result of the discussion was Delete. There is a fundamental disagreement over whether templates should be deleted due to low usage, and we're unlikely to resolve that here. Concerns that the template is redundant to {{BannedMeansBanned}} and others have not been addressed, which is explicitly a valid reason for deletion at WP:TFD#REASONS. Beyond that, most editors appear to think that any template of this type is unnecessary. ~ RobTalk 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, as this is general policy, and its target audience are unlikely to comply. Only 11 transclusions, showing lack of community uptake. (Content is "Posts by banned or blocked users will be removed from this article and its talk page. Blocked users please adhere to Wikipedia's blocking policy and refrain from block evasion and/or sockpuppetry."). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually, there are at least 15 transclusions, including transclusions via redirects. However, whatever the number, the fact that there are that many transclusions shows that editors sometimes use the template. Just because they don't often do so is not a reason for preventing them from doing so on those occasions when they wish to. As for "its target audience are unlikely to comply", my experience is that, while nothing is guaranteed to stop sockpuppeteers from coming back with new sockpuppets, being told "any editing you do will be a waste of time, as it will just be reverted" is one of the methods with the highest success rates. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per JamesB and lack of transclusions being insufficient grounds for deletion. Melody 23:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - template creep. This presupposes that banned editors and sockpuppets are unaware of the policy, that they would care about the policy, and that they'd check the talk page and pay attention to the banner in a sea of beige. Alakzi (talk) 08:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to {{BannedMeansBanned}}. As noted above, we simply don't need a banner template to express this basic concept. However, the name itself makes me think of BannedMeansBanned; I initially assumed that this was going to be redundant to that template. The name itself would work fine as an alternate name, i.e. as a decent redirect. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Alakzi (indef blocked by selfrequest but anyway). Template creep. --TL22 (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2015 (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).
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 Withdrawn. Wrong target, sorry. A simple note to that effect, on my talk page, would have sufficed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Infobox wrestling PPV series with Template:Infobox reality talent competition.
Per suggestion in the previous TfM. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:34, 13 August 2015 (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; deleted as G6 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 14:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not in English. Unclear purpose, but appears to have been created for use at Paul the Whale, which lacks notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2015 (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 deleteAlakzi (talk) 22:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially redundant in functionality to {{Db-move}} (except the redirect is tagged instead of the page to be moved.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2015 (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 deletion under criterion G7: One author who has requested deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created and only contains red links, it really serves no purpose in that form. Doesn't appear to be in use (WP:TG), and I'm not sure where it would be used.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created this template, and also in this 2 next weeks will go to create that 2 articles totally traduced from Wikipedia in Spanish. And will go to be in use for that 2 pages--Vvven (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2015 (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.