Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7

Template:USHistory-collab

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USHistory-collab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; and it appears that there have never been any nominations for its use since creation in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:14, 7 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.

Template:Usertalkclean

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 userfy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single-use Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete - no uptake.
talk) 08:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

I use it, but i don't really suppose that matters if its in the template namespace ~Euphoria42 01:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't moving it to the sole user's userspace (with or without a redirect) work? I have several templates that I use (subst) with some regularity in my own userspace. ansh 666 06:33, 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
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User article ban

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User article ban (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on one article-talk page. We shouldn't be shaming people in this manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subst one archive use and delete as being completely, completely unnecessary.
talk) 08:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, without any doubt whatever. Not a remotely suitable template. It is questionable whether it is ever a good idea to post a message to an article talk page announcing that a particular editor is banned from the article, but making it a prominent as this is totally unacceptable. As far as I can make out, the template was used just three times in 2006, and never again. One of those uses totally dominated the talk page of an article with a huge display of ban notices about three editors, only one of whom has edited since 2006, and that one not since early 2007. No justification for keeping that at all. I have boldly done what Alakzi suggested: subst in one archive use, add "tl" to two others, and I have simply removed the one example of triple use on a current article talk page. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
talk) 10:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. It is a very punishment-minded template. I can only imagine a very restricted scenario where this would be necessary, i.e. when the ban is unnaturally long (say, two years), the list of watching editors is unnaturally fluid (say, they might leave, never return and the banned editor knows it or risks testing it) and the banned editor's wrongdoing is unnaturally severe (more severe than an aggressively rude edit warrior who vandalizes to make a point). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 26 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.

Template:User currently sleeping

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User currently sleeping (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and
talk) 08:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@Alakzi and Pigsonthewing: I don't use these types of notices, but I believe that there are several "editor not presently available" themed templates . . . do we have a list of the alternatives? I assume there are several comparable alternatives. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've got {{
talk) 00:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. This is close to a hoax. And Wikipedia talk pages are as distant from an IM app as it gets. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The time frame of absence is too small to warrant a template. Brustopher (talk) 23:44, 26 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.

Template:WPGTCollaboration

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 deleted by RHaworth per CSD G7. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Unused. Last nomination was January 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me (the creator). Disavian (talk) 23:35, 10 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.

Template:NRHP generator pretty-good request

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. Unopposed, disregarding sock comment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NRHP generator pretty-good request (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Discourages editing. Outdated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and should be deleted per
WP:T2 SAlgircal (talk) 01:03, 8 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.

Template:NRG

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. Note: wording changed to "was the subject..." Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outdated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why "outdated"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An article cannot currently be the subject of an activity that took place seven years ago. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jbmurray, this marks an article with contributions by a school course, so would be equivalent to a {{
GOCE}} banner, or a {{connected contributor}} banner. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - 67.70.32.190 said all that needs to be said. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:32, 26 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.

Template:Notable list

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 17:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Notable list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on two list-article talk pages. Hence no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, should be speedied under
WP:T2.Algircal (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this does not seem to follow
WP:NOTFINISHED -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:07, 8 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.

Template:User unavailable

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. (

talk) 12:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:User unavailable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Used on only two user pages, one from 2014. Redundant to other "away" templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the closest matching "away" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This pretty much the same as § Template:User currently sleeping above. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:16, 27 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.

Template:Mc

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 soft delete. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SoftDelete or userfy. This looks like the kind of template someone might have written for themselves and habitually subst'd. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Template:Moved discussion to. It is unused. Plus, its author has last edited 1 year 2 months ago. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why redirect? Nobody's ever gonna look for "Mc" for this purpose.
  talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - Look for? —Codename Lisa (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per davidwr. I don't support a redirect to Template:Moved discussion to per Alakzi. BethNaught (talk) 13:02, 16 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
).

Template:No edits

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. (

talk) 12:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:No edits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Only used on four user-talk pages; clearly has no community uptake. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this even appropriate? What if you use your account only for preferences settings, and not for editing? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to violate
  WP:READERSFIRST , it should be "no logins" if it is for usurpation of an account. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Subst existing users and delete. Okay with just deleting. Doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose and has very few uses. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is really the need, use a bot plus a category. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:49, 26 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.

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places collaboration templates

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places FLW collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Unused. Last apparent taskforce activity was June 2007.
Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places collaboration candidate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Used on only two article-talk pages, to which it was added on March 2007.
Template:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places current collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Unused, The last nominations were made in March 2007.

All three should be deleted. - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:17, 27 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
).

Template:WPZOO Collaboration

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPZOO Collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. The linked "collaboration" page was last edited in 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 27 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
).

WikiProject Dogs' Collaboration templates

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Dogs Collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:WikiProject Dog Collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Both unused. The page linked to by the latter says "The next collaboration will be chosen on March 31, 2013". Also apparent duplicates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 27 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
).

Template:WPTULSAcollaboration

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Related project moribund sine 2011. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 27 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
).

Template:Wikiversity-t

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: consensus and G7. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Wikiversity-t (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Softdelete or userfy in case the author wants to start using it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created the page. Please delete it. The template is as useless as the project itself. - - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 07:36, 7 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.

Template:WikiProject Update Watch Template

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 on 2015 September 17. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Update Watch Template (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template for a proiject whose last activity was in 2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delete the wikiproject first. This is the wrong way around -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We tend to keep inactive wikiproject pages. However, this template is unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WPBANNERMETA has a setting for inactive wikiprojects. As long as the project exists, its project banner should exist. If you delete the project, then the project banner can be deleted. An alternative would be to merge the project into one of the other cleanup projects, which would also mean there wouldn't need to be a separate template. But as things stands, the template should not be deleted while the project exists. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - To repeat: the template is unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Wikiproject exists. As long as the Wikiproject exists, it should have a banner template. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The Wikiproject does not exist, in any meaningful sense of the word. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
        Wikipedia:WikiProject Update Watch is not a redlink, nor is it a redirect, nor is it just a taskforce/workgroup page. So it exists as far as necessary for having a project banner. Delete the project first, or merge it elsewhere. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        We have a page about Father Christmas. He doesn't exist, ether. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Father Christmas is an article, this is not. Why don't you actually do something with the wikiproject? Afterall, many wikiprojects have been merged or subsumed into others, and their banner templates subsequently deleted. So, get rid of the project first -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:55, 12 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
).

Template:Wikipedia Club Pune

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 soft delete, consistent with precedent on these nominations for defunct project-related templated; there is no consensus that the project must be deleted before its templates. Can be restored if the project is revived. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipedia Club Pune (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-standard WikiProject banner, for a defunct project (last talk-page edit 2012), and used on only four article talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep delete the wikiproject first. This is the wrong way around -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We tend to keep inactive wikiproject pages. However, this template is non-standard and barely sued. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - We can convert the banner to the standard WPBANNERMETA. Not every project uses that anyways. WPBANNERMETA has a setting for inactive wikiprojects. As long as the project exists, its project banner should exist. If you delete the project, then the project banner can be deleted. An alternative would be to merge the project into one of the Indian Subcontinent or Spoken Wikipedia wikiprojects, then there wouldn't be a need for a separate project banner. But as things stands, the template should not be deleted while the project exists. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:43, 9 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
).

Template:WikiProject Animals Collaboration

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Animals Collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination looks uncontroversial maintenance to me. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:20, 27 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
).

Template:WPCats Collaboration

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 soft delete; can be restored if the project revives. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPCats Collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wording is "This article is currently the collaboration project of the month for WikiProject Cats." Used on two articles, to which it was applied in 2010. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be used in the future. I intend to revitalize the project when I graduate from school in less than 1 year. --Tea with toast (話) 04:21, 11 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
).

Template:WP-Arch-peerreview

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP-Arch-peerreview (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Used on only seven articles, having been applied in 2006-2010. Not useful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:43, 7 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
).

Template:WPSUPERN

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the project was renamed, {{WikiProject Paranormal}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to the new project banner.
talk) 08:27, 8 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
).

Template:WPJournalsCotW-Talk

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, consistent with precedent for these nominations. Can be restored if the collaboration revives. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPJournalsCotW-Talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Wording is "This is the current Academic Journals Collaboration of the Week". Used on just six articles, from 2006/2007. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is only the wording when on the current CotW. It becomes a past-tense notice after the week has elapsed. What would you replace it with? I wouldnt mind a generic notice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 8 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
).

Template:WikiProject Kent improve

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Kent improve (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:37, 7 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
).

Template:WPABMP

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Says "...is WikiProject Australian biota's Monthly Project Article for December 2006. This article will continuously be improved throughout the month ..." Has been on Talk:Corroboree frog since Nov 2006. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 7 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
).

Template:Wikibox Talk

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 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikibox Talk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete redundant with {{tmbox}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant per 67.
talk) 08:28, 8 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.

Template:WP London showcase

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) 16:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:WP London showcase (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It isn't just unused; it is usage-phobic. Let's say I want to use it. How? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:25, 27 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.

Template:WBCnow

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wording is "This is the current Wikipedia Book Club collaboration! Please help improve it." Has been on Talk:The Razor's Edge since May 2006. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 7 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
).

Template:WikiMagic

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 17:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only transcluded on a single user page (of the user who created it in 2005, and who last edited in October 2009). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template covers too many different functions.Algircal (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete, per nom.
talk) 08:32, 8 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.

Final Fantasy user warning templates

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 all. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:FinalFantasyRevertFreeform (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Unused.
Template:FinalFantasyRevertInfoExists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Unused.
Template:FinalFantasyRevertNotImportant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) - Single use.

All overly-specific. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they appear to have found no use and the WikiProject is now defunct.
talk) 16:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unusable. Wrong format. Better alternatives available anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:10, 26 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.

Template:Good Job

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 no consensus to delete, may be worth pursuing various thoughts on how to make it more useful. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good Job (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only 37 uses (which may be Subst:). Not linked to from any current 'Wikipedia:' space page, so not likely to be found or used again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe convert it into a "job well done" barnstar and swap article talk uses with {{
talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- You think we don't already have enough?!? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never actually looked at that page before. Perhaps not then.
    talk) 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Keep and convert to a WikiLove-compatible message. Seriously, why should our choices be either (1) a barnstar for distinguished such-and-such and extraordinary due diligence in what-not or (2) a kitten, dog, pig, cake, coffee, tea, etc.? Can't us Wikipedians say thanks like normal humans? So far, I've resorted to custom messages but this one is simple and efficient. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be nice if this template was used more often—I just found it for the first time. If Sources were made a bit friendlier, might not be any need for this one, though.
czar 20:23, 7 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
).

Template:Isrev

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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only three uses, which seem to date from 2008. Redundant to, say. {{In use}}, or simple hatnote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it has proven unnecessary.
talk) 16:07, 7 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
).

Template:European history current collaboration

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 soft delete. Broad consensus in many discussions of unused collaboration templates has been in favor of deletion; no desire expressed from the wikiproject for the move, but the template may be restored to any title on request. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European history current collaboration (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused since 2008. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to
talk) 16:14, 7 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
).

Template:FAF

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 Deleted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in three archived talk pages. Not linked to from any current documentation/ project pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - superseded by {{
talk) 16:17, 7 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
).

Template:Fb notice

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 Deleted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb notice (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Only used on four articles' talk pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to have been a failed experiment.
talk) 16:23, 7 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
).

Template:Hapgry

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 Userfied to User:Downdate/Hapgry. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rdundant to various user boxes. Only used twice: once by a user who hasn't edited for several months, the other several years. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy.
talk) 15:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
- I'm not convinced it even warrants that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know. It's in
    talk) 16:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
- P.S. Its creator last edited in 2012. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. One of the two users has edited again since this nomination was made. No reason to delete something in Template: space which is used and would be acceptable in user space. BethNaught (talk) 08:42, 14 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
).

Template:Game log talk (basketball)

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

G8 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Game log talk (basketball) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use, linked page was deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:49, 7 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.

Template:Glastonbury rumours

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)

talk) 09:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Glastonbury rumours (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific; only two uses. Probably redundant to {{

Crystal}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

No objection.
talk) 16:03, 7 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.

Template:GFDLexempt

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

T3 by MLauba (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Single use. May be Subst: if needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 7 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.

Genetics collaboration templates

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. (

talk) 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Geneticsprev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geneticsnom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Geneticscur (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these collaborations have long since given up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:49, 8 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.

Template:Imperial-meetup

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 moved to

talk) 16:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Imperial-meetup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - this was part of
okay with deletion provided the deleting admin notifies the page-creator saying he can have it undeleted-and-userfied or emailed to him upon request. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:11, 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.

Template:Iambusy

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. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{Busy}}, which has over 1,850 transclusions, to this template's mere seven. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy.
talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to {{busy}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:21, 8 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.

Template:Currentmicrosoftcotw

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 -

talk) 16:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

No longer used (I removed the only instance, from an article to which it was added in July 2013) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold closure until at least 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC). This discussion and the one immediately below are for templates used by a WikiProject. I just put a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Microsoft#Template:Currentmicrosoftcotw and Template:Formermicrosoftcotw listed for deletion. Common courtesy says to give participants of that WikiProject at least a week to respond. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:03, 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.

Template:Formermicrosoftcotw

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 -

talk) 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Unused. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold closure until at least 02:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC). This discussion and the one immediately above are for templates used by a WikiProject. I just put a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Microsoft#Template:Currentmicrosoftcotw and Template:Formermicrosoftcotw listed for deletion. Common courtesy says to give participants of that WikiProject at least a week to respond. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:04, 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.

Template:Image talk commons

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. Consensus is that this template is unnecessary. (

non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Image talk commons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only six transclusions, in the nine years since creation. Clearly has no community support and is not needed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know if there was a time when Commons images were red-linked on Wikipedia, but it's not the case now; therefore, this banner isn't needed.

talk) 17:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete as en: talk pages of Commons: files are categorically exempt from G8. Even if they weren't, {{
WP:CIVIL and respect the process instead. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:56, 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.

Template:Chill

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 subst archived uses; redirect to {{calm}}. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Redundant to {{Calm}}, which has over 1100 transclusions, to this template's mere seven. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.
talk) 16:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

REdirect to {{calm}}-- 06:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete and change existing uses to {{calm}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This template is used in only one non-archive page. In order not to change archives, either subst and delete or mark as historical. BethNaught (talk) 13:24, 16 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
).

Template:Be civil

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 subst archived uses; redirect to {{calm}}. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Redundant to {{Calm}}, which has over 1100 transclusions, to this template's mere thirty. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not that I really care, but I would argue that "CALM" was redundant to "BE CIVIL", considering that the latter was created 2 years earlier. CALM just seems to have been used more frequently after it was created. It would also argue that "CALM" is used more like a friendly reminder, while "BE CIVIL" is set up more as a warning before a potential block. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect to }{{calm}} -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant.
talk) 08:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Using big red signs to calm people and encourage civility is a terrible idea. Brustopher (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's why this was "Be Civil" and was a warning, and not "Be Calm" which is the other template. Unless you think {{
vandal4}} is not helpful. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:12, 10 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
).

Template:GitHub

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. (nac)

talk) 09:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:GitHub (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Github (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Propose merging

Template:Github

Merge. Apart from the label they are completely identical. —Maths314 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, ending up with how {{
Github}} template currently works as the displayed content is more informative and consistent with the {{YouTube}} template, for example. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I would however use {{GitHub}} as the name because it is the official spelling. —Maths314 (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed, {{
Github}}, which is great. We might also want to implement |link= template parameter in the same way as {{YouTube}} does it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I did? {{Github}} still says "repository". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear enough – referred to outputting "on GitHub" separately from the repository link, in {{GitHub}}. To be precise, I'd suggest that we end up with "XYZ repository on GitHub" as the template's output, which IMHO should be the most informative. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike with {{
Github}}, {{GitHub}} is being used for arbitrary links on GitHub not just links to repositories. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Hm, could we go with something like having a |repo=yes/no parameter in the merged behavior? That could also be accomplished through the redirection to the destination template after the merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (I am not sure that is the only/best way but I have not researched it extensively either). I am all for the merger but I believe care should be taken in doing it right as it was tried once before and reverted. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With that parameter in place, we could have {{
Github}} instances with proper |repo=yes/no-including invocations of {{GitHub}}. As a result, we should have zero disturbance as a result of the merger, and a stable final result, whose instances the editors would refine further over time in various articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, it is certainly possible to define one in terms of the other and then have all usages subst'ed (via bot, etc.). It should be noted that though neither of the templates is that highly used, currently {{
Github}} has 101 tranclusions (the one to be defined in terms of the other) vs. only 42 tranclusions for {{GitHub}}. 50.126.125.240 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge, as maintenance action. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, keeping preferred functionality and naming as specified above, if possible. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move Github to GitHub and GitHub to Github, redirect it to GitHub and tag with {{
talk) 09:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge as no-brainer, details can be worked out on one of the template's talk pages. No real need to leave this TfD open. I can has ~~cheeseburger~~ closure? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge however, it should be noted that a merge was attempted in the past and it was unmerged because they did not perform the same function. {{
Github}} is restricted to linking to repositories only (similar to {{SourceForge}}). 50.126.125.240 (talk) 20:30, 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.

Template:Universal Science Fiction

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 listify, as with the CFD outcome. (
talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Universal Science Fiction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

List of science-fiction films released by Universal from the 1930s to the 1980s. I'm guessing it was created as an analog to the
Universal Monsters template, {{Universal Monsters}}, but hose horror movies are somewhat related, whereas Universal Science Fiction films have little in common with each other besides their studio. Trivialist (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, an interesting listing of one studio's science fiction films, probably appreciated by fandom. Randy Kryn 3:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

See
talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Not a coherent enough topic for a navbox, and the articles are not particularly related. Fails
talk) 14:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Redundant to the
WP:NAVBOX.Algircal (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, a useful template. BMK (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's actually quite useless. It confuses and misleads readers into thinking that
Universal Studios are particularly special when it comes to science fiction.Algircal (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

See
talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 08:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, I created this template, so pardon me if I whine a little. Several studios specialized in certain genres and got very good at them. MGM musicals and Warner Brothers crime dramas are two other examples. There should be a checklist for genre fans. Inkwell765 (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you make a checklist by hand off wikipedia? Wikipedia isn't here for you to list your favorite movies.Algircal (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason to keep the navbox though. {{
talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Additionally, what solid proof do you have such as in citations that discuss
NAVBOX 4 Algircal (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Science Fiction Film Reader Gregg Rickman pages 68-96. Covers the core U-I films, '53-'60. Inkwell765 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced. Is that the only source which discusses Universal Science Fiction has having a unique characteristic? Take a look at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 4#Category:Universal Science Fiction films where the closer decided that the identical category should be deleted then listed. Even if a list is created, this navbox would still be redundant to the list.Algircal (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Dictionary of American Cinema Keith M. Booker, page 389-390. Inkwell765 (talk) 05:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nonindepth, passing mention and doesn't establish Universal Studios have generated science fiction films worthy of a notable separate article. Template fails
WP:NAVBOX 4.Algircal (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Ghouls, Gimmick and Gold: Horror Films and the American Movie Business Kevin Hefferman page 92. Inkwell765 (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You keep supplying nonindepth, passing mentions. The navbox does not have an article so fails
WP:NAVBOX 4.Algircal (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Useful for navigation. A category would simply list the films alphabetically; the template provides grouping by time-frame (30s, 40s, etc.) which makes finding films by era much simpler. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that it passes
talk) 13:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Replace with proposed Category:Universal Science Fiction films (sorted by year). Granted, we would have to decide what to do with the "EMKA" and "Distributor" sections of the template and we would lose the information that some of the listed items are serials, but that's an acceptable loss. 2nd choice is keep. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete after replacing with a category or list article. Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 27 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.

Template:Cloud gaming

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. (nac)
talk) 09:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages
)

Any modern online game or gaming software as some element of 'cloud' (saving, high scores, servers etc) this is not defining. Category:Cloud gaming is fine. Delete. Vaypertrail (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This seems to be about game-streaming services where you play on a remote server from your console, not services which allow you to save your high scores or game saves on a remote server, or online multiplayer games. In this respect, I think this is a defining characteristic. --
talk) 15:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Does not appear to violate policy or guidelines. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:50, 11 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.

Template:Hudson River corridor

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, precedent holds. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hudson River corridor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates of roads in a geographic area have been deleted multiple times in the past due to the fact categories better handle the need and the templates are clunky and pollute the What Links Here function. In addition, this template also has the subjectivity as to what road or rail lines can be considered to be along the "Hudson River corridor" between New York City and Albany. Dough4872 02:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, as creator, just because it was one of my early attempts at creating a template and I'm sentimental about it, enough so to not want it deleted—although the nominator makes very good points in that direction. Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a perfectly reasonable navbox, and does not fall foul of WP:NENAN. No argument is advanced, as to why roads are different to other topics in this regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep this it will open a can of worms for other templates to be created of roads and railroads following a river corridor between two cities. Also note this template arbitrarily focuses on the roads and railroads following the Hudson River between New York City and Albany as opposed to the whole river. It is unnecessary for templates to exist for roads and railroads along a river corridor between two cities as there is a lot of subjectivity as to what two cities to choose and for what roads and railroads are defined to follow the river "corridor". Dough4872 03:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NAVBOX 4, since no article on Hudson River corridor exists. User:Pigsonthewing makes no sense considering the navbox navigates nonroad infrastructure as well. 68.148.186.93 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
We have Hudson River. The reference to roads is in the OP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wp:navbox 4: "There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template" and this template doesn't.68.148.186.93 (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the template is badly named in any case, there is no indication this is supposed to be for roads, instead of any network running along the Hudson River Valley, including shipping -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary navbox and per the IP editor above. --
talk/_contribs) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 08:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

delete, fails bi-directionality. Frietjes (talk) 18:50, 27 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
).

Template:Adventist Academies US

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Adventist Academies US (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Large template that is more appropriate as
talk/_contribs) 21:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Its fine as is...Simbagraphix (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please address the relevant guidelines, such as
talk/_contribs) 21:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 08:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Articles relate to single, coherent subject, which subject is mentioned in every article, and is the subject of its own Wikipedia article, and if not for the nav template, editors would be inclined to link many of the related articles in a "see also" section. While the articles do not refer to each other in any significant degree, that guideline is not an absolute requirement of WP:NAVBOX. I would improve the template to group schools by region or grade (of the students) or some other meaningful grouping, in lieu of using alphabetical sorting (which duplicates category sorting) but that flaw is minor and not fatal. Navigation between the entries will be more easily facilitated as a nav box than as a simple category or separate list of schools, especially if the nav box is improved as indicated above. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if for no other reason to prevent "see-also-itis" as Etamni pointed out. Note - prior to my commenting here this discussion was 2-3 "yes" recommendations away from me doing a "non-admin snow-closure" instead of participating in the discussion. If 1-2 other editors also say "yes" and no new "delete" recommendations show up, I would invite experienced editors to snow-close this rather than waiting around for an admin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:32, 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.

Template:Children's ball games

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. (
talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Children's ball games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to and fully included in {{children's games}}68.148.186.93 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 08:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep it might not always be transcluded. It's easier to edit in pieces, anyway. Lollipop (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this comment is about. The template is a
transclusion, so why would it be easier to edit in pieces.Algircal (talk) 06:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as redundant. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 07:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary and duplicative of the function of categories. --
talk/_contribs) 00:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak temporary keep for long enough to do a total reorganization of this and other related templates into lists-pages, categories, and perhaps a single large navigation template. However, an RfD should happen first to get all interested parties participating. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean
WP:RFD? What you exactly are you proposing?Curb Chain (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, an
WP:RFD. I don't have a particular proposal in mind, I just think it's best to handle all related templates as a group. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:42, 24 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.

Template:Imre Kertész

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. (
talk) 16:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Imre Kertész (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not enough links to provide useful navigation.
talk) 14:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
talk) 08:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment As frequently happens with notable authors whose native language is not English, we frequently see these templates that are intended as a navigation aid between articles on the author's works, but nobody ever writes more than a handful of articles on the works themselves, perhaps because this is English Wikipedia and most of our editors don't read and write the language the works are written in. As a Nobel laureate, I doubt anyone would claim that
bitten and driven off before we realize that deleting prematurely-created nav templates is bitey and harmful to the project as a whole? Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per my comment. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 08:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See
talk) 13:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now without prejudice for un-deletion or re-creation when the list of works becomes longer. 5 would certainly be long enough, but I would listen to arguments for 4. 3 would be pushing it a lot and 2 is right out. Better yet I would encourage those who support this template to write better-than-stub-class articles for at least 3 of his other notable works so the links in the template turn blue. That would render my "delete" recommendation void and would probably turn the tide on this discussion entirely. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:21, 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_7&oldid=1138533778"