Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 8



Template:WPCompSciAssessment

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by ; author agrees. Grace notes T § 03:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates functionality of WikiProject Computer science and does not handle nesting. — Ideogram 21:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am the original author and would fully support removal. If the subproject ever picks up I can make this more like WPSchools which does nesting. Adam McCormick 23:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete because creator agrees to have it deleted.--James, La gloria è a dio 00:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete CSD G7 (author) And the comment is indeed from the creator . --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And tagged as such. Grace notes T § 02:11, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

AL- 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 page.  

The result of the debate was Delete All ^ demon [omg plz] 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)



All either single-use, double-use or unused templates, only consisting of a single wikilink to an article. '''Subst. and delete all'''. Mike Peel 21:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment could you demonstrate some of the subst? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I could, but I don't see the point in doing so - it's a routine thing, isn't it? Note that the TfD templates should be removed before substitution; otherwise, they would end up on the article pages. Mike Peel 07:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all the A-League ones, these templates aren't required (there's another set that are important, for a widely-used template to work, but these aren't the ones). I have no real opinion on the non-A-League templates in that list.  Daniel  02:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Subst and delete More intuitive to have actual wikilinks in an article. –Pomte 09:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:Offence

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted, consensus is clearly against these sorts of disclaimers Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored. Also defining what is or is not 'offensive' is inherently POV. Created for the sole purpose of censoring the Nigger article. — Cynical 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Delete. As per comments above Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 08:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT says "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive." For that reason we should delete this.--James, La gloria è a dio 01:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per policy No disclaimer templates. – Se bi  ~ 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No disclaimers in articles. Also, if you click on the disclaimer at the bottom, and then go to content disclaimer, you'll find "Some Wikipedia articles discuss words or language that are considered profane, vulgar or offensive by some readers." --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CENSOR and above comments  Sala Skan  17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, because of WP:NDT. I am pretty sure this template has been created before and deleted, but as far as I am aware, WP:CSD doesn't explicitly apply. Grace notes T § 02:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:DB Ability

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The article, "List of Dragon Ball special abilities", was deleted at Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities, the category is now listed at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8 (it is empty), and this template is the last of the lot. It has no transclusions, is (AFAIK) deprecated and no longer used, and should be deleted. Iamunknown 19:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete housekeeping. –Pomte 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:blp

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was speedy/snowy keep - no objections and the nominator consented below. --BigDT 17:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Since Biographies of living persons applies to all our articles this is entirely redundant. I don't see the need to include this just as I wouldn't see the need for a talk page template stating that the article must conform to NPOV or NOR. violet/riga (t) 15:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's intended to reinforce the point, and to help subjects who are possibly being defamed. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Should it therefore only appear for articles where there has been such an issue? violet/riga (t) 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, part of the point of it is to help a BLP who arrives at the article to find there's a problem with it. Previously, we had a lot of subjects edit warring over disputed claims, then being blocked for 3RR. Since we started adding the template to talk pages, we've had fewer of those incidents, because subjects can immediately see where they can go for help, and which policies the BLP must adhere to. For that to keep on working, it needs to be on all BLP talk pages, not only the known problematic ones. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But this could easily be added to talkheader which also appears on most talk pages. violet/riga (t) 19:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't solve anything! We'd have to put talkheader on all the biog pages. This way we help out WP Biog at the same time. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's already on most bio pages so we have the silliness of having two large, overly-generic talk page templates. violet/riga (t) 21:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per SlimVirgin. '  Tayquan' hollaMy work 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Should we include a mention of this on talkheader instead of having a separate template? violet/riga (t) 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that might dilute its meaning. There is no reason to have the template on Roman Empire or Normal distribution, and it can easily be added to any relevant article. —Centrx→talk • 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If those articles discuss people that have modern theories about the topic then it could apply. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles about living persons (and each of those articles should have this template on its talk page) are most likely places for personal attacks, defamation and general BLP problems. This article is also useful to inform the new users about the WP:BLPN. And this is most useful not for the "XY is gay lol" kind of vandalism but for the sneaky kind which can be found out only by person familiar with the subject in question but maybe not familiar with our strict policies about living persons nor the Biographies of living person noticeboard. Shinhan 16:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Until the issues with WikiProject Banners that require separate use of this template are resolved, we need this. Daniel Case 17:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Very easy to add, lets people know they can sort out BLP articles. Why delete it!? --h2g2bob (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It clearly indicates that cn tags are inappropriate for BLP articles, unlike most others.  ShadowHalo 22:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – This message is a borderline legal requirement, and it's vital to ensuring the stability and integrity of our BLP articles. While I would encourage using  or , blp is still a suitable alternative, much like GA is a suitable alternative to ArticleHistory for quick tagging.  Encourage use of WPBiography or a more suitable alternative, don't force it right now.  &mdash; Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Both WPBiography and WikiProjectBannerShell transclude this template so changes to this template (actual text is transcluded from Blp/BLPtext) would change all three. Btw, why is blp not protected? Shinhan 05:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above.--James, La gloria è a dio 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a useful reminder to editors and tells a person where to go if there is a problem. It might even help prevent some lawsuits. Steve Dufour 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How about WP:SNOW? 9 Keep votes and no Delete except for the nom... Shinhan 05:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree unless there is any real objection. Having the TFD notice transcluded in a bunch of places is annoying and could falsely give the impression that there is a dispute about the truth of the template. --BigDT 15:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not convinced by any argument here. The template is, to me, as bad as the talkheader template.  Though it's usually better to wait for 24 hours I wouldn't complain about a SNOW close here.  Since it applies to every article it should either appear on them all or on none.  Personally I'd like to see a different location for things such as this as it's not really "talk" information.  Perhaps a "report article" link could be added to the toolbox.  violet/riga (t) 07:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep As per keep comments above --Booksworm Sprechen-sie Koala? 08:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:Infobox China (PRC)

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Was one use. Properly replaced. Redundant. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Cannot find other potential candidates for deletion. . --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete single-use. –Pomte 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:Infobox Countries mk. II

 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. James F. (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Obvious fork of Infobox Country. Last true edit was in Sept 2004. Unused. — ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my experiment from way-back, no longer needed (or useful). Speedying.
 * James F. (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Infobox 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All superseded by Template:Collapsible list. — Guilherme (t/c) 03:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Was one-use. Properly replaced. The relevant edits are, , , . --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Replaced. — Guilherme (t/c) 21:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete deprecated. –Pomte 08:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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:Pixar films
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 page.  

The result of the debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate template of Template:Pixar Animation Studios — SpikeJones 02:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplicate -- AAA!  ( AAAA ) 03:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete for history merge. Templates are being tagged as such. --Sigma 7 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete just do it --MunchableSandwich 13:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete its a duplicate template of Template:Pixar Animation Studios.--James, La gloria è a dio 00:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletesame as everyone only i want Pixar Animation Studios to stay not Pixar films because Pixar films is incorect since there are people. Also how can i edit that template it only shows redirect. Martini833 19:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, but not speedy &mdash; I came expecting that this was deleting a useful category, but the template serves this purpose. However, once there are enough films to expand beyond the template, the category should be recreated. Val42 19:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.