Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 16



Template:Chelsea F.C. Reserves squad

 * 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! 04:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Per previous discussion, no club's squad TP other than current first team. -- Matthew_hk  t  c  09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk   t  c  09:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as none of the articles it links to will pass WP:BIO, and per precedent set at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_3. Qwghlm 09:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Nick C 13:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete, per Matthew's comment and nom. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 23:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment another precedent Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 4. Matthew_hk   t  c  07:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Neier 00:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and precedents. Daemonic Kangaroo 05:23, 21 March 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:Shrubbery

 * 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 keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Procedural nomination. Johntex believed this was inflammatory and covered under WP:CSD. I want this to get a TFD hearing instead of speedy. I have added the humor tag to the page and I note that this template is often linked to using the shrubbery format rather than transcluded or substituted, so I expect that the humor note will be seen. I have used this template before and never received any complaint about it, so I think the humor has always been understood and it seems to lighten situations rather than being divisive. From that, I suggest keep. — coe l acan — 09:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not normally used as a template and shouldn't be, then perhaps it should just be moved to the Wikipedia: namespace (or a user subpage)? —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 10:06Z 
 * I think that would break the flow of things. According to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Shrubbery it is sometimes transcluded, but most often it goes inline in a sentence: like in these four examples I grabbed almost-randomly (one I knew was mine). I can see where it would need to be subst'd instead. It's most versatile as it is. — coe l acan — 10:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or move Frivolity does not necessarily need to be removed. I've seen this template on personal insight and commentary talk pages. Yes Wikipedia is not myspace, but some of us do find it interesting to read what other people think about the work we are doing here, and I think this template neatly sums up this style of page. If it is deemed to be in the way, as per the German userbox solution move it to the initiating editors talk pages.  Khu  kri  10:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Coelacan beat me to it. I don't think it's divisive, it asks for a better reason from !voters.  Look at WP:RFA for an example of why. Guy (Help!) 10:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and grow a sense of humor.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a sense of humor, thanks. Suggesting that I might not is of almost equal affrontery as the template. Johntex\talk 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - this template fits the definition of Speedy Deletion criteria 1 - "templates that are divisive or inflamatory".
 * Let's look at what the template says:
 * "This argument has been identified by one or more editors as constituting an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery. Please resolve this by clarifying the basis for the objection in canonical policy. Expanding the requirement to include chopping down the tallest tree in the forest WITH A HERRING may be met with additional mockery and scorn."
 * Comparing someone elses argumument to a silly Monty Python sketch is not civil. It is not condusive to discussion.  It is not condusive to love and understanding.
 * The template also assumes that someone gets the "in" reference to the skit in the first place. That is just too much for serious discussions like RFA and AFD.  In these forums, we should be trying to make our arguments simpler and plainer and more civil.  That would facilitate communication.  This template takes us in the opposite direction.
 * If one wishes to say that they disagree with the a fellow editors argument, then let that person explain in polite English why; not use a mocking template. Johntex\talk 14:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It actually says "an arbitrary demand for a shrubbery" including that piped link to Knights who say Ni, so it doesn't really expect that the reader is familiar with that in-joke, but rather informs or refreshes those users who don't get it on sight. Your concerns about civility are a separate matter, of course, but I don't think obscurity is an issue here. — coe l acan — 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Anyone could use any template for any uncivil purpose. If someone decides to tag someone's AfD argument with shrubbery, sucks. But that doesn't mean we should delete it. I'll userfy it if you guys want it out of the template-space. - Wo o  ty   Woot?   contribs  18:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want it moved out of template space, as this reduces the utility. One of the uses is inline, and it's cumbersome to write "Sorry but I'll have to ask you for a user:wooty/shrubbery." — coe l acan — 20:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - A pretty mild joke intended to diffuse tension in contentious debates. &mdash;dgies tc 18:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict keep. Humourous, and no worse than everyday sarcasm. And I agree with Wooty that lots of things can be used for uncivil purposes. Sofixit comes to mind. – Steel 18:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, the template is useful for unexperienced users or everyday researchers so that they don't take the article as serious information. Sheesh! --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or delete all the humorous pages. Acalamari 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - within the bounds of civility, similar to WP:DICK and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Addhoc 19:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Could be used abusively, but then so can WP:CIVIL... it's not inherently insulting or divisive IMHO, and we should keep it. Guy and Coelacan are right on.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is better than the "That argument is so stupid!" wording people might otherwise use. -Amarkov moo! 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Georgewilliamherbert. Plus it is simply funny. Garion96 (talk) 13:13, 18 March 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:uw-legal1, Template:uw-legal2, Template:uw-legal3

 * 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 redirect to Template:Uw-legal. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete since these templates make the impression that legal threats are not a big offense, since you can make a few before getting blocked. The legal threats warning should in my opinion be a single issue template. I created Uw-legal to replace them. I notified WP:UTM and WP:UW. -- lucasbfr talk 09:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete already discussed on WP:UTM, as per copyvio and pinfo there can only be one warning, it cannot have incremental warnings due to it's serious nature. Khu  kri  10:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just redirect all to Template:uw-legal, which would help people find the new template and preserve history. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-16 10:05Z 
 * I think you are right, Quarl. Is it too much to ask that the current instances of these templates be subst'd before that happens? — coe l acan — 12:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If I am correct, most (if not all) pages that link to these templates are pages that copy pasted the grid of warnings. I think we can either tell the people that the page changed (and that there is a way to keep an up to date version by including WP:UTM in their page), or just leave it as it is (and they will see a red link) -- lucasbfr talk 12:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. In the vast majority of cases, just one warning and then a block is appropriate. However, in some cases the "threat" is more borderline, maybe construed as a threat and not so blatant.  In those cases, (especially with newbies who may not be aware of our policy) a more polite notice is appropriate. For example,, , , ,  which is quite possibly a joke or "hoax" by that person. (a Cplot strawman?) It helps to have something on hand to use or work with, rather than coming up with original, custom warnings for these rare situations where uw-legal isn't quite appropriate. --Aude (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is by having an incremental system starting with a level 1 which is by it's very nature AGF, we are condoning or saying it's not that serious to issue a legal threat, as the template is usually worded please don't blah blah blah, as it's could be miscontrude as being naughty. Your hoax examples, the anon IP should have and did receive a one off warning for threatening legal action, and was then summarily blocked for continued threats. The legal templates are not about warning people about the issuing of the legal threats, but that wikipedia has to be bi-partisan and if there is the threat of any legal action ensuing, we have stop any activities until such issues are resolved. From WP:LEGAL If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding., Unfortunately people say things in the heat of the moment, hence they are given one warning, anything more than this and we have to assume that they mean it as per the guidelines. Cheers Khu  kri  13:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect all to uw-legal, using r from warning template, of course. Assuming good faith is a guideline, but if you truly need to warn someone about a genuine legal threat, it should be difficult to believe that they acted under good faith. We only need to inform them of it once, and if they keep doing it, block (as preventatively as possible).  Grace notes T  § 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not always "genuine" but sometimes said more jokingly, and people are not aware of how serious we take them and they are no joking matter. Sometimes threats are also made at the Foundation.  That one template does not cover those different situations.  Also, sometimes they are not clear-cut legal threats. (this person wasn't threating to sue me but to "report" me to the foundation; he was blocked for disruption but not really legal threats)  Sometimes the "threats" may really be a WP:BLP situation, where we need to redirect them properly.  Sometimes the "threats" are from companies, regarding articles about themselves.  Again, we need to redirect them properly.  A single purpose stern warning and then blocking them isn't always the answer.  Trying to work with each unique situation, as they may arise, can be helpful in resolving concerns. In 95% of the cases, though the situation would warrant one or zero warnings.   But, in the other 5% of cases, having multiple templates to work with is helpful.  --Aude (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that WP:TEMPLAR is appropriate here. No need to escalate a simple joke with (basically) a cut-and-paste message. Grace notes T  § 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Appropriate here for what situations? Of course, jokes by regular editors do not need templates.  But, sometimes jokes are made by newbies, or the situation is one of many other types where that one template is not appropriate, nor it WP:TEMPLAR.  Having some text already prepared for various situations is helpful.  One template does not fit all situations. --Aude (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reworded uw-legal to try to expand its scope to both experienced editors and newbies. Grace notes T  § 19:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Quarl. Addhoc 19:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the new single use template —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TeckWiz (talk • contribs) 19:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Redirect per all.  V 6 0  VTalk · VDemolitions 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A decided redirect --FaerieInGrey 18:38, 19 March 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:movedetail

 * 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! 06:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete for three reasons: — Kevinkor2 08:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Template is redundant to mergefrom and mergeto.
 * Template was designed for Merging and moving pages, but is not referenced from that page.
 * Template is not used. Evidence:
 * Whatlinkshere has no pages in main or talk namespaces.
 * Category:Wikipedia articles that need some of their detail to be moved is empty.


 * I've notified the template creator.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Antaeus_Feldspar&diff=115512041&oldid=114649504
 * — Kevinkor2 08:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To address these three points:


 * The template is not redundant to mergefrom and mergeto; it fills a niche that they do not. The merge templates are appropriate when you have two articles, but you think that they should become one article.  movedetail is appropriate when you have two articles, A and B, but you think some of the information in A really belongs in B instead.  mergesection is closer, but it still provides no way to say "all these details are appropriate for Wikipedia, just not in this article; let's keep a basic description here and move the detail some place more appropriate."
 * I am not sure why not being referenced from Merging and moving pages actually means anything against the template itself. It's true that I didn't know when I created the template that I could add it myself to WP:MMP to let people know this template was available for use, but I don't actually see why that would indicate that it should not be available for use.
 * The template is not being used currently, true. I feel this points to a failure on my part to adequately promote the template so that people know it is available for use, and not to any flaw in the template itself.  Also, I would point out that if a template is removed because the cleanup issue it called attention to is resolved, that's evidence for keeping the template, not deleting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no significant difference between this template and mergesection used in conjunction with splitsections. The last two do not imply that the section's details are not appropriate for Wikipedia, which is why it being merged/split and not deleted. What you described is a split and not a move. I do think that there should be one more template to function as splitfrom, to make this process more coherent. –Pomte 16:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, I would say that it should be kept, except it is not used. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 18:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete redundant as I described above. –Pomte 04:09, 30 March 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:protectBU

 * 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 merge and redirect. Picaroon 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat duplicate of. → Aza Toth 20:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nice demonstration of streamlined magic words, except it's useless, because blocked users do not have pages they can edit other than their user talk page. -Amarkov moo! 00:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Uprotected, since magic words are useful for the lazy. Grace notes T  § 02:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But the magic words aren't needed, because blocked users can only edit their own talk page. -Amarkov moo! 00:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring to that block/protection logs, which help people other than blocked users. Grace notes T  § 00:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
 * I'm still not sure what you're referring to, but I'll trust someone else to merge in whatever should be. -Amarkov moo! 05:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Duplicate, but this name seems to be almost as popular as Uprotected. &mdash;dgies tc 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, keeping the block/protection log links from ProtectBU and the "If you wish to edit this page..." info from Uprotected. — coe l acan — 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, because of redundancy. If the template wasn't used so often I would say delete. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't think the template should be deleted, but since the consensus is to merge; it's better off being merged than deleted. Acalamari 19:00, 16 March 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.

Talkpage modification warnings

 * 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 keep. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * These templates appear to be a reincarnation of the deleted "do not remove warnings from your talkpage" templates. --Carnildo 05:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and reword to specify that they apply to article talk pages. See the Template Documentation where it mentions the optional Article parameter. --Geniac 05:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Geniac, these are meant for article talk space and paired with uw-upv which are related to the editing of others userpages. Khu  kri  07:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. What about rewording it to talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion about an article or a Wikipedia page? Personally I think that makes the sentence heavier than necessary, but if that can avoid someone using it about user talk pages... -- lucasbfr talk 09:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and reword as per above. Just because some people misuse them doesn't mean they are bad tools. Natalie 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above comments. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 18:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Natalie. Acalamari 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as these templates can be applies to pages other than user's talk pages. --Sigma 7 13:19, 18 March 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.