Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 18



Template:Cite episode

 * 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 keep per WP:SNOWBALL. feydey (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Has the potential to violate WP:OR if used without a third party source, such as for WWE Smackdown upon it's transmission in Australia. Can also be used to violate WP:NPOV by turning Wikipedia into a news site - which also violates WP:NOT. — ' !! Just a Punk !! ' 21:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - has potential for abuse, but so does everything. The benefits seem to outweigh the drawbacks. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 22:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The disruption in this case is very bad, GW. The matter referred to has ended up at ANI.  !! Just a Punk !!  22:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Just because someone can and has committed a bad "crime" with a tool does not mean the tool should be banned -- it means the "crime" should be dealt with. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it seems to me that the disruption referred to in the WWE example is simply the difficulty of verification for that case (which ANI seemed to be months ago). In many cases, this is not the same situation, so there might be a danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. How else is there going to be a proper cite? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, in many cases, there is nothing wrong with citing an episode. 96T (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - If that's the case you'd have to delete any template that uses primary sourcing. If you want to verify that there wasn't original research, then go watch the show. You are basing your argument to delete on its use with wrestling shows. A clue on original research can be if someone uses the cite template inline with subjective wording, like saying "John was emotionally scared", or something else that would require a secondary source, or at least actual dialogue from the show specifically saying such a thing. There's no requirement that plot information needs third-party sources.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not just primary source templates, what about book templates? Unless you have the book handy, someone could create original research from a reliable book and no one would know unless they could view the book first hand.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  23:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The debate here is the template, not verifiability concerns. This is a template which works well and I do not see objections based on APA or Strunk & White based documentary and attribution concerns. The nominator's concern is a content issue best sorted out by various wikiprojects. ThuranX (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Primary materials are usually preferred to secondary sources. For episodes, only the original episode is truly a primary source.  Therefore I would prefer to keep this primary source template.  Mbisanz (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Anytime you want to refer to events in a TV episode that can't be transcribed by direct character quotes, this template is of significant help in pointing the reader towards the episode. Actually, you can even use this template when you do quote characters. – sgeureka t•c 23:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Every template has the potential to not only document primary sources (an autobiography to describe a living person), but also can be used for secondary sources (a documentary program, for example). Citations should be judged not on how the media it is presented on, but on what other sources its alongside with. --M ASEM  23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - This is a debate over whether the template should be deleted, not whether citing an episode is verifiable. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 00:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as per above. I cite radio episodes often. -- Reaper  X  00:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Any manner of referencing an article could be abused if an editor makes up a source. That doesn't mean we should stop referencing articles, nor does it mean we should get rid of the tools that make it easier for us to do so. --Brian Olsen (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exteremely strong keep Without this template it would be hard to cite episodes. What if we wanted to cite a info on available on a particluar episodes? Sure there are parody shows out there (South Park, Robot Chicken etc.) that we can't count 100% on, but there are serious shows out there we can count on, like the official show of the characters, don't forget that. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, no logical reason to delete this. WP:PW (which I am a member of) is not a walled garden, and this template shouldn't be deleted just to avoid SmackDown Spoilers. Bmg 916 Speak 14:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The appropriateness of a particular citation of a primary source is governed by Verifiability policy. I don't see what's wrong with citing a broadcast wrestling match for the outcome of the bout.  Citing it for a description of a particular incident in the match is a little more dubious.  The template itself isn't the problem.  The country of broadcast (Australia or USA) is a red herring.  We have many English-speaking Wikipedians in both countries and they're all capable of pressing a "Record" button. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep &mdash; the misapplication of a template is not a reason for deletion. Citing documentaries like The Nature of Things or PBS' Nova is important; regardless of your opinion of men in spandex.  --18:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Based on this thread on ANI, this seems to be a POINTy nomination. -- B figura (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not a disruptive nomination, and there's no reason to believe that the nominator doesn't want this template to be deleted, so Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (aka WP:POINT) doesn't enter into it. --Tony Sidaway 00:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. Nominating a template for deletion because it's being used to include spoilers that one happens to dislike does seem mildly disruptive to me (given that TfD states that misuse is not grounds for deletion). That said though, this could just as easily be a case of the nom taking Lid's sarcastic suggestion literally. Best, -- B figura (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleting a citation template because it violates WP:NOR? I've seen some strange logical gymnastics before, but that one definitely flies over the cuckoo's nest. --Farix (Talk) 22:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Consider the norm, reference to a website: quick and easy. Book reference: may involve actually going to a real library with real books (horror!), but valid. Broadcast: may be limited to a geographical area, but is verifiable via access to recordings as almost all are now recorded for legal/historical reasons. Difficulty of access is no excuse for not citing. It's a pity Wrestling is the backdrop to this debate because that's a particularly contentious topic here. And many eminently encyclopedic events and topics are now only susceptible of reference via broadcasts. This is 2007. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I agree that templates like cite episode, cite book, cite video, cite video game, etc can be used to add nonsense to an article. That's a particularly devious use of the template, but I don't think it's very common. The template can obviously be used for vandalism, but it can also help provide references for material in articles. I think corroboration in secondary sources is preferable. I think the nominator brings up some good points. The phrase "original research" refers to unpublished facts. Is airing a television episode considered publishing? Or does publishing only apply to printed material? The policy on no original research seems to allow source-based research. Are television episodes considered reliable sources or just sources? If an editor examines an ant in their backyard and describes what they see, is that considered "original research"? If an editor watches a television episode and describes what they see, is that considered "original research"? If it is, this template and others like it may pose a problem. Are editors supposed to collate what someone else has already said (which has been printed), or research primary sources themselves? I think the former is preferable. The policy on neutral point of view says content must represent "fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." When a television station airs an episode, is the episode considered "published by reliable sources"? WP:NOT says "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." When editors watch a new episode of WWE Smackdown and report on what they've seen, is that not a first-hand report on a developing story? If the content first appears on Wikipedia, is that not self publishing? If the transcripturl field is not filled in when an editor uses the template, how is any material that precedes the template truly verifiable? An editor might as well write " " If an editor edits under a pseudonym, any material they add has not been attributed to an actual person. The template basically means "Go watch it yourself if you don't believe me." I think that "It was on TV!" does not really qualify as a reliable source. If the template is deleted, there are other ways of providing citations. I see this nomination may have to do with spoilers, based on this comment made by the nominator and this discussion. I think it's unfortunate that WP:SPOILER may somehow be involved in this nomination. If only Wikipedia had some sort of template editors could use to mark spoilers... I think if the nominator doesn't want spoilers in wrestling articles, he/she should remove them. Wikipedia is not a news site. --Pixelface (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reeaall strong keep I'll try to assume good faith, but seeing this saga from its onset, I can pretty safely say that Punk is not approaching this with a level head. Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is probably safe to close this as WP:SNOWBALL keep since the outcome is not going to result in any other verdict other then keep. The nominator clearly wasn't thinking about he was doing because he was too focused on his singular issue over televised wrestling match results. --Farix (Talk) 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone, definitely useful. But what about the verifiability of broadcast TV shows that you have no way of watching?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response - You'll just have to trust that the editor is not the only person to have seen that episode, just the same as if someone cites a book you haven't got access to, or one which is out of print. If a television broadcast is notable enough to have an article on the 'pedia, then there'll be no shortage of editors who'll set it straight eventually, have no worries on that score. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - it's a primary source; what are we doing here? Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this should be snowed. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:01, 20 November 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 Life episode

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Single series fork of Infobox Television episode, all uses replaced, time to delete. Jay32183 (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Infobox Television episode - JPG-GR (talk) 02:57, 19 November 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 Burger King

 * 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for one company using the "infobox company" template. One should be able to edit the infobox from the article and not go to a template. I understand that this can make it easier to read the wikitext in the article and by that making it easier for a newbie to contribute, but it also makes it harder to understand where the info in the infobox is edited from.. Rettetast 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Subst and then delete as redundant to infobox company - JPG-GR (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This information box was created for the purpose of including a single, uniform info box in three of the four main Burger King articles. This was done so that all of the three articles would have an identically configured info box without any conflicting information. The info box was not created to make my or other editors lives easier when editing the main articles. The four main articles, Burger King, Burger King products, Burger King advertising and Hungry Jack's can be described as one large article split into four distinct parts, which is the truth as the secondary articles were split off of the main article when it grew too large. The BK info box is on each of the BK named articles because of the splits, and each of those splits covers information summarized in the info box (company info such as history, products and slogans aka advertising). The Hungry Jack's article has its own information box as the company is a franchisee of BK and employs its own business structure. I'll add a link in the box to help others to edit the info box as necessary. Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 03:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)), amended (19:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Delete, with information transferred into Infobox Company on the Burger King page. The above argument from Jerem43 is spurious. Whether you like to think of them as "one large article split into four distinct parts" is irrelevant, they are four separate articles. The information contained in this template relates only to the corporate entity, i.e. that discussed in Burger King. The company data has no relevance to BK's products (what does a Whopper care about stock pricing?) or advertising (are you going to buy more burgers because the company CEO has a nice name?). Each of the daughter pages is focussed on a specific aspect, general data should remain on the general page. If you can come up with an infobox template relating to the range of food and drink sold, or the advertising strategy, then use them, but this template is inappropriate for those pages. Therefore, having a centralised template is redundant and so it should be deleted.  Pyrop e  13:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Includes information on company that would keep the reader from having to jump from article to article to get more information on the parent company of which this template provides. I think some of the information can be presented a little better in the template and some of the information is unnecessary, but as a whole the template is useful.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarity your position, which information exactly? While reading about the preparation of a Whopper, are you likely to suddenly find yourself needing to know the operating profit? In considering the gradual evolution of the BK menu, are you really likely to need the headquarters address in such a hurry? In all but the main Burger King article itself this information is not pertinent.  Pyrop e  00:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - If you were to be looking up the Whopper you would probably be reading the Whopper article, which does not include the template. The template is only on pages that refer to the operations and business of Burger King. The one article which I believe you refer to, Burger King products, has more than just product descriptions, it also includes explanations of its business practices (e.g. its reactions to consumer trends and tastes).
 * Responses:
 * In response to your argument Pyrope, according to Infoboxes, the definition of an infobox is: An infobox on Wikipedia is a consistently-formatted table which is present in articles with a common subject. These articles all have a common subject, the corporate operations of the company Burger King. The box also conforms to the standards as defined in the Manual of Style (infoboxes): Like static infoboxes, they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format. However, the template technique allows updates of style and of common text from a central place, the template page. Again, the articles all have a similar subject, different parts of the Operations of the company Burger King. According to the WP documents, the box is being used exactly the way it is supposed to be, which is not spurious.
 * In response to JPG-GR, the box is not a duplicate of the, but in fact it is being properly used within the standards and guidelines for templates set forth by Wikipedia, as stated previously.
 * - Jeremy (Jerem43 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Keep, though I would normally vote delete for a redundant infobox, this does serve a useful purpose. This isn't in the same vein as, say, a character box, where the data would be inconsistent, relatively speaking, between articles. I would put it in the same category as Pokenum, where updating one updates the whole shebang. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as the included entries are all directly related to the template, which they seem to be in this case, as they are all part of the same entity.  Tewfik Talk 02:29, 25 November 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:LDBc

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The list that the template links to has been split into four other lists. It is also only used in one article. — DrWarpMind (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - with the list broken up, this template is no longer useful. Terraxos (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. BD2412  T 16:15, 23 November 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:Tooltip-article

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Just some text. Not really a template.. Rocket000 (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and it's protected for some reason. If an admin can add the deletion notice, that would be great. Rocket000 (talk) 12:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep without more information. MediaWiki:Tooltip-article redirects here, indicating that it is part of the interface. —  xaosflux  Talk  17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when are templates part of the interface? I don't think MediaWiki relies on cross namespace redirects to work. That wouldn't make sense. It's probably an error by User:MediaWiki default. My understanding is this script should only make pages in the MediaWiki namespace. Rocket000 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - does anyone actually know what this does?. We should be careful about deleting something which may have an effect on the interface, if we don't know what effect it has. -- GW_SimulationsUser Page 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've posted a request for assistance at WP:VPA. Hopefully someone knows what this is for. Note that I am voting Weak Keep until further information is known.-- GW_SimulationsUser Page 18:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted a question on the wikitech-l list -- probably the best place to ask about this. Hopefully whoever answers will not be too much of a BOFH and simply provide the definitive answer -- instead of LARTing us all & letting God sort things out. -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From the looks of it, it's meant to be the "tooltip" (the text that pops up when you hover your mouse over something) for the "article" tab. However, it can't be, because the tooltip for the article tab mentions the correct shortcut [alt-c] rather than [alt-a]. There are several more of these, most of which seem to have been created by (presumably) Tim Starling as User:Mediawiki default, user id 0. I'd love to know whether editing one of these (done by an admin, of course) would actually change the tooltip, or whether that's stored elsewhere now as I suspect it is (given that (a) it doesn't seem to be the right text, and (b) when you're not on an article but, say, a project page, the tooltip changes accordingly, something the template isn't able to do). Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I'm not sure. Maybe there is something to this... Rocket000 (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment has someone posted a message to the developer's notice board? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete after an MfD of the redirect There is no such MediaWiki page as MediaWiki:Tooltip-article; see http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/languages/messages/MessagesEn.php?revision=27686&content-type=text%2Fplain (which contains the defaults for and names of all MediaWiki pages); there's no mention of 'tooltip-article' anywhere. Some historical notes: a long time ago, the syntax (I might have that syntax slightly wrong, I've never seen it used because I'm too new (in particular, I'm not sure whether you have to give the namespace); if you try using it in an article, a bot will update it to modern syntax for you) was invented to transclude a system message, presumably for localisation purposes. This led to users placing tags and other information that should be transcluded as non-software-affecting MediaWiki pages so that they could be transcluded with msg:. Because this feature was useful but a use of an existing feature for a purpose for which it wasn't designed, the devs created the Template: namespace for the purpose of transcluding pages (and in time, the msg: was dropped as redundant). This meant that a large number of pages had to be moved from the MediaWiki: to Template: namespace, and a devbot (User:MediaWiki default) was used to do the work. The bot moved this page to template namespace automatically because it wasn't a system message that had any effect on the software, so that it assumed that this was a template. Therefore, this means that this is probably a system message created by mistake (or possibly an old one which was removed from having a meaning sometime before the Template: namespace was created), and can be safely deleted; note that if a MediaWiki: page is deleted, it doesn't break the software but instead causes a default to be used. So I'd suggest deleting this, but for safety reasons deleting the redirect in MediaWiki: space first will be the best way to avoid potential disruption that this might cause if the message does have a purpose that I've somehow missed (although as redirects and noinclude don't work in system messages, this would seem unlikely). --ais523 10:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I've posted the MfD now. Wow, that's the second time I've MfD'd a MediaWiki: page... --ais523 10:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update I found the actual MediaWiki page that determines the tooltip, it's MediaWiki:Tooltip-ca-nstab-main. This is more evidence that the template and system-message redirect to it are redundant. --ais523 10:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Second update I think I figured out what happened. Back before templates existed, the tooltips had simple names like Tooltip-article, and were stored in MediaWiki space, as was the tradition at the time; even default messages were redlinks. (More recently, it was discovered that it's better to have a redlink there if the system message should stay at the default, but that's not relevant here except to point out the change in practice.) The devs changed the purpose of the messages, and either they renamed the messages to prevent problems with customization (which is usual practice), or they used the new names because they were clearer (Tooltip-article is much vaguer than Tooltip-ca-nstab-main, at least if you know that the tab with the tooltip in question is called ca-nstab-main internally (ca for the tab bar, nstab for a namespace tab, and main for namespace 0)). The old messages weren't deleted, though, even though they no longer served a purpose (most likely because nobody remembered or because nobody dared to). When the Template: namespace was invented, User:Template namespace initialisation script saw that there were pages in MediaWiki: space that weren't being used as system messages, and moved them to the Template: namespace on the basis that as they weren't system messages they must have been templates. (This happened on 23 December 2004, according to the history of MediaWiki:Tooltip-article; this must have been before move logs were invented, so this doesn't show up in the logs.) This was also before null edits in history for moves were implemented, so there's no sign in the history of the template that the template namespace initialisation script was involved, just some adjustments to the message that User:MediaWiki default made to it earlier, and which show up as always having been there. So the result is a useless redirect in MediaWiki: space to a useless template in Template: space, all caused by a couple of confused devbots, the invention of the Template: namespace, and some bad timing. So to repeat my earlier argument, now I know what's happened: delete the redirect and then the template. (This is highly likely to have happened to other system messages too; probably all the tooltips, so MfD/TfDing them would be worthwhile, but there may be other messages too: checking Special:Contributions/Template namespace initialisation script may prove a useful course of action, but I don't have time for that right now.) --ais523 12:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking in to that and taking the time to explain it. If there are other templates and redirects like this do you think we should nominate them all or just use this case to speedy them? It seems to me, based on your explanation, if this one's deletable the rest should be. Rocket000 (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Tooltip-addsection MediaWiki:Tooltip-anontalk MediaWiki:Tooltip-anonuserpage MediaWiki:Tooltip-atom MediaWiki:Tooltip-contributions MediaWiki:Tooltip-currentevents MediaWiki:Tooltip-delete MediaWiki:Tooltip-edit MediaWiki:Tooltip-emailuser MediaWiki:Tooltip-help MediaWiki:Tooltip-history MediaWiki:Tooltip-login MediaWiki:Tooltip-logout MediaWiki:Tooltip-mainpage MediaWiki:Tooltip-move MediaWiki:Tooltip-mycontris MediaWiki:Tooltip-mytalk MediaWiki:Tooltip-nomove MediaWiki:Tooltip-portal MediaWiki:Tooltip-preferences MediaWiki:Tooltip-protect MediaWiki:Tooltip-randompage MediaWiki:Tooltip-recentchanges MediaWiki:Tooltip-recentchangeslinked MediaWiki:Tooltip-rss MediaWiki:Tooltip-sitesupport MediaWiki:Tooltip-specialpage MediaWiki:Tooltip-specialpages MediaWiki:Tooltip-talk MediaWiki:Tooltip-undelete MediaWiki:Tooltip-unwatch MediaWiki:Tooltip-upload MediaWiki:Tooltip-userpage MediaWiki:Tooltip-viewsource MediaWiki:Tooltip-watchlist MediaWiki:Tooltip-whatlinkshere
 * So what should I do about these:

lol. Rocket000 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All nuked. Any more? P.s. Tooltip-upload appears to be still used, which is why it's a blue link. See, Mediawiki is in action here, falling back to defaults when a message file doesn't exist - which is why there won't be adverse effects if any of these are wrongly deleted. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the contribs of the namespace initialisation script in Mediawiki namespace; there should be no more such redirects to template space. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 14:55, 25 November 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 PodcastV

 * 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 04:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Unused template. Same as Template:Infobox podcast.. Breno talk 02:02, 18 November 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.