Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 16



Template:BLP Spec Warn

 * 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 debate was Miscellany for deletion/BLP Special Enforcement closed as keep. — Athaenara ✉  18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See Miscellany for deletion/BLP Special Enforcement Martinp23 21:58, 16 June 2008 (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:Football lineup

 * 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 debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This template is not being used for any purpose whatsoever, and currently has no forseeable use in the future. — – PeeJay 21:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can see little or no use for it on Wikipedia. GiantSnowman 01:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This template definitely has a foreseeable use in the future; the nomination doesn't really make sense. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- The template seems more like an image, plus it is not in use in any of Wikipedia's articles, and per the nomination, it has no foreseeable use in the future.-- S R X -- Latino Heat  21:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not useful, and articles where it would be considered have alternatives making it unnecessary.ÜÖÏËÄ ÄËÏÖÜ (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2008 (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:Stub Category Group

 * 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 debate was delete. Wizardman 02:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Created in 2005, used in one instance, but I'm not sure why. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 18:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, verging on weak delete, tending towards vacillation and needing to be persuaded one way or the other. I think in theory this is of some use, since it covers a particular case of Stub Category, roughly along the same lines as Regional stub category, say.  But admittedly it's not in much use, it may not be necessary to cover that case (the "newstub" parameter to SC has been made optional, for reasons like this type of case), and it might even be better to use SC, but with a "bespoke" message explaining its relationship to its subcats.  Bit of a toss-up, really.  Alai (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete A stub group descending from a single article (I think) makes no sense. Unused, anyway. --Thetrick (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's (only) used on ; there are several others it could be used on (that currently use Stub Category -- or vice versa, depending on which you think makes the more sense).  I'm not sure I follow what you say about the single article.  Alai (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2008 (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:Non-free NASA logo

 * 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 debate was Moved out of "non-free space" and redirect deleted. Happy‑melon 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, for the benefit of those who can't check out the deleted redirect, the new name the template was moved to is NASA logo. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed this template to include both PD-USGov-NASA and Insignia, instead of being a "non-free-logo" template, because according to the Foundation, even though there are usage restrictions, these restrictions do not fall under the Foundations definition of non-free. See email by Kat which contains the quote: "Some media may be subject to restrictions other than copyright in some jurisdictions, but are still considered free work." See also discussion on non-free aspects of non-copyrighted materials here --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. There was a previous discussion on the template here. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Is this a deletion nomination or not? --Thetrick (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2008 (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:Test2MrB

 * 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 debate was Speedily deleted under CSD G6. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete personal warning system of a retired user not in use.  MBisanz  talk 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unused template of a retired editor. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  01:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy -- Ned Scott 07:06, 18 June 2008 (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:Drmspeedy2MrB

 * 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 debate was Speedily deleted under CSD G6. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete personal warning system of a retired user not in use.  MBisanz  talk 10:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy -- Ned Scott 07:07, 18 June 2008 (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:SillyMrB

 * 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 debate was Speedily deleted under CSD G6. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete personal warning system of a retired user.  MBisanz  talk 10:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy -- Ned Scott 07:07, 18 June 2008 (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:Threat2MrB

 * 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 debate was Speedily deleted under CSD G6. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete personal warning system of a retired user.  MBisanz  talk 10:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy -- Ned Scott 07:07, 18 June 2008 (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:Sobminor

 * 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 debate was kinda sorta no consensus, but this is so obviously a duplicate of bv that I'm redirecting it there. The only difference appears to be the user talk link, and that's not something we should keep, anyway. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)



Bad template that misstates blocking policy "block without warning" and is bitey.  MBisanz  talk 08:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I fail to see the WP:BITE in this template. It is true, should a vandal continue to edit unconstructively, they will be blocked (albeit usually not without warning; this bit can be edited). -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  00:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are other templates conveying a similar message with a different tone. Anyone using these sort of templates should be able to decide on their own which is appropriate/bitey.ÜÖÏËÄ ÄËÏÖÜ (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete along with the personal user talk page to which people are directed if they wish to complain about the vandalism tagging. The user last made a single edit in October 2007, but had otherwise been inactive since December 2006. Better to get rid of this than have someone else decide to start using it and directing editors to an unmonitored page if they have concerns.  Risker (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (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:Funnybut

 * 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 debate was delete. Wizardman 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Another "joke" template that fails to communicate the serious nature of violating policy.  MBisanz  talk 08:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reason as below. We have better templates for this purpose; this one, and the one below, just seem a little too desperate to be liked. Terraxos (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary and inconsistent with improving WP.ÜÖÏËÄ ÄËÏÖÜ (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, actually, for same reasons as Behave was, below. It is rarely useful, but in situations where it is useful, it can carry the day. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2008 (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:Behave
<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 section.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn, KT makes a good point.  MBisanz  talk 17:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Joke template that fails to link to policy or state the gravity of making "joke" edits.  MBisanz  talk 08:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I use this template occassionally when I see an anon editor make a witty test edit. This template serves a purpose. It should probably be improved to include links to policies. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete We already have plenty of user warning templates for test, vandal, and joke edits, making this one obsolete. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  00:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. 'As they say in the movies'? Ugh. We have far better templates for this purpose; this one is downright embarrassing, and reads like a teacher who's trying to seem cool and responsible at the same time. I would be surprised if anyone has ever been convinced to stop vandalising by this template. Terraxos (talk) 01:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't use it to stop vandals. I use it for people doing witty tests. Kingturtle (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see any need to delete this template message. -- Ned Scott 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A good template useful for the especially creative. --Dragon695 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2008 (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.