Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 25



Template:Only warning

 * 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 redirect WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Less precise (and less attractive) version of Uw-vandalism4im  MBisanz  talk 07:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete then redirect Only to Uw-vandalism4im. --Geniac (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Geniac. &mdash; H92 (t · c · no) 15:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to uw-vandalism4im. --Geniac (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to uw-vandalism4im. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to uw-vandalism4im or userfy. There's no need to have a duplicate template in the general template mainspace. Ask the creator if (s)he is interested in userfication of the template. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to uw-vandalism4im . There is no need for two templates with the same purpose. If the creator thinks it is significantly better I wouldn't have a problem with it being moved to their userspace, however, although I think uw-vandalism4im is more precise and might be better to use.  Anonymous101 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to uw-vandalism4im per above. DA PIE EATER (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you.  MBisanz  talk 09:03, 27 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:UE

 * 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 keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge to better titled Uw-english keeping the good variables  MBisanz  talk 07:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, redirect to Uw-english, and/or ask the creator if (s)he is interested in userfication. Duplicate templates are not needed; they just get in the way and cause confusion. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 20:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (but maybe rename): useful template (I have just used it) and one I have been looking for but could not find until I noticed it had been nominated for deletion. The difference between the two templates is that UE is a more useful message for users who have contributed to articles in other languages, whereas uw-english refers to comments (i.e. content which should be in talk pages, not articles).  If it is possible to merge the two (so the content is different depending on what type of page is specified, that would be useful but if that cannot be done, the separate templates are useful. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as is for foreign language articles and  Uw-english is for foreign language comments. Anonymous101 (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you.  MBisanz  talk 09:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, comments and foreign language articles are treated differently.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:18, 1 July 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:No personal headings

 * 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 keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd template that I don't see reflected in policy, or used in current warning systems, if its true, its probably the most breached policy in existence.  MBisanz  talk 07:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Template is based on TALK. Suggest bringing it inline with WP:TALK for a keep.  Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it out of line? Hyacinth (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Like the nom said, it isn't reflected in current policy; it's your interpretation. Personal headings are not necessarily personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Hyacinth (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * NPA doesn't say anything about using headings as attacks, and not all names in headings are attacks. I think I'm repeating myself. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the reason for deletion? Hyacinth (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. See Template:talkpage: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the X page" not for discussing other users. Hyacinth (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep; firstly, there is a policy that this reflects, secondly, if it is the most breached policy we have, then that's all the more reason why we should keep it; people won't stop breaching it if they do not know about it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages) 20:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per GO-PCHS-NJROTC and the fact that this template will help remind users of an issue. If its a very breached policy we need it more not less. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you.  MBisanz  talk 09:03, 27 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:Userfied-nn

 * 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 redirect WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Less effective version of Userfied2 not in current Test/UTM system  MBisanz  talk 07:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect to Userfied2 &mdash; H92 (t · c · no) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Userfied2 . There is no need for two templates with the same purpose. If the creator thinks it is significantly better I wouldn't have a problem with it being moved to their userspace, however, although I think Userfied2 is more precise and colourful and might be better to use. Might as well redirect in case users do use this template. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've run across two similar templates: Userfied a‎ and Nn-userfy and added them to the user warning category. --Thetrick (talk) 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you.  MBisanz  talk 09:03, 27 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:A B Spellings

 * 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 Always like to see user responsibility :) WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Less appropriate version of the Uw-lang and Lang0-Lang4, rather specific and unused in current systems  MBisanz  talk 07:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - yeah that was a simply stupid template - my fault.-- daniel  folsom  15:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleteper WP:SD - "Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith, and provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author." (request made in above vote) If SD is not possible vote delete as more appropriate templates available. Anonymous101 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you.  MBisanz  talk 09:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)