Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 1



Template:First Monday in September

 * 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 discussion was Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unused and redundant to Weekday in month. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a bunch of these date templates to show when holidays would appear in a given year. If they are no longer needed, why keep them around? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears as though the one for Mother's Day and Father's Day still have a few transclusions, but the rest are orphaned. The Mother's Day and Father's Day ones could be replace as well given their limited use. I agree that they were probably handy at one point in time. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  22:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - (almost) unused and obsolete. The few uses can surely be replaced if necessary. Robofish (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2010 (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:Possiblevandalism

 * 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 discussion was Delete as redundant to existing templates and other methods for dealing with both vandalism and non-vandalism article problems. RL0919 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary and unused template. Articles which are vandalism should be speedy deleted (hoax, vandalism, attack page, ...) if all reversions are vandalism, or reverted to a pre-vandalized state. If you are unsure whether it is vandalism or not, you can still revert if older revisions exist, or discuss it on the talk page. There is a multitude of tags for specific problems, whether it is a supposed hoax or a supposed copyvio. No new template is needed here. If kept, the template should be thoroughly improved, both the text of it and the categories it lists articles in. Fram (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)  <Like my new signature Fram?
 * You again Fram? Must I explain this all over again?  This tag is for newly created pages that could be possibly just vandalism, however the earmarker (because its you Fram I'll explain: the person who put the template on the page) assumes good faith, i.e. its a whole new page which is most likely unintentional vandalism.

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 06:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 07:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as irredeemably unclear. The concept of "unintentional vandalism" is an oxymoron: vandalism is a crime of intent. (Read the opening three sentences of the Vandalism policy to which the template links.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - of no obvious use. If you're not sure whether a revision is vandalism or not, bring it up somewhere so others can check, or just AGF and do nothing; but don't add an unhelpful template. Robofish (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dont't Delete!!! It has numerous uses and is not an oxymoron.  Vandalism is not a crime of intent!  What other template are you going to use when someone has made a page which is obviously a notability nightmare and is a vandalised horrible bloat on wikipedia's servers, but you still assume good faith?  I am a new page patroller! I see some of the types of pages people make!  The other templates just don't cut it, if you can refer me to another workable solution then I will be happy to let it die, but with no alternative I must inform you that this template is doing more good than harm!  And what about all the pages that already have this template? are you personally going to go to each one and re-template thewm with whatever other alternative you have in mind?  Think aboutm it?  (sorry about the spelling errors, I have a new keyboard!)
 * EDIT: Had to reformat this whole thing. Remember it is established practice to use one more : than the last person in front of your comment and to leave at least two lines ( or line breaks) between comments
 * "And what about all the pages that already have this template? are you personally going to go to each one and re-template thewm with whatever other alternative you have in mind?" Yes, I will presonally go through all of them. All zero articles that currently use or have ever used this template. You can be misguided in creating this template, but you are (again) outright making up things here. Fram (talk) 08:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant to a better-designed template: Db-g3.  SilkTork  *YES! 15:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 07:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the template! The alternate template provided is for a completely different thing (obvious vandalism) my template is for possible vandalism that's in the grey area.


 * Delete - no obvious use other than what already exists via other template. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - redundant to removal (or deletion) of the vandalism or any of several more specific tags to state what the exact problem is. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 04:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep If you use any of the existing deletion templates then you are assuming bad faith, this template assumes good faith. And also I personally tagged at least one page with this tag, so claiming that this tag is not in use is a lie.  I propose suspension of use of this tag until this discussion is over.  Finally Fram, please do not place your arguments above other older ones to give false representations of the timeline of this discussion.
 * 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:Major Leagues

 * 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 discussion was Keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty arbitrary listing; I can't imagine that this is really used to navigate these four largely unrelated articles. It also appears at random intervals in articles (e.g. discussion expansion in the NHL) rather than a comparative study of the leagues (which would probably be outside the scope of the four articles anyway.) Also, by necessity, it will never navigate more than four or possibly five articles if there is a surge in interest in the MLS. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the creator of the template. I really do find it useful in navigating between the five related articles, and I believe that it can be expanded to include more information such as : the Number of teams, revenue, ratings, etc. I thought it would be nice to have a visual of the "big 4" Major professional sports leagues. It helps the reader get a quick idea of what is the article is about. --GateKeeper (talk) @ 09:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree that it is useful for navigation. ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   00:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It does appear to be useful navigation, however I'm not sure about the current placement. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No less useful than other navigational templates.  I would suggest adding the major leagues for the other major professional team sports, specifically women's basketball, men's and women's soccer, box lacrosse, and field lacrosse.  Powers T 19:22, 5 March 2010 (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:Terrorism category definition

 * 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 discussion was Keep. Note that a "keep" result for the template does not preclude editorial changes to its wording or removing it from categories where it is not helpful; those are left to the discretion of editors working on those pages. RL0919 (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Clunky, redundant and links to WP namespace given in content categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Clunkiness can be fixed. How is it redundant? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Comment - a very large number of categories have been just tagged with a template that objects to the use of the word terrorist - this is a category that uses the word terrorism in a wider context rather than naming a specific person a terrorist - I really wonder the efficacy of tagging every category in wikipedia with the word terrorism in it? SatuSuro 01:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, useful and necessary to give people guidance on when these categories should be used. Linking to WP namespace from category-space is not a problem. Robofish (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 22:33, 9 March 2010 (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:Croydon Athletic Academy FC Squad 2009 Surrey youth Cup

 * 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 discussion was The result of the discussion was  Delete no need for a copy that is created by a sockpuppet. something lame from CBW 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC) I brought this to MfD as I have no idea where else to bring it. Despite the name, it is not a template, but simply a copy of Croydon Athletic F.C. copied and pasted to a new, rather bizarre, title. Even if fixed to be what the title suggests it should be, it should be deleted, as there's no way a non-professional football club's youth team needs a template -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete My first thought was to contact the creator, on the theory that a new editor might well be confused when it comes to templates (if you watched my work on templates this morning, you'd understand why I'm sympathetic that some can be confused). However, it appears to have been created by an editor banned as a sockpuppet. The talk page isn't being used for talk, so my guess it is hopeless to offer help. --  SPhilbrick  T  21:48, 3 March 2010 (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.