Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 March 19



Template:Made-up

 * 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 Redirect to Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As well as issues with civility, this template seems to be redundant to Template:Hoax and Template:Disputed. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This deletion nomination is compete bollocks and was probably made up in school one day :o) Guy (Help!) 22:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Struggling to find any good reason for keeping in that sentence tbh. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm British, we have humour not humor. It's different, dont'cha know. Guy (Help!) 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm British too, but cheers. Since your !vote was a joke, do you wanna strike it? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redundant and inappropriate in tone. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect - To Template:Hoax. For something that's likely going to appear in the mainspace, the tone is too informal. Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Either reword it to make it sound more professional or Redirect to Hoax. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mark historical. Its too funny to delete but, yeah, its not suitable use in anything other then a humourus context and we have far too many users who edit with a non-British sense of humour to offer many opportunities for its use. Spartaz Humbug! 08:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm given to suggesting that hoax itself should be redirected to a speedy template ("this article may be completely fictitious" is not a matter of "cleanup"), but this is wholly inappropriate tone-wise. As for marking it historical, templatespace is not the place for joke content and this isn't "historical" in that it was never really part of process. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't intend to use this, but allowing templates like this to exist is an effective way to protect my ability to say the same thing in a slightly less direct way. Cardamon (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sigh. WP:NOTFREESPEECH. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Criticism of articles (and pieces of articles) is necessary for the proper functioning of Wikipedia.  From time to time, people who attempt to push fringe ideas into Wikipedia, while    attempting to remove criticism of those ideas, claim that criticizing those ideas constitutes incivility, or even a personal attack on the people pushing them.  Sometimes this claim gets traction among admins.  In a small way, this template, by its very existence, helps protect an activity vital for maintaining and improving the quality of Wikipedia; it provides cover for those who don't necessarily want to go around yelling "bollocks!", but would like to help keep Wikipedia from treating utter nonsense as established fact.  Cardamon (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirecting this to a speedy deletion template would be a far more mature approach. It is a very good thing that the project has recently matured to the point where childish incivility is no longer tacitly accepted so long as it's directed at the right people. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - This template does not address a content problem of an article, which is what clean-up templates are intended to address. An article that meets the criteria for having this tag placed on it has a subject that is pretty much always deletable.  If only notability is questionable, then  should be used. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 22:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Template:Hoax. The wording is informal for an article and some users who don't get the humor might take it the wrong way. — Air plane  man — 02:23, 25 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:Contradictarticle

 * 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 after replacing all transclusions. No consensus on subsequent redirection Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Redundant to Template:Contradict-other. &oelig; &trade; 18:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect seems like a reasonable name to remember rather than "contradict-other" 65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete after all instances have been replaced by . — Air plane  man — 02:24, 25 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:Sekret Uspekha

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned single-use template (infobox). Its sole use was subst'ed into the article Sekret Uspekha. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't think of any other potential uses for it. A single-use template is unnecessary, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  15:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Instead of having a bunch of template code in the article's edit box why not keep this template and transclude it instead. Infoboxes aren't meant to be subst'd anyway. And so what if it's only used once as long as it serves a useful purpose. Afaik there's no guideline that says templates MUST be used in multiple articles. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is single use. Having a separate page to house the infobox doesn't seem necessary here, as subst'ing does the same thing. — Air plane  man — 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't an infobox. It is a navbox formatted in the shape of an infobox. An infobox summarizes information about the subject. This box gives a list of links to (mostly non-existent) articles about people who participated in the show. (Compare Infobox television with this box to see how different a real infobox is from this.) It shouldn't even be subst'ed, although it appears that was already done. --RL0919 (talk) 21:00, 26 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:⇄

 * 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. Redundant to eqm and harder to use due to having a special character in the name. RL0919 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not useful - the template supplies the character of its name as an entity, but one has to type the character itself in order to call the template. Used extensively in one page - I am unsure why these uses could not be replaced with the character itself. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The template is redundant to eqm. Physchim62 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: redundant to the equilibrium template and is useless since the character has to be typed in order to use the template. -- Big  Dom  21:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Completely useless and redundant. Not worth redirecting, that wouldn't help, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  15:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete: Table_of_standard_electrode_potentials among others might be mangled.76.172.219.186 (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment All uses on Standard electrode potential (data page) have been replaced with eqm. The template is now eligible for CSD T3, and has been so tagged. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete if it's not deleted through CSD first. Redundant and hard to use. — Air plane  man — 02:33, 25 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:東亞男性歷史人物

 * 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 Speedy delete by John per G2 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not meaningful. The creator's only contribution. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:36, 19 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.

Obsolete road infobox templates

 * 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete templates. Functionality combined into Jct. --Fredddie™ 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – the MI templates are not in use. They were substituted on original usage, but they are now superseded by newer templates. The templates' resulting formatting breaches the MoS. They should be deleted as a housekeeping measure. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. –  T M F 03:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unused. ---Dough4872 04:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and Imzadi. --LJ (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - obsolete. — Air plane  man — 02:35, 25 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.