Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 25



Template:Second Spouses of the Philippines

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Second Spouses of the Philippines

Original Research, See Articles for deletion/Second Spouse of the Philippines for the AFD of its main article Lenticel  ( talk ) 03:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * delete if this closes as delete, otherwise keep. Frietjes (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2011 (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:Dravidian-speaking

 * 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 no consensus Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dravidian-speaking

Unused navbox Bulwersator (talk) 09:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC) 
 * Keep There are a number of language-templates such as these (eg. English-speaking countries, Iranian-speaking countries etc.). This template simply lists countries which speak Dravidian languages. Mar4d (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2011 (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:AIVNotify

 * 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 <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 01:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * AIVNotify

This template is a pointless "warning" that the user is about to be blocked. If they won't listen to other warnings that they are likely to be blocked, why will they listen to this? Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This template shows proof that administrators are getting involved and so creates a sense of 'final warning' better than the other warning templates. It also advises other editors that admins are already involved so they don't have to go get help from someone else. It was created because people were asking for it. -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  MerryXmas! 20:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * We've already got a process. The last warning an editor gets is a uw-4, after which a block is appropriate. This introduces a new layer between uw-4 and block for... what reason? If an editor persists in vandalising after a final warning it seems unlikely that a "you are going to be blocked any minute now" template is going to have any effect. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork <sub style="font-size: 60%">―Œ <sup style="margin-left:-3ex">(talk) 00:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Delete per Chris; not really useful, since level 4 warnings are pretty clear about the consequences of continuing to vandalise. — This, that, and the other (talk) 08:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally redundant. AFAIK every uw-4 template says "You may be blocked without any further notification ...", and than there is no reason why this notification is needed. Armbrust, B.Ed. <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Let's talk about <sub style="color:#008000;">about my edits? 08:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This adds a redundant layer as indicated above... and, worst case scenario, seems to shoot the vandalism-reporting process in the foot as the huge link to AIV almost encourages bad-faith editors to go to the AIV list and remove themselves from it. -- Kinu  t/c 22:44, 26 December 2011 (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.