Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 14

< June 13	June 15 >

June 14, 2006

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete. IceKarma ॐ 07:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requestrewrite

Template:Requestrewrite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tagged for TfD since December 9, but I can't find any mention in the December logs. No inclusions at the moment, but given it's a maintenance template that shouldn't be too surprising. It's only linked to from 2 pages, so it hasn't been well advertised. Neutral SeventyThree^(Talk) 23:33, 14 June 2006 (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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Nickptar. Pagra shtak 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite isbn=0-521-58519-8

Template:Cite isbn=0-521-58519-8 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Probably created by mistake, uses {{cite book}} for one specific book. Isn't used in any articles, only on a talk page where a user says "Sorry I didn't notice the template sandbox before I made this" AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete -- per nom, per author's admission. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. ~~ N (t/c) 17:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. IceKarma ॐ 07:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DisputedAssertion

Template:DisputedAssertion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with Template:Dubious, except that Dubious's talk page link defaults to section "Disputed". This one's does not. This template uses a picture icon that is not clear scaled down to this size and the meaning would not be known by a newbie. Dubious is also much easier to type. Delete after orphaning to Template:Dubious (not much more than 5 pages that use it) to prevent wiki markup clutter, otherwise redirect. Invitatious 00:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's useful to mark things that are disputed in tables, (for example, the developer of an unreleased game) so I see no point in deleting it. Variety is the spice of life. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the image is not linked to WP:AD, and images do not work well in line-items anyways. Invitatious 14:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as i see nothing wrong with it. The hand/stop sign looks like a Notice for the Talk Page...so, i bet newbies would be able to understand it. User:Raccoon Fox - talk 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the other template links to disputed section of the talk page, which may not be the name of the section.--Ac1983fan (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, there are only a few pages that include it. The template uses can be replaced with {{dubious|talk page section name}} , or in the case where there is no talk page section, {{dubious}} (section Dubious), or {{dubious| }} (no specific section). Delete after orphaning as I said in the nomination. Invitatious 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I have just orphaned it. Invitatious 13:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why? You should have done that until we had reached conclusion. I'll go revert it. H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was unaware of the Template:Dubious when I created this - and feel that "Dubious" is, in a funny way an ambiguous term in of itself, that does not match the phrasing of the other templates (Template:Dispute#See_also). I think the breakdown of the templates is quite good, and that this fits in quite nicely into their nomenclature. In all, I think it would have been more tasteful to have proposed a merge, and have people decide which name and look is better. Rather than censoring one . . . taking the best of both.— <TALK JNDRLINETALK>

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 page.