Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 12

< May 11	May 13 >

May 12

Template:Arbcite

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. Aquarius • talk 15:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and not particularly useful, as it only saves a few characters when typing. — Picaroon (Talk) 22:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lazy, and obviously hasn't caught on if it hasn't been used since its creation a year and four months ago. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It's not that hard to type... ~Spe bi 01:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless. ST47Talk 15:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not a lazy person, and this template is for lazy people. Jmlk17 06:16, 14 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:Word Association

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. -Amarkov moo! 03:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social network. This is in template space, but fulfils no function in building the encyclopaedia, all it does is link the dozens of variants of word association games played by the so-called "sandboxians". It's bad enough that we are hosting this egregious violation of WP:NOT in the first place, without using template space to promote the social networking. — Guy (Help!) 21:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy 'nuff said. Nardman1 21:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template:Bjaodn for Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense also serves no purpose in actually building the encyclopaedia, instead relating to an activity practiced by many Wikipedians. I don't see how this is any different. Also, word association does claim to help users find articles to edit, and I can see why, so from that respect it does fulfil said function. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we are not a social network, but as Jimmy said, we are a community. Expressing that in some small unobtrusive ways is not a problem. If people can't have a little bit of fun here anymore, then people will have considerable less fun editing which most likely will result in less contributions. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actively promoting social networking is not "small and unbotrusive". Guy (Help!) 11:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Word Association does provide users ways to find new articles. Template helps keep the various games connected. Squad51 02:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the various games are... games. Social networking. Wikipedia is not a game site. There is no evidence that these are helping new users find articles; they are used by a small group of established users who have a disproportionate number of edits in Sandbox space. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have found several articles on the various WA games that I didn't not know existed, found interesting, and have edited, often for grammar. As for number of edits, I tend to only log in when required to. I do edit quite a bit without bothering to log in, there doesn't seem to be much point if I'm fixing somebody's grammar or spelling.Squad51 13:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe we can work on precedent for this. WA and its associated material have been attacked multiple times, and each time the majority voted to keep it (and it when it was deleted without consensus, it was rebuilt). It's not an encyclopedia article, it's the sandbox. Also note that most WA contributors are also active editors of more mainstream articles. Bottom line: delete it if you want, but it'll come back. --Perimosocordiae 17:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful template that could be in widespread use if allowed to survive this vote. Jmlk17 06:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above Modest Genius ^talk 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. ♠Tom @s Bat 20:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above reasons. - hmwith talk 20:07, 17 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:3Strike

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 speedy delete, CSD G7 applies. Picaroon (Talk) 23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Creator said to delete — Balloonguy 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does nothing but adds a word you put {{3strike|here}}. TheBlazikenMaster 17:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as test page or user request. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 20:09, 12 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:Starter pokémon and Template:Starting pokémon

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. Aquarius • talk 15:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are useless. Starter pokémon shouldn't have their own template, you could add all of them, including Wartortle and Meganium, but that would be ridiciolus. I say delete. EDIT: Some nominator found one with all the starters including their evolution, so they should be removed too. TheBlazikenMaster 12:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- They already have a category. A template is just overkill.--Tempest115 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tempest. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Perhaps if there were another template at the bottom of each article then it would appear slightly over the top, but since there isn't, I can't say this bothers me too much. I guess someone might want to click through all the different starter pokemon... - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 15:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Large and frankly rather unattracive. Nothing that isn't already textually covered in the Pokémon article. A template I'm sure was basically the same was deleted last September through TfD. --Brandon Dilbeck 17:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, Delete it. But then you should also consider deleting this template too: {{Starting pokémon}} Coojah 00:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will be no problem. TheBlazikenMaster 00:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Brandon Dilbeck. -- Jelly Soup 06:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, it's like overcategorization except more annoyingly visible. No need to link this handful together in this way. Axem Titanium 20:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. They are useless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roastytoast (talk • contribs) 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete there are already far too many Pokemon templates, and this one just adds to the clutter. Jmlk17 06:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Jmlk: A lot of those templates are up for deletion here. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Template:Starting pokémon (its overkill) and keep the other. Even if the information is in the articles, it is a vital reference tool. I think making it in chart form is likewise easier on the eyes. Drumpler 20:51, 17 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:Football squad player/role/NONE-HE ISNT GOOD ENOUGH

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.

This is pure vandalism. — ka la ha 10:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism and attack template. *** Crotalus *** 12:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Who even cares if someone is sexy? TheBlazikenMaster 14:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as pure vandalism. General criteria apply to all namespaces, templates included, so this needn't even be here. - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 15:45, 12 May 2007 (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 section.