Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 26

< June 25	June 27 >

June 26

Template:Uw-redirect

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 debate was redirect Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-redirect (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Rather BITEy single level tempalte, duplicated better by our NPA, nonsense, and test templates. MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also redundant to {{uw-redirect1/2/3/4/4im}}. Anomie ⚔ 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Created by someone other than a wikipedia official. The creator might want to propose it at TFC. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (ironically) to {{uw-redirect1}}. It's a useful redirect if someone forgets the "1", but it's clearly redundant and more bitey.--Kubigula (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2008 (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:Uw-confuser

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-confuser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We don't block confusing user names, this template is redundant to our RFC-N process and does not reflect current policy. MBisanz ^talk 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also redundant to {{uw-username}}. Anomie ⚔ 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep I created this template as a result of this discussion. The consensus there was that names that were found to be excessively confusing were blockable, but that the user should be given a chance to change their name first. This template is notifying the user that their name has been confusing and indicating that they may be blocked if they do not change it. This is different from the {{uw-username}} template, because if a user does not respond to that template, the result is a RFCN being opened. This template was meant for names that are so confusing that they will obviously be disallowed at RFCN, but giving the user a chance to change names instead of being blocked right off the bat. If the username policy has changed so that confusing usernames, even extremely confusing ones, are not to be blocked, then this template can be deleted. However, my reading of the discussion I linked to above is that very confusing names can still be blocked after the user has been notified. In that case, I support keeping the template, because the alternative is these users being insta-blocked instead of getting a chance to choose a new username without a block. Is he back? (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in {{uw-username}} that makes it inappropriate for use regarding confusing usernames. In my reading of the two templates, {{subst:uw-username|It may be unnecessarily confusing}} says the same thing as your {{uw-confuser}}, except more concisely and somewhat less bitingly. Anomie ⚔ 00:53, 30 June 2008 (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:Uw-lyrics

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 debate was 'no consensus Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-lyrics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Over specific version of {{Uw-copyright}} not part of the UTM system, currently unused. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Anomie ⚔ 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per MBisanz, just a more specific version of a template that still applies to lyrics and such. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being specific about specifically what is wrong is helpful for new users (which this template is intended for). This template effectively conveys the message that all lyrics are considered copyright violations, and the user will learn and not post lyrics again. A more generic message about copyright will likely not make the user understand specifically what they did wrong. 129.240.250.5 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per anon user above: I can see the value in having a more specific template in this case. Terraxos (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2008 (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:Uw-falseinfo1

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 21:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-falseinfo1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Less good faith version of {{Uw-unsourced1}}, redundant, unused, not actually UTM. MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, completely redundant to {{uw-unsourced1/2/3}}. Anomie ⚔ 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a worse version of {{Uw-unsourced1}}. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the intent is closer to (and redundant to) {{uw-error1}}. However, it's not as good as that template. So, delete, or at best, redirect to error1.--Kubigula (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (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:Uw-hoax

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 debate was Withdrawn missed category name. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-hoax (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Over specific version of {{Uw-error1}}, WP:BEANS apply, also not actually part of UTM system despite name. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unless I've misunderstood what you mean by UTM, uw-hoax has been listed on WP:UTM since February 2007. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 22:44, 26 June 2008 (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:Uw-persondata

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 21:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-persondata (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Non-UTM template, redundant to {{Uw-delete2}}, too narrow and currently unused. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really don't need a specific warning for removing one particular template. Anomie ⚔ 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. We have better templates for removing templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Why would someone create this? Such a waste of precious time. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2008 (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:Uw-lsnw

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 21:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-lsnw (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Overly specific SPAM warning, not actually UTM, redundant to Test/UTM advert/spam warnings. MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are better warning templates out there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overly specific. We could create such warnings for pretty much every "list of [internet-related thing]s" (such as List of content-control software, for example) article that exists. If someone spams, give them uw-spam. If the user wants to explain more about what the spammer did wrong, just add a little bit on the end before the sig. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We really don't need a specific warning that applies to only one article. Anomie ⚔ 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not a part of UTM. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if this closes as a redirect, could the closing admin remember to categorize the redirect to Category:Redirects from warning template, thank you. MBisanz ^talk 09:04, 27 June 2008 (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:Infobox Users

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 debate was Delete because of its recursive transclusion. DDStretch (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Users (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Utterly pointless, a recursive transclusion of the same template RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 21:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It should be a speedy delete. DDStretch (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2008 (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:CursedUser

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 debate was Delete because it has been unused. DDStretch (talk) 22:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CursedUser (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and unusable joke template; last edited in 2006, no transclusions; completely pointless. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Potentially suggestive of suicide._{Wiki11790 talk} 21:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but I suspect it should be a speedy delete. DDStretch (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (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:HS LL in Yorkshire

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:HS LL in Yorkshire (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicates other templates {{Lord Lieutenancies}} and {{High Shrievalties}}. MRSC • Talk 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a straight duplicate of those two templates at all, it covers specific High Sheriffs and Lord Lieutenants of an cultural area that are grouped together in acemedic, scholary publications such as "The Lord Lieutenants & High Sheriffs of Yorkshire: 1066-2000". Extremely useful for those interested in the area. Bad faith nomination. - Yorkshirian (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of "bad faith nomination" is a failure to assume good faith. I deplore the use of the phrase and warn you not to indulge in such comments again. I've left a further message on this editor's talk page. DDStretch (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yorkshire#Controvertial. --Jza84 | Talk 19:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - not needed, and excessive templates only clutter articles. The country-wide templates and the articles on specific counties / historic divisions hold all the necessary links. PamD (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With this, the articles have a grand total of TWO templates. How can that be defined as "excessive clutter"? Different counties have different circumstances. I think that Yorkshire is the only who has had so many "sub" Sheriffs and "sub" Lieutenants, that is why in scholary references, the ones current included in the Yorkshire specific template are specifically placed together in "The Lord Lieutenants & High Sheriffs of Yorkshire: 1066-2000". - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons as given by the nomination and supplemented by PamD. DDStretch (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that TfD are not straw man polls, since MRSC's stance has been disproved by scholary books, namely "The Lord Lieutenants & High Sheriffs of Yorkshire: 1066-2000" then could you perhaps expand and add a rationale of your own. If you have one. Thank you. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - not needed, just clutter.--Harkey (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - totally unecessary, sorry - but we don't need it. --Meldshal42 (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2008 (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:Non-free currency-EU

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 debate was Delete per deprecated and orphaned. Note that the user closing noticed that this was not closed, and closed it himself, even though he didn't participate. DA PIE EATER (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free currency-EU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is unused and has been deprecated since October 2006. BJ^Talk 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an obvious case. Could you not speedy delete it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't totally sure, deleted. BJ^Talk 16:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was "deprecated". So "when it's orphan, delete it" :) There was a consensus for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2008 (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:Db-meta-s

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 debate was Redirect. I fixed the code issues. I was going to delete the templates, but they had a few transclusions, and redirection works just as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Db-meta-s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Db-t3-s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Much as I would love to slap {{db-t3}} on these templates, that might be considered a bit pointy. These two templates appear to be forks of {{db-meta}} created solely for use in tagging templates for deletion under WP:CSD#T3. I'm not entirely sure why MZMcBride felt that the existing {{db-meta}} and {{db-t3}} templates were not adequate, but there really is no need for forking one CSD template from the Db- series that seem to work so well. — Happy‑melon 15:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CSD#T3 and nom. DA PIE EATER (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolleyes: Um... "I'm not entirely sure why MZMcBride felt...." You could've, y'know, asked me or something. These templates were "forked" because the Db- template standardization royally screwed up the functionality of the old templates, causing my script to break and I didn't have the time to figure out what was needed to fix the issue. Thus, I copied the old versions, appended an -s (for special), and did a quick fix to my tagging script (i.e., a quick grep and adding "-s" where needed). These templates can't really be speedied under T3 as they have about 50 or so transclusions from what I see.... But, moving forward, if the functionality can be restored to the Db-meta and Db-t3 templates, I have no problem deleting these templates. (Hell, I'll do it myself.) If I have a minute (and I should soonish), I'll re-examine the situation here and see what needs to be done. If an admin wants to close this discussion, just move the templates into my userspace. Or not. Really, it makes little difference to me — I can always undelete them if need be. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2008 (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:Faculty of Physics and Astronomy (University of Heidelberg)

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Faculty of Physics and Astronomy (University of Heidelberg) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox with the main article redlinked. Thetrick (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fixed the red link on the title but all the links below just redirect to the main article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thetrick. DA PIE EATER (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. _{Wiki11790 talk} 21:20, 26 June 2008 (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:Pinoy Idol 1

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pinoy Idol 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A fork-ish version of Pinoy Idol template, featuring the finalists who do not have a corresponding Wiki articles yet. This template should be deleted. — Starczamora (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems appropriate since Template:American Idol 1 exists. The only issue is that it doesn't link to anything, but that can easily be fixed. DA PIE EATER (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the contestants seems to be notable enough to have their own articles as of the moment. --Howard the Duck 05:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The template has only one link! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created Pinoy Idol 1 because if this year's season is ended, The winner will have his/her own article here in Wikipedia and his/her name will have a link in the template, so please save the template, thank you. --Gabriel mark 12:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's 2 links in a list of 14 linkable items. A very low ratio indeed. --Howard the Duck 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And you're very notorious, Gabriel mark, for making very useless articles and templates when you don't have to and in very inappropriate times. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too early and the contestants are not yet notable. Make only if the second season comes through. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let the show end, and also let's wait and see if there will be a Pinoy Idol 2. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. What's the use of creating a template if many of the items link to the same subsection in a page? To the creator: You may have spiced up your user page and created a lot of articles (all of them speedeleted),if I may add) but boy, you have a lot more rice to eat here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2008 (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:Prophecy

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Prophecy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two articles use this template, and both articles have notability concerns. Although {{future}} doesn't quite drive home the same point, I feel that template should be used instead. — Anthony Rupert (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not sure that limited transclusion is a good argument for deletion of a template such as this. One might view it as a sign that the template is amazingly effective—all but two of the articles that have been tagged with this template were fixed. {{Future}} doesn't appear to be a suitable substitute. I'm not sure why the editor above wants to delete this template. It's not doing any harm, and storage is cheap. It flags a legitimate problem with an article that should be fixed.--Srleffler (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“

All but two of the articles that have been tagged with this template were fixed.

”

- Oops; never thought of that. Anthony Rupert (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~(weak)~~ Delete.I think {{tense}} does the same job in a more general context. WP:NOHARM is not a reason to keep it. For maintenance reasons its better to have as less cleanup templates as possible. Prophecy was barely been used. The only reason I find to keep it, it's because {{tense}} doesn't support parameters like "future, past, present" which could activate more specific instructions to the editors instead of the general "Please consider copy editing to past tense if historic, present tense if not time-based (e.g. fiction), or future tense if upcoming". I would suggest improving {{tense}} and merging {{prophecy}} there. Anyone willing to do that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that {{Cleanup-rewrite}} can also be used by adding a reason in the template. I still would prefer the improvement of {{tense}} but this just adds to the fact that we have other templates to do the job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly specific templates like this only serve to make the cleanup template system more confusing. Mr.Z-man 21:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused and duplicatory template.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 23:18, 2 July 2008 (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:Aremith/Welcome

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 debate was delete (have been userfied to User:Aremith/Welcomebox). I also deleted (as CSD R2 - redir to user namespace) the redirects left after the other moves. - Nabla (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aremith/Welcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused user_talk header box thingy. Thetrick (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of TfDing, should I just move templates like this (or this) into the creator's userspace? Is there a policy and a set of notification templates? --Thetrick (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Based on the template name it seems clear that the creator wants it in their userspace and if that user prefers that template, they should be able to use it. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Aremith/Welcome or some other subpage of the user that he chooses. However, I'd like to comment that under how the template is written, only Aremith could use it and it seems a bit selfish. DA PIE EATER (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now that I look, this user has a bunch of personal templates. I would appreciate it if a person experienced in handling these situations would contact me on my talk page. --Thetrick (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close The user has moved this set of templates. --Thetrick (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2008 (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.