Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 December 28

< December 27	December 29 >

December 28

Merge Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar with Template:Criticism of religion

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I've proposed that this template, which has a long and controversial history, and is the only religion to feature it's own criticism template, so it should be merged with the Template:Criticism of religion so as to make it more NPOV and also prevent the perennial problems (mainly WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP) associated with it.Jemiljan (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Many critics of islam dont criticize other religions. Pass a Method talk 00:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the current Template:Criticism of religion does include Robert Spencer, who is certainly notable primarily for his criticism of Islam, not all religions. Are you saying that the expansion of that template isn't feasible? Why so? Jemiljan (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Problems should be dealt with as they arise. Such a template is obviously not without controversy. The simple fact that this is the only religion with such a template may have a good reason. But that aside, it simply is not a reason not to have this template. But the main problem with this proposal is that they are not necessarily connected in both directions, as the previous editor has noticed already. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my point to Pass a Method above. Are you saying that WP shouldn't be consistent in their treatment of such issues? Isn't this a case of singling one faith out over others? What are these "good reasons" for doing this?Jemiljan (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Islam is too big a religion on its own to be merged with the other template, and the two templates are different besides (one appears at top, one appears near bottom of page). Many of the critics are former Muslims, and still many are former Muslims turned converts to Christianity, etc. Its a complicated area and large issue which cannot be simplified in this way. JTBX (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JTBX, one of the major problems with the Islam template now is that it is comprised of, as you say, "former Muslims and converts to Christianity, in other words, polemicists, which is very much WP:UNDUE. Reformists are generally not included. I might like to note that it would help if you followed the discussion on the Template:Criticism of religion discussion board, where the problems I note have been raised before in relation to other faiths. Claiming that Islam is "too big a religion" is silly. Christianity is a "big" religion, and so is Judaism. Singling out Islam is inconsistent at best. There should be a degree of consistency on these tabs. Say if someone created a "Criticism of Judaism" template (which doesn't exist) and posted mainly a litany of Islamic critics, or even worse, Hitler, then they would be denounced as an Antisemite. Finally, do note that this template was actually very different in scope when it was first conceived, as a "Muslims and Controversies" tab. Finally, I don't think that your point about the location of the template on the page is a bit overstated, as their location may have more to do with their respective sizes and page contents, than any inherent formatting. Jemiljan (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't see similar Template:Criticism_of_Christianity_sidebar / Template:Criticism_of_Judaism_sidebar. Strikes me as systemic bias. NickCT (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though the Template:Criticism of Islam wasn't originally conceived as such, and has changed considerably over time. That said, I don't see any reasonable explanation in defense of keeping that template as it is. As the other template is obviously broader, more inclusive, and NPOV, I don't understand the complaints that the topic is "too large" as it can easily be modestly expanded/revised and effectively merged. For example, one could readily accommodate the germane 'issues' (all five of them) on the Islam tab, and then move the critics to a devoted "list" that is not used as a template for a sidebar in WP articles, much as there are other lists of "critics" on various issues.Jemiljan (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your argument is a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. // Liftarn (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Content disputes like this really don't belong on TfD to begin with, as the community at large --including myself-- does not have an informed opinion on whether this collection of religious scholars needs a template, and it is therefore not useful to bring it to this venue. What I do know, however, is that the argument from consistency here is totally baseless. Wikipedia's content generation is an ad hoc process. We have a criticism of Islam sidebar because people decided to make one. We don't have a criticism of Christianity sidebar because one used to exist, but at the time it was discussed it was largely collecting articles that either were not specific to Christianity or were specific to the Catholic sex scandals, so it got renamed and rescoped, and people haven't felt the need to create a new one. This isn't a problem that needs correcting, it's just the way different editors have decided to format things. --erachima talk 07:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no similar template exists for other religions. in addition, the template systematically provides undue weight to conspiracy theorists.-- altetendekrabbe 11:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose as there is a difference between criticising religion as such and criticise a specific religion. Templates for other religions can be created as necessary. // Liftarn (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real opinion on whether or not this template is useful in its current form, but I strongly oppose the merger proposal, because such a merger would indiscriminately confuse somewhat different topics... AnonMoos (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which topics would be be "indiscriminately confuse"?Jemiljan (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Unfortunately, anything that in any way deals with criticism of any religion or religions ends up in deletion or merge discussions. As already noted, this is a big enough topic to justify a template of its own. I'll add that the existence of the template does not imply that Wikipedia is criticizing Islam (or anything else). It's just telling interested readers that if you are interested in what you read on this page, here is an easy way to find other pages that may, perhaps, also be of interest to you. It's a navigational aide, not an editorial. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the existence of this template for only a single religion seems likely to violate our neutrality policies. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - {{Criticism of religion}} is a general template, {{Criticism of Islam}} is a more specialised one. Given that several of these figures only criticise Islam and not other religions, I think the more specialised template is justified. If it's going to be merged anywhere, I would say we should be considering a merge with {{Islamophobia}} (which is also currently at TFD). Some would argue that 'Islamophobia' and 'Criticism of Islam' are merely different names for the same phenomenon; even if that's not quite true, the line between them is certainly pretty hard to determine. It seems like a bad idea to me to have both templates when they cross over to such a great degree. Robofish (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's a quite clear difference. Criticism of Islam is limited to the religion while islamophobia is about the people. The difference is the same as with criticism of Judaism and antsemitism. There are ofcourse some overlap but they are also very different. // Liftarn (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The existence of this stupid template normalizes racism and Islamophobia, ignorance and rightism. I think that merging will lead to serious scrutiny, which is good. (IMO, Islamophobia in the US is like the wide acceptance of colonialism in the 20th century. Cool once, distasteful forever. When our capitalist media finds something else to get us all scared and nationalistic to start up imperial wars, Islamophobia will become just as gauche and annoying as ranting angrily about scientology or, if we're lucky, trying to justify Prohibition or something.) --66.233.55.145 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - censorship of legitimate topic. People criticise Christianity and Baal-worship, so why not Islam?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does a merge constitute "censorship"? Doesn't a merger imply that the info would be preserved?Jemiljan (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they do. Yet we don't have sidebars for Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Baal-worship.Bless sins (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. There's difference of opinion on who and what to include, and much (though not all) of the criticsm comes from people critical of religion. Template:Criticism_of_Christianity_sidebar also redirects to Template:Criticism of religion sidebar.Bless sins (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (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:Miami Seahawks seasons

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Miami Seahawks seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Links to only a single season which is the only article that this is used on. That article is listed on the navbox for {{Miami Seahawks}}. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be merged with Template:Baltimore Colts seasons, since they refer to the same team. - Eureka Lott 03:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like that template could be deleted, too, since all the season articles are linked in {{Baltimore Colts}} with both templates in each of the season articles. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2012 (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:Photo of art

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Photo of art (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template asserts the existence of "related rights" under free licenses for images that are otherwise non-free.

Historically, we have not considered it to be legally possible for images of non-free subjects to be licensed under a free license because the creator of the images does not own rights to the depicted subject, except in cases where the subject's depiction in such an image is exempted through freedom of panorama laws and de minimis inclusion, the granting of permission for use of the image's subject by its owners, or by the oft chance that the subject was created by the creator. As such, I think this template is legally incorrect, as the need for fair use always overrides any attempt at freely licensing a non-free image. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template was previously worded the other way round to it's current form (but there were vocal complaints on my talk page), check the history, if there is consensus it can be reverted back to that wording. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's procedurally incorrect to attempt to rectify a policy question by deleting the template. This is up for discussion on WP:ANI at the moment, with the Foundation legal staff looking into the wider problem and working to report back to us... This is neither the right place nor time for this. Urge closure of the deletion proposal. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be fine with a speedy procedural close of this TFD. postdlf (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However it gets worded, Gaylord v US Postal Service comprehensively demonstrates that when person B takes a photograph which includes an object whose copyright is held by person A, it creates two sets of rights (see page 4) and therefore as well as determining if the use of the component belonging to person A is fair use, we must also account for the license under which person B released their derivative work. ie we need this template with some wording that explains all this. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Keep. Mass removal of this template was just the subject of a lengthy ANI thread, which it unfortunately appears the nom did not participate in nor read. I'll summarize some of what was said there to try and explain why ViperSnake151 is incorrect in his understanding of derivative works and how this template relates to those issues.
The template clearly expresses that the derivative author's free license is cumulative on top of WP:NFCC requirements. This is because of what a derivative is by definition: the derivative author has made use of another author's copyrighted work but has also added something new that is also copyrightable. That means that there are two authors that have rights in a derivative image.
The most common example here is probably a Wikipedian's photo of a notable artist's 3D sculpture (when taken where FOP does not apply). If the photographer has not freely licensed his rights in the image, then you have two levels of nonfree content. This is because a fair use claim (or satisfaction of NFCC) regarding the depicted sculpture or other work does not entitle you to use that Wikipedian's particular photograph of it (nor even could the sculptor use the photograph without the Wikipedian's permission). And (as was also pointed out in the AN/I thread) when the depicted sculpture lapses into the public domain, or if we can crop the sculpture out entirely to perhaps make use of the background, then only the photographer's rights will then govern that image. So it's absolutely necessary to document the free license chosen by the photographer in addition to stating that, within Wikipedia, usage of that image must comply with NFCC because of the copyrighted sculpture it depicts. And complying with that free license is also the only way for reusers outside Wikipedia to avoid infringing the derivative author's rights, regardless of what fair use claim they have for the depicted sculpture. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Postdlf put it better than I ever could. However, I'd like to make a procedural point: This template is just an artefact of enwiki's rules on copyright and nonfree content. You can't change policy simply by deleting a label used for objects affected by that policy. A better move would be to get consensus for policy change, then delete/create/tweak templates to reflect that change. bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment i would have preferred a request for comment, and building of consensus rather than a bot roll-out. the confusion about how to license derivative works of art is widespread, and we need to have a simple guideline, a standard license, and then implementation. many are the licenses that have been deleted. but now that it's here, i trust that the editors will be keeping and fixing images with the "wrong" license, which will include looking at image history. and migrating images back to en from commons that are "fair use". Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 16:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or close. There is potentially a major issue here requiring multiple licences (a scan of a drawing of a photo of a sculpture) and it would be foolish to start by deleting this template. Looking here and at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive733#Mass_removal_of_free_license_tags_from_files. User:Postdlf's and User:Kaldari's contributions are amongst those looking well-informed and intelligible to me. I hope we are not going to start getting mass deletions of non-free files lacking multiple licences. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2011 (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:PlayStation/infobox

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. Unused, hard-coded fork. Redrose64 (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PlayStation/infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused; hard-coded instance of {{Infobox CVG system}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 28 December 2011 (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:Movenotice

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template blatantly contradicts Wikipedia:Requested moves, which indicates to place a completely different template on the talk page to start discussion. As all move discussions used the procedure in Requested Moves, this template contradicts Wikipedia policy and should be deleted D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What's the other template. Why delete rather than redirect? I came here because the template is actually being used and so deletion would be disruptive. Warden (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other template is {{requested move}}. Redirection isn't a viable solution; the issue is that we traditionally have advertised move proposals on articles' talk pages (and at Wikipedia:Requested moves), not within the articles themselves. —David Levy 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/comment: Was the change in procedure discussed somewhere? I was surprised when I recently noticed this tag in an article. Historically, there was consensus to confine move proposal notices to articles' talk pages (and Wikipedia:Requested moves). Unlike cleanup issues, a proposed move has no bearing on an article's quality (so there's no need to warn readers of a problem). Most readers neither care about such discussions nor possess knowledge of our naming conventions. —David Levy 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Requested moves also recommends use of {{Movenotice}} so it is not clear why the nomination disregards this aspect. Please see Template:Movenotice for details of the difference between the templates. Template:Requested move also acknowledges the need for both templates. Wikipedia:Moving a page recommends {{Movenotice}} rather than {{subst:Requested move}}. Thincat (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can answer my question from earlier. Was the change in procedure discussed somewhere? The above is merely evidence that some pages were edited at some point. Is this backed by consensus? (To be clear, I'm not suggesting otherwise. It's entirely possible that this was discussed and consensus was established.) —David Levy 23:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been involved in any of this and have never used either template. However, I see when you last edited Template:Movenotice in November 2010 the procedure was then in place.[1] It looks as if Template:Movenotice came first[2] and so no comparative discussion took place. I have not been able to sus out the developmental history of Template:Requested move and what sort of consensus attended it. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Movenotice was repurposed at some point. As you can see, it originated as a talk page template (hence the brown coloration and statement that the move "has been proposed below"). —David Levy 12:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Requested move}} came in at the same time as the bot that automated the listing and delisting of requests on the WP:RM page. At least that's my recollection. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Requested move does not acknowledge the need for both templates. It lists it in see also, which is merely acknowledges that it exists and is related. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I didn't express myself ideally, Template:Requested move acknowledges the co-existence of Template:Movenotice. At one level neither of these templates is needed. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have templates for XfDs, splits and merges, why shouldn't moves also be templated? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are, but we have different templates. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions and split proposals stand to affect the availability of information within the article. Merger tags point to articles containing related information. All of those templates assist readers, so it makes sense for them to appear in articles. Conversely, this template pertains to an editor-facing matter of no interest to a vast majority of readers. That's why it makes more sense to advertise move proposals on talk/project pages (which we do). —David Levy 12:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Making things hard to find with obscure titles definitely affects the audience of Wikipedia, the general reader. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do that. The use of redirects and disambiguation pages/notes ensures that easy access is maintained. —David Levy 23:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We do, actually, since sometimes a page is moved, a retarget is instituted, and no entry on the related disambiguation page is instituted because the new title does not have the correct form for people who strictly interpret disambiguation rules, so if the title does not include the term used as the disambiguation page name, it is purged. ; Also, mergers leave behind redirects, which also point readers to the proper page where the information is found, so seems to have the same concerns as you state for this template. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're describing procedural errors, not routine occurrences that participants in a move discussion (or readers who see it advertised) would take into account.
You appear to have misread/misunderstood my comment regarding merger tags, which pertains to their pre-merger utility (pointing readers to articles containing related information). —David Levy 07:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing the purpose if this template? Could the bot that lists move discussions place this tag when it does so? However, if we keep, the documentation should tell users to list the discussion and not merely place this tag. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The matter was intelligently discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_19#RM_or_Movenotice? with the expected result. I am sympathetic with David Levy's wish to rid articles of this sort of clutter and moreover I think most cleanup notices are of no interest to readers. However, changes in this direction always seem to be rejected on the grounds that wide attention by editors is required. Thincat (talk) 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I think {{movenotice}} is an artifact from before RMbot did all that automatically for us" is what Born2cycle said in that conversation, and it was the only thing said with any certainty. We shouldn't keep artifacts from old policies around. And if the expected result is for the conversation to peter out without any suggestions, then, yes, it was the expected result . D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are agreed on the ends but maybe not with the means. If WP:Requested moves and WP:Moving a page are changed to remove mention of {{movenotice}} (after discussion at the talk pages), then I would think template deletion was a good idea. I think both documents should say that prior discussion on the article's talk page is sometimes best practice. However, as things are, I shall stick with "keep". Thincat (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this listing seems premature. We should be discussing whether/how to use the template (obviously in a different forum), not debating its deletion while it remains in use.
Dondegroovily: I suggest that you withdraw the nomination. As noted above, I support the idea of discontinuing the template's use, but this isn't the correct procedure through which to achieve that. —David Levy 23:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this template, it's highly used by and deletion would be disruptive. I don't believe it contradicts policy and it achieves the same net result. Pol430 talk to me 23:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this is used on some move discussions, I'm not sure that it is used in a significant percentage. However I have not been trying to count these. Also, do we have any stats on how well editors are about removing these? I don't when I close a discussion. With all of the other work like fixing links and templates that is not something we should be expecting closers to do. So, is this one of those templates that is nice to have but if removed would not harm anything? This only provides a notice to readers who do not have the article on their watch list. For, what I believe is the vast majority of readers, this template in the article may be more confusing for them, especially when placed at the very top. So I wonder if deletion is the correct direction. The last discussion closed, only had one comment with this template used. Makes one question the value of the template. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RMbot was supposed to remove these, but I haven't noticed it doing so. It contains similar value as other templates that point to talk page discussions (like the merge template, which also has WP:PM noticeboard, as WP:RM functions as the rename noticeboard ; or various cleanup notices) 76.65.128.132 (talk) 00:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup notices warn users (editors and non-editors alike) of problems. Merger notices point them to related articles (often containing information that they seek). Move notices, conversely, merely link to discussions of no interest to a vast majority of readers. —David Levy 00:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The template informs editors who do not have time or interest to read all the discussions in the talk pages about an ongoing move proposal. This template is very useful in controversial moves when there's a need for as much input as possible, since it attracts infrequent editors, who, for example, have the page on their watchlist, but do not otherwise read the talk pages. 1exec1 (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2012 (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:Vgrelease rv

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vgrelease rv (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused fork of {{vgrelease}}, for minor stylistic variation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why was not the author of the template notified? Ruslik_Zero 15:47, 6 January 2012 (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:Xbox 360/infobox

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Xbox 360/infobox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was single-use, which I just subst:. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 28 December 2011 (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 Aquaria

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 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Single-use. Redundant and inferior to {{Taxobox}} Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it really is single use, I see no problem with deleting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2011 (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 Professor/sandbox

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. WOSlinker (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Professor/sandbox (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template sandbox page for a non-existing template. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as housekeeping. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 28 December 2011 (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.