- 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. I can't do anything about the other templates without them actually going through the TFD process, but that's fine if someone wants to nominate them. delldot ∇. 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Template with only one working link, therefore useless as navigational device. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and expand to include the templates in Category:Penthouse Pets navigational boxes. A case could be made for 2007 and above, but the others have at most three bluelinks per year. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:47, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Many discussion at WP:Footy say that youth tournament templates should not be created. GoPurple 'n Gold24 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)}}
- Delete All squad in youth tournament should not have a template. Hoising ( talk) 00:02, 13 June 2010 (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.
- 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 ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused fork of {{ infobox}} which is too limited to offer any significant advantage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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 redirect to {{ see also2}}. delldot ∇. 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Related ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only 21 tranclusions in the five years that this has existed; nonstandard way of linking to related articles. {{ see also2}} provides a much more common and backwards-compatible solution, and this template should be redirected there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge into seealso2, and add a parameter to make it into a box.
70.29.212.131 (
talk)
03:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- The box is just arbitrary styling. We don't use boxes to link internally like this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 9 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Gfr soldier-activist pic ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) [has been blanked for reasons outlined below – please see the original version to pass judgement]
This template was created with a note saying: "The template makes it harder for those people to change; only those that know of the template and how to change it can change it." But we don't use templates to make editing more difficult and to enforce our own position in a content dispute, which, for the record, I have no position on at all. The fact that this template contains (in an obfuscated way, albeit) a non-free image in clear breach of Criterion 9 simply compounds the issue. ╟─ Treasury Tag► presiding officer─╢ 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The template will always be a single use template, and was created for the wrong reasons. How to solve the problem has been explained to the interested parties. The template is not needed, and violates Wikipedia:Template namespace guideline where it says templates "should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can't refute that, but I submit for someone to find a better way of doing it. 930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 16:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- That "note" is on my user talk page... / Template was changed to reflect issues raised about the imagery. / It was made by consensus to stop
editors who did not know better from changing a picture that received
good faith edits against consensus by many people almost certainly due to ignorance of the discussion page. Disciplinary action against each editor would be tedious and unnecessary. Since the use of the template, there has been no changes against consensus. / It should be noted that
User:TreasuryTag is a vigilante against me, who regularly goes against anything I do.
930913(
Congratulate/
Complaints)
16:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Contracted multi-bullet-point contribution into one paragraph for ease of reading. ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ignoring your (unfounded) ad hominem closing remark, the fact that the note was on your talk page is neither here nor there, and the consensus is neither here nor there. We do not use templates for the purpose you advocate. Sorry. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Counsellor of State─╢ 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like an end run around proper discussion; if so, it obviously isn't working as there are no transclusions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:34, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Pretenders ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template was being used to format individual to pretender templates (see Category:Pretender templates). The templates were mostly being used as footer navigation panels, but the formating was for a sidebar. I started to try to fix this problem by modifying this template, but found it much easier to just change all the individual templates to use {{ navbox}}. Hence, this meta-template is now orphaned and no longer needed. I was going to contact the original author, but he/she has not edited here since 2008. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Urgh. As a sort of chimera of a sidebar and an infobox, and considering the relative lack of articles covered by this domain, I think we can safely get rid of this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as non-standard. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Link2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is basically redundant to simple wiki markup for linking, or to {{ tl}}, {{ tlx}}, {{ tls}}, ... One of the primary reason, it appears, is to use the redirect {{ 2}}. However, there are a few major problems with this idea. First is that there was already a template named {{ 2}}, which was previously deleted, and there are still a few residual links hanging about (although I believe I was able to fix most of them). Second is that a common error in template programming is to forget a brace, and hence typing {{{2}} or {{2}}} would transclude this template, rather than producing a more obvious redlink. Third is that there is already a {{ 0}} template, which is used to pad numbers. Inexperience editors think that they way to add a number is to change the 0 to a 1, 2, or 3. Hence, I just finished fixing dozens of transclusions of this template on Football pages. I believe the common use of {{ 0}} should be discouraged, but until then, it's better to leave this as a redlink so that they can be spotted. Or, perhaps redirect all simple numeric templates to some error message, and put it in a maintenance category so that these can be cleaned up. However, that's for another discussion. My objection to the template is a bit weak in comparison to my objection to the use of the redirect, however, I don't feel the redirect is particularly useful either. In particular, the majority of the transclusions appear to be replaceable by {{ tlx}} or [[ example]]. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree it's redundant. MBisanz talk 03:36, 7 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Link3 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is basically redundant to {{ url}} or {{ link}}. The primary reason, it appears, is to use the redirect {{ 3}}, which would allow allows the saving of "3 characters" in typing a URL. However, there are a few major problems with this idea. First is that there are bots which remove additions of blacklisted links, and the addition of yet another external linking template is yet another thing the bot has to look for. Second is that a common error in template programming is to forget a brace, and hence typing {{{3}} or {{3}}} would transclude this template, rather than producing a more obvious redlink. Third is that there is already a {{ 0}} template, which is used to pad numbers. Inexperience editors think that the way to add a number is to change the 0 to a 1, 2, or 3. Hence, I just finished fixing dozens of transclusions of this template on Football pages. I believe the common use of {{ 0}} should be discouraged, but until then, it's better to leave this as a redlink so that they can be spotted. Or, perhaps redirect all simple numeric templates to some error message, and put it in a maintenance category so that these can be cleaned up. However, that's for another discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, basically. The existing templates seem better and less problematic. Robofish ( talk) 12:55, 7 June 2010 (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.
- 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 ―Œ(talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Terribly worded, but in my attempts to decipher I realized that the template actually appears to go against established practice. The only time one can't remove a speedy template is if you created the article yourself. Otherwise, anyone can decline a speedy. Only admins can delete one, but anyone can decline one. There is a CSD template removal warning available that states the policy correctly, however, this is not it. Also, unlike the documentation says, it is not used in Twinkle. mono 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed I have fixed a little the template. Aleksa Lukic ( talk) 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it will be nice to redirect this template to uw-speedy. Aleksa Lukic ( talk) 09:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not used by antyhing, so there's no need for a redirect. We already have a full set of 4 uw-speedy templates. Ronhjones (Talk) 11:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant to the existing (and better written) set of warning templates. Robofish ( talk) 12:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is just a less well worded {{ uw-speedy}}, and as it's less than 48 hours old I don't think it needs to be left as a redirect (as the proper template has a much easier to remember name anyway). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to the existing set of templates. ╟─ Treasury Tag► constablewick─╢ 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant to an established template. I just don't see any content that is not in {{ uw-speedy}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant to existing set of templates. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (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.
- 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. I can't do anything about the other templates without them actually going through the TFD process, but that's fine if someone wants to nominate them. delldot ∇. 17:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Template with only one working link, therefore useless as navigational device. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and expand to include the templates in Category:Penthouse Pets navigational boxes. A case could be made for 2007 and above, but the others have at most three bluelinks per year. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:47, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Many discussion at WP:Footy say that youth tournament templates should not be created. GoPurple 'n Gold24 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)}}
- Delete All squad in youth tournament should not have a template. Hoising ( talk) 00:02, 13 June 2010 (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.
- 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 ―Œ(talk) 16:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unused fork of {{ infobox}} which is too limited to offer any significant advantage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Unused and redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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 redirect to {{ see also2}}. delldot ∇. 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Related ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Only 21 tranclusions in the five years that this has existed; nonstandard way of linking to related articles. {{ see also2}} provides a much more common and backwards-compatible solution, and this template should be redirected there. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Merge into seealso2, and add a parameter to make it into a box.
70.29.212.131 (
talk)
03:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- The box is just arbitrary styling. We don't use boxes to link internally like this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 9 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Gfr soldier-activist pic ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) [has been blanked for reasons outlined below – please see the original version to pass judgement]
This template was created with a note saying: "The template makes it harder for those people to change; only those that know of the template and how to change it can change it." But we don't use templates to make editing more difficult and to enforce our own position in a content dispute, which, for the record, I have no position on at all. The fact that this template contains (in an obfuscated way, albeit) a non-free image in clear breach of Criterion 9 simply compounds the issue. ╟─ Treasury Tag► presiding officer─╢ 15:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete The template will always be a single use template, and was created for the wrong reasons. How to solve the problem has been explained to the interested parties. The template is not needed, and violates Wikipedia:Template namespace guideline where it says templates "should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article". -- Hammersoft ( talk) 15:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Can't refute that, but I submit for someone to find a better way of doing it. 930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 16:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- That "note" is on my user talk page... / Template was changed to reflect issues raised about the imagery. / It was made by consensus to stop
editors who did not know better from changing a picture that received
good faith edits against consensus by many people almost certainly due to ignorance of the discussion page. Disciplinary action against each editor would be tedious and unnecessary. Since the use of the template, there has been no changes against consensus. / It should be noted that
User:TreasuryTag is a vigilante against me, who regularly goes against anything I do.
930913(
Congratulate/
Complaints)
16:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Contracted multi-bullet-point contribution into one paragraph for ease of reading. ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ignoring your (unfounded) ad hominem closing remark, the fact that the note was on your talk page is neither here nor there, and the consensus is neither here nor there. We do not use templates for the purpose you advocate. Sorry. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Counsellor of State─╢ 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Seems like an end run around proper discussion; if so, it obviously isn't working as there are no transclusions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:34, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Infobox Pretenders ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template was being used to format individual to pretender templates (see Category:Pretender templates). The templates were mostly being used as footer navigation panels, but the formating was for a sidebar. I started to try to fix this problem by modifying this template, but found it much easier to just change all the individual templates to use {{ navbox}}. Hence, this meta-template is now orphaned and no longer needed. I was going to contact the original author, but he/she has not edited here since 2008. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 14:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Urgh. As a sort of chimera of a sidebar and an infobox, and considering the relative lack of articles covered by this domain, I think we can safely get rid of this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as non-standard. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:36, 8 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Link2 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is basically redundant to simple wiki markup for linking, or to {{ tl}}, {{ tlx}}, {{ tls}}, ... One of the primary reason, it appears, is to use the redirect {{ 2}}. However, there are a few major problems with this idea. First is that there was already a template named {{ 2}}, which was previously deleted, and there are still a few residual links hanging about (although I believe I was able to fix most of them). Second is that a common error in template programming is to forget a brace, and hence typing {{{2}} or {{2}}} would transclude this template, rather than producing a more obvious redlink. Third is that there is already a {{ 0}} template, which is used to pad numbers. Inexperience editors think that they way to add a number is to change the 0 to a 1, 2, or 3. Hence, I just finished fixing dozens of transclusions of this template on Football pages. I believe the common use of {{ 0}} should be discouraged, but until then, it's better to leave this as a redlink so that they can be spotted. Or, perhaps redirect all simple numeric templates to some error message, and put it in a maintenance category so that these can be cleaned up. However, that's for another discussion. My objection to the template is a bit weak in comparison to my objection to the use of the redirect, however, I don't feel the redirect is particularly useful either. In particular, the majority of the transclusions appear to be replaceable by {{ tlx}} or [[ example]]. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Agree it's redundant. MBisanz talk 03:36, 7 June 2010 (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.
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Template:Link3 ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
This template is basically redundant to {{ url}} or {{ link}}. The primary reason, it appears, is to use the redirect {{ 3}}, which would allow allows the saving of "3 characters" in typing a URL. However, there are a few major problems with this idea. First is that there are bots which remove additions of blacklisted links, and the addition of yet another external linking template is yet another thing the bot has to look for. Second is that a common error in template programming is to forget a brace, and hence typing {{{3}} or {{3}}} would transclude this template, rather than producing a more obvious redlink. Third is that there is already a {{ 0}} template, which is used to pad numbers. Inexperience editors think that the way to add a number is to change the 0 to a 1, 2, or 3. Hence, I just finished fixing dozens of transclusions of this template on Football pages. I believe the common use of {{ 0}} should be discouraged, but until then, it's better to leave this as a redlink so that they can be spotted. Or, perhaps redirect all simple numeric templates to some error message, and put it in a maintenance category so that these can be cleaned up. However, that's for another discussion. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom, basically. The existing templates seem better and less problematic. Robofish ( talk) 12:55, 7 June 2010 (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.
- 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 ―Œ(talk) 16:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Terribly worded, but in my attempts to decipher I realized that the template actually appears to go against established practice. The only time one can't remove a speedy template is if you created the article yourself. Otherwise, anyone can decline a speedy. Only admins can delete one, but anyone can decline one. There is a CSD template removal warning available that states the policy correctly, however, this is not it. Also, unlike the documentation says, it is not used in Twinkle. mono 00:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed I have fixed a little the template. Aleksa Lukic ( talk) 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think it will be nice to redirect this template to uw-speedy. Aleksa Lukic ( talk) 09:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not used by antyhing, so there's no need for a redirect. We already have a full set of 4 uw-speedy templates. Ronhjones (Talk) 11:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - redundant to the existing (and better written) set of warning templates. Robofish ( talk) 12:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- This is just a less well worded {{ uw-speedy}}, and as it's less than 48 hours old I don't think it needs to be left as a redirect (as the proper template has a much easier to remember name anyway). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant to the existing set of templates. ╟─ Treasury Tag► constablewick─╢ 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant to an established template. I just don't see any content that is not in {{ uw-speedy}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. Redundant to existing set of templates. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 18:03, 9 June 2010 (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.