- 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Taiwan ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to {{ Taiwan topics}}, which is the standard for country-related navigation. And the majority of the country-named templates and redirects were deleted due to confusion with the corresponding flag templates. Frietjes ( talk) 20:13, 1 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 May 9 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:14, 9 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Two things to note regarding comments made on this discussion. @ UpsandDowns1234: there's nothing inherently wrong with this template, but it appears that it isn't necessary to keep it around. @ J947: I probably would have accepted this myself had I come across it at AFC, for the reasons you've given, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Sometimes seemingly useful templates get deleted because it turns out they're not necessary. Primefac ( talk) 17:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Not a policy ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template was created on 16 April 2017 and is currently used at Administrator + Signature + Sockpuppet + Vandalism on Wikipedia. At Signature, it displays:
- Note: This page is not a policy or guideline. The policy page for this topic is located at Wikipedia:Signatures.
Per WP:TG, an article template should provide information to assist readers. If a template provides information only of service to editors it should not appear on article pages. A discussion occurred at WT:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Is "not a policy" useful? where these points were made:
- The template subjects readers to Wikipedia process in a very confusing way.
-
WP:SELFREF includes
self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided
.
Johnuniq ( talk) 10:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Another rather pointless template created by UpsandDowns1234. Per nom, this will confuse readers needlessly and is hardly used anywhere in any case. Editors who this will be relevant to will know the correct pages to go to. Aiken D 11:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as explained at WPT:SELF#Is "not a policy" useful?; instead, {{ Selfref}} is the appropriate template. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't get it, I created this template with the Article Wizard, yet it is nominated for deletion. You can delete it if you want, but if you do, you need to move-protect all drafts so only admins and reviewers can accept the drafts. UpsandDowns1234 ( 🗨) ( My Contribs) 15:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note from reviewer – I was expecting this to be used on Wikipedia essays. It could probably have a use there. J 947( c) 05:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Essays get by with {{ essay}} and do not need another hatnote to add to the banner blindness. I was wondering if it would be worth clarifying whether WP:AFC (Articles for Creation) should indulge new editors seeking to use WP:AFC to create templates. Being kind to new editors is great but existing editors need help too. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Don't see the service this provides to readers in any meaningful way. -- Jayron 32 19:29, 4 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 May 9 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Conservative (New York) Party (United States)/meta/color ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary as redundant to {{ Conservative Party (New York)/meta/color}}. — GoldRingChip 17:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete (or redirect). Frietjes ( talk) 18:16, 2 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Taiwan ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
redundant to {{ Taiwan topics}}, which is the standard for country-related navigation. And the majority of the country-named templates and redirects were deleted due to confusion with the corresponding flag templates. Frietjes ( talk) 20:13, 1 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 May 9 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:14, 9 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Two things to note regarding comments made on this discussion. @ UpsandDowns1234: there's nothing inherently wrong with this template, but it appears that it isn't necessary to keep it around. @ J947: I probably would have accepted this myself had I come across it at AFC, for the reasons you've given, so I wouldn't worry too much about that. Sometimes seemingly useful templates get deleted because it turns out they're not necessary. Primefac ( talk) 17:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Not a policy ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
The template was created on 16 April 2017 and is currently used at Administrator + Signature + Sockpuppet + Vandalism on Wikipedia. At Signature, it displays:
- Note: This page is not a policy or guideline. The policy page for this topic is located at Wikipedia:Signatures.
Per WP:TG, an article template should provide information to assist readers. If a template provides information only of service to editors it should not appear on article pages. A discussion occurred at WT:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid#Is "not a policy" useful? where these points were made:
- The template subjects readers to Wikipedia process in a very confusing way.
-
WP:SELFREF includes
self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project should be avoided
.
Johnuniq ( talk) 10:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Another rather pointless template created by UpsandDowns1234. Per nom, this will confuse readers needlessly and is hardly used anywhere in any case. Editors who this will be relevant to will know the correct pages to go to. Aiken D 11:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as explained at WPT:SELF#Is "not a policy" useful?; instead, {{ Selfref}} is the appropriate template. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- I don't get it, I created this template with the Article Wizard, yet it is nominated for deletion. You can delete it if you want, but if you do, you need to move-protect all drafts so only admins and reviewers can accept the drafts. UpsandDowns1234 ( 🗨) ( My Contribs) 15:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note from reviewer – I was expecting this to be used on Wikipedia essays. It could probably have a use there. J 947( c) 05:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Essays get by with {{ essay}} and do not need another hatnote to add to the banner blindness. I was wondering if it would be worth clarifying whether WP:AFC (Articles for Creation) should indulge new editors seeking to use WP:AFC to create templates. Being kind to new editors is great but existing editors need help too. Johnuniq ( talk) 23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Don't see the service this provides to readers in any meaningful way. -- Jayron 32 19:29, 4 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was Relisted on 2017 May 9 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (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).
- 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).
The result of the discussion was delete. Primefac ( talk) 16:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- Template:Conservative (New York) Party (United States)/meta/color ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Unnecessary as redundant to {{ Conservative Party (New York)/meta/color}}. — GoldRingChip 17:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- delete (or redirect). Frietjes ( talk) 18:16, 2 May 2017 (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).