Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30[edit]

Template:India geo-Infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 03:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The India article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - India article should use this infobox instead. Userpages of Indian editors can also use it. Unitedroad 10:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - outdated, redundant -- Lost^(talk) 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]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 page.

Template:Afghanistan infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Afghanistan article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Luxembourg infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Luxembourg article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Cayman Islands Infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Cayman Islands article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Slovakia infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Slovakia article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Kiribati infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Kiribati article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Bhutan infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Bhutan article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Ghana infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Ghana article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Country infobox data Gambia[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Gambia article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:The Gambia infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Gambia article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Barbados infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was dedletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Barbados article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever: More than single useage- and it's going to be put into more than one article. (E.g. Foreign Policy of Barbados.

Comment reply: To clear the air. I'm not "hellbent" on anything. I'm trying to get everything done as a matter of fact- on the Barbados articles which takes more-- time than there are hours in the day. And once I finish up that I had-- planned to move onto the next country. As such, all of this is not easy. I *had* planned additional useage of that template for a long time prior to your little show. But dealing with all these votes everyweek on uselessness does nothing beside eat up my valuable time. It was simply not a priority I had in the immediate sense, with more importaint things to do. I could careless about the template to tell you the truth, so I'm changing my vote to do whatever. That's the long and short of it. I wasn't "running around adding" anything just to keep it. CaribDigita 15:58, 31 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Western Sahara infobox[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Western Sahara article uses raw data. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Democratic Republic of the Congo infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Democratic Republic of the Congo article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Azerbaijan infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. The Azerbaijan article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Republic of Ireland infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Republic of Ireland article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Philippines[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Philippines article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Andorra infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Andorra article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costa Rica infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Costa Rica article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Albania infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Albania article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Burma infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Burma article uses Template:Infobox Country. The Template:Myanmar infobox should also be deleted as it is just a redirect to this one. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latvia infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. The Latvia article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lithuania infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. The Lithuania article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toulouse infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Template also has a fair use image violation. The Toulouse article uses Template:Major French Cities. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lyon infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Template also has a fair use image violation. The Lyon article uses Template:Major French Cities. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox London[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used. The London article has all the data for the box. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason it is no longer used is because it was subst: into the article to remove the TFD message from the London article. Mrsteviec 16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is pointless bureaucracy to force this syntax back in the article because it is the only use of it. Mrsteviec 16:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a useful and informative feature DuncanHill 09:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting the syntax straight into the London article is offputting to potential editors; the template avoids this and allows easy and separate editing of the article and the infobox. --Dave A 15:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per strong precedent for deleting templates that are only used for a single purpose. Use infobox city to provide the data. Hbdragon88 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Enforcing that here would be for policies sake. Large swathes of syntax at the start of the article is bad, and exactly the reason to use a transclusion. The city infobox is unsuitable for London as it is an anamolous entitity (not really a city, more a region) and the fields are totally unsuitable. Mrsteviec 06:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete use the infobox city instead.WVhybrid 00:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WVhybrid HawkerTyphoon 01:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox City does not lend itself well to London as it does to the mostly-American cities it is currently used for, as London is an odd, regional entity comprised of the City of London, City of Westminster and a number of other local government units. See previous London infobox discussions: 1, 2, 3 & 4. --Dave A 01:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's an issue, take it up at WP:VPT and ask them to add whateve rparser functions you need so that London can use the City infobox. I at one time thought that Template:Infobox Arcade Game would have to be separate from Template:Infobox_CVG, but they managed to intergrate the functionality into one main template. Likewise, Template:Infobox_Broadcast covers both TV and broadcast. No reason why international and "American cities" should remain separate. Hbdragon88 03:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not use a simple solution for a simple problem instead of trying to get a square peg into a round hole? Mrsteviec 06:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trying to fit everything into a "one-size-fits-all" bracket is not the way to go. Cities are individual, every city is different. London is more different than most. There is no reason whatsoever for the London article to use infobox city, and it is a waste of everybody's time to force all sorts of very individualistic, technical changes to be made to a generalised template. I know from experience that facing a wall of syntax is daunting for potential editors, and this provides a simple solution to a simple problem. There is no point over-complicating what is a very simple issue. DJR (T) 20:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'There is no reason whatsoever for the London article to use infobox city' - except, of course, that it's a city. Which is a small difference, admittedly, but still, I feel it warrants inclusion. HawkerTyphoon 20:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think you've read/appreciated the comments made on this page, or indeed read the London article itself. London is not really a city - it is one of the nine regions of England and includes two cities within it. There is nothing anywhere to define London as a city - Greater London is a region. So yeah, There is no reason whatsoever for the London article to use infobox city. And on top of that, since when has it been obligatory for cities to use the said infobox? DJR (T) 21:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm perfectly honest, no, it's not a city. but having lived in london, I feel it should be treated like one, as very nearly everyone in the country - and indeed the world - sees it as a city in it's own right. But yes, there are many reasons to keep the London box, but again, many to delete it - server load and 'interoperability' or the like, for one. HawkerTyphoon 21:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, it is perfectly fair to say it is a city, but my point is that its exceptional circumstances provide the exact reason why it should not be using a template for infobox city, which is perfectly good for definitive cities with definitive boundaries like those of the USA. However, London does not, and cannot, fall into any sort of generalisation. DJR (T) 21:11, 4 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Macedonian city (Skopje)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is not used . Template also has a fair use image violation. The Skopje article uses another box. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Johannesburg infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used. The Johannesburg article has all the data for the box. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Norfolk Island infobox[edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used. The Norfolk Island article has all the data for the box. Bob 23:42, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Uncat-date[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is unnecessary because there is no backlog for uncategorized pages and it also creates the backlog by making the process longer. The process was fine with {{[[:Template:Uncat]]}} by itself. Lincher 18:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - there is plenty of demand for the by-month category, the backlog is increasing rapidly, and it clearly does not add any time to the categorisation process. Similar templates have proved very successfull on other projects (e.g. wikify), and have greatly increased the amount of activity for those projects. The other very similiar templates that have proved very successfull include {{wikify-date}}, {{Linkless-date}} and {{cleanup-date}}. Martin 18:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you want a backlog, it's very easy to create one as there are thousands of uncategorized articles that are not in the {{Uncat}} category. The template by date will make the process more efficient because we can concentrate on the oldest articles and newer ones are likely to receive a category while they are in the backlog. I haven't seen anyone disagree on the talk page, you could have said something there before proposing deletion. Piet 19:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Martin and Piet. Very handy template. Garion96 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above. There are many uncatagorized articles, whhich makes it hard for readers to find them. This template helps people deal with those that have lingered for awhile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.20.69.240 (talk) .
Delete as it is not helpful or needed. The relevant backlog is the pages marked as needing a category. Per Category:Category needed#Progress, the backlog hasn't been measured at over 1,000 pages, and it turns over quite rapidly. Most page's I've marked as uncategorized on New Page Patrol (most new pages) this week were categorized within 24 hours of my marking them. We've been down to a backlog of zero within the past month. Creating monthly subcategories will slow down the process of clearing this and increase the backlog. I don't believe that wikify-date and cleanup-date are all that successful, as measured by eliminating the marking. They just make it feel acceptable for something to be marked for a few months. GRBerry 20:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was zero, and now it is over 700 and growing rapidly, and there are plans to expand it further using an automated process, hence the backlog. There is no possible way this template can slow down the categorisation process, if you believe that then you clearly don't understand how it actually works. Your assertion that these templates do not help is certainly wrong, it has totally re-vitalised the whole wikifying project. Martin 21:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I may well not undestand the categorization process that well - but I do do new page patrol and watch what happens to the ones I mark later, so I see the categorization process in action from marking through to categorization. I don't see any use for this, and your assertions here do not convince me that we should keep it. If we get a backlog that stops turning over, it may have use, but for now it is not helpful. GRBerry 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I didn't explain was that articles that are put in the main category do not need to be manually sorted, that will be automated. Martin 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is silly. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I regularly help out at Category:Category needed, and am one of the people helping to flag the articles at Special:Uncategorizedpages. This template is absolutely needed, as there are thousands of uncategorized articles, and we are working on clearing out the enormous backlog. Anyone who says that there isn't a backlog, is unfamiliar with the situation. Check Category_talk:Category needed and Wikipedia talk:Special:Uncategorizedpages for more information on the problem. --Elonka 02:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The dated tags have been very helpful to keeping FIFO --Brad101 05:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been working on letters A through G for a few weeks and emptied them a couple of times. All that time I have never seen the big categories for letters like S and T get significantly smaller. I am quite certain that those categories contain articles that have been there for months, but to know this we would have to check them all individually. With a categorization by month at least we would know which ones have been there too long. And it pisses me off that I have to spend time on this. Piet 07:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is really needed to keep up morale for those of us who help out at the category needed pages! There are thousands of pages without categories, and this dating system is desperately needed to help us work out which are the oldest articles.--Sepa 12:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The template was attached to one of my articles a day or so ago, hence why i discovered this nomination. Don't you think there's better things you could be nominating for deletion? Honestly. --W guice 16:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for all the good reasons stated above. ---Charles 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. --Zoz (t) 19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep --- Skapur 00:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to sort by month. --Midnightcomm 00:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful tool to prioritize the needed effort. WVhybrid 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder why we have {{wikify}} and {{wikify-date}}, {{uncategorized}} and {{uncat-date}}, {{cleanup}} and {{cleanup-date}}, etc. We should have a single template that accepts an optional date. -- ReyBrujo 01:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should bring this up at the relevant talk pages, here it will get lost. Piet 13:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have implemented this now, all the uncategorised templates can now take a date parameter. thanks Martin 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Helped me, anyway. Recury 18:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this debate is obviously still under way, I am curious as to why the uncat-date tag no longer works. If one inserts the tag into an article, all one gets is a regular uncat tag, without the date. Can someone explain this? Has the tag been precipitously deleted? ---Charles 17:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does still work, did you remember the date parameter? like this {{Uncat-date|September 2006}}. Martin 17:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I followed the parameters correctly. I have used it a number of times in the last few days, and it does not show the date. I can't figure it out. ---Charles 03:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it was putting it in the correct category, it was just the message on the template missing, I've fixed it now. thanks Martin 11:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. ---Charles 03:05, 4 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Bosnia and Herzegovina article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina infobox [edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Bosnia and Herzegovina article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Bosnia and Herzegovina [edit]

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Probably should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Bosnia and Herzegovina article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:29, 30 August 2006 (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 page.

Template:Froggydarb[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template for one user's specific use. Should be userfied. howch e ng {chat} 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Fir0002's argument below. It isn't wasting resource because if it deleted I'll just make a userfied template (what about all those useless userboxes). If it is deleted I'll have to go and replace it all with a new template. And the it isn't taking up the space of another template that could be called Template:Froggydarb. -- Froggydarb ^croak 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! There is no way that another template is going to be called Template:Froggydarb or fot that matter Template:Fir0002. I really don't see how deleting these templates are going to "tidy" the project up. It will just mean a heap of work transferring the templates on the many images I and I assume Froggydarb have uploaded. This is compounded by the fact that there are literally hundreds of useless userboxes messying the project. Remember it's a collaborative effort, and unless something is having a negative impact on the project, you should respect other users and the little helpers they make for themselves. --Fir0002 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest WP:AWB? Another possibility is to leave Template:Froggydarb and Template:Fir0002 as redirects to the respective userfied templates, à la {{PiccoloNamek}}. howch e ng {chat} 17:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm if it's ok to have a redirect template, than what's the problem with leaving the existing template as it is and having no redirct? That just sounds backward to me. The template is still in existance just non functional - what's with that??! --Fir0002 09:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to Froggydarb's namespace if they allow it; otherwise, delete. --ais523 17:27, 31 August 2006 (U T C)
Delete - I'm strongly against personalized copyright status tags. Pagra shtak 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why? -- Froggydarb ^croak 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright tags quickly identify the status of images. If I see {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-USGov-NASA}} or {{fair use in}} on an image page, I immediately know the restrictions on the image without having to read the entire text. If I see {{User:User/myimagetag}}, however, I then have to read what the tag says, figure out what the closest "standard" tag would be, then compare the two tags for differences. While this might seem trivial, problematic images are often backlogged on Wikipedia and I would like to have image identification be as smooth as possible. Since your personalized tag contains the standard GFDL-self, may I suggest that you use the GFDL-self tag directly on your uploaded images and, if you wish, also transclude a personalized tag that contains the link to your talk page and all the other supplementary material you wish? I don't have a problem with personalized image templates that don't attempt to cover licensing. Pagra shtak 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How am I attemting to cover lisenceing? -- Froggydarb ^croak 22:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your template includes a licensing tag. Pagra shtak 20:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this template can be used in userspaces by the editors. The user's name can be replaced by the wiki template {{PAGENAME}}.Unitedroad 10:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirect (Changed by Electrawn) Use of the name "Froggydarb" in the template might imply WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and/or WP:VAIN. If the names of the templates are changed to non-user named templates, my delete vote can be changed to a keep. Electrawn 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem with having it userfy, or so I'm not "promoting myself" or "attempting to cover up licensing" or whatever other wack arguments you can come up with. It’s just a hassle to go and replace all the templates on my images. There going to be exactly the same anyway.... -- Froggydarb ^croak 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There we go, I've made a new template (not really, it's exactly the same) and it identifies what license it is (ie; User:Froggydarb/GFDL-self) but I still can't fix Electrawn's point because I don't know what the hell they are going on about. And what did all that achieve... absolutely nothing, thanks for wasting my time. -- Froggydarb ^croak 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was the right thing to do (userfying), wrong process to do it (deletion). A note on your talk page would have done wonders about likely brought consensus without a need for TfD. Looking at your talk page, I see no discussion was discussed beforehand. The counterpoint would be that an TfD brings a bunch more eyeballs to an issue than otherwise. Electrawn 15:31, 5 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:CURRENTMINUTE[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep, nom withdrawn and no delete votes. --ais523 13:00, 30 August 2006 (U T C)

See the nomination of CURRENTHOUR below; now replaced by a magic word and can't be transcluded except by typing the unlikely {{cURRENTMINUTE}}. --ais523 11:47, 30 August 2006 (U T C)

Keep for the moment: Apparently CURRENTMINURE isn't a magic word yet: On my userpage the proposed for deletion banner appears for this template where I show the time. It's a custom-made solution for showing the time in AEST. The CURRENTHOUR magic word definitely exists, I think because it doesnt have a proposed for deletion banner. Harryboyles 12:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I checked the "Pages transcluded" list on the specific user page I use this template on (User:Harryboyles/Time) and it shows CURRENTMINUTE yet not CURRENTHOUR. Both are definitely used, therefore the CURRENTHOUR magic word definitely exists and the CURRENTMINUTE one doesn't. I've updated my template to use the new #time parser function. Here's the permanent link to the version I'm referring to above: link. Harryboyles 12:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom You seem to be right; I've made a terrible mistake. I tested in the sandbox but must have messed up. It's a bit strange, really. Maybe once the magic words are finished this can be deleted in a while. --ais523 13:00, 30 August 2006 (U T C)

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 page.