Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 1

< July 31	August 2 >

August 1[edit]

Template:Nevada-State-County-Highway-stub[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 procedural close; moved to WP:SFD. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template is unnecessary; very few, if no, articles that would require a stub template of this type. Easily replaced by Nevada-State-Highway-stub or US-road-stub. . Son 21:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. --Holderca1 21:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Procedural) speedy keep: This is the wrong venue. Please read the instructions at WP:TFD. Stub templates are not discussed here, but in WP:SFD. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion#.7B.7BNevada-State-County-Highway-stub.7D.7D. --Holderca1 00:48, 2 August 2007 (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.

Various "flag" templates[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 adjust template and keep all. IronGargoyle 00:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are part of the large set of internal data structures used by Template:flagicon, Template:flag, et. al. In these specific instances, the image does not represent a flag, but instead uses the coat of arms for the specific region. I am proposing deletion of this set for several reasons:

The system created by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template was not intended to be used for arbitrary images such as coats of arms (which tend to have a vertical aspect ratio instead of a traditional flag aspect ratio, and tend to have far more fine detail than flags), and therefore these do not render well.
Most of these templates are unused or have a single transclusion. The "Country data" subset of template namespace is not intended to be a "repository" for all flag (or coat of arm) images - just ones that are commonly used in iconic form on multiple pages. Adding "bloat" to the set of templates in Category:Country data templates makes maintenance of them by the WikiProject more cumbersome.
As per Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags (which is an essay, not policy, at the moment), using uncommon sub-national flag icons is usually not helpful to user navigation within articles, and should be avoided.

This nomination is to delete all -- Andrwsc 18:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I have withdrawn my nomination to delete several of these templates (mostly Swiss cantons), as they have been updated to use flags instead of coat of arms. I re-assert my nomination to delete the rest (mostly Mexican states), with an additional reason: I object to the suggestion that they be updated to use the unofficial flags found on Commons. These "flags" are original research, consisting of the respective coat of arms on a white flag-shaped background, and using them via this template system will suggest they are actual flags. Andrwsc 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images in question do "not" constitute "original research." Despite their "unofficial" status, they are used (according to individual reports found online) for several purposes in Mexico. See, for example, the following: "Coat of arms of Mexico's constituent states and the Distrito Federal are place on a white background proportioned 4:7 according to those hoisted in the President's house called "Los Pinos" in Mexico City. These flags are also flown in national sports events such as the "Olimpiada Juvenil" (Youth Olympics), "Olimpiada Infantil" (Childhood Olympics), National Olympics, Benito Juárez football tournament, among others. They are also used during inter-states meetings or reunions, e. g.: religious, tourist, economic, and so on" [1]. You will need to address this. Furthermore, it is a well-known fact that the national flag of Japan, which has been used as such de facto since ca. 1870, was not formally adopted as the "national flag" until 1999. Thus, it was long considered "unofficial" by some. I do not know whether this is true of "other" national flags - but I hesitate to assume that it is not. Ldemery 04:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FOTW website is not much more than a blog for vexillologists (sp?), and does not constitute a reliable source. You conveniently quote one contributor who supports your position, but do not quote all the other contributors who refute these comments with statements such as The states of Mexico don't have their own flags, although they do have coats of arms. Andrwsc 05:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a disingenious comment, as might become quickly apparent to anyone who checks out the "FOTW" page. The issue is not whether the Mexican "subnational" flags are "unofficial." They are not. The issues are that 1.) The "unofficial" flags on "Wikimedia Commons" are not "original research" because a.) they were not purpose-created for "Wikipedia Commons," and b.) there is documentation online - and possibly on "hardcopy" at your local library - that the "unofficial" flags, despite there status as such, do get used for certain purposes in Mexico. I provided one example of such; I am not going to do your "homework" for you and provide more. Moreover, I assert that your citation of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources page is not appropriate. This is explicitly a "content guideline," not "policy" - and contains not even a hint that a "blog" should not be considered "reliable" just because it is a "blog." Ldemery 09:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adjust template and SPEEDY keep. What the hell? Just use the division's actual flags in the templates! Circeus 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want to use "unofficial" (according to the Commons gallery page) flags for the states of Mexico, and what is the rationale for a speedy keep on a totally unused template? Andrwsc 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The canton are not "totally unused", and I wouldn't be surprised if more uses was made of them. Besides, I don't see stuff like {{Country data Minas Gerais}} or {{Country data Pernambuco}} which are not used much more, but easily could (e.g. List of largest cities in Brazil, Qualification for the 2007 Little League World Series#Mexico). Circeus 14:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, it comes down to this: They are parts of a coherent, wide-reaching set of templates that just happen to have seen relatively little use and have been created with the wrong images. Circeus 15:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that all of them are totally unused, but the majority are. See my comments below. As for the two templates you mention, they show flags, not coat of arms, so I didn't nominate them. And yeah, obviously I am aware that they are "parts of a coherent, wide-reaching set of templates", since I am by far the most frequent editor maintaining them — and that's why I object to templates that make this maintenance work more difficult. If any of these templates are kept, there will still need to be some non-trivial re-work to have the conform to proper style, and I'd rather not do that if I don't have to. Andrwsc 16:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments below. In addition, "Circeus" has pointed out the circularity in the reasoning apparently behind your assertion that "The 'Country data' subset of template namespace is not intended to be a "repository" for all flag (or coat of arm) images - just ones that are commonly used in iconic form on multiple pages." And so, pray tell, what are the criteria to establish "common use" and "multiple pages"? It would also be interesting to know why you have not systematically purged, for example, completely unused flagicons such as Upper Lusatia, Lower Lusatia to name two examples. Ldemery 05:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, let me get this straight. I spent hours today cleaning up many malformed country_data templates and creating all the missing Swiss cantons (so now all 26 are available), and you are giving me grief for not spotting a couple of other stray templates out of the ~1000 available? Sheesh. Andrwsc 05:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, let "me" get "this" straight: You did not to bother to elaborate upon what you had in mind re. "common use" of flagicons on "multiple pages" - but you did bother (previously) to make the flagicons "unused" prior to describing them as such in your "nomination for deletion." And you're a Wikipedia "administrator." Hmmm. Ldemery 09:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; the instances above are not flags, but coats of arms. This is like using userboxes in articles, or repurposing a citation template instead of {{note label}} to make non-citation footnotes – this is not what these templates are for. Whoever thinks we need coat-of-arms templates can go make a coat-of-arms templating system, with the proper aspect ratio, and not mis-identifying countrydata as being flags when they are not (and then we'll see just how long the coat-of-arms templates last at TfD. I know how I'd wager...) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adjust template and SPEEDY keep - concur. Flags of Swiss cantons - which are virtually identical to "wappen" (coats of arms) and those for the few Italian regions above - now inserted into templates as suggested by "Circeus." Mexican state flags are a special case - they are "unofficial," and consist of the state's coat of arms on a white background. Use of coats of arms without white background is an attempt at compromise. The "unofficial" flags do not render well at all. But making "subnational" flagicons available for some countries (e.g. the U.S.) - but not for others, based on the "technicality" of "unofficial" status, does not appear reasonable. Lastly, "Andrwsc" asserts that "The "Country data" subset of template namespace is not intended to be a "repository" for all flag (or coat of arm) images - just ones that are commonly used in iconic form on multiple pages" - and insinuates that there are "totally unused" templates above. I dispute the latter, and request some citation to Wikipedia essays, guidelines or policies re. the former. Ldemery 04:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "insinuating" anything - it's a statement of fact. Of the 52 templates nominated here, 29 of them are completely unused, and none of them are used on more than 2 articles. As for the intent of the Template:flag system, please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template and its archive pages for a thorough understanding of the discussion and thought process that went into this work. Andrwsc 05:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I again dispute your insinuation that there are "totally unused" templates above. That was true only because you acted to make them "unused" prior to nominating them for deletion. As for the "intent of the Template:flag system," I assert that 300 KB worth of discussion is not a substitute for an essay, guideline or policy. If there is a need for "non-trivial re-work" for the sake of conformity "to proper style" - then you might consider taking a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template page - and improving the guidelines for making flagicons. If you want "other editors" to "request" flagicons rather than make them "on their own," then you need to specify this explicitly. Ldemery 04:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and don't use the unofficial flags. I agree, deleting them because they're not flags is throwing out a useful set of templates based on a technicality. On the other hand, using the ad hoc, partial list of flags would open up a whole set of nasty questions about what's "correct" or official or easily identifiable. Until they get some vexillological sense South of the border or up in the Alps, these are the best we can do to visually represent the Mexican states and Swiss cantons. As for the question of use, well... even if very few people have encountered them, they're very useful and, on that account, oughtn't be deleted. -- The_socialist ^talk? 05:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Swiss cantons do have flags, as noted above (the designs and colors of which are virtually identical to their "wappen," or coats of arms). As for Mexico's "unofficial" state flags - "unofficial" they are, but they are also used within Mexico for several purposes. Ldemery 04:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adjust and keep why throw out and start over, when we can easily fix?DGG (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2007 (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.

FC Templates[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 subst and delete all. IronGargoyle 01:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have absolutely no use. Subst and delete —METS501 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1 as patent nonsense. All these are, are "Temp Shepetivka", etc. These are basically non-templates.

Subst and delete, but not as patent nonsense (they used to have fair-use logos, but you cannot use fair use images in template space). They can just be deleted as lacking worthwhile content. It's no rush.— Gavia immer (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, technically they didn't have fair-use logos, since the logos were considered free domain under Ukrainian copyright laws, but WP copyright gnomes are absolutely terrified of using logos under laws distinct from the ones they've seen earlier (such as US copyright laws), so they would rather make WP more difficult to use for us all by removing all of the images. If you're going to delete all of those, then please substitute ASAP, because articles like Ukrainian_Premier_League are completely unreadable as a result of this. --Palffy 00:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do make sure to subst: after removing {{tfd-inline}}, though... Circeus 22:03, 8 August 2007 (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:Afcn-* / Template:Afct-* group[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 delete all. IronGargoyle 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note for newcomers: The "AFC" referred to here and in some other nominations below is WP:AFC.

Group deletion of: {{afcn-content}} {{Afcn-loggedin}} {{Afct-content}} {{Afct-loggedin}}. A group of templates made in 2005 with few updates and little use. Supposedly for use in AFC when varying circumstances occur, but a simple talk message can convey the message in a much more concise manner. — ALTON .ıl 08:28, 1 August 2007 (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:Afccreated[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 delete, obviously superseded. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by {{Afc talk}}. — ALTON .ıl 08:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —METS501 (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2007 (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:Afc changed[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 delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old AFC template that is seldom used. Contradicts rule not to modify text after a reviewed makes a verdict, anyhow. — ALTON .ıl 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also pretty pointless. In my AfC experience, closed reviews are rarely re-reviewed or even read. --Haemo 09:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. —METS501 (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Bob • (talk) • 22:30, August 1, 2007 (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.

Template:Conv-temp[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. There are a bunch of different directions here in the discussion, some want to delete, some want to keep, some want to mark as depreciated, and some want to keep only if fixed. There have not really been enough participants to determine clearly which direction the discussion is headed. The template is not harming anything right now, and the fixes can be done. At least for the present, this doesn't look like consensus to me. IronGargoyle 00:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This conversion template was started in April 2006 but never implemented. Since then, better templates have been developed and are in use. MJCdetroit 17:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as deprecated -- according to the nominator, not useful anymore; it's not harmful either. Gracenotes^T § 03:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is incorrect to say that this template was never implemented. It is just designed to leave no trace of itself when used. If there are better templates now... what are they? Can they be substituted to leave no 'transclusion footprint' like this one? If there really is something better in some way with the same capability then this can be removed. Otherwise it makes sense to keep. --CBD 00:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've skimmed through Category:Conversion templates and haven't been able to find any which could be used to replace this. --CBD 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 00:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Temp conversions between the top three scales are available via {{C to F}}, {{C to K}}, {{F to C}} and {{KelvinToCelsius}}. The requirement for temp conversion between the other scales would be minimal. The template can be deleted. aJCfreak yAk 11:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with all of those templates, other than the fact that you've got to remember to use different templates with different parameter names/formats, is that none of them substitutes well. {{subst:conv-temp|10|C|F|3|long}} produces;
10 [[Celsius|°C]] (50[[Fahrenheit| °F]])

The equivalent {{subst:C to F|num=10|precision=3|wiki=yes}} produces;
{{#ifexpr:{{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}<0|−{{FORMATNUM:{{#expr:-{{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}}}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}=0|0|+{{FORMATNUM:{{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}}}}}}}{{#ifeq:yes|no| °C| [[Celsius|°C]]}} ({{#ifexpr:{{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}*1.8+32 round 3<0|−{{FORMATNUM:{{#expr:-({{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}*1.8+32 round 3)}}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}*1.8+32 round 3=0|0|{{FORMATNUM:{{#expr:{{#if:10|10|{{{1}}}}}*1.8+32 round 3}}}}}}}}{{#ifeq:yes|no| °F| [[Fahrenheit|°F]]}})

Obviously, the 'C to F' template isn't intended to be substituted, but even when it is used un-substituted all of that logic is there and needs to be loaded and computed every time the page is viewed. --CBD 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I would be much more comfortable with this template if it didn't substitute itself and erase its 'transclusion footprint'. Otherwise, there's no telling whether it is actually being used or not. What are the advantages that substituting would have over just leaving the template in the article's code? Also, nonbreaking spaces should be inserted. If these were to change, then I would change my vote. —MJCdetroit 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, these templates actually used to have nbsp[2], but I changed it because '37 K' is more understandable to most editors than '37nbsp;K'. As to the advantages of substituting... the primary advantage is just that once it is substituted you have normal text and wikilinks there. The template is gone and people can edit the passage, including even the temperature information itself, without having to know how the template works. You want the units to be straight text rather than wikilinks because a wikilink to the units was subsequently added further up the page? With the substituted template you can just edit the page to remove the links... as opposed to having to know how templates work, going to the template page to look up it's format for removing the links (if it has that option at all), and then changing the template call. The secondary issue is that there are pages which hit the transclusion limit because of the number of unsubstituted templates used on them. That means that the template calls start displaying as text rather than being evaluated. This generally happens when you have dozens of calls to a big template like Template:Convert on a page... not going to be the case on most pages, but what about something like a list page with the historic high and low temperatures of countries around the world? If the values are all transcluded the page will take a long time to render and may eventually not be able to evaluate the templates at all. If they are substituted then it is just text and wikilinks.

Regardless... these templates are different from the other conversion templates. Unless you believe that transclusion is always better than substitution these templates provide a service not otherwise available. --CBD 16:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless stops auto-subst'ing, and uses  , per WP:MOSNUM; if these problems fixed, then weak keep. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What about auto-subst'ing is a "problem"? If that feature were removed then >I< would say these templates should be deleted - because they'd then provide no capabilities not covered by half a dozen other templates - with the possible exception of a few unlikely unit pairings for conversion (e.g. picometers to parsecs). When did template substitution become a 'bad' thing? Why would we WANT to load down pages with huge sections of transcluded logic when we can instead just put the relevant text there? I don't get it. --CBD 11:11, 2 August 2007 (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:Conv-dist[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. There are a bunch of different directions here in the discussion, some want to delete, some want to keep, some want to mark as depreciated, and some want to keep only if fixed. There have not really been enough participants to determine clearly which direction the discussion is headed. The template is not harming anything right now, and the fixes can be done. At least for the present, this doesn't look like consensus to me. IronGargoyle 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This conversion template was started in April 2006 but never implemented. Since then, better templates have been developed and are in use. This template also does not conform to the format of WP:MOSNUM. MJCdetroit 16:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark as deprecated per above deletion debate. No problems with outright deletion, however. Gracenotes^T § 03:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comment on Conv-temp above --CBD 00:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've skimmed through Category:Conversion templates and haven't been able to find any which could be used to replace this. Also, any 'MOS' issues should be easily resolvable, but I looked through the details in the link from the nom and couldn't find anything which this template did not conform with. The only possibility I saw would be the view that unit names should be spelled out (e.g. 'foot' instead of 'ft')... but even that is usually reserved only for the first usage. In any case, since this is a substitutable template any user can always just edit the results to spell out the full unit name if appropriate. --CBD 13:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, IronGargoyle 00:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Similar reasons as noted above in the discussion for Template:Conv-temp. Also, I've gone through the template's code, usage and WP:MOSNUM and the template does not seem to be against any guidelines listed, although this alone can't be a reasong for keep. aJCfreak yAk 11:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comments on Conv-temp above. --CBD 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—As noted in the TfD for Conv-temp above, I would be much more comfortable with this template if it didn't substitute itself and erase its 'transclusion footprint'. Otherwise, there's no telling whether it is actually being used or not. What are the advantages that substituting would have over just leaving the template in the article's code? For the MOSNUM guidelines, there should be a nonbreaking space between the value and the unit. There should also be an option to spell out the units. If these were to change, then I would change my vote. —MJCdetroit 12:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See comments on Conv-temp above. As to an option to spell out the units... that could be added. Or the user could just go to where the text 'ft' appeared and add 'oo' to make 'foot'. Again, the fact that these are substituted means that the results can be edited manually. --CBD 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless stops auto-subst'ing, and uses  , per WP:MOSNUM; if these problems fixed, then weak keep. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What about auto-subst'ing is a "problem"? If that feature were removed then >I< would say these templates should be deleted - because they'd then provide no capabilities not covered by half a dozen other templates - with the possible exception of a few unlikely unit pairings for conversion (e.g. picometers to parsecs). When did template substitution become a 'bad' thing? Why would we WANT to load down pages with huge sections of transcluded logic when we can instead just put the relevant text there? I don't get it. --CBD 11:11, 2 August 2007 (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:Big Fat Welcome[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 delete. Sr13 is almost Singu larity 04:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have {{welcome}}. The only difference is the ugly orange background. . ~ Wikihermit 05:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant unless you want to cause eye damage. --Haemo 09:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. The template does not add any value of significance. aJCfreak yAk 11:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. If people want color customizability, add a color parameter to the template code. And please specifically have it disable that particular hideous color. :-/ — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson j 00:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- You created the template. Can you tell us why we should keep it? ~ Wikihermit 04:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Hideously inaccessible. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 13:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as purposeless. Unschool 22:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. --Dave101→talk 20:38, 4 August 2007 (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.