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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:NAUMANN (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused, overly specific license template. Happy‑melon 19:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete as above JIMp _talk·cont 04:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:East Carolina bowl games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Merged this template to {{ECUPiratesFB}}. Notified creator. PGPirate 19:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thetrick (talk) 03:57, 3 July 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sockblockdodge (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

improper template that states block evading socks will only be temporarily blocked, redundant to other socking templates. MBisanz ^talk 17:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; not worth a template. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:42, 2 July 2008 (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 debate was no consensus Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Same-sex marriage (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template is redundant and unnecessary, as the same information is already presented in a more comprehensive fashion in {{Same-sex unions}}, which is used in all of the same articles. It simply adds clutter to the bottom of article pages, where it interferes with other templates that are actually useful and don't replicate other templates (such as, for example, {{LGBT}}, {{Same-sex marriage in the United States}} or {{Same-sex marriage in Europe}}. A classic case of unnecessary template creep. — Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. It was created for this article per FAC demands, seeing that what was then available was way too big/hideous/not useful. As for interfering with other templates... {{Same-sex marriage in Europe}} is mostly red links. How does it make it more useful than this one? I believe this one is small, informative if not extremely comprehensive and useful -more than templates that take half to three quarters of an article... Cheers Raystorm (¿Sí?) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Raystorm, seems helpful and needed. Banjeboi 16:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. If there isn't notes already linking the templates it may be helpful to add something that this template is a smaller but similar version. Banjeboi 16:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant example of template proliferation. See the existing template in use, {{Same-sex unions}}. See for example both in use at Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts. – Yellowdesk (talk) 00:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This would seem to support using one or the other not that one is better than both always. Banjeboi 02:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is often assumed that same-sex unions and same-sex marriages are the same idea, but they are not. These two templates are for two different topics. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Same sex unions being a superset of marriages. Certainly the cause of confusion, and reason enough for deletion, unless one of the editors commenting cares to go clear up duplicative uses. – Yellowdesk (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:PN (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not used since 2006 and is of no use. – Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Free up space for something people actually use like {{page number}} --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete – It's completely useless. Having various different things which have the same function generally makes WP harder to fathom. It appears to double the preprocessor node count & the post-expand include size. JIMp _talk·cont 04:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I didn't know it existed, and it won't be missed. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:46, 2 July 2008 (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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Length conversion (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This nomination includes the template's documentation page & its two redirects.

• Template:Length conversion/doc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Dist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Template:Distance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template is redundant to {{convert}}. It has no transclusions (except on its own doc page). It uses a very large #switch and therefore would cause template problems if used in an article. It would also create overlinking problems since there is no way to turn the linking off. JIMp _talk·cont 04:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant to the far smaller and better {{convert}}. This template's documentation even specifies that it's deprecated, and shouldn't be used. (On second thoughts, redirecting to {{convert}} might also be an option here.) Terraxos (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under T3. Obsolete and no users. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:52, 5 July 2008 (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 debate was speedy deleted per G7. –xenocidic (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Italic title (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Violates style guidelines and is used only on the talk page of a banned user. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Under used template which is redundant because of the HTML font tag. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 04:44:35

• Out of interest: which style guidelines? (Style guidelines elsewhere dictate that the genus and species names of orgamisms are italicised wherever they appear.) Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • At this point in time, page titles are only styled if unusable characters are needed (e.g. ID ᴇNTITY). 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - goes against current style guidelines. Even if it didn't, {{wrongtitle}} easily serves the same purpose. Garrett^Talk 03:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, wrongtitle is inadequate. Italictitle displays the title in italics, as specified in the style guidelines. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 09:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrongtitle displays as {{wrongtitle|''Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 1''}}.

• Oh! That didn't happen when I previewed the edit. Delete per WP:SNOW.

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 debate was delete Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:ArticleConcern (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

a very BITEy, threatening, over process-wonky template that needs to go. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep - "I hope not to seem unfriendly or argumentative, but I'm concerned about article ARTICLE required, which you have edited. Could we discuss that concern here?" - that's not bitey in the slightest, far less so than any of our other speedy deletion warning templates. It was created to stop new users getting bitten and one of Ben's major wiki aims (to stop newer users who don't understand our way getting bitten). It's modelled on {{UsernameConcern}} and an ideal way to start discussion with a new user that has created an article that doesn't quite conform. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - aside from the BITE issues, this is far too vague to be useful. It claims that there are 'concerns' over 'issues' with an article, without ever specifying what those issues actually are. I don't see why we should be encouraging people to use a template like this over other templates that draw attention to specific problems, making it far easier for the user to address them. Terraxos (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete, not per nom but per Terraxos. Slapping a boilerplate template on someone's talk page does not equate to having a discussion regarding their edits. This template is vague to the point of uselessness, as it makes no attempt (and how can it?) to identify specific concerns. Honestly, if you have a problem with someone's edits and wish to draw their attention to it, use your own words to explicitly state what that problem is. PC78 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete Yes, use your own words not a vague meaningless template. JIMp _talk·cont 08:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. User talkpage templates and boilerplates are to help de-personalize and quickly convey problems that someone is heading for trouble or content is pending deletion. This does seem a bit bitey to me. We should try to win problem editors over to being constructive and if it's a matter of disagreeing over content or style issues than boilerplate seems likely to inflame rather than build dialog. Banjeboi 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Please let's not have beat-around-the-bush templates that say nothing of substance. If you see a problem with an article, say what it is, get to the point, and solve the problem. This template doesn't do any of those things. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 23:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per Terraxos. A template that lists various ways for a newbie to solve a problem without specifying said problem is more than useless. Naerii 06:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure this is reasonable to ever actually use, but it does provide a reasonable description of content dispute resolution in a neutral tone. It is far too vague to be useful for subst'ing, but perhaps it is a reasonable model to start from. As it stands though, it makes the upcoming dialogue incredible impersonal, and ruins it from the start. If this could be moved somewhere, and properly annotated it might be useful. The documentation for the template is also useful. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2008 (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.