Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 26

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, defaulting to keep. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:TOChidden (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a really bad idea. Wikipedia already remembers if you have opened or closed the Table of Contents, and if one wants to have pages default to closed then they can modify their .js and .css files for the skin they have chosen so that it defaults to close for them and not for everybody. Additionally seeing Table of Contents on the top line and then contents on the second line and a box within a box is just ugly. See Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts, Wikipedia:Monobook to get started on editing your own script and cascading style sheets. For usage see Paris and London --Trödel 20:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I've already heard from a number of editors who are quite happy to have this option for formatting and getting rid of large amounts of blank space the in the lead areas of longer articles. TOChidden was only created on March 14th and already seen a significant level of adoption by editors. Here User:SlimVirgin used it on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals article with the edit summary, "toc hidden because it's so long". Here User:Armedblowfish used it with the edit summary, "I really would like a Table of Contents to aid in section linking. How about {{TOChidden}} as a compromise?" because another editor was using __NOTOC__ thereby preventing the TOC from showing. Here User:ThePromenader reinstated to the Paris article. Here User:Sefringle used it on the Ibn Khaldun article. Here are several other users employing it: 1, 2, 3, 5, 4. Unfortunately with User:Trödel's addition of the TfD tag the template is currently not working properly for folks to be able to appreciate what it does. (→Netscott) 21:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Please remove the TfD template as it is screwing up hundreds of articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• BTW, before posting the TfD in the template I verified that there were less than 50 articles in the main space using this feature. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:TOChidden --Trödel 03:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Meta-comment, and a very serious one: Yesterday there were just barely short of 100. This is proof positive (unless you think I'm lying; I don't know if there is a way to diff "What links here") that this "just do it!" non-noincluding of the TfD warning template has an unbelievably disruptive effect. Please, do not do it without very good, well-discussed reasons. If it causes more than 50% of pages using a template to abandon it in less than one day, it is not only obviously a practice that is so annoying and alarming that it cannot possibly have consensus as good practice, it is also clearly a form of canvassing (intentional or otherwise) that skews the TfD results in favor of deletion; those who have abandoned a template aren't likely to defend it, even if they originally thought it was a good template. This is just unbelievably off-kilter. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• So are you saying that I am lying? Your argument is that because I placed the TfD warning, the number of pages using it has been reduced significantly. That is clearly not true. There were slightly more than 100 pages using the tempalte prior to the transclusion of the notice and a large number of those were in the User space.
• Finally, to not include the notice is to devalue the views of the editors that frequent the pages in which the templte is used. It is proper notice so those editors can discuss the wisdom of the deletion proposal. --Trödel 01:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Huh? I'm not saying anyone is lying. I'm saying there used to be around 100 links, now as you surely accurately reported, it's under 50. That clearly demonstrates that actually transcluding TfD notices in general-use templates scares people away from using them; it biases the TfD against the template in question. (As said elsewhere, I think that such transclusion has its uses, such as when TfDing a template related to a Wikiproject; in such a case the members of the project will want an opportunity to defend this part of their project. I don't think the case here is remotely similar.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misunderstanding understood :) - sorry for the accusation - The difference is between counting the number of times the word "(transcluded)" was used on one of the pages listed here: Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:TOChidden that were main article pages. Of those there were less than 50 articles (i.e. pages in the actual encyclopedia) that would be effected out of about 100 pages total listed. Thus I think the impact of including the TfD notice was not disruptive. Additionally, quite frankly, I would have viewed myself as not giving proper notice should I not transcluded the TfD notice in the template text. I think the votes here support my assumption that not including it would influence the outcome in my favor. The initial votes (from seeing the notice on the main space pages they read/watch) were overwhelmingly "keep" as I expected, the frequent TfD voter (those not monitoring the pages in which the template is transcluded but periodically reviewing the TfD logs) have overwelming voted "delete". --Trödel 15:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually not to deflate your argument SMcCandlish, but on article space this template has only had at most around 50 "whatlinkshere"s from the day I created it. I could have gone article after article nonstop placing it but I wanted to "test the waters" first before doing that and so I limited myself to a couple dozen choice articles. It is true however that the template has had usage on over 70-80 pages at one point but as this talk by User:CMummert shows the TfD message likely did negatively impact the template. (→Netscott) 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Right; that was my only point. I'm sincerely sorry that I somehow worded it so poorly that it could in any way be misread as an accusation of dishonesty! Yikes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per all.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 22:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's really not fun to see gigantic TOC listings. -Amarkov moo! 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. useful optional cosmetic tool. - Denny 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I was WP:BOLD and removed the transcluded fugly template that was ruining articles, per the obvious concensus here. - Denny 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, I've restored the TfD tag. While it is true that I have heard more support than opposition for TOChidden, like User:Proabivouac Here who said in part, "Netscott, the idea you have here is very good. The blank space was hideous, and I hadn't realized that there was any way to solve this. …" however I have heard from User:Pethr, "The TOC should be displayed especially in long articles since it's very hard to find information you're looking for without it. " (→Netscott) 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Compromise: Don't transclude the notice, but ensure it appears on template page. Done. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Well like any other template, I think that a TfD notice should display on it. People who see the template in action should be aware that the template's deletion is up for discussion. That said, across the articles I've seen it implemented on I've so far seen about 90% retention. (→Netscott) 23:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Not like any other template. The TfD template notice is small so that it can be inserted into the rendered template, but this doesn't mean it should be without good cause. A good cause might be that the template is used in a great number of places and people might be really upset at its deletion - to make sure that a mistake is not being made. Since this TfD doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance, the only effect not noincluding it will have is basically to WP:CANVAS for Delete votes by spamming pages with a notice in hopes that someone else who doesn't like alternative ToCs will notice it. Another legit use of not noincluding this would be on something like a type of infobox, so that people dealing with the articlespace to which that infobox applies can weigh in on the issue. This isn't that sort of case. It's an "I don't like it" sort of case. No real rationale has been given for deleting this template. Nom's rationale is distillable to "it's ugly", i.e. "I don't like it." Delete rationale immediately below distills to "an editor in one article isn't using it right", which is a user issue, not a TfD issue. The only other delete !vote I see is precisely the same, other than it raises a consistency issue, which should simply be taken up on the template's talk page. NEXT. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Is being abused, like all TOC-templates, in places like Ibn Khaldun, where it has absolutly no use but to cause usability and accessibilty problems. If long TOCs are found to be annoying please find a proper fix like refactoring the article or submitting a patch for MediaWiki which allow users to select if they want the TOC to be hidden by default if it exceeds a certain length in their preferences instead of creating a temp[late which is agian not only horribly implemented but also forces the often irrational will to hide every TOC of some editors on all readers. —Ruud 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Suruena had this to say, "…and you will be fixing an accessibility problem, congratulations! ". (→Netscott) 23:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that a "show" link next to "Table of Contents" is a real accessibility problem. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No in fact she was talking about the appearance of large blank space in articles being a hinderance in terms of accessibility and that TOChidden was reducing this accessibility problem. (→Netscott) 23:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh! Right. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep; this is the wrong venue. Minor ToC alternatives have a long and stable Wikipedia (actually WikiMedia - they are used on Wiktionary, Meta, etc., as well) history. If someone wants to start killing them off, take that up at WP:PUMP for broader community discussion. You won't get rid of them by trying to pick them off one by one, and messing up god(s) know(s) how many articles in the process with the TfD notice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A patch that did the same thing would be ideal, but since when have the devs ever done anything in a decent timeframe by request? If you can push a bug report on the matter into reality, then more power to you, but only delete this template then. --tjstrf talk 23:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this image is no longer current as the double [hide]/[show] problem has been solved. (→Netscott) 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This isn't an attempt to kill it off just because it is a TOC alternative but because it is poorly implemented. 1) There should not be two boxes, 2) The show/hide feature is confusing because you can have show on the template version but hide on the inside version - what is that, and 3) This should be implemented by properly proposing changes to the css style sheet. Finally, it is not compliant with our desire to make pages fully accessible to those with disabilities. --Trödel 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  PS Changes to the .css style sheet do not require dev intervention. --Trödel 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually User:Suruena who concerns herself with such "accessibility" matters (do note what she says on her userpage) was saying to me, "you will be fixing an accessibility problem, congratulations!" (by clearing up the large blank space at the lead of articles). (→Netscott) 03:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I struck my comment re accessibility because I don't know for sure if it is or is not better. --Trödel 03:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment in reply to the non-stricken issue: Already addressed above; quote: "The only other delete !vote I see ... raises a consistency issue, which should simply be taken up on the template's talk page." This is not a TfD matter, it's a "oh, this can be fixed in 5 minutes by twiddling the code to make a little more sense" matter. This is a waste of XfD-watchers' time. I don't mean this in an attacking way; I know you mean well, but this just doesn't seem to be a problem worth this many eyes and brains. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Update: I see (belatedly) that someone has already fixed the double-box bug you reported anyway. 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep as it gives improved readability or navigation when either is required. --Valley2city^₪‽ 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I saw it used on Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, where it is completely unnecessary, and this seems to be a widespread problem (especially for only having existed for 12 days). If it can be kept from being abused, it should at least appear identical to the regular contents box, only initially hidden, not with this weird box around it. I also doubt that its really necessary, and think increasing the number of custom formatted contents boxes would be preferable to making it so some are automatically hidden. Atropos 04:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Netscott seems to have already quoted me above. To add to that, there are some situations, like in pages with very long tables of contents, where some editors might not want to see the ToC, even if they would want to see it in other circumstances. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 04:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Why are there two boxes (with "show" and "hide" on each one, by the way!)? Unless someone fixes that, consider this a delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• As of just now there are no longer two boxes nor two places to click "[show]/[hide]", just one. (→Netscott) 06:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Is whitespace really a problem despite the navigational advantages? It seems many editors do not like them, but it's easier to scroll past than to click [show]. For long articles it provides a helpful cursory overview look of the various aspects of the subject. We can afford vertical whitespace at London with that huge infobox to the right. Articles like 9/11 conspiracy theories and science are collections of distinct topics and do not necessarily follow in a logical order; readers tend to want to go directly to a specific section instead of reading the article all the way through, so they're probably going to end up clicking TOC [show] anyway. There should be criteria for transclusion so this isn't abused. If there are trivial subheadings taking up unnecessary space, use a bold heading instead (;). –Pomte 08:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Just an observation: No one on either side has suggested that this template is appropriate for every article, so examples of articles where it isn't appropriate doesn't illustrate much.  :-) It's simply an option, and it would not exist and be used on around 100 pages (before this TfD scared people away from it) if it wasn't thought to be appropriate somewhere. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think there are no examples where this template is necessary. It makes the look of articles arbitrary and you cannot expect to find a shown TOC or a hidden TOC in any given article. –Pomte 04:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The stated purpose does not make much sense to me. From what I can discern, I see because there are a large number of items in the table of contents, there is a large amount of whitespace, and that looks ugly. Perhaps. However, how about As demonstrated by the large number of items in the table of contents, there is a greater desire to use it so one does not have to scroll through the entire article searching for what they want? If some people don't like the whitespace added, they are free to use the [hide] link in the regular table of contents. There's no need to change the default setting (that's basically what this template does) for certain articles simply because of one person's preference, even though the table of contents would be useful. Additionally, I find the box in a box layout unaesthetic and the hidden table of contents problematic on pages like London and Jerusalem, where large infoboxes now intrude into the main part of the article. -- tariqabjotu 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Thank you Tariqabjotu for providing a delete !vote that gives a compelling rationale! — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Response: The infobox portion of this argument sounds more like a call for large infobox reform than a valid argument against this template. I have actually seen editors (and been a part of) wrangling over the heigth/size of an infobox. Save for this "infobox invasion" part of the argument the rest of the logic is equally applicable in the opposite sense. There's no reason that articles need to be loaded with a massive and unbalanced amount of dead space from the get go, why not present a visually pleasing article and make a good "first impression" and then allow a reader to "mess it up" with the TOC? So long as one click will render access to the TOC then it is just the reverse (and equal) of the one click to hide logic. (→Netscott) 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Agreed with Netscott. That's a very good point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to reinvent the square wheel; we already have a table of contents (and a better one, at that). The current table of contents automatically remembers whether you have the table of contents showing or not. Yours does not, but forces people to have the table of contents hidden by default. The current table of contents has no unnecessary box in a box; yours does. I understand you don't like the dead space, but if you prefer not seeing it upon opening an article, click [hide] and your preference will be noted. I would hate to have to keep clicking the [show] link every time I visit the London article (or any other article you add this functionality to) when I could just click [show] once and forget it. There's just no advantage to your table of contents. Sorry. -- tariqabjotu 15:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Strikes me as a argument for improvement, not deletion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Poor implementation, does nothing not already done. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see why whether or not the TOC is collapsed should be up to the editors and not individual users. Koweja 03:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Response, The flipside to this argument is: why should visitors be obliged to have to click something to make the unaesthetic and detracting TOC disappear? Again, with TOChidden no built in TOC functionality is lost, it just allows editors to set up a reverse order relative to displaying and hiding a given article's table of contents. (→Netscott) 03:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not everyone finds the table of contents unaesthetic and distracting; that's your preference. Also, you are incorrect that TOChidden has no built-in functionality lost; I already mentioned two, but I'll repeat them for clarity. It (a) does not remember one's preferences (so we're stuck with yours) and (b) has an unaesthetic and redundant box in a box (and this is all about aesthetics, correct?). -- tariqabjotu 15:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, like many other code workarounds, it kludges the editing space with what should be a developer fix. -- nae'blis 15:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The template is and will continued to be used arbitrarily on articles that do not warrant it (these include most if not all articles; see my comments above). –Pomte 00:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the use of this template is potentially very confusing to new users, who may have no idea what a "show" link means and/or why the table of contents is empty. Anyway, I strongly feel that this should be a per-user setting, not a per-article feature. Granted, this is mostly because I dislike it, but it also adds unnecessary inconsistency between different articles. If you dislike TOCs that much, it only takes one click to hide them! Why should other users be obliged to click something in order to make the useful and informative TOC appear? Xtifr _tälk 09:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Compromise, keep the template as it's quite useful in certain instances – for the Pro reasons already stated above – but modify the template by changing the cryptic "show" to the more user-friendly, "Display Table of Contents". JGHowes ^talk - 02:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Redundant and unnecessary, also forces individual preferences on others. Quadzilla99 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Currenlty, it looks like we are heading to a lack of concensus (but definately not a WP:SNOW as asserted above). I would like to thank Netscott for the fine work in removing many of the objections that people listed here. One of the objections that remains is retaining the preference of individual users to always open showing the TOC. That is the reason I still can't support keeping this template.
• I urge users of this template to use wisdom transcluding it. I found it on several articles that had short TOC, one with only 6 lines. Thank you! --Trödel 14:53, 2 April 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.

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. However, a user would be welcome to create a new template per JGHowes after validation of the Florida Memory Project's PD status. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-FL (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The template claims that certain works of the Florida state government are in the public domain, but the cited law (Florida Statute 119.01) is a Freedom of Information-style law, not a statement on the copyright of works. —-Carnildo 19:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• All images/records/documents/everything created by any form of government in Florida, that are not deemed confidential, are public record. The statute cited is the correct one, and it is a correct use of it.--Zewp 1715hrs, 26 March 2007 (EST)
  • "Public record" is not "public domain". Please read public domain and Freedom of information legislation to see the difference between the two. --Carnildo 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. "Public record" doesn't mean what you think it does. It means that the general public can get the information if they so please, which does not release it from copyright protection. -Amarkov moo! 22:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Rename and modify Delete [Travisl 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)] I agree that it's not public domain; I'm struggling with something similar at Template:PD-WAGov. The Florida law says "It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person," and the Washington law similarly says "Each agency shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records." What we've really got are copyrighted documents that anyone can copy. I think the best solution would be something like Template:NJDOT, maybe calling it Template:FL-GOV. Travisl 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename and modify why? These images aren't under a free license: they only meet two of the four points that a free license needs. --Carnildo 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, you've convinced me. I don't like the result (because realistically, I don't think the state is going to go after anyone for creating a derivative work), but by the letter of the law, it's not truly public domain. Travisl 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Pertinent Information: Perhaps you will find my recent posting(s) to the Wikipedia Media Copyright Questions page useful? It got kinda long so be sure to read all follow-ups.--Jasap 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've read it. Basically, you've got people who may or may not know what they're talking about who say it's in the public domain, and you've found a Freedom of Information statute. Other people have found Florida statutes arranging for the state to copyright its works. --Carnildo 20:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the template, even if modified, is not a free license. From FL Statute 119.01, "It is the policy of this state that all state, county, and municipal records are open for personal inspection and copying by any person;" that does not mean free for commercial reuse and derivative works. --Iamunknown 04:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Modify, let's not throw the baby out with the bath water; while it is most certainly true that Florida's "Sunshine Law" in no way removes or alters Copyrights, there is a valid archive of mostly PD photos maintained by the Florida State Archives called the "Florida Memory Project", see pertinent Copyright Notice. Suggest that PD-FL be modified to PD-FL Memory Project, for example – Image:Tarpon spgs.jpg JGHowes ^talk - 19:17, 3 April 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.

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, as the nomination was more "blowing steam" than a real nomination, and people appear to want to keep it anyway. If a person thinks this template should actually be deleted, nominate it again or re-open this TFD. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 10:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Qxz-ads (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Apparently they're annoying, or something. Frankly, I couldn't care less any more – Qxz 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Huh? - Anas ^talk? 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you not read or something? This is Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, where we discuss the deletion of templates. The above page, Template:Qxz-ads, is a template. Apparently, they're annoying or something, and I frankly couldn't care less. Now you decide what you want done with it. It's really not that hard – Qxz 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I know it would be infinitely easier if I could say who thinks they're annoying and what they said, but I can't. Your petty little rules prevent me from doing so. Sucks to be you, I guess – Qxz 10:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Apparently they're annoying, or something. Frankly, I couldn't care less any more" isn't a reason to delete. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, wow, did I miss something? - Anas ^talk? 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I support keeping the template which serves a good purpose and, taking into account that it is used in the user space only, I feel it is not worthy of deletion. Using it is a personal preference, much like using a userbox. - Anas ^talk? 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems useful in its current scope and while creator is disgruntled presently, I would hope that his work still has value. -- nae'blis 10:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I'm pretty sure Azatoth would continue maintenance of this. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:29, 26 March 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.

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. The 2 templates are entirely different. I see no purpose in continuing this TFD. If anyone believes that this template should be deleted, please start another deletion discussion. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Cricketbox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

There's already a similar template which is basically got the same thing-Template:Limited overs international. So any adjustments should be made there.--Thugchildz 06:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Cricketbox was meant to be a smaller box so that it could fit better on world cup pages. It isn't meant to have all the info of the full box and is meant to be formatted to fit in a much smaller area. Cricket box will be changed at minimum to be of the table type used on 2007 cricket world cup page and is still a work in progress.--Dacium 07:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I do honestly believe that Thugchildz has a vendetta against me. Every single thing I do on cricket-related pages is being reverted by him/her. I made this template based on what was already being used on the World Cup page. The distinction between this and the ODI infobox is that it is a shortened, specialised box for the World Cup and similar tournaments. I specifically made it with the intention of superceding the current non-template boxes being used on the page, rather than using the other ODI template. Speedy Keep and speedy remove this TFD. Utterly ridiculous. --mdmanser 08:19, 26 March 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.

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 Delete G6. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 03:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:2004-topics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Navigation template, all subpages deleted. See here under the section "Encarta article list", started by Jimmy Wales, for a bit of background. Marginally meets WP:CSD#G6, so if anyone seconds or thirds that, perhaps it should be speedily deleted. Gracenotes^T § 01:42, 26 March 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.