php-deluxe.net - description Templates for deletion Log Deleted April 2005

Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/April 2005

= April 6 =

== ==

Not used by stub sorters. Not really used by anyone (only thyree articles, and nothing s been added to the associated category for a few days now). Unneccessary subcategory, and a dangerous precedent for having stub categories for every cult TV series going (or non-cult TV series, for that matter). 04:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) *It s got a cuter icon than ) 06:47, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) *(comment) Angel-stub s likely to be going soon. Talk on WP:SS is of a completely understandable merger between that and Buffy-stub. *Delete. It would be different if some fan of KND had pumped the stub category full of characters, episodes, animators, tie-ins, etc. It is, however, just sitting there, a near empty container ... and it s unlikely to be mourned in its passing (unless someone refutes that here). 23:45, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) *Enshrine -- remove all instances; bronze creator and hang from rear view mirror. Move aside, bananna-stub! — ) 10:08, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

Template that was only used for 09:37, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) *Pointless. Delete and protect to prevent recreation. (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Template%3ADizy deletion log].) - 09:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Since a few such templates were already speedily deleted, I have also marked 23:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion has been successful. This item should be logged and removed. — ) 09:49, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

Templates by a user who has been playing around in articles related to 14:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) :...and Zofingen, below. They also created a totally unnecessary Grisons-geo-stub (now a redirect to Switzerland-geo-stub), and the Cantons of Andorra one that s further up this page. Consign them all to the pit of Hades... erm, that is, delete. 02:57, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete and caution user. — ) 09:53, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *Since a few such templates were already speedily deleted, I see no reason not to do the same to these ones. - 09:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

A misguided attempt to add a navigation box to the top of 0 (number) through 9 (number). Since January 2 the template has just been a category link, but I just now got around to removing it from the 10 articles that used it. *Delete. 04:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*I support deletion, but this template has been prematurely orphaned and blanked. Please move templates through the TfD process and do not act prematurely. Okay — ) 09:47, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *Delete, and I agree with

*Template is pending deletion due to block compressed revisions. 05:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

== ==

All six of the links on this template redirect to 20:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — unanimous support for deletion => move to Holding Cell to be orphaned then deleted

*Delete - serves no purpose. 20:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete, unnecessary; may confuse readers if it takes them in circles. 02:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete -- worse than useless! — ) 09:16, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

Messed up template repeatedly being inserted into the 07:17, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Summary after 2 weeks — Unanimous support for Deletion => template is already an orphan in the main article space; move to Holding Cell for Deletion

*Delete. -- This template is an orphan, serves no clear purpose, points to several redlinks, and is malformed to boot. Delete soonest. — ) 09:22, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *As in case of the pointless Switzerland templates below, speedy delete. - 09:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

Stub template, its single use has been removed, the stub category is unlikely to grow again and seems too specific anyway. -- 21:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Yup - another one that s been suggested for deletion at WP:WSS. Delete. 23:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Looking through the series of 23:51, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC) *Delete -- and if tfd fails, boy, I have a mind to put up all the articles it references for vfd. This is a . — ) 10:11, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

Content before redirecting to :

This article needs some picture(s), you can help Wikipedia by donating pictures to the article.

This misguided template was created in conjunction with 02:36, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

=April 7=

== ==

These templates are not needed anymore. At one point they were meant to aid problems with 01:57, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. I created the templates and they are no longer needed. 14:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

**Changed to speedy. When deleted, log and remove. — ) 10:31, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

***Speedy deleted, as per request. - 05:05, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

Has no place in the article namespace. See also ) 23:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Conceivably useful for the talk page, but it d break if the article ever moved. Better to paste it in by hand. The CamelCase name doesn t do wonders for its usability, either, and the category is just pointless. — ) 01:07, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) *Plus, of course, part of the 01:46, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

== ==

Was never proposed on Wikiproject Stub Sorting, used by only one article. 05:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Never proposed We ve never even heard of it ! Get rid of the thing. 11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete, replace with a more general stub. Concept unclear. — ) 10:23, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

Group of stubs converted to a single article at 08:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

*Delete -- obvious delete; trivial; also pseudo-category. — ) 10:12, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

A needless template – it is only used on one page where it could be a table. Extra server call not needed. ) 17:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete. It is only used on 17:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Tablefy it (and then delete). 02:24, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Might as well be a table, at most. -- 03:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete switch to table 06:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Move to a general template for international organisations, where this information is appropiate: 10:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete template, but salvage content into ) 09:40, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) :::Note I have restored tfd tag. — ) 09:40, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

NOTE: The table in the template was copied to 04:59, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

== ==

Another creation of the creator of 00:27, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC) *Delete. Not only is it redundant, it s ugly. -- 00:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete; hideous. 01:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- and all similar templates calling for images on flagged pages. Uncle G, Vikrykja, Rdsmith4 -- all you guys, please vote on , too. — ) 03:53, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

*Delete unnecessary, more bilge from 06:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete, Another redundant image request template. 13:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

Abuse of template namespace for a single user s comments. — ) 22:18, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) :From the same user who brought you 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism is a serious charge, to be neither made nor taken lightly; nor does a typo or snarky hedge excuse it. I have used this template in exactly 3 instances. I ask you either to show that any one of these uses was in bad faith, or to retract your unwarranted charge.

: In passing, I ll say, as before, that there is a much more direct way of asking me to remove templates such as these -- just drop me a line on my Talk page. I really don t care whether they are in main Template space or not; the template mechanism permits any user to include any page, anywhere -- did you know

::Let me rephrase this clearly, then - hopefully in a way that you will not find snarky . If the same set of templates had come up by some anonymous user, I would have believed it to be possible vandalism. It did not - the templates were created by someone whom I trust as a Wikipedian, and as such, I believe there was a genuine purpose behind their creation. Given that it was the first of April, and given that there seemed no genuine purpose for them, I put that down as the reason. I still do not think that the templates are worth keeping, and as such, they should be deleted. I am willing to be swayed, however, if good and valid reasons can be listed here. That - as I m sure you are aware - is the usual way for dealing with unneccessary templates. I am sorry that my original wording was clumsy, and apologise for any offence caused. 03:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: I accept your apology. I created and used the template before 1 Apr (and I rarely use numbers to represent months). I did not fully understand your comment. My apologies. Please don t ask me to defend the templates as such . You can see how I ve used them, but I agree that I might have done the same things in other ways.

: Please allow me to state my views on the process of TfD. I participate regularly here and vote for many deletions, but I do not generally do so in the face of opposition -- I vote to provide a clear consensus for removal of obviously unnecessary, malformed templates, whose presence disrupts the project. I have not tried to vote out templates over the reasoned objections of their creators or boosters; and I have certainly not used TfD as a vehicle for personal vendetta. I participate in TfD as a janitor, not as a warrior. We are best able to do our work by keeping out of controversial and confrontational deletions -- they can be handled otherwise.

: Netoholic is dragging in the good with the bad, in a deliberately confrontational manner. He has gone beyond TfDing templates I created; he s started to RfM my articles and rv my edits. He is currently in arbitration and I don t believe he should be humored in his bad faith nominations. He has tagged templates in such a way as to disrupt Talk pages on which they appear and reverted entirely sane moves of those tags to respective Talk pages. Note that Korath, who nominated , did not feel it necessary to be so disruptive.

: Netoholic is . I don t care about the content, since nothing on WP is ever permanently lost; I do care about the damage to our social structure.

: This is what I ask, on behalf of all my silly templates (01, bh, and mockup): Vote to hold them until the review period of 7 days expires. Show all users reading this page that our work here is on behalf of the project, and not in service to trends, fads, and vendetta. When the comment period has expired and, in accordance with process, the templates removed from the workflow, I ll be glad to serve any who perceive them to be a threat by orphaning them and putting them up for admin attention.

: Okay — 10:12, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

::Well, I m still at a loss as to the purpose of the templates, but I can see no need personally to speedy them, so I m fine with the seven day holding period. I can also see little technical reason why the templates can t be stored in Xiong s user space for use via subst: , unless doing so contravenes WP rules (although it might set a fairly poor precedent). As to the apology - that s fine, it was my fault for commenting when I was tired and grumpy. Truce :) 10:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::: (I wanted to read that as tired and grunty .) Several of the people who welcome new members have custom welcome templates as subpages under their User page. I know that I ve run into a few other examples as well, although I can think of any specific ones at the moment. 18:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: Each one of those minor templates has a very minor purpose, which I shall not attempt to defend. I don t see they do much harm, but I agree they do little good, and I don t expect I ll bother to keep them in userspace. So long as the text is replaced on the Talk pages where used, history is preserved, and that is the only substantive issue.

: You were grunty and I was crabby. Netoholic s nomination of was such a blatant example of strangling the baby in the cradle. I lost my wa completely when he responded to my defense not with rebuttal, but with systematic nomination of everything he came across. I should admit that not Netoholic, but Korath, nominated {bh}, and I don t really perceive any bad faith, despite an inflammatory tone. Perhaps it was a case of jumping on the bandwagon, perhaps not.

: In any case, I have no real beef with anyone except Netoholic, and I wouldn t have a beef -- a personal beef -- with him if he had none with me. He wrote an opinion and tried to get it accepted as policy; I disagreed loudly, and I was not the only one, but perhaps the newest and most visible. Most vulnerable Well, he certainly provoked the reaction he desired, and I m a fool to fall for it.

: As a sign of good faith, I have orphaned, moved, and called speedy on {bh}. And I apologize for fuming at such length. — 07:56, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

=April 8=

== ==

Wikipedia by [:|action=edit}} expanding it] .

Carrying stub sorting to its il logical conclusion. Can t we speedy this one Pretty please 00:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete (speedy or otherwise). 03:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This template has been here since 15 March and nobody has used it (What a surprise.) I think it s also an excellent candidate for BJAODN. (I couldn t resist adding a picture of a banana to make it a more stylish stub notice.) -- 03:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

03:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, of course. I managed to refrain from making a snarky comment earlier about it not even having a picture, and just what are they teaching the little trolls these days, but now the point is kind of moot. — ) 03:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC) **Just be glad they weren t thorough enough to create a category for banana stubs.-- 03:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This 04:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. There are many varieties of 10:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Comment. If there were articles that were using the stub (nothing but administrative pages are at What links here ) then you would be able to make a stronger case. If there are ~100 stub articles about banana varieties, foods where banana is the major ingredient, drugs administered via banana ingestion, etc. then a case could be made. There aren t about 100 banana varieties are there 10:09, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC) **Comment. It s all a matter of editor interest. There could be a hundred-odd stub articles about banana-related topics; there exist this many (and probably more) banana topics in the real world, but bananas don t attract the same kind of fan base, as, say, the works of 10:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep if only to make me hungry when I m editing late at night. 06:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Enshrine as exemplar of most superflous template -- stub poster child. Replace all instances of its use with a more general stub template. — ) 09:42, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *Delete. Silly and not needed. 05:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

== ==

Terrible use for a template. -- 17:19, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *Delete -- 17:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. That is terrible. 18:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Hold -- This is becoming a personal vendetta. Netaholic is simply listing every template I ever created. Ordinarily, I d say fine, I ll take it inside to my user space. But this template is used in now-archived debate. Elimination of the template amounts to Orwellian editing of history. I m willing to (a) move the template to my user space and (b) replace every instance of its use with a subst: inclusion. But I don t feel we should be forced into doing this work due to a personal agenda. — ) 18:39, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *Delete. Looks to me like someone s joking use of a template ... a tool for vandalism perhaps 19:13, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Delete see also 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

: Please note that my comment of 18:39, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) was disappeared -- how, I cannot say; but I ve restored it. I object to any characterization of this template as a tool for vandalism -- that is just plain rude. As I wrote above, I m happy to take it inside my user space, but there is nothing about the sentiment that ought to offend anyone. Please see where it has been used before imputing evil motives.

: Let me make myself very clear: I agree that this template is trivial, probably unworthy even of remaining in my user space, let alone general template space. But this is not the way to handle this, nor does this have anything to do with the template itself . Any user, Netaholic included, might have suggested to me that I move this to my user space, and I d have been happy to comply. To bring this up in this hostile manner is to retaliate for my comments on Netaholic s opinion piece.

: Do you all wish to be cat s paws for Netaholic Do you want TfD to become his, or anyone s, private battleground Must we debate, take sides, and vote, regardless of need Is there no longer any room in WP for direct, non-confrontational suggestions

: I ask you to vote this proposal down. I ll eliminate the offending template myself when I have the leisure to replace its every instance in Talk with verbatim text. This is not about a template; it is about one user s attempt to assume control of the template mechanism itself. Please hold your comment until you have read Netaholic s demands at ) 03:46, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC) *Delete -- 08:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Hopeless 00:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete, this shouldn t be a template. - 00:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note: Template was moved to 01:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

list of Latin phrases#I list of Latin phrases#E

Quite useless. 06:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite. -- 07:49, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

*Delete. I do not think they are useful. 23:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Would lead to patronising overlinking. Delete. 00:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. - 01:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

(view archival copy )

While I acknowledge that articles with , let alone , don t get fixed as quickly as we d like, there s got to be more productive ways of dealing with them than this. — ) 09:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) *Ugh! Delete it. [http://kohl.wikimedia.org/~kate/cgi-bin/count_edits.cgiuser=Smoddy&dbname=enwiki k]) 10:05, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, of course (and it occupies exactly the same ecological niche than attention ). 10:37, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I m sorry if I offend you. But I don t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands. Delete anyway. — 11:36, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

*Very cute. I take it someone will put it on 11:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

. 10:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Nuuuuu!!!!! It s too cute! Keep it, PLEASE!!!!! -- 14:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete, after moving to 17:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete and move to 22:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete Cute but ultimately unhelpful. 01:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Compromise Put the picture of the Dyson on . -- 12:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) **Check the template now Kitch, if that is what you wanted to see. 15:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete -- Unprofessional. Personally, it amuses me, and I think we need more humor around here -- but this is not the place for it. — ) 10:25, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *Keep It s a cute version of **Unsigned vote, couldn t locate its creator *Keep However unprofessional it may be, this template makes me laugh. 21:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete Too unprofessional. **This vote by *Delete, too close to a personal attack. 11:48, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) *ROTFL, but delete 00:10, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete, this should be on a user namespace or something, no place in an encyclopedia...but I m not saying it isn t funny, because it s hilarious

- 03:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

: For other uses, see University of Maryland (disambiguation)

One line of text created for one article. Not necessary. -- ) 04:23, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Delete -- 21:00, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

See: Mockup

Poor use for a template. -- 17:24, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC) *Delete -- 17:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Hold -- I could defend this template, but I d rather meet this vendetta squarely, and call it for what it is. In practice, I d be open to deletion of the template itself and the substantive page upon which it appears.

: This is not the place to work out personal differences between users. — ) 18:46, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

*Delete — I ve made mockups before and used the Talk page for them; I think the Talk-space is the right place for these and not the main article space. 19:10, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Delete see also 23:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

Workarounds for the old 5-template limit, no longer needed. 03:09, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

== ==

Template inserted image with a text link to image underneath, in the form .

Not useful, considering that if you click on any image you go to the Image: page. -- 04:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Sometimes you do not wish to go to the image page, nor do you wish to edit source in order to copy the location of the image page. This template is a general utility and bothers nobody. You are disrupting the project to make a point. — 03:49, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

Absolutely delete. Using templates because you re too lazy to learn proper mediawiki syntax shows a criminal degree of lazyiness, *particularly* when it lags the servers to use templates. 04:24, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry; I actually thought I was being clever. I have searched the documentation very hard for existing solutions. Would Someone be kind enough to to demonstrate the correct syntax for inserting an image itself, followed immediately by a clickable and copyable link to its image page It would be most preferable if the link would include displayed double brackets, so it could be copied directly from the page. Thank you. — 09:26, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

:I m not sure I understand what you mean, because that would be exactly what s in the template. If you want to display an image, it s 19:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete. We re supposed to be creating an encyclopedia for the benefit of our readers, not our editors. We don t need to load the servers this way to save editors a few keystrokes. If you don t want to go to an image page to get its location, then right click, copy-paste the URL, and remove the first bit of the address (everything before Image:... ). -- 12:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

*Delete, what Mark said. - 19:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=April 9=

== ==

Deprecated - replaced with the new (merged) 13:28, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment — the two templates are already redirects, so a redirect vote is pretty much equivalent to a keep vote. 21:55, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

*Delete - no objections on 21:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete, Buffyverse stubs should be fine. 22:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) *Any reason not to leave these as redirects Buffyverse isn t exactly intuitive. — ) 22:56, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Comment — Angel could easily be misinterpreted as related to theology; intuition cuts both ways. 21:55, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

*redirect-- 17:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete them all and impose blanket ban on fantasy universe stubs. — ) 10:27, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

This has been [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk%3ACtrl_build&diff=0&oldid=11761991 abandoned by its creator] and isn t used anywhere. Seems a shame since it s nice, but probably useless. 20:34, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

== ==

I can t see any reason why 00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Comment: I d been vaguely wondering about this myself. See also: ) 01:11, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) *Delete I would support keeping this if it appeared to be part of either a 01:33, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC) **Just to be clear, I m absolutely sure the creator of these templates was acting in good faith; I mean nothing personal, and I appreciate their efforts. I just don t think they re a good idea, and I thought I d see what other folks think. Regarding the others Korath mentions above, maybe they all should go if the consensus is that the one I posted (as an example, I suppose) does too 05:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete them all. I could actually see templates like this being useful 08:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Keep. I created most (but not all) of these. The idea was to keep the wikify page less cluttered. The catagorization is keeping the wikify page from becoming a 4 page entry. That was my point of doing this. I m not sure what the difference is between this and all of the cleanup tags, i.e. cleanup-context, etc. Also, if we move these to the talk page, then we would need to move all of the wikify tags over to the talk page soon. If you want tackle that, go right ahead. One is simply a child of the other.-- 17:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. - 13:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== ==

(and )

Links to a total of 6 articles on Vfd, and (according to what I think is most likely)]] only the last 2 of these will probably survive Vfd as articles of their own and this probably means the template itself should be deleted. 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Comment. I abstain until the 07:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Comment. After the deletion has run its course, I have reworked it to reference five currently existing articles. 09:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) *Delete -- pseudo-category. — ) 10:06, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Keep. Why do these people from other fields continue to launch assaults on the work of others If they think their job is to destroy knowledge...the Mongols did a lot more than they ever will. 19:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete - pretty bad series box with a bad name. -- 01:50, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)

*Delete, would function better as a see also section of the article. - 13:48, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=April 11=

==Some coordinate templates: ==

The above five are all obsoleted by the 19:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Even the obvious ones deserve at least one vote. 13:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete, indeed . 18:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- User:Docu

== ==

Another creation by 18:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Delete 11:33, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

=April 12=

== ==

Is there any point to this 11:31, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC) *Delete. There is no point to these templates. 18:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Delete -- 18:39, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC) *Delete: I believe not, my friend. - 13:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Speedy Delete . Pointless. 02:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

=April 13=

== ==

This template tries to make a general need specific. Many pages need images; these are, almost universally, the ones that have few images. Readers like to look at pictures, even avid bookworms. Even gratuitous graphics help to relieve the eye and are not superfluous.

No template is required on pages that contain insufficient images; the lack of images is immediately and glaringly obvious to all editors with any skill in graphics arts or any inclination to add such images. It is redundant and distracting to call attention to any one individual article by means of this template.

I have marked this template for deletion. — ) 07:22, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)