Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 7

< August 6	August 8 >

August 7 edit

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete - G7. IceKarma ॐ 22:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAoC user templates edit

These templates have basically the same look, so a master template was created that could handle variables to make it say the same thing those below say all in one template. Please note, I like user templates and hope that the reduction of them will help keep them in Template space where they belong. These templates have no transclusions. They are brand new and may be speediable. The creator approves of the merger. - LA @ 00:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User DAoC}} replaces...

DAoC discussion edit

Delete originals and replace with LA's improved parsed userbox. I am the creator of the original templates and assent to the replacement. Doggie Yum Yums 04:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G7 Only author (besides LA's addition of TFD notices) agrees that the pages should be deleted. —Mi ra 04:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:War in Iraq 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, due to non-usage. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War is already covered by the War on Terrorism template. Bobblehead 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Even if we accept that Iraq is part of the War on Terror, it is a significant topic within itself to justify a more specfic and useful template for aritcles related to the Iraq War. There is no reason why the War on Terrorism template should be used in all these ariticles as it includes many links which are relevant to the War on Terror generally but not Iraq. Give this template a little time to fill out before deleting it (or using it). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and redirect to Template:War on Terrorism per nom. It's easier to focus on one template. It War on Terror is missing some significant aspects, let's try to add it to that. Links and articles that are important to the Iraq War as important to the War on Terror by definition.--Tbeatty 02:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? We have a lot of articles about the various Iraq War campaigns etc. which have nothing to do with the War on Terror. There is a certain level of detail that would be acceptable for such a template for users looking for Iraq war links, that, even if these links had to do with the War on Terror, would unecessarily expand the WoT template too much because it would have to go into similar detail for the War in Afgahnistan etc. Also the various countries invovled in Iraq are not necessarily the countries involved in Afghanistan, are not necessarily the countries involved in the WoT generally. Thus, the flag column (normally one of the most useful on such templates) would be entirely worthless. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, there's already a suitable infobox on the Iraq war article. There doesnt appear to be a call for this template on the small number of related articles. And it could be argued that use of War on Terrorism would be more suitable. --Barberio 10:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the template is definitely too big, there is definitely a need for this template. As an example, I refer you to Cold War. While the Chinese Civil War and Korean War are part of the Cold War (which would be more than a bit US-centric POV actually, in the first case...but I digress) they have the separate templates (Campaignbox Chinese Civil War) and (Campaignbox Korean War). Perhaps this template should be edited to something similar? --Mucus 23:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As notably distinct from the War on Terror(ism). Many will argue on each side of the question of whether Iraq is part of the WoT. Instead of fighting that out every time the template is applied, have a template specifically for the Iraq war, in the interest of being fair & balanced. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two problems: One, this template isn't about "war in Iraq" in the topical sense... there have been other wars in Iraq in the past, and who knows, maybe there will be other ones in the future. Two, this template isn't being used. The creator of this template apparently never made any attempt to justify its creation by including it in an article. -/- Warren 08:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WoT edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template already covered by Template:War on Terrorism. Bobblehead 22:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Zoz (t) 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. --Tbeatty 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per nom. Doesnt seem like the user is working on it and its already existing in its full name. Seems like it could have been an honest mistake. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Unverifiable-external-links 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, although if you guys are interested, delete has a slight edge. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is being relisted. I closed the debate on July 30, but my final decision in the case was questioned. I looked over my actions, and decided that this should be discussed again in order to gain consensus. The previous debate may be found here. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 17:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some Delete proponants are basing oposition not on if a warning is needed, but how that warning should be formated and phrased. I ask that instead of moving to delete, that alternative formating and phrasing be discussed on the template's talk page. And that you only move for a deletion if you think there is no need for a warning at all. --Barberio 10:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a request for arbitration case relevant to this discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#External_links_of_2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict. AdamKesher 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as before. Still a usefull tag in the situations listed on it's useage. --Barberio 18:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It can be as useful as a "spoiler warning" is. Should this be listed on Wikipedia:Templates to be kept for at least a year? (SEWilco 20:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Could you please clarify the spoiler warning analogy? The spoiler warning denotes plot or ending details as a courteousy (which for better or worse has become part of internet culture) without impugning the quality of the associated content; this template attempts to set off bells and whistles in the heads of readers for content which does not violate WP:EL. Spoiler warnings are deployed in accordance with the consensus at WP:SW; this template attempts to circumvent our EL inclusion guidelines. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comparable templates with alarm-invoking graphics are meant to be placed temporarily alongside content which violates Wikipedia's policies (e.g. template:NPOV); this template, according to the usage situations listed, is meant to be placed permanently alongside content which does not violate Wikipedia's external links policies. The general disclaimer explicitly disavows the accuracy and neutrality of content "linked from these pages"; the large-font and bolded links to WP:V and WP:NPOV implies that those policies apply to external links and—more nefariously—that external links in articles without the template do meet those policies. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er... these policies are two of the foundation policies of wikipedia. They apply to everything on wikipedia. As far as a I know, no exception has ever been made for external links, and WP:EL is based on these policies. --Barberio 22:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! Wikipedia never makes an independent review of external sites to see if they meet our veriability and neutrality policies. These policies apply to WP:EL only to the extent that the linking text on Wikipedia is appropriate. There is no prohibition on linking to sites which may be less than accurate or neutral; if there was, there would be no need for this template. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit there is a need for this template, but disagree with it's current wording? In which case you should really be discussing changing it on it's talk page, instead of asking for it's outright deletion. I also dispute your claim that there is no prohibition on basis of Verifiability, NPOV and NOR. The WP:EL guidelines are all based on these foundations, and nothing else overides them. There are many issues that External Links are required to abide by; such as not giving undue weight; being a reliable constant link; sites containing original research, misleading statements or factual errors... I suggest you review the foundation policies and the external link guidelines to ensure you understand them.--Barberio 23:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think there is no need for this template (I was making an if/then statement...). Biased external links should be included and organized as they always have been: according to the major point of views. For example, noting which are Israeli and Lebanese, as is currently done. No further disclaimer is necessary, and—as I have explained—does more harm than good. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on my experience during mediation at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-25 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, this template appears to be intended to disparage links clearly acceptable under Wikipedia's policy WP:EL. It is an unnecessary and inappropriate label for WP:EL-acceptable links. AdamKesher 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still Strong Delete, as it was in the last TfD. It's either saying that these links are allowed (although questionable) in this article, even if they violate WP:EL; or it's saying that these links are questionable, but still allowed in this article, although they meet WP:EL. In either case, it's saying the links are questionable without requesting correction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update reasoning, as requested on my talk page. The template now requests updating, but could still be there more-or-less permanently if a relevant, official site is strongly biased. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as before. This is potentially a very useful template. According to Savidan, "Wikipedia never makes an independent review of external sites to see if they meet our veriability and neutrality policies". The guideline for external links makes clear that "if one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first" in the list of opinion sites, and refers to the NPOV policy for more information. "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article" should also be linked to. The guideline further says, under "Links normally to be avoided": "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.)" Thus Wikipedia, to some extent, makes an independent review of external sites to see if they meet our veriability and neutrality policies. Normally most of the links are added because they provide reasonably neutral and accurate information about the topic. Some links are added for other purposes. Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia. The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. The purpose of this template is to help inform, prevent disinforming, and to avoid useless disputes about external links. Therefore this template should be kept. If there is some problem with its current wording, then that may be resolved on its talk page--Denis Diderot 05:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The examples you give come no where close to making an independent review of externally linked content. WP:EL already provides pretty good inclusion guidelines for which links should be included. Links that are disputed under this guideline should be moved to the talk page and discussed there before being readded. A permanent, unsightly template for links which undisputably meet this guideline seems to go beyond the allowable boldness. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, as before. Completely inappropriate template directly states it is ignoring the external links guidelines. Using templates to attempt to bypass policy will never be acceptable, and regardless of whether some people do want to ignore policy derived via consensus, this template attempts to create a policy with no consensus and should be immediately removed. Templates should never be allowed to bypass or initiate radically new policy. 2005 06:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use of this template creates a false impression among readers that other links on Wikipedia have been endorsed in some way. Presenting the universal condition as if it is something exceptional is deceptive and unhelpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see both sides here, but the objections, IMO, don't warrant deletion. Yes, it could apply to all links, but this template means the links below are more POV and biased than usual, and have been included only because of there extreme usefulness. Arguments of POV pushing with the tag are silly, because there would already be an argument over the POV of the links anyway. At worst, you wouldn't be creating an argument, only moving its subject. As for infantalising readers, well, after only being here a year, and despite my best faith in humanity, frankly, people are idiots. There will be someone who will open the link and claim wikipedia is biased, or that the link got them an F on their school report, or read it as fact. Hell, most people have trouble detecting the bias in FOX news. (Same as last time) --Iorek85 09:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pursue this line of reasoning. If it's true that our readers are idiots and that we should be worried about the incorrect impressions that they would get from otherwise OK content, what about the incorrect impressions that they would get from this template? (1) That Wikipedia normally independently reviews its externally linked content, except when we add a template saying that it hasn't been. (2) That normally externally linked content is subject to our verifiability and neutrality policies—they are linked in bold in a large font!—and that all other externally linked content does meet these policies.

I suggest a two pronged strategy for dealing with idiocy. First, do no harm. Do not create new possibilities for people to get the wrong impression in the hopes of avoiding potential disinformation from other sites. Second, give people some credit. Most people are able to detect a change in authorship when they click on a link in an external links section and suddenly the website has a different layout. There is the issue of whether we should be giving them the opportunity to go their in the first place, but that should be resolved by our current external links policy or proposing formal changes to it. Noting the POV of the website should accomplish the same purpose with fewever externalities (e.g. a "Pro-Life blogs" subheading should speak for itself). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to reiterate my earlier delete vote, as votes are, apparently, being re-counterd in light of discussions here. For what it's worth, I can see User:Savidan's point. I still disagree, but could possibly be persuaded of the usefulness of such a template if it were rather less "inyerface". — OwenBlacker 16:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the template in such a way as you think would make it less so. --Barberio 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't yet have a strong position about this, but, in general, I'd suggest the template to be reworded with a more stronger warning. All of our external links "may not be verifiable or express a point of view as fact". In fact, most in these sections fit this definition well, and ones who don't are usually listed as sources or references. Therefore the template is somewhat misleading. A template stating that these links are likely to contain unreliable information and bias, would be better. I don't have an exact idea for the wording, because it should at same time tell to be careful, but not explicitly state that these links have false/unverifiable information, as it is not always true, and would appreciate input. In this way, the template would at least be useful and not misleading. If it stays as now, I'm for deletion. I agree with Iorek85's point that "this template means the links below are more POV and biased than usual", but, well, it should really indicate that they are more biased. CP/M^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd have to agree with Iorek's point. The Wikipedia:External links policy only seems to indicate that articles with links to different povs should have them separated and titled as such. However, it is easy to note that there are situations like the one that prompted the creation of the template in the first place where a stronger warning to the reader would be helpful. The external links may well be much more biased and POV than "on average" and a simple separation may not be enough to illustrate the severity of the conflict. It may even be the case that the *only* useful links are inherently biased, especially in the case of current events. --Mucus 23:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which isn't relevant to this template. Some articles can have stronger warnings dealing with specifics. A generic template directly counter to policy that could be slapped on anything does not either address or not address the concern stated. 2005 23:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. When we start talking about moderating the language of this template, it becomes clear that if there is ever a need for a notation that goes beyond simply organizing the external links, it is not something that a template is likely to provide, as it would be specific to the nuances of that article. In wikiality, "more pov than average" means "disliked by a user with slightly more of a sense for how to play the game than average." savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refactor to address criticisms of content. Delete if the content issues are insoluable, but content issues should be first dealt with by editing, not by deletion. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Made for the only purpose of engaging in edit warring in the Israel-Lebanon Conflict article. Is currently not in use in ANY articles. Does not conform to WP:EL. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The template is currently not in any articles because of people on the opostie side of this debate removing it. To avoid accusation of 'Edit Waring' over the article, I've not been adding it back to articles. But please don't take this as a reason for deleting the template. (Especialy considering the newness of the template) --Barberio 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With regards to the general case, we don't put "diclaimers" out because for the eleven times a "watch out!" appears it creates the impression that the other billion point one are fine. With regards to the conflict that birthed this, while we must attempt to use good editorial judgement in choosing external links (just as we do with regards to content) creation of templates like this to avoid coming to consensus are pure evil. If reasonable compromise cannot be made through discussion with regards to a links'inclusion, a template is the worst sort of solution. I cannot conceive of a valid reason for existance for this. - brenneman ^{L} 07:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NoonUniverseNovels edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant to another better-designed template (see {{Noon Universe}}). I have already replaced the template with the new one everywhere. Koveras 16:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded --Strannik 19:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks like Koveras has done all of the work already except delete it, so speedy delete....unused and a subpar duplicate of an exisiting template. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per nom. --Barberio 17:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Prototype edit

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; doesn't seem to be particularly helpful. Image could be quite confusing if used in an article on a different car. User:Angr 09:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphan. (SEWilco 20:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Per nom. Unclear what this can do that good old-fashioned text in the article cannot. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ssbohio. Neil916 20:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. brenneman ^{L} 08:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User chess variants edit

This template has basically the same look, so User chess was modified to handle chess variant variables all in one template. Please note, I like user templates and hope that the reduction of them will help keep them in Template space where they belong. - LA @ 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This template has no transclusions. - LA @ 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User chess}} replaces...

User chess variants discussion edit

Delete {{user chess variants}}, as you've made {{user chess}} infinitely modular -- it has room for all variations of chess, present and future, without any hassle. Maybe somebody will find something bad about this, but I'm at a loss to find any cons, honestly. :) Luna Santin 08:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of replacement template. And if these aren't used, that's another reason to delete. —Mi ra 09:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New Templates made. Not need Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the new template. (Agreeing with Luna) - Jc37 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Userbox templates belong in Template space, but this one's usefulness has been superseded by the recoding of {{User chess}}. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. brenneman ^{L} 12:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Card game user templates edit

These templates have basically the same look, so a master template was created that could handle variables to make it say the same thing those below say all in one template. Please note, I like user templates and hope that the reduction of them will help keep them in Template space where they belong. - LA @ 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: These templates have no transclusions. - LA @ 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User card games}} replaces...

Card game discussion edit

Delete in favor of replacement template. And if these aren't used, that's another reason to delete. —Mi ra 09:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete. (SEWilco 21:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete obsolete. New Templates have been made. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of LA's replacement. - Jc37 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless {{User card games}} categorizes the same way as the individual boxes do, then delete. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the master template does categorize by game, if a game is used in the template. - LA @ 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. brenneman ^{L} 08:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idol series user templates edit

These templates have basically the same look, so a master template was created that could handle variables to make it say the same thing those below say all in one template. Please note, I like user templates and hope that the reduction of them will help keep them in Template space where they belong. - LA @ 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: These templates have no transclusions. - LA @ 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User Idol series}} replaces...

Idol series discussion edit

Delete listed templates to consolidate our base. The one you've offered here is not only a consolidation, but is probably superior, as it leaves room for every future Idol series. Very nice. Luna Santin 08:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of replacement template. And if these aren't used, that's another reason to delete. —Mi ra 09:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New Templates created for these Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. brenneman ^{L} 12:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper types user templates edit

These templates have basically the same look, so a master template was created that could handle variables to make it say the same thing those below say all in one template. Please note, I like user templates and hope that the reduction of them will help keep them in Template space where they belong. - LA @ 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: These templates have no transclusions. - LA @ 07:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{User newspapers}} replaces...

Newspaper types discussion edit

Delete in favor of replacement template. And if these aren't used, that's another reason to delete. —Mi ra 09:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have a new template Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. However, there's little anyone can do to alter the deletionist view of userboxes, so don't get your hopes up. Userboxes have been deleted in direct opposition to consensus, or where no consensus existed. The userbox deletionists won't let a little thing like this even slow their progress. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. RedZebra 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WIKIPEDIA5 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 substed, deleted. RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serves no apparent function, is only linked on one userpage. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy since it seems to service a user so they could do with it in their userspace. —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. Specific to one user. (SEWilco 21:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete or userfy Per nom. Doesn't accomplish anything that its underlying text wouldn't accomplish. --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Boogiepop character 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 deleted several days ago... RyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 05:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this tempate and used it for a while, but is now obsolete and unused. Elric of Grans 00:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per author nom. (SEWilco 21:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Use {{db-author}} --Zoz (t) 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Should be within CSD per {{db-author}} --Ssbohio 02:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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