Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 26

< February 25	February 27 >

February 26, 2006 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. -Splash^talk 02:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Campaign of Carabobo (1821) edit

Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 20:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per above. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also this template is being used as some sort of header for the article, weird. Pagra shtak 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 14:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:15, 28 February 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 YAWN. -Splash^talk 02:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_EU edit

Delete Divisive POV userbox. Alibabs 17:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks harmless to me. Might I suggest moving it to a user template space rather than a mainspace template? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 18:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and subst into user namespace, as per other userboxes.--naryathegreat | (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. *Snort* Let's hear a valid reason, other than "T1" (which it isn't) or "not in template space" (which is being worked on elsewhere) to delete it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What is the criteria for being "divisive", and how is this different from anything else? If this goes, all political or religious templates should go. --Maggu 23:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MiraLuka 03:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And being Roman Catolic or Libertarian does? --Maggu 11:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Maggu on this, it part of who I am (someone with this infobox on his user page). 159753 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: I don't like userboxes, and I wouldn't mind seeing them all go. But to single this one out for deletion and leave the rest is merely a political statement that shouldn't be on this page. --Maggu 12:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above commentsMike McGregor (Can) 14:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep And quickly remove if from this list here. Annoying, those senseless proposals. LiangHH 23:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to reduce electioneering (I've been contacted regarding Judaism-related articles due to the Judaism templates/categories I used to use, and I view this as a Bad Thing). Or keep, but auto-subst with that bot, whatsitsname. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but again: How about explaining what makes this particular case special compared to other political userboxes? --Maggu 13:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, more importantly, why the userboxes are the problem and not the categories. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pending policy formulation. Metamagician3000 13:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Arny 08:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' --Ter e nc e Ong 10:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Saforrest 07:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sarge Baldy 07:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cuiviénen's comment +Hexagon1 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this divisive? if someone doesn't like it, then leave it alone. Gryffindor 17:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. what's the problem with this? Kirils 01:36, 6 March 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 per CSD G7; these were a simple mistake and have existed for only a few hours. -Splash^talk 23:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National hockey teams edit

I have removed any links to the duplicates. I am unsure if we should redirect the templates to the existing ones, or simply delete the redundant ones I made. Once again, I apologize for the error; it was an attempt to ease navigation, but someone already beat me to it, lol. Mea culpa. Anthony Hit me up... 15:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedly Delete Creator listed them here. I call for a total deletion and place the new templates into the articles. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I removed the redundant templates from the articles I had placed them in (which was not many, I had caught it quickly), and added the existing templates to places where they were needed. So if the new ones are deleted, there's nothing else to be done. But I agree, they can be speedily deleted; I just didn't want to be the one to make that call. Anthony Hit me up... 17:03, 26 February 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. -Splash^talk 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Shot in Reno edit

Template:User Shot in Reno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is unused and was created to make a WP:POINT [1]. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, maybe speedy (almost nonsense). BJAODN also. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it isn't nonsense and it isn't BJAODN material. It's an allusion to a Johnny Cash song. Angr/talk 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make it not BJAODN material, but, you're right, it isn't nonsense. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as creator appears to have not created the box for actual use. Pagra shtak 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need I explain? --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHarmless, ~~I don't see where the concluston of WP:POINT comes from.~~ ah...Mike McGregor (Can) 15:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 09:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created strictly for a POINT. Sarge Baldy 07:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You guys are hilarious. Why don't you just ask the creator why he created it? It's not nonsense, as has been pointed out above. It was created for use, and, in fact, for a while, was actually in use. It's definitely not WP:POINT. I made it way back in the "good old days" when userboxes were for anything and I put it on the user page of a friend of mine. He deleted it a week or so later. As I explained to Interiot, I'm really not all that tore up about it's getting deleted. I think there's a misunderstanding by the nominator: I noticed that it didn't get picked up by Interiot's tool, but I didn't design it to avoid the tool, I just noticed it wasn't getting scooped. I told him so because I thought it might help him perfect his box finder. It does make me chuckle how much head-scratching has gone on in justifying its deletion though. My favorite is "Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing of the encyclopedia." Yeah, I guess Reno homicides hasn't been written yet. ~~Speedy~~ Hastily delete and flatter author by porting to BJAODN is my humble vote. (Technically not a speedy.) Cheers all, JDoorj a m Talk 05:18, 3 March 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splash^talk 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Otherarticles edit

Template:Otherarticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It makes a box to link to a main category that the article is in. In other words, all it is is a duplicated link. I see no use for this. Was supposedly done to cut down on navboxes, by making its own, which is now wholly redundant. Golbez 08:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chairman S. | Talk 11:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.--naryathegreat | (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alternative which serves the purpose for which many navboxes are created without being a large list of links. Often useful as a middle point in TfD debates. If it has been replaced, by what? Septentrionalis 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing requires a TfD'd template to be replaced. --Golbez 20:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that Golbez means that this template is redundant to the category list. This may be true logically, but not in practice.
  - I have seen TfD arguments settled by compromise on it, when one side wanted a large userbox full of links, and the other side wanted the template gone. The first were willing to settle on {{otherarticles}}, which marks one primary category as more important than the category-cruft, and the second found it, as it is, smaller and less obnoxious than a large ugly box. I will continue proposing such solutions; I would prefer not to have to write the box from scratch every time. Septentrionalis 21:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful and widely used. Zocky | picture popups 09:42, 27 February 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. -Splash^talk 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hoffman-Manning song list edit

Keep - I'm conflicted on this one. While I understand it is policy not to put encyclopedia content in templates, it also seems like this use of templates is the best way to maintain content on multiple pages that meet the following criteria:
- The same content appears on multiple pages
- The size of the content is modest, and does not warrant being placed on a separate page
- It is desireable to maintain and update the content in a single location and have the same content relfected on all including pages

This template meets all of those criteria, so I think it is an appropriate use of a composite page. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 09:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is text that could easily be written into the 2 or three pages it is used in. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that this is probably the place to have an extended discussion on this, but if you put the text on two or three pages, then it invariably gets out of sync between the pages. Using a template keeps a single copy of the text. That just seems like a good use of templates, no? – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 18:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subst and delete. Angr/talk 15:15, 26 February 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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 02:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Further edit

Template:Further (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Some bot has been propagating this useless template, similar to Template:Main article (singular). Admittedly, it has a little bit of style information, that makes it marginally more useful, but it has the same syntax problems. The style information is somewhat odd, causing more space above and below than the fine Template:See. Folks could easily substitute {{See}} for the word "See". "Further" just isn't expected, and folks are starting to hand code their references again. This is counter-intuitive and counter-productive. I spent many hours just a couple of months ago consolidating see2, see3, see4, etc. Endless redoing and thrashing of templates is useless work. Stop! --William Allen Simpson 03:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Then leave it alone, and let the decision be made by the evolution of Wikipedia and the choices of individual users. If you want to delete the bot, I agree. Septentrionalis 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It should be kept, it allows a standard template to be used throughout Wikipedia --User talk:Fast track 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a standard template {{See}} that does the same thing. --William Allen Simpson 04:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I think that you will find that template {{See}} has been deprecated and actually refers back to template {{Further}}. Now it appears we should not use either? Problems like this one are the reason why "folks are starting to hand code their references again". Scharks 07:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep who cares what bots are doing? Its a useful template, bizzare to want to delete it, paticularly if the 'see' alternative is not possible Robdurbar 11:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I can't see why deleting the template that a depreciated template is suggesting you use instead is going to even help the template cause, as Scharks stated, it will only make people go back to typing these types of things by hand. As for the bot concern: that is a matter that does not necessitate deletion of this template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Weird that it is nominated. Forever young 23:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The excessively ugly and unprofessional See was recently deprecated in favour of Further. Omniplex 05:12, 27 February 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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 02:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main articles edit

Template:Main articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Some bot has been propagating this useless template, similar to Template:Main article (singular). Admittedly, it has a little bit of style information, that makes it marginally more useful, but it has the same syntax problems. When it was propagated into Israel, it broke the page, and was quickly reverted. What a mess! --William Allen Simpson 03:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This template is the end result of a solution to a technical/performance problem with the old plural version of main. It's ugly syntax, but it's the best technical solution currently available. Main templates are optional, I personally do not use them, and encourage others not to use them either. But some people like them, so we need to have an option, if you delete this, someone will just create a new one that has the old technical problems. -- Stbalbach 03:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there was no technical problem with the existing templates, according to the developers. --William Allen Simpson 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the link William, and it doesn't mention the main plural problems. See the talk page at {main} for a background. -- Stbalbach 03:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read the talk at Template:Main (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and there were no plural problems. The old template (pre-January 8) worked just fine! All the main2, main3, main4, and main5 had been redirected to main. Everything worked. --William Allen Simpson 04:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Odd, are we reading the same page? Template talk:Main. See sections "Proposed reversion", "Two separate templates", "Strange output". Questions/concerns about those discussions should be brought up on that page not here. -- Stbalbach 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stbalbach. My preferences are different than his, but the point remains. Delete all bots that try to impose useless uniformity.Septentrionalis 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot was just a conversion bot to the new syntax, not actually adding new instances of the template. -- Stbalbach 03:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks fine to me. --Manboobies 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree it should be kept, it allows a standard template to be used throughout Wikipedia --User talk:Fast track 03:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have a standard template {{Main}} that does the same thing. --William Allen Simpson 04:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, main does not support multiple variables. See the talk page at main for lengthy discussions. --Stbalbach 04:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I preferred the older version but at the discussion page it was explained the older version created problems with text readers. "Main" allows only a single article reference . Paul foord 04:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above --Angelo 05:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above --naryathegreat | (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful if multiple main articles apply. As for the bot concern: that is a matter that does not necessitate deletion of this template. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above. Forever young 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful template. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:05, 28 February 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 REDIRECT to Template:Main. This will need to be manually updated in each usage before that can be done without breakage in the form of too many square brackets. -Splash^talk 02:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main article edit

Template:Main article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Some bot has been propagating this useless template. There has been no consensus anywhere that I can find. Folks have complained at the Pump, and on various talk pages. It doesn't do as good a job as Template:Main used to do (and Main has been damaged recently, too). Heck, it takes more characters to use than just typing its contents by hand! Its syntax requires embedded [[]], unlike other templates, which is confusing. Stop! --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't understand the purpose of this template either, it is a duplicate of {main}. I'll change my vote if a rational is given. -- Stbalbach 03:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect presumably a back-formation from {{Main articles}}. Someone must find it easier to remember. Septentrionalis 03:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' per above. Calwatch 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as per above. rob 05:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as Septentrionalis Robdurbar 11:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{main}}, ~~since it's not like that will break this template!~~ --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, not really as I just claimed. Uses will have to be fixed to tale out the brackets from usage beforehand, unfortunately. Still, this can be a useful redirect. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Useless as it is mostly used now, but could be useful when the main article text needs to include a piped link, formatting or non-linked text, as in .
Zocky | picture popups 09:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate of {{main}}, useless. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please note that you cannot simply redirect it... the syntax does not support it. This uses the same method as Template:Main articles and requires that the wikilink brackets be put in the template call on the article's page. Template:Main includes the brackets within the template. The method this template uses is more flexible, since you can easily make a piped link (changing the displayed text) or add a note. It's a transition template since we can't change every article to the new syntax simulataneously. -- Netoholic @ 15:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, your the only one who seems to know this, it's not documented anywhere. There's also been no discussion that main should be deprecated/converted in favor of this new system. -- Stbalbach 16:15, 28 February 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. -Splash^talk 02:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D&D character without image edit

Template:D&D character without image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant and not used, due to the existance of the template:D&D character, which serves the same purpose, including articles that dont have a suitable image. Recommend it is deleted. Lewis 02:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 04:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pagra shtak 15:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Lewis. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:15, 26 February 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. -Splash^talk 02:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indian featured article edit

Template:Indian featured article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template adds a star to articles 'featured' on Portal:India, in the same way that {{featured article}} does. However, these articles have not necessarily passed through FAC, and I don't think any other articles except genuine featured articles, which have been scrutinised by the community in a long-established procedure, should be marked with a star. Worldtraveller 00:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the star for actual featured articles is bad enough. WP:ASR. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the star for actual featured articles is good enough and templates like this confuse and dilute the featured article star. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest that the India Portal use the term "selected" instead of the misleading "featured". Pagra shtak 02:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone took my advice too literally and has forked this template as Template:Indian selected article. Pagra shtak 03:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Misleading. Metamagician3000 06:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, undermines the FA process. Likewise, delete {{Indian featured}}. dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by all means have a list on the India portal identifying India articles that are believed to be good. Why not try and get all of these articles to featured standard for the rest of the encyclopedia rather than add another level of bureaucracy. RicDod 14:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the general atmosphere of the template appears to be one of a NPOV-dodging attempt --Francis Schonken 14:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The template does show that the page is an Indian featured page, which is beneficial, but all pages should be the same with the same star. --Jared ^[T]/_[+] 15:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. On a more general note: shouldn't portals use only articles that have passed FA as "featured"? Zocky | picture popups 09:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per common sense. (Zocky is correct, btw.) Y'all might also want to see this MFD debate too. Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 27 February 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.