Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24 edit

Template:Serbian speaking states 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost as silly as the template below with the Romanian speaking states and created following its example. bogdan 17:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well. Dahn 17:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Khoi khoi 17:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, although, I was the one who created it to make Vojvodina article more NPOV, since template Romanian speaking states is posted there. As soon as Romanian speaking states template is deleted, delete this one too. PANONIAN (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete horrible, no comment --Göran Smith 17:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say here too that I changed name of the template into "Serbian as official or main language" and I think that it is now completelly NPOV. So, perhaps we should not delete it now, but anyway, I want to say that solution should be made for both templates in the same time: either both (Serbian and Romanian) templates should be deleted either both kept. Since I changed them now (including their titles), we do not have reason to delete them now. Of course, I am rather neutral about this, so I change my voice accordingly to that. PANONIAN (talk) 16:18, 27 September 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:Romanian speaking states 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template is controversial at best: it lists a country who does not recognize Romanian as an official language, together with an international organization were Romanian is, at best, a working language (and where speaking Romanian is certainly not the criteria for inclusion), and a region inside Serbia were Romanian is one of the many working languages. Template also gently glosses over the fact that a Moldovan language has been theoretized by the Moldovan government to exist as opposed to Romanian (as specified in the article on Moldova, where the arguably NPOV text is in blantant contradiction with the advocacy of the template discussed here). Let me make it clear that I personally do not endorse the view that Moldovan and Romanian are different, and that my reasons (since these have already been subject to speculation on my talk page) have to do only with consistency and neutrality. Dahn 01:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania has Romanian as it's only official and national language. Then, Moldova lists Moldovan language as it's official language, although it is widely considered to be Romanian language. Education is provided in Romanian (there is no such thing as Moldovan language in schools); Mass Media, Internet all use the term Romanian; also the law on languages of Moldova asserts the identity between Romanian and Moldovan.[1] Even the most critical source says Moldovan is just the name used to describe "officialy" Romanian language in Moldova. According to the census in 2004, even if Romanian is taken separately from Moldovan, still 22% of the Romance-speakers in Moldova consider they speak Romanian (not Moldovan), that percent rising up to 40% in the cities.[2] (See also Romanian language#Legal status in Moldova, Moldovan language). In Vojvodina Romanian is one of the six official languages, equal in rights with the Serbocroatian language according to the law. The Latin Union is the organisation of the romance languages: both Moldova and Romania are member states of the organisation and Romanian (only Romanian, not Moldovan) is one of the 5 offcial languages of the organisation. Any yes, speaking Romanian (or another Romance language) is a criteria for inclusion, see Latin Union. --Danutz 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Education is provided in Romanian" - so is education in Hungarian in parts of Romania.

"(there is no such thing as Moldovan language in schools), Mass Media, Internet"; also the law on languages of Moldova asserts the identity between Romanian and Moldovan. Even the most critical source says Moldovan is just the name used to describe "officialy" Romanian language in Moldova." - so? is there a document that stresses Romanian is the official language? No. Again, I draw the same conclusions, but they are personal ones, empirical ones, not subject from a template. As I have attested before: an ambiguity in Moldovan law remains precisely that - "an ambiguity", not cause for "my certainty" and "your certainty".

"In Vojvodina Romanian is one of the six official languages, equal in rights with the Serbocroatian language according to the law." - note the switching of criteria - Vojvodina has Romanian as an official language, therefore it is a Romanian-speaking territory; Moldova does not have Romanian as an official language, but it must be a Romanian-speaking country...

"Any yes, speaking Romanian (or another Romance language) is a criteria for inclusion, see Latin Union" - well, since Portugal was not admitted for having Romanian as an official language (as Danutz himself points out in the in-parantheses part of his reply), inclusion of the Latin Union in the template is misleading and point-gathering in its purpose; furthermore, the Latin Union may have Romanian as an official language, but it is not a working language (as you may find out from the French version of the article) - since the EU will have Romanian as both a working and offical language in the near future, I guess it will be included in the template as well! (I am guessing that, according to the criteria devised, several European-wide bodies already belong in there).

Bottom line: templates shouldn't ever rely on subjectivity, especially when they are contradicting the text of the articles they are included in. Dahn 12:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the navigational use of a template that will probably always have 4 (four) articles included in it, of which one is obvious (Romania), one is determined by the solid rules of divination (Moldova), one is taken out of context (Vojvodina, where the template would call for the rapid creation of some 6 others just to match the actual language landscape), and one is a mislabelled (the Latin Union). I also fail to understand the necessity behind a template that lists "states, territories and organizations" (note: it is not even made clear what sort of organization, allowing me to include football clubs, trade unions, and perhaps a topless bar as well), when in fact in includes the impressive list of "1 (one) organization; 1 (one) territory; 2 (two) states". All of the issues the template could possibly address are already present and referenced in countless articles, without any such oversimplification. Dahn 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, education in Moldova is provided in Romanian not Moldovan. There is no such thing as Moldovan in education. Romanian is official in Romania, Moldova (although under another name, but it is a consensus it is just Romanian renamed, that even an official consensus, see law on languages), Vojvodina and the Latin Union (what if Romanian isn't a working language, it is an official language). Yes, EU will also be included from 2007. --Danutz 12:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the laws of Moldova does it say that Romanian is the or at least an official language in Moldova? Without divination, please. Dahn 12:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::Romanian language was official in the constitution between 1989-1994. Now, even if it is not mentioned in the constitution that is "official" it is written: "the low that regulates the official language of R. of Moldova is the one approved in 1989." So, it's still official also with this constitution. Blaga. Sockpuppet of permabanned user:Bonaparte. Dahn 13:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I changed the template so it reflects this:)) lol. It says "Nations, territories and organisations with Romanian (or Moldovan) as an official language". That way everything is official, see the Template:Romanian speaking states. --Danutz 13:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>Perfect. Now go and add Transnistria, and ponder the absurd implications of "Romanian (or Moldovan)" in that context.</sarcasm> Dahn 13:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What's next, {{French speaking states}}, {{German speaking states}}, or {{Swahili speaking states}}? The list would go on forever. —Khoi khoi 02:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the reasons presented up here. And why not have templates like French speaking states, German speaking states, Spanish speaking states and so on? --Danutz 11:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

because all such templates are useless and, in almost every case, subjective. Dahn 12:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since Vojvodina have 6 official languages and since ALL OF THEM ARE EQUAL, this template send a message that Romanian is more equal than other and that is POV pushing. If this template is included into Vojvodina article then I would be forced to make same templates for other 5 official languages (Serbian speaking states, Hungarian speaking states, Slovak speaking states, Rusyn speaking states, Croatian speaking states). However, one can imagine how large revert wars such templates will start, so I am not sure that I want to do it, but there are only two solutions for the problem: either to remove this template either to create other five (and the second option is bad for Wikipedia because it will encourage POV pushing and start revert wars). PANONIAN (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template does not only generate neverending NPOV discussions, but it's also totally useless. It is intended for inclusion in Romanian language (and probably nowhere else), but in that article all the information the template is supposed to provide is already described in detail, without pushing any POV and without making a fruit salad of states, regions, and organizations. — AdiJapan ☎ 14:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sarcasms notwithstanding, Dahn is right in this case. Dmaftei 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, templates are supposed to be useful for navigation. What's the point in having a template with two countries? bogdan 15:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have also {{Iranian-speaking nations}}, {{Baltic-speaking nations}}, {{Turkic-speaking nations}}, {{Finno-Ugric-speaking nations}}, {{Slavic-speaking nations}} and {{tl|Finno-Ugric states}}. If we delete {{Romanian speaking states}} then one must be consistent and delete these six as well. --Bob 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but then template Serbian speaking states should not be deleted as well. Either both should be kept either both deleted. PANONIAN (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob, those templates that you mentioned are about language groups, not single languages, like Romanian and Serbian. —Khoi khoi 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should reconsider to keep both templates. I changed now their titles into "Romanian (or Moldovan) as official language" and "Serbian as official or main language", which are NPOV by my opinion. PANONIAN (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is OK to put countries which speak some group of languages, but not one. Why don`t you create template "Latin speaking countries"? --Göran Smith 17:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the template would be very large. Very many neolatin languages are official regionaly and of course the big 5 (Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian and Romanian; sometimes 6 if we also include Catalan) are official in some 70 countries (or even more), so the template will become too large, that is why it should be split by language. It is not like Slavic languages, Turkish languages or Iranian languages that are spoken in limitated areas. --Danutz 17:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it is equally absurd to make templates listing one country... Dahn 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But we are talking about 4 items not one. You realy have some problems if you don't see that. --Danutz 18:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is yours, Danutz. You will note, for one, that you were asked to change the template to one listing countries and only countries, so that users may do without your POV and actually get some relevant information instead. That would leave you with two entries (as many as in the idiotic template listing Baltic languages). Of those countries, only one officially recognizes Romanian as its language; adding "and Moldovan" to it, Danutz, only exposed the unteneble and POV goal of the template, as it focused on joining information in a way that is, for all that is worth, debated (no matter if Dahn or Danutz do not find it debatable). Don't get me wrong, but not seeing the utter futility of such templates is a major problem, and should benefit from the attention of educators from an early age. Dahn 18:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the worst case it would lead to 3 entries, if we just take places (geographic places not institutional) where Romanian is official. --Danutz 19:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania and Vojvodina, if I remember my maths, are two places. Furthermore, Vojvodina's inclusion is whimsical and of no particular value. Dahn 20:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary. Romanian is not a widely-spoken language and this information is covered in the country's infobox if needed. Besides that, It's just generating talk wars. Chrisbrl88 07:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This template is factual and useful, and aside from the Moldovan language controversy, it is perfectly OK to have such templates, particularly considering that we also have them for Baltic-speaking and Slavic-speaking nations. Just because Romanian is less important than the entire Slavic group does not really mean the template should be deleted (note that Baltic languages are spoken by far less people than Romanian alone, and yet Baltic languages also have a template, with just two countries). I think the template is useful for people who want to find out quickly where Romanian is official, this in itself having no nationalistic or POV motive. In the same way, there should be a template for countries where French is an official language. As to the Vojvodina case - just because the other five official languages of Vojvodina do not have the same templates does not mean the Romanian should be excluded. Systemic bias is a part of Wikipedia, and it should not be countered by deletion (i.e. negative action) but rather by extending areas which are previous uncovered (i.e. positive action). I would like to note that it is perfectly justifiable to include the Latin Union, as well as the European Union from 2007, as areas where Romanian is official. Romanian has the status of "official language" in the Latin Union, even if there are other official languages. This is similar to South Africa and India, which also have multiple official languages. In the infobox at Romanian language, the Latin Union is also listed under the "official in" section. For this reason, I'm advocating a keep, but of course more discussion needs to be made in order to find out how we can make the template more NPOV. Ronline ✉ 12:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If a person searching for places where Romanian is official is going to, presumably, systhematically avoid the article on Romanian language (where everything is and should be properly clarifed), then that person cannot really be helped (and the necessity for helping him/her is equivalent to removing script from wikipedia, as many users may actually be illiterate). If this template fashion remains what it is, then we would one day be justifying a template that lists "countries where Malagasy is official" or "countries where Moldovan is official". Furthermore, Ronline: you cite the infobox for the country as a quickly-accessible and readily-available resource in itself; having said that, don't you think that various infoboxes, always present on the search path for any possible quest on Romania and Romanian (there are infoboxes for both et plus ultra), do away with the need for any such templates? Dahn 14:09, 2 October 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:Favicon 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 replace with {{logo}}, then delete. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlike logos, favicons do not tend to uniquely identify entities, and they generally aren't well-known. There's nothing inherently fair-use about them. --Carnildo 05:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The purpose of favicons (or icons) is to be unique and identifiable. Whether an image is unique and identifiable really comes down to the skill of the artist, and is beyond the scope of TfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I strongly disagree with Carnildo on this; most favicons that would be used on Wikipedia are unique to the entities they represent, and are being used in a fashion no different on website infoboxes than in the way full-sized logos are used in other infoboxes. --Aaron 20:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but for a different reason. We can just use the logo licensing template for this instead. There's only about six images who use this template, and they can all be explained as logos. We shouldn't be making templates like this for nitpicky stuff like "logo vs favicon". -- Ned Scott 05:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Ned Scott. That's a really good point. This is like creating a template for "oversized book cover". It's also nice to know what these darn things are called. I always wondered that. Irongargoyle 22:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Template:logo. Its redundant. If it can qualify as unique and identifiable, its a logo. If you can't justify it as an identifiable logo, its probably not fair use. Kevin_b_er 15:39, 27 September 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:Newenglandsports 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. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good intentions, but there are plenty of other means to do this. A template to include in every sports team located in New England? Obsessive. And then there's the aesthetic problems... ccwaters 16:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That is just obnoxiously big. Resolute 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yea, its got odd pictures of various sports, a flag that looks as if it was made on MS paint and a weird Major/Minor league thing at the bottom that makes the template hard to understand. Besides its not really needed. T REX_speak 20:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks awful! --Aviper2k7 22:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep but redo. I was unaware of all the teams New England has--pahsons 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Now where, exactly, would we use this? Besides the fact that it looks gawd awful. Grand master ka 21:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all above. Way too overinclusive. Irongargoyle 22:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepWe just have to redo it. Plus, I like the fact it mentions our local minor-league team. --Saint-Paddy 02:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Fix it if it looks bad. I'm a New Englander, and i'm glad to have this reference for the sports teams of our region. P eople Powered 14:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its intended purpose is fulfilled by categories like Category:Sports_in_Massachusetts. The individual subjects are entirely unrelated to each other besides operating within a couple hundred miles from each other. There is no valid reason to mention the Boston Bruins in an article about the Bridgeport Bluefish, or the Vermont Frost Heaves in an article about the Boston Cannons. ccwaters 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Superfluous and painful to watch. Dahn 19:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Hi, i'm the creator of this template and I put in alot of effort into it. I'm a new user, if you'd like to help make it look better, go for it, but this template is useful for sports fans in this area and is more noticeable than a category tag at the bottom of the screen. Centurion 5 00:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. Being more noticeable isn't really an issue when categories are reasonably and easily found. Just because you can put flashing lights on something to make someone find it faster doesn't make that a better solution. -- Ned Scott 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good intention and a nice effort put forth, but there really are other means to accomplish this. Sorry, Centurion. Chrisbrl88 07:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this. It's useful for sports teams with a regional connection. I disagree with Ned Scott, if this is useful, it's a good solution for unifying New England sports teams. Yankee Rajput 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Keep the template, but redo it so it looks more presentable. I think it is a good reference for New England sports. David Reject 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've attempted to reformat the template. It now looks much more presentable. Erath 19:04, 2 October 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:Att userpage 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 00:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this template is redundant; there are several other templates in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace that do a better job, particularly the {{tpv}} series of templates ({{tpv0}}, {{tpv1}}, etc). Also, the wording doesn't conform to the standard user talk namespace template conventions; it's harsh enough to be a level 3 or 4 warning. Lastly, it's unused, but to be fair it was just created today. Aaron 16:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — purpose served by other standard templates as per nomination. — ERcheck (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep - yes I know I created it, but i really think it could be useful, if it gets into wider usage --Frogsprog 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we already have templates for this kind of thing. If someone wants to make their own, more "custom" message, then put it on your userspace. -- Ned Scott 22:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Good purpose, but as other templates seem to be the norm now and the most commonly used for many incidents, not just userpage defamation. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 05:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally think having more warning templates available is better than having fewer. Give it some time, and if it becomes a problem, then delete it. Irongargoyle 22:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This template seems like overkill. AuburnPilot 05:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Irongargoyle that 'having more warning templates available is better than having fewer', but the purposes of warning templates are to save time giving warnings and to use standard wording determined by the usual process of editing. This may save a bit of time, but the wording is too far out from standard and the template is too specific ({{defwarn}} is an appropriate level 4-immediate for the circumstance that gives a lot more information, {{npa2-n}} and similar if it's just a personal attack, and {{tpv1}} and similar if it's the userspace changing that's important to flag up). --ais523 10:34, 27 September 2006 (U T C)
Delete per ais523. (I just reverted some vandalism from the template, then cleaned up some other problems. Nevertheless, I don't think it should be kept.) CWC(talk) 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as summarized above. Raymond Arritt 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed. Creater was just indef blocked by me anyway due to persistant vandalism.[3]--MONGO 20:35, 28 September 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:Common vandal 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. —Centrx→talk • 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text ("Some editors really do not like this article. And we mean, really!") inconsistent with title. No useful purpose, borders on disruptive. — ERcheck (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — ERcheck (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep, I think it's effective, I didn't create the actual tag myself, I just put it on a template page. Don't delete, I think it could work on articles that are frequently vandalised --Frogsprog 19:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its original use (by the user just above, as he admits), and obvious purpose now, is to defy Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wahkeenah 19:35, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The tag seems to say that vandalism is expected and justified since there are many people who don't like the article. This is already easily said by the controversy tag for politicians. Gdo01 20:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivializes Wikipedia and violates several Wikipedia policies; implicitly condones vandalism. Raymond Arritt 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although it is funny. Peter O. (Talk) 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Peter O, it is funny but it is hard to see how it could ever be encyclopedic. --Guinnog 04:50, 25 September 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:Infobox Frankenthal (Pfalz) 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused single use template. Docu 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one-use infobox was replaced in the Frankenthal article with a general infobox in December 2005. Bejnar 03:14, 27 September 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:Infobox Worms 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, single use template. Docu 19:28, 24 September 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:Infobox Speyer 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, single use template. Docu 19:28, 24 September 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:Infobox Town Rhineland-Palatinate 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Docu 19:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom plus redundancy with other templates. --Bob 15:05, 26 September 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:Kerala references 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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template (copy of infobox Country?). Docu 20:10, 24 September 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.