Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 29

< April 28	April 30 >

April 29 edit

Template:SBS tag 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. Picaroon (Talk) 23:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insignificant text to warrant a template (it would be easy to manually add to articles), unused, delete. Iamunknown 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused; per nomination. Jmlk17 01:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. --Phoenix (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~I'm anonymous
Delete per nom. CattleGirl ^{talk | sign!} 08:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note, it used to have a fair use image in the template, which Iamunknown properly removed. Gavia immer (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. It's pretty useless without the fair use image. It might be helpful with a free image. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:43, 7 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:Appears in:DB 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. In addition to not being of any practical use, these templates include fair use images which are being actively misused. I encourage all those who recommended keeping them to review Wikipedia:Fair use to understand why the images are inappropriate. Picaroon (Talk) 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These various templates are included in the various articles of Dragon Ball Z characters. While they're a good idea in theory, to a non-fan of the show, merely seeing an image of something does not describe what shows/movie they appeared in. When clicking on them, they do not link to the article, rather they link to the actual image itself, which does not adequately explain what it's about. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What? there is nothing wrong with this. the templates tell which kind of Dragon Ball media the said charecter appears in. there is no reason to delete this. DBZROCKS 22:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of them are in use in multiple pages. -凶 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing wrong with the templates. All someone needs to do is go to the top of the many articles where it shows and/or explains what the templates are and what it means nexts to the character that appears on the articles. Heat P 22:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I personally feel that these pictures help make it easier for inexperienced readers to know which series that character appeared in. -Adv193 23:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No need to get rid of a useful template. It's used, and could easily extend elsewhere. Jmlk17 01:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You don't need a whole template for something like this. If you want to list which Dragon Ball shows a character is in, then list them in the infobox with a normal link. It's nothing major or anything, just a needless use of templates. You can do this exact same thing without a template, just as tons of other articles do. -- Ned Scott 01:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And to the keepers, don't take offense or anything to this. If anything, this is a minor housekeeping task. KISS for the infobox links. There is no need to get defensive. We just don't use a whole template for a single icon, we just bypass the template and use the icon directly. It's a minor technical issue, and the images don't have to actually go away. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was impressed by this intuitive way to label characters, especially for the ones who are only described in sections of lists witout infoboxes; see List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball for an example. The top of such lists mentions the icons, and can be expanded with a legend for what each mean. The images can be made to link to the series they represent. The links in infoboxes can put the series name to the right of the image like {{flag}}. So a small option for headings, and a text option for infoboxes. I think this system is redeemable and can be ~~kept~~ pending improvements. –Pomte 02:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - So just use the image directly instead of the template. The only thing in the template is the image, so there's really no need. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not to mention that even in that example article, listing (in text with a link) which series the character appears in would be better than the icon. It's also being done in the subheader currently, which should be changed. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I think a better place than the subheader is to the right, either under the thumbnail or within the caption. Listing the series with full text links vertically would create whitespace between character sections, and listing horizontally is harder to read. Easier to read if text is added so the image can be used foremost for identification. If these templates have to be subst'd in the end, then sure, but it'd be less intuitive and harder to maintain for something so widely used. –Pomte 13:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Or inline with the text, such as "X is a character in.." As far as maintenance goes, well that's no different than any other image out there, and you'd only run into a problem if you were changing file formats for the image, else you'd just update the one image. I don't really feel strongly about this, though, so whatever's cool with me. -- Ned Scott 13:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pomte & Ned Scott - Though each picture helps differentiate whether the character appeared in Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT or the Dragon Ball movies or all of them, a template markup (like the flag one) would serve better and I believe wouldn't ruin the /* (section name) */ link when you try to go to it. Understandable? ~I'm anonymous
Keep They are useful imho Helios 12:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, definitively delete:
As fair use images in the template namespace. These other ones are not that useful, in my humble opinion; remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a multimedia extravaganza. While infoboxes and the like aren't that bad of an idea, this is inline and a bit too unencyclopedic (and remember WP:SELF: on some mirrors, people will either not have the images at all, or have no idea what the hell those little icons are). I also agree that they're sort ofcrufty; I have no idea what they mean, and finding out what they mean would probably take longer than extracting information from the text. This all adds up to delete all for me. Gracenotes^T § 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, as they use fair use images in the template namespace and such a template without images is useless. Many had been mistagged as "public domain" images (based on the misguided assumption that if one creates his own imitation of a logo, it qualifies as public domain) but I have properly tagged them and CSD'd the ones currently at Commons. Anyway, as I said, they have fair use images (big no-no) and an equivalent template that doesn't employ fair use images is completely useless. Axem Titanium 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if I would call them all fair use images, but the DBZ one definitely is. The others are very simplistic, and while they are being used to mimic the real thing, it's just a circle with a star in the middle. -- Ned Scott 03:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All These templates are highly needed. One can just look at it and see basics about the characters (and other). There is nothing wrong with the templates. SSJ 5 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above comments--$UIT 03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is an important template. It gives the reader the information of which part of Dragon Ball the charecter in question appears in. Also how can you link movie charecters to the article if they appear in multiple movies? Of course we could link the GT DB and DBZ templates to their respective articles. The information provided by the templates is important. It is not cruft or Fanon or speculation. The template is just a neat why of showing which of the 3 dragon Balls the charecter appears in and if they appear in a Dragon Ball movie. the templates themselves don't take up much room and are very good at getting their information across. Deleting this template is just like deleting good information out of the articles. DBZROCKS 12:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How are we deleting good information out of articles? The information is already there, in the text. Gracenotes^T § 13:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe one article with a colored table ({{yes}} and {{no}}) could replace this conceptually? Gracenotes^T § 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - But why replace? Why scroll down a list to find out if someone is in Dragon Ball or Dragon Ball Z when currentally it is right there? The template is only doing good and helping wikipedia. DBZROCKS 21:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... looking over it, the article text almost completely lacks an out-of-universe perspective. Gracenotes^T § 03:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? DBZROCKS 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball for an example. It's affected by in-universe-ness a bit. Gracenotes^T § 05:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether a character is in a certain series or whatever should be stated in the text. We do not need a ugly, convoluted system for this, especially when text is a much simpler and more reader-friendly alternative. ' 23:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment convoluted? its a simple picture people. Its there because it is quick reference. Someone shouldn't have to dig into the article to find such simple information. Just like the Manga names and the Romanji. Its not worth merging it into the article because it is much eaiser and much more convienient to just put it on the nifty little table we have. I am almost sure that people reading the articles would apriciate it just being there. I mean which sounds better:

Son Goku appears in Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. or

A template that says the same thing with 1/3 of the space fits onto the table and has a nifty graphic to boost. The table on the articles is there to give facts that are in the article but give a reader quick info that would be a pain to dredge up by going through the article. Why was this put up for deletion? in response to Demon's comment, linking the image to the Dragon Ball Z GT article would be a waste. The articles don't explain what role every charecter had in the series that is what the article for the charecter the template is on is for. how is a one to four little images on a table a ugly and convoulted system, in fact how is it easier to look up something in the text than to glance at a table that tells you the same thing but is faster and easier to find, its right at the top of the page with a sign that says apears in: how is that harder to see than looking in a long article of text? hope I didn't offend anyone with this I like to think of all non vandalising/non Sockpuppetting/non other kind of evil Wikipedians as my friends :) DBZROCKS 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty graphic, yes, but may be fair use. If the images are meant to be recognizable as logos (quote: "quick identification" below), then fair use can't happen. If they're not meant to recognized as logos, then the system is original research. Gracenotes^T § 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All If you're going to foolishly delete these, you might as well delete all the country flag icons as well. They serve the same purpose for quick identification. Evan1975 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But they aren't fair use images, are they? The images in our DB templates are.--$UIT 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some canvassing occurred here. While perhaps in good faith, this does muddy the waters a bit. Gracenotes^T § 05:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah, this is complicated. There are 9 keeps, 5 of which comes from members of the wikiproject. There are 5 deletes. There has been no response to the issue of fair use. Relisting might be good for this, but I'm not going to do it, since I was quite involved in the debate. Gracenotes^T § 02:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All These are good for quick reference if you're like myself using DBZ as a research project. I can quickly find out all the info on the said item, without trawling through the text! As well as that it looks upgly to write it out in full and takes up more space. Quick identifiable icons work wonders and are better for people whom struggle with large volumes of text. I know that I struggle with large volumes of text because of bad eye sight and the icons are a godsent!UltimateDingbat 11:42, 06 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

what about... fair use... Gracenotes faints from exhaustion 16:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You should stop editing in Super Saiyan mode to replenish any lost energy. I have retracted my keep position. At first I had only checked the simple circle image with the star, which has since been tagged as a copyright violation. I don't know the specifics with images like this and Image:Azumanga.svg, but it's best to be on the safe side. A solution is to replace these logos with generic images of plain, colored text ("DB", "DBZ", "DBGT", and "DB" with a free movie icon), like in userboxes. –Pomte 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I would be happy with linked text instead of images. If the articles are edited to comply with WP:WAF, then I don't think a template is needed anymore (a mini-infobox might even work). Of color I am dubious, but this seems like a good compromise if implemented correctly... sigh, energy. << Super Saiyan debate mode off >>. Gracenotes^T § 16:42, 7 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:Sxc-warning 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed anymore. Images tagged with this template have been deleted or retagged after listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. This nomination also includes Category:Unfree SXC licensed images. — Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep I was browsing through the templates when I was new and the template text educated me about images from this host. Nardman1 19:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, should an unused template &category be kept to educate users about (often) not free enough images of a certain website? Garion96 (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can find better ways to educate people. For example, if we adopt common's multiple upload pages we can put SXC as a dropdown option for images from other sites.. and have it bring up a regular deletion notice. ;) Perhaps we should start directing people to the commons bad sources page at Commons:Commons:Bad_sources? --Gmaxwell 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon re-reading my comment, to be clear, my question was meant rhetorically. :) The template should not be kept for educating editors. An en.wikipedia version of the Commons bad sources might be practical yes. Garion96 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete because it's unused. This tag is very specific, it cann't be used for education of newbies in the field of license policy. Alex Spade 22:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused, we don't keep templates posing as image copyright tags around to educate people. --Iamunknown 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC) Though I think that we should consider some method of deterring uploads from sxc.hu. --Iamunknown 02:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Jmlk17 01:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - cohesion 02:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. "Education" isn't a good enough reason to keep it. --Phoenix (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, make sure to delete Template:Sxc-warning/doc and Category:Unfree SXC licensed images. --Iamunknown 04:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy - per nom. ~I'm anonymous
Speedy .. but does someone want to consider adding a link to the Wikimedia Commons list of bad sources to the upload page? --Gmaxwell 15:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Template:Sxc-warning/doc per nomination. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:30, 7 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:3-digit ZIP Codes 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 {{3-digit ZIP Codes}}, {{ZIP Code Lists}} and {{2-digit prefixes for 5-digit ZIP codes}}. Default to keep for {{Three-digit ZIP Code table}} as it is an integral element of ZIP Code prefixes, which was not nominated for deletion. Should be considered together if deletion is thought warranted. WjBscribe 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cross-namespace nomination. Discuss it here, please. Snowolf ^(talk) _CON ^COI - 14:06, 29 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:/doc 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, move notice into place, and protect, which I have already done. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem like an odd request, but when users mistakenly substitute template:stub or template:GFDL, and lord knows how many other templates, they end up transcluding Template:/doc. Someone spammed it recently and got transcluded on a half dozen articles and image pages. I blanked it temporarily to prevent the spam from showing up, but it'd be nice to have that template deleted and/or locked with nothing outside of a noinclude. Not sure which of those two is the better alternative MrZaius^talk 10:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace the current contents with a warning for template developers that they need to fix their doc transclusion. That way the templates will tend to get fixed. It should definitely be protected no matter what else is done with it - that's a big freaking spamhole we have there. Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
make a permanently protected deleted page. Nardman1 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make an informative permanently protected deleted page saying something like, "If you are looking at this page, you may not be aware of the Wikipedia:Template doc page pattern." --Iamunknown 23:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect No need for this crap to happen again now is there? Jmlk17 01:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect - question: "protect" means to prevent others from re-creating it, correct? ~I'm anonymous
- Yep. --Iamunknown 04:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this template existed with any content, it would kind of defeat the point of the /doc subpage. So either keep blank and protected or delete and add to Wikipedia:Protected titles Gracenotes^T § 13:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Mike Dillon 01:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Protect and replace with <noinclude>'d helpful info for users who search Template:/doc thinking it will reveal what {{/doc}} contains when they encounter it. –Pomte 03:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I created a proposed template at Template:/doc/Proposed that the closing administrator may wish to consider history merging with Template:/doc or, if not, to delete it. --Iamunknown 00:06, 8 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:National Anthems of ... 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 keep. Garion96 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged into a single Template:National Anthems. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 03:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely keep. We already have such a world national anthem template, which quite large, so is used in the List of national anthems of the world article; the individual continent templates are used for the various national anthem pages to keep the templates focused on particular geographic regions. This CFD is unnecessary at best, and disruptive at worst. Please try to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive, not destructive manner. The fact that the individual proposing the deletion did not even check to see that such a world template already exists at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld shows that s/he has not actually considered this issue carefully. Badagnani 04:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Badagnani; a very usable template. Jmlk17 06:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I agree, a very useful template. Who'd want to get rid of it?Inkan1969 08:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, it's not just a single template under consideration but each of the continent/geographical region templates, as well as the original "global" template. The "global" template was judged too large to put on each of the pages for the individual anthems, so if, for example, the anthem is for a European nation that page gets the Europe anthem template. The huge "global" template appears only on the National anthem and List of national anthems pages. IMO this has worked well so far. The template User:Guilherme Paula has created duplicates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld , which has already existed for some time. Badagnani 09:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See Wikipedia:Guidelines for "(Continent/region) topic" templates and the talk pages of those templates for numerous examples that show why this is done. –Pomte 09:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Sorry, I didn't see Template:Nationalanthemsoftheworld. So, delete my duplicated Template:National Anthems. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 13:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful and coherent templates. Man vyi 16:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful templates and having them all in one will be unnessesary and will clutter up the article footer space. —dima /talk/ 19:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call this TFD disruptive, but because a single national template would just be too large, since not only we have anthems of nations, but of those that are not nations or have some kind of special status. That would be too large to maintain, so it is a good idea to split them up by region. keep. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. A template with over 192 countries on it would be exhaustive! Booksworm Talk to me! 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should we file a TfD for the huge {{National Anthems}}? Niko Silver 17:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - it's standard to list certain things (human rights, flags, capital punishment, religion) by continent. Biruitorul 20:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and a good idea would be to add a hidden <show> at the bottom of each template that opens the list of anthems of the rest of the world. --Andersmusician 05:41, 5 May 2007 (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 section.

Template:DHC 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 ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Info already covered much better in {{de Havilland Canada}}. — - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant; template mentioned per nom uses proper format. --Phoenix (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary; should never have been created. Jmlk17 06:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary past compare Booksworm Talk to me! 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant to {{de Havilland Canada}}. —dima /talk/ 19:13, 29 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Infobox European Union 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 close as delete per below, since template no longer in use. David Kernow (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No more necessary! I had modified[[1]] Template:Infobox Country to be more flexible. Now, supports other_symbol, other_symbol_type, membership, membership_links and capital_type. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 01:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deprecated/unused in mainspace. –Pomte 09:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Booksworm Talk to me! 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in keeping as {{Infobox Country}} covers the same+ more info. —dima /talk/ 19:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, the mentioned template gets the job done just fine. --Phoenix (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2007 (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 section.

Template:Virginia Tech massacre 1 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. Picaroon (Talk) 23:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A navigational template for the incident already exists. -Phoenix 00:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Template:Virginia Tech massacre is the already existing template. Carcharoth 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves a slightly different function, but not enough to keep it. Carcharoth 00:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Much better templates out there. Jmlk17 06:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Focus work on one template. –Pomte 09:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not necessarily against this layout, but I'd rather see a discussion take place at Template talk:Virginia Tech massacre, and if agreement is found modify that template to a different layout. --StuffOfInterest 12:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above Booksworm Talk to me! 15:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although personally I prefer this layout to the other one (it looks ugly, imo), forking it is not the right way to do things, discuss a format changes on the main one. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~I'm anonymous
Delete but expand the other one slightly by adding links to more people Nyttend`
- Has been discussed sufficiently on the talk page for that template. Looks like most people think it's fine how it is. --Phoenix (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2007 (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 section.