Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 14

< November 13	November 15 >

November 14 edit

Template:UK Tramcar Stock 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. This should go in a category, or at the very least be merged into the article for the specific tram. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template takes up an absurd amount of space on articles about trams that are used around the world, not just in the United Kingdom; if the same was done for every country, the templates would be many times the length of the articles. The inclusion of the Combino is also suspect, since the article Combino gives its date of its introduction as later than the opening of the Sheffield tramway. A category would serve this purpose much more effectively. — David Arthur 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind what you do with it: if there is an easier way of doing it, be my guest! Perhaps a collapsible version would be better?

Also, London Transport have an even bigger one for Underground Stock etc.

And, the combino is stated on Supertram's list as the tram used. Please correct it though if i'm wrong.

Bluegoblin 7 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this one and the one for tube stock is that tube trains are all used by the same operator, and no other. This template lists the trams of many operators in one box, two of which are also used outside the U.K. (there are Flexity Swifts all over the world). David Arthur 00:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fine. Feel free to do whatever with it: I think it is quite useful, but it does still need some work on it ill agree, as do some of the articles it links to! Bluegoblin 7 15:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see no evidence that there been much attempt at compromise. There is no discussion on the template talk page. Some reasonable debate should take place before going to Tfd Victuallers (talk) 15:26, 17 November 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:American film table header 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, easily replaced within article SkierRMH 21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete easily replaceable with an article. Hardly used at all and generally looks bad. Thundermaster367 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom as single use.Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 17 November 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:Film info 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template, no real need for it on the articleSkierRMH 21:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as single use. I have transcluded and cleaned up. JPG-GR 00:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Victuallers (talk) 15:27, 17 November 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:European Film Awards 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 uses only, all red-linked articlesSkierRMH 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Delete as per nom Victuallers (talk) 16:09, 17 November 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:24FBI 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a cystal ball. See WP:Crystal — Lucy-marie 20:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Explanation the show has not aired yet and the plot of the show is unknown. The characters do not have individual pages. The new series of the show will not air until 2009 at the earliest. The only possible places this has come from ids speculative unreliable fan sites. Not even 24 wikia has pages on these characters. I admit if the original airdate had been stuck too then the template could have warented staying if the characters had been fleshed out by reliable sources, this is now not goign to happen for sometime. Until it does thsitemplate is redundant, unsourced (reliably), and fan cruft.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain In what way does this template predict events that have not yet occurred, and might not occur? I don't see the problem. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note while the template's been around for 2 months and not used, I, like Shalom, don't see the CRYSTAL problem. Not familiar with the show to understand that claim. SkierRMH 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Grudging keep: This template links to four characters who are apparently FBI staff in the as-yet-unaired seventh series of 24. In two months it has not been used in any articles. All four characters' names are currently redirects to 24 (TV series). It would have been nice if this template had been created after the creation of at least a couple of articles that it would reasonably enhance. And, there's a separate question as to whether an article about, say, Sean Hillinger, would merit inclusion in Wikipedia. So the WP:Crystal argument is that this is speculation, or coverage of expected future events. However, it hasn't actually been included in any articles so far. And no doubt the 24 fans will create articles about each and every new character that appears in the series. Deleting the template now (for it to be recreated in a month or two) will only serve to create unproductive antagonism. So I'd reluctantly vote "Keep" with some friendly advice for obsessive fans to try to limit their hyper-detailed coverage to things that have actually occurred. Rupert Clayton 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every article in the template has been deleted or redirected, demonstrating the lack of any need for this template, which is the real reason for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template can be recreated when it's actually needed, but since none of the articles it links to currently exist, it serves no useful purpose now or in the near future. Terraxos (talk) 16:34, 21 November 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:Tarrap 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not used anywhere, just a very spesific set of copyright tags and rationale all baked into one (unused) template, and it's not a even a very good rationale. — Sherool (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the deletion of both templates. Thanks to SkierRMH for notifying me. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - and added 2nd template by the same user - these are cut& pastes from image fair use - probably speedily deletable under "test"? SkierRMH 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Victuallers (talk) 16:10, 17 November 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:Football League Cup Winners 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unneccessary template. To list all winners of a competition is unneccessary and is template cruft. For some clubs there would be a number of extremely large templates. There should already be a category and several links within the page for this competition. It has been orphaned by the author after a discussion on WT:WPF. I have still listed it here to gain a consensus to point to in the future. Thanks. — Woodym555 16:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary and unwieldy. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not really appropriate to use a navigation box for this context. Better to add a "Football League Cup" row to the infobox of each team article (see the infoboxes of Montreal Canadiens and New York Yankees for examples of this idea, albeit in other sports), with the year(s) that the specific team won, and/or create a category of teams that won this tournament. Andrwsc 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - yet another useless crufty navigation template. Qwghlm 15:46, 15 November 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:Scottish Second Division Champions 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines as above, in articles such as Manchester United, this is an unneccessary template that will balloon the size of the article. It is not needed on a page as a navigational aid as there are several links within the respective articles. — Woodym555 16:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary & will become unwieldy. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not really appropriate to use a navigation box for this context. Better to add a "Second Division Champions" row to the infobox of each team article, with the year(s) that the specific team won, and/or create a category of teams that won this tournament. Andrwsc 17:37, 14 November 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:Idiom 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this inline template's purpose is unclear and confusing. — Vossanova ^o< 16:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it seems perfectly clear to me; it raises a local question about idiom when simply correcting it may be controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clear to me. Zginder 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I know what "unidiomatic" means, but it would be awkward to read it inline within an article. Perhaps it would be better to simply let people try to fix the problem instead of marking it as a problem. If articles tagged like this could be placed in a maintenance category, someone could go through that category and fix the problems systematically. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep with possible expansion. As Shalom stated, the word "unidiomatic" just popping up inline might be a bit confusing. Perchance a bit longer explanation? And yes, it should be included in a maintenance category.SkierRMH 08:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed text, and removed link (link to idiom, perhaps?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until I can see its uses. Isn't an idiom a figure of speech? what's wrong with idioms? What does that have to do with this template? Jedibob5 (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, an idiom is not a figure of speech; it's a usage peculiar to the language spoken. This is intended for cases where Wikipedia has produced something that is not English, and is not trivial to fix. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Not only is it rather unprofessional/awkward (tone-wise) when these come across in Wikipedia, but it also can make it very difficult for some people to understand. Especially when the idiom is specific to a group of people, i.e. youth, athletes, etc.-DMCer (talk) 13:26, 19 November 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:Singapore 2007 ASEAN Cup Squad 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general convention is to only create squad templates for the teams competing at the FIFA World Cup. - PeeJay 13:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. - PeeJay 13:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as nom. - PeeJay 15:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Football convention to only have these navigation boxes for FIFA World Cup final teams. Andrwsc 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FOOTY guidelines. - Darwinek 08:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Punkmorten 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just useful infomation. The rule is ridiculous. Please dont interfere in the articles of Singaporean football.Hikikomori.hk (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Excuse me? I think we all have a right to "interfere" in articles about Singaporean football. I, myself, have a vested interest in Singaporean football as I used to live there. What's your excuse? Nevertheless, the rule is there for a reason, and you are in the minority when it comes to your opinion. – Pee Jay 14:26, 21 November 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:Extreme metal 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template violates WP:NPOV and has caused pages to be filled with templates in some cases such as thrash metal. It is also based on an article with orginal research and unverified claims. This means that half the genres on the template might not even be extreme metal as there is no way to tell if the genre is extreme metal or not. As the creator, I think the template has no use and is cluttering up pages. I can see why the template was nominated the first time. And it is impossible to define if the genres on the template are extreme metal. We could add gothic metal, metalcore and have no way of defining if they are extreme metal. So I suggest we delete it. Thundermaster367 14:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extreme metal is a general term used to group the subgenres of black metal, death metal, doom metal, and thrash metal together. Extreme metal is just as NPOV as the term metal itself, are you going to nominate Template:Heavymetal because the boundaries between metal and other genres can be loose? Zouavman Le Zouave 17:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. Extreme metal is a clearly defined term for all the post 1980 metal genres, mostly underground, that was heavier, possibly faster and less mainstream friendly than the bands that came before. I do however agree that there are too many templates on the thrash page, but that's because it doesn't even feature on those punk ones, with punk metal being an extremely pointless template anyway. Adamravenscroft (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This template is just too POV and contains genres that cannot be verified as extreme. Is Viking metal an extreme genre or is it a lyrical based genre? Are extreme gothic metal and extreme power metal notable and verifiable genres? Groove metal is included; should metalcore be included? If extreme metal would a well defined genre, this template would make sense. Now it doesn't. We should wait for an NPOV extreme metal article. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I usually agree with Kameejl, I think the template should be kept. Some things need to be made clear, though. Doom and gothic metal are not a part of the extreme metal umbrella, and metalcore should never ever be in this umbrella. Drone doom and funeral doom should also be taken out. Anything doom does not belong unless its being combined with another extreme metal. I don't think extreme power metal or extreme gothic metal count either, unless they are being combined with one of the main extreme metals, again. Viking metal belongs, because although it is sometimes just a lyrical genre (Amon Amarth), it is usually an offshoot of black and folk metal (like Bathory or Ensiferum). If some of you are worried too many genres are being added in, lets have some sort of official discussion to decide what is what, and that will be the law. 'Nuff said. Navnløs 23:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a lot of people think doom is part of the extreme metal umbrella, but I disagree. There's nothing extreme about doom metal (vocally or musically) unless you're thinking of death/doom or black/doom. Navnløs 23:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doom metal is extreme. Not extreme like the others, but on the total opposite side of the spectrum. Where as Black and Death metal focus on being the most high speed, aggressive genres of metal, Doom metal focuses on being the most low speed, depressive metal genre. However, I agree with you about Gothic metal being taken out. On topic, keep, as it is as POV as Template:Metal. 24.139.31.210 (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after giving it some thought, I agree with the before user. Doom metal is part of the extreme genre as well, I guess. Gothic metal is also slow and depressing, though, but I suppose it has less "fangs" so to speak, after all, gothic metal came out of the death/doom genre. So just take out everything I said before, excluding doom metal. I still think keep for this template of course. Navnløs (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just put Death metal , Black Metal, and Thrash metal and their subgenres. Doom is not extreme.Normanspr (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Like the last poster with the IP said, doom is extreme on the other end of the spectrum. I also think it should be protected to prevent idiots putting "metal"core and gothic metal on the list. (Gothic should be in sub-genres, while "metal"core is barely metal at all.

keep. And as a note, Metalcore is an extreme metal subgenre, if you disagree you probably never listened to Bleed The Sky, Catherine, Bury Your Dead, I Killed The Prom Queen, Caliban, etc. --XClaudiox (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling you, the only way to solve this is have an official discussion, because of people like the last poster. Metalcore is never nor ever will be extreme metal. PERIOD. Navnløs (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the template talk, not here. So don't debate about the genres here. Just give you reason for wanting to delete or keep the template. ''I Am The Master Of All Thunder'' (talk) 12:16, 21 November 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:Lame 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. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template clutters the talk pages where it is used and doesn't help build an encyclopedia. In fact, it can do the opposite by exacerbating the lame wars in question, and even causing revert wars over the inclusion of the template itself. Humorous content may be fine in the Wikipedia or User namespaces, but not in article Talk pages. For an example of incipient disruption caused by the template, see [1]. --Itub 10:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discourages edit wars, which is constructive to the encyclopedic process. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unprofessional, immature, unnecessary, uncivil, assumes bad faith and is a passive personal attack at the editors in question. Seems to be fuel on the fire. To paraphrase the template: "This template has been identified as one of the lamest in Wikipedia's history".--12 Noon 19:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change doc to require that edit war has ended and that there is consensus that an edit war existed. Furthermore, the last sentence in that citation may be construed as being vaguely similar to meatpuppetry, as it encourages anons and new users to come here and vote with no actual reasoning behind their votes.--Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @106, i.e. 01:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not discourage individual edit wars or encourage better behavior, in contrast to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars; promotes incivility and acts as a personal attack in precisely the way described by 12 Noon. I had already considered, after reading the link mentioned above (OR confusion and all), nominating this for deletion myself - better that than adding the argument over its inclusion to the description at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Dekimasu よ! 02:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by previous editors. The use of the template gives the appearance of presenting a demeaning POV on the current serious discussions going on on talk pages about how to improve articles. E.g., Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics, where a Request for a article name change is a serious matter of concern to many editors who have commented on it in good faith. The lame template on a talk page violates WP:AGF and is disrespectful to the time serious editors have taken to present their perspectives on how to improve the article. The problem of the name of the article itself is not a joking matter. It is a serious issue. --NYScholar 03:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Disavian. And I say this as a person who was directly or indirectly involved in probably, what, eight lame edit wars in my three and a half years here? Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 05:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep puts things into perspective AdamSmithee 07:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know if one can infer causality, but e.g. I noticed that after the template has been added to Nobel Prize in Economics, people pretty much stoped making unilateral changes in article name and links and waring over them and, instead, resolved to discussing them first on the talk page. AdamSmithee 08:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not true. Since 16:47, 9 October 2007, when the template was added to Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics, the article has been moved 12 times, all of which were within the last week (since 10 November 2007): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. It hasn't done anything for the edit war, which is pretty obvious from the article's history. If the edit war has died down a little, it's because certain editors have been warned for violating WP:CIVIL and have left the article. –panda 14:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, another case where succession in time does not imply causality :). Anyway, my vote is still keep AdamSmithee 11:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it stops edit wars and is a funny template to have. I think it is benifits Wikipedia as it will stop edit wars. Also, it is part of the Department of Fun and is not meant to taken seriously. Thundermaster367 14:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps stopping or preventing editwars, by giving people a humorous hint to "reality-check" their POV. Charon X/talk 17:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My experience is that it tends to piss people off more than it tends to discourage them from edit warring. People are not generally willing to concede that they are editing from a non-neutral point of view. Dekimasu よ! 23:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may be intended as a fun template, but I think it's going to cause more problems than it solves. Tagging an edit war as 'lame', especially while it's still ongoing, is at the very least uncivil and assumes bad-faith towards others; and borders on making a personal attack against them. I'd rather see such situations avoided. (Note: this should not be taken as supporting deletion of WP:LAME, which I consider one of the most important pages on Wikipedia. I just don't think we should be tagging Talk pages with this template.) -- Terraxos (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many people have raised the issue of "what if the war is still ongoing?". My suggested response to this was to require that the war be over before adding the template is allowed. To enforce, simply encourage speedy reversion when used too soon, possibly in the text of the template. People not in the middle of an edit war are less likely to fight over that classification, and more likely to learn. The policy is to keep unless something cannot be fixed. This issue could easily be fixed.--Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs @11, i.e. 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Disavian. It is of historical interest, and may help reduce the number of edit wars. The link to WP:LAME can help keep things in perspective for editors.Ngchen (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The inclusion for in WP:LAME is based on one person's opinion and has not undergone a thorough test of any sort through any objective criteria to really determine if it was lame or not. As a result, adding a template is, to be frank, pretty lame, and if there has been edit warring, there should be a separate template. It does not need to add the bit about having been added to WP:LAME, as I don't think that does anything positive except to perhaps encourage others to edit war so they can be included in there. "Don't edit war" is sufficient enough. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:00, 21 November 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.