Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 6

< February 5	February 7 >

February 6 edit

Template:Infobox City Ukraine 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete both. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Standardized to {{Infobox Settlement}}. The talk pages are empty. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Superseded. - Darwinek (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creater and per nom. —dima /talk/ 00:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T3... two days after this closes... :D Happy‑melon 15:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:29, 7 February 2008 (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:Ship table multiple careers 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and deprecated template. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. --Dual Freq (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given that we have an improved version, this template is no longer needed. Parsecboy (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated template. TomTheHand (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated and not in use. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T3... two days after this closes... :D Happy‑melon 15:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --Brad (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2008 (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:BaseballStub 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 section.

The result of the debate was debate moved to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#February 6. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 20:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been around since 2005 and is unused. Nominated for deletion. — NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place buddy. Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well... I've listed it at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion#February 6. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (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:Premier League 2007-08 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template serves no visible purpose. The likelihood that someone would want to navigate from the article on one Premier League club's 2007-08 season to another is minimal. If it was really necessary, each article links to the category containing each article on clubs' 2007-08 seasons. The template also links to numerous redlinks. Finally, although this is not exactly a reason for deletion, the template's title is quite misleading. – Pee Jay 11:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. – Pee Jay 11:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pointless. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete in current state. It could in theory be useful, but more so if the other club's seasons were also created. Certainly the title needs to be changed. John Hayes^talk 20:13, 11 February 2008 (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:International ice hockey 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template has been deprecated by Template:IIHF. Nominated for deletion. Flibirigit (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Djsasso (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and note that WP:CSD#T3 would have been applicable. Happy‑melon 18:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2008 (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:Was Nom for Deletion 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant with with {{oldafdfull}}. It adds two additional parameters, namely small (making the message box use the standard "messagebox.small-talk" class) and nested (making the message box collapsible and nested). Regarding the nested parameter, this type of collapsible nesting messagebox is really intended for use with WikiProject banner shells ({{WikiProjectBanners}}, {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}) to reduce the space WikiProject headers take up. Regarding the small parameter, I can't envision a need to use a floating, small right-aligned box to display this information. The information provided by oldafd templates is of central importance to talk page discussion, and I don't think it's ever going to be appropriate or necessary to hide the information or present it in a non-standard format. --06:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete, per nom. I have converted the only three instances of this template to {{oldafdfull}}, and I can see no reason why that template is not sufficient. Having multiple templates like this strikes me as extremely silly, making it harder for scripts or even human editors to parse the content templates for, say, {{ArticleHistory}} conversion. Happy‑melon 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Harryboyles 12:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:31, 7 February 2008 (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:FreeContentMeta 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 section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template creates big boxes for external wikis that resemble the boxes granted to the official sister projects. The precedent has been that such boxes should not be allowed (see eg. Template talk:Wikitravel and Template talk:Wikia), as they are confusingly similar to the Wikimedia boxes and form a slippery slope to advertising. A previous TFD in 2007 concluded with "no consensus", but I think it's important that we settle the matter once and for all. Notices have been posted on all templates using this, as well as Wikipedia talk:Sister projects and Wikipedia talk:External links. — Jpatokal (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the same reasons as last time barring any new arguments for deletion. Supporting free content is within the scope of Wikipedia, is the reason we have special boxes for the other Foundation projects, and is reason enough to provide special distinction to other projects that are equally compatible with our goals. Incidentally, why would this discussion settle the matter once and for all if the first discussion evidently didn't do so to your satisfaction? Christopher Parham (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to what policy or guidelines is "supporting free content" in the scope of Wikipedia? Seems a little WP:SOAPy to me, and why the distinction between wiki and non-wiki free content?

Also note that I'm not trying to reverse an earlier decision here. There was no Keep or Delete, just an unconclusive discussion that should be brought to a conclusion. Jpatokal (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create free content: see "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Christopher Parham (talk) 02:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the purpose of Wikipedia is to create a free encyclopedia. Everything else is WP:NOT. Jpatokal (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting this template isn't about creating free content, it is about advertising it. --Phirazo 18:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per RyanGerbil10's closing comments on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 20#Template:Muppets:

The result of the debate was no consensus. There is no consensus of what to do with templates in this format. I cannot speak for the community, but I would prefer a plain text link like the Family Guy wiki. As for previous templates in this format - the Harry Potter wiki template had its TfD suspended due to edit warring, and a Star Trek wiki was recently deleted - not because the format of the template is wrong, but becuase the template was duplicated by a more widely used template. I'm tempted to delete this template as being relatively unused, but I think it would serve the community better to take this time to request that a consensus be formed on these templates in some place other than TfD before more of these templates are nominated. Then return, say "the consensus is for templates of this type," and all will be at peace. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 20:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 07:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again, strongly emphasizing that TfD is not the place to have this discussion. I've tried to get more eyes on Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis as one possible alternative, but have gotten side tracked with other tasks and haven't sent out requests for comment. However, something like that, presented to the community, would be far more ideal than another TfD. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm specifically interested in obtaining a consensus on all templates of this type in general. I wasn't aware of the existence of Wikipedia:Linking to other wikis, and while it hasn't attracted much attention, I'm fine with suspending the CfD if we get a genuine discussion going on in there. Jpatokal (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be very much desired. -- Ned Scott 09:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There hasn't been any real conversation on this in the last month. TfD is as good a place as any to have this discussion. --Phirazo 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a real need to revisit this every month. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions a month ago weren't about deletion of {{FreeContentMeta}} anyway. --Phirazo 18:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical that the conclusions do not port neatly. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is just a base template from which other boxes are created, and is not transcluded on any page. So I can see no reason to delete. — Edokter • Talk • 15:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Enough of this. This and similar templates have been TfDed multiple times. No consensus exists to delete them. The addition of alnguage permitting them to the external links MoS has been largely uncontroversial. Enough. Phil Sandifer (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you argue it is "a slippery slope for advertising", then why did the developer make it only accept interwiki prefixes as linking between WP and the other wiki? (of course anyone can change that, but that's not the point) You will have to have your prefix accepted and implemented at the Wikimedia Meta wiki. Keep and keep for good.

-Smiley Barry ^{[USER] [TALK] [SL PROFILE]} 18:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting links to the Interwiki map is doesn't help much, which allows linking to sites like the "Celebrity Nudity Database" (CNDbName) and Del.icio.us (Delicious). I can't think of any situation where those sites would be appropriate. --Phirazo 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear push a while back to tidy up the interwiki map. Regardless of what happens on this debate, I think it's clearly ridiculous to have links without a nofollow tag to CNDB. That is not what the interwiki map is for, and we should push to have it cleaned up to where it serves the purpose it should serve - allowing links without a nofollow tag to other free content projects. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FreeContentMeta, and Convert child templates to regular external link style, for several reasons. 1. It is easy to confuse external projects with sister projects when using these templates. See this section, where an editor associates a box with what he/she calls a "greater Wikipedia". The idea that "Wikis not associated with Wikimedia are light green" is about as clear as mud to our readers. 2. The stated purpose of these boxes is promotional, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia promotes free content by example, not with banner ads (which is essentially what these boxes are). 3. These templates seem to breed useless rules. The first paragraph of {{FreeContentMeta}} is rules on when to you can and can't use this template (Has to be active. Has to be free as in freedom. Has to be a wiki. Has to link to material that article doesn't have (in practice, fancruft). Can't be too controversial. Always subst. etc. etc. etc.). These rules became even more complicated when the the rules for non-free images were applied to them, a set of rules so complicated and oft ignored that we need bots to enforce it. (see here). The old proposal for linking to external wikis had a huge list of criteria for creating boxes. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and instruction creep should be avoided. We don't need another layer of rules on top of Wikipedia:External links, which is complicated enough. 4. They are lousy external links anyway. All the boxes point to fansites, and they all push fair use pretty far. I'm not a lawyer, but collecting trivia isn't generally considered fair use (for example, a book of Seinfeld trivia was removed from the marketplace for copyright infringement (Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group) ). Wikipedia:Copyrights (rightly) bans linking to sites that infringe copyrights, and while the infringement isn't as obvious as posting full episodes of South Park on YouTube, it is still something to be concerned about. --Phirazo 03:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another junk template that never had a consensus to exist. No consensus either way here again of course. It's true any junk template can be made and stays if a few people insist that it does, but at some point it has to be clear that there is no consensus for this. 2005 (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The generally accepted standard is that a template is deleted if there is consensus against it. No consensus defaults to keep. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005, please don't be a dick. -- Ned Scott 03:41, 14 February 2008 (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:Shusha 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not used and obsolete. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 02:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, deprecated by one of our versatile infoboxes, most probably {{Infobox settlement}}. Happy‑melon 18:15, 6 February 2008 (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:2007 Houston Dynamo 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete both. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Against football MOS.The only squad navboxes that are supported by WP:FOOTY are current squads, if we allowed a squad box for every championship, teams like Liverpool F.C, A.C. Milan, Boca Juniors and Real Madrid would end up with massive stacks of navboxes at the bottom of their pages King of the North East 02:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There have been numerous precidents set with the deletion of similar ice hockey templates. These kinds of templates seriously clutter biographical articles, and are non defining for the players. Reso lute 17:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Teams in many sports have similar templates to denote the championship roster. The New York Yankees have won about 20+ World Series and they have a template box for each all collapsed in a group. The Italy national football team has a template for each world cup championship. Greatness21 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2008 (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:Mpdb movie 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 section.

The result of the debate was Discussion is stale, and a new one has been initiated. Defaults to keep. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. Party!^{Talk to me!} 01:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like spam. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Creator also created MoviePosterDB.com in support of this template, which is also undergoing AFD. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've looked at the site, and it doesn't appear to me to be commercial, just a database of movie posters, which, it seems to me, is a pretty handy thing. If I'm wrong, and I've missed something that indicates this is a commercial site, could someone please point it out to me? I'd appreciate it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no encyclopedic value in linking to a website with pictures related to the film. The creator of the template created an article about the website and proceeded to add links to film articles to the website. It's not a matter of whether it's commercial or not, but a matter of spamming a kind of media that does not enhance the value of its topics. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that I wasn't mistaken about the non-commercial nature of the site. I disagree entirely about the value of a gallery of images connected to a article's subject -- if that was the case, Wikipedia would be text only, but it's not, we include images as well. I wouldn't advocate larding down an article with tens of images, but simply having a link' to a site that does, where one can easily find how a movie was sold, how it was positioned in the marketplace via its chosen visual representation, has clear value. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 02:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree that marketing images add clear value about the film. Studios will obviously try to hook audiences any way they can apart from the actual content of the film. If anything, marketing images are more inappropriate to link to than actual screen shots and production stills of the film, which would be more representative of that topic. Many external links can be added to film articles because of an indirect relationship, but I disagree that a gallery of film posters adds a deeper understanding of the topic that the article cannot provide. Anything can be delved into deeply -- a particular country's review of another country's film, a gallery of fan art from creative folks from the fan base, or linking to available merchandise for the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But a gallery of a film's merchandise won't tell you all that much about the film, except who its target audience was, whereas for many, many years, a film's poster was the primary visual means of advertising the film, and therefore the style and content of the poster tells quite a bit about what the studio wanted the audience to think about the film, which (especially in the days of the studio system), is a pretty interesting and important piece of information. Plus, purely on the level of visual perception, the posters are interesting visually in a way that, say, "Star Wars" lunch boxes or "Terminator" action figure are not. Posters are only merchadise incidentally, they're primarily advertising, and I think overlooking the advertising aspect of a media object such as a feature film is missing something important. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with your points, but my issue is that it's just a collection of poster images. For a reader to understand the impact of posters in selling a film, they have to rely on their own background in assessing popular culture, marketing strategies, iconic highlights, etc. One could do the same for screen shots or a gallery of merchandise. I don't think I would mind the link very much in the External links section of the article film poster, but having the link available for every article whose film is covered by the website, does not seem to add anything but a superficial display of images that don't differ from any other set related to the film. Importance can be read into it, yes, like one could read into the generational fashion present in screen shots of 1980s films or generational hobbies for merchandise of 1970s films. I hope you understand what I'm trying to get at -- I think film posters are only useful if we can present real-world context about them. I don't think the everyday reader can surmise the meanings of the posters' visual representations through an external link that presents zero context and all pixels. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I agree, it's not analysis, it's data, but I don't see why that should disqualify it from being linked to. IMDB, for instance, is almost entirely data, and yet every film article links to it as an essential repository of data concerning films. This is pretty much the same thing, except it's visual data, not text. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty obvious since I'm the contributor. But I don't see why this is non-notable or even pointless. Other external links have none or only one movie poster, mpdb has them all. Also, the template clearly says 'posters at MoviePosterDB.com', so users know what they are clicking on! Beales ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for making good-faith attempts to add information to articles. I'm pleased you didn't just dump a load of non-free image content into a bunch of articles and revert war to keep it there. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The site itself is useful, and many people interested in movies may be interested in the posters that were associated with it. The template makes this easier and more uniform. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's only a website with a bunch of film-related images. There are a ton of these out there. Permitting this template is sanctioning the solicitation of this website across film articles when Wikipedia is not a link farm. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a poster is part of the movie just like the cover of a book is part of the book. And the interesting of MPDB is that they give the reader an overview of a poster in different languages (if present) so one can see the difference between countries and cultures. Also it is a non-commercial site so I don't see what harm can be done.--Thomvis (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think people are failing to realize that this is one of the many, many movie websites that have attempted to be solicited on Wikipedia. I've had to deal with linkspam such as this, listing most of them here. I'm sure a case could be made for each and every one of these sites, but the sanctioning of this template permits the solicitation of this website, which is not notable. WikiProject Films has discussed through consensus to have IMDb, All Movie Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and Box Office Mojo as encompassing websites, based on their reputation and content. All we have here is content from a website that does not register any results when searching MoviePosterDB.com -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR MoviePosterDB -site:MoviePosterDB.com OR "Internet Movie Poster Database" -site:MoviePosterDB.com. In the scheme of things, the importance of this website is seriously being overplayed, and it's unreasonable for it to have its own template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, I disagree. There are many more people who edit articles about films than are represented in WikiProject Films, so I don't see how a "consensus" there should necessarily be given weight here, when the commentary here seems relatively evenly divided. I'm not making any great claims for this particular site, I simply think that since it's non-commercial, it's relevant to the subject matter, and the content is interesting and informative, that makes it worthwhile. It certainly doesn't necessarily create a precedent for any other site which doesn't have those qualities. It may turn out that no one uses the template, and if that happens, a case can then be made for eliminating it. (I would advise the creator not to plaster it all over the place, but just seed it a little and allow other editors to use it as they see fit, in order to give a realistic picture of whether people find it useful or not.) In the meantime, I think the move to delete is premature, and I see no harm in allowing the template to exist. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:26, 9 February 2008 (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:United States men's national team 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia convention only allows international squads for the FIFA World Cup, current squads are not applicable to international teams. King of the North East 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per established precedent. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - might it be worth questioning the precedent, though? A lot of national teams have fixed squad numbers nowadays. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- International squads break up and return to club football, often for several months at a time, "Current squad" makes it seem that the international team keeps a permanent squad list during these breaks, rather than the reality that the box would just contain the last squad to be named by the manager. If England had had a current squad box, would we have kept the squad McLaren named for the Croatia game on November 21 as England's "current squad" until Capello named his squad in February? despite the defeat, the humiliation and the manager change. King of the NorthEast 13:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy Delete for all the reasons just mentioned. It will be inaccurate except for the month every few years when teams go to their regional tournaments or the World Cup. Other than those two events the team only meets up for a few days at a time and the rest of the time is with their respective clubs. Not necessary. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and KotNE's additional comments. Sebisthlm (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prevailing precedent and the football project's guidelines. Neier (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2008 (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:Future Web service 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, as there are already numerous types of future or recent event templates, and this is being used on only two articles (Knol and Encyclopedia of Life). I suggest that those two instances be replaced with {{future|type= }}, filling in the type parameter with "web service", "web site", or something similar. Kakofonous (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete T3 and tagged as such. JPG-GR (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2008 (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.