< September 21	September 23 >

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. IronGargoyle 00:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portaldata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems not to be used, and is inappropriately showing up in Category:James Bond. User who created it, with edit summary "will this template catch on?", has not been active for 11 months. — Fayenatic (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agreed. Superfluous. Neil ム 11:30, 24 September 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.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mind-body interventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template violates WP:NPOV definitively, and cannot be modified to do so. The first issue is that the qualification for inclusion is based solely upon whether a practice is considered mind-body intervention by the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. This is a Congressionally funded U.S. government body, thus making the template by definition fail to display a world-wide point of view. The agency itself is often the subject of intense criticism (see article) and is not considered a neutral arbitrator when concerned with alternative medicine. Second, and more importantly, many of the practices which NCCAM defines as mind-body interventions are not universally accepted as being so, and the template gives undue weight to the one POV that asserts they are. Examples of practices which would have been disputed as mind-bod interventions include: Yoga, Tai Chi, Qigong, Feldenkrais and others. — VanTucky ^Talk 20:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain just what the problem is--it seems a straight-forward classification of related things in a sensible way by a reasonable definition, and not in the least pejorative.DGG (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that the classification is disputed in many cases, and that the template relies too heavily on one U.S. source which is often disputed itself. It's a template for a classification which is not agreed upon, and having a template suggests that the classification has more merit than it does when considering all the significant views. VanTucky ^Talk 23:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really DONTLIKE this, but I don't see a reason for deletion. It doesn't seem POV to me, just a bit kooky. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps I can give you an example of how the template is POV. Previously the template included links to tai chi chuan, and the similar practice of qigong is defined as a mind-body intervention by the NCCAM. Defining the healing mechanism of tai chi and qigong as based on the affect of the mind on the body, rather than simple physical processes or the principles of traditional Chinese medicine is extremely POV, if not an outright fringe view. It even implicitly denies the existence and effect of qi, which is an extremely contentious position. The same would go for the inclusion of yoga and feldenkrais. Simply put, the template attributes the healing abilities of these practices to a mechanism which is not agreed upon by even a notable minority of sources. VanTucky ^Talk 22:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how else would you classify this group of techniques? DGG (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends, do you mean all the techniques which are covered in the template, or just the ones above? Most likely, I would advocate an alternative medicine template, because it is a broader and much less controversial classification. Not one of the techniques described in this template fail to be encompassed by that term, and that can be sourced to plenty of independent sources beyond NCCAM. VanTucky ^Talk 23:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I can see that there is already a ((Alternative medical systems)) template. This template should probably be used to replace themind-body interventions template in the places in which it now appears, as it isn't present in many or all of them. Also, the Alt medical template needs to have the NCCAM classification system removed from it, as it is far too U.S.-centric VanTucky ^Talk 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see Mind-body intervention and Category:Mind-body interventions. This is a formal term defined by the U.S. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine and thus neither OR or POV. GlassFET 21:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First off, I have never suggested the template is OR. The sourcing is very clear. But using a classification system soleyl used and defined by the NCCAM is a violation of both Wikipedia's world-wide focus, and NPOV. The classification of many of the techniques in the template is only supported by one significant POV (the NCCAM), and is not widely used or accepted by anyone else. Thus,by giving undue weight to one notable point of view on the subject, the template fundamentally violates WP:NPOV. Suggesting that the effectiveness of arts such as Yoga, Tai Chi and Qigong rely solely or even significantly on the mind's intervention in the body is extremely offensive to many traditional points of view on these arts. To reinforce my first point, this may be due to simple ignorance, as the template relies too heavily on the point of view of a U.S. governmental body focused on reconciling alt medicine with the mainstream. To be honest, in my opinion the template was created only because WikiProject Alternative Medicine heavily relies on NCCAM, not because it is a classification system which is neutral and widespread. VanTucky ^Talk 22:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I don't see any POV issue when a reliable major government source classifies something in a category. If we had an example of another government that used a similar classification and did not classify something in this category then we'd have to deal with that. I'm aware of any other government that does so and a quick google search does not turn up anything helpful in English. JoshuaZ 01:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's useful and well sourced. Frankly even if it is a US only source, that doesn't override the fact that sub-dividing the cam articles like this makes navigation between similar topics much easier. If we were to dump every cam topic into one template, it would be too large to manage, and if we were to come up with our own divisions, we'd run into WP:NOR and probably WP:NPOV problems. – ornis⚙ 01:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This TfD seems to ignore the whole point of Wikipedia, which is to document all kinds of POV and their cultures using V & RS. It also ignores that precisely this Wikipedia happens to be the English version, not the Chinese version, and will naturally include much more English language/cultures (IOW US-centric, British-centric, Aussie-centric, ad libitum) material, and it will primarily document those POV and cultures. It will thus not give equal weight to other languages and cultures. None of the arguments raised so far have any legitimacy: it matters not whether an organization (in this case the NCCAM) is the subject of criticism or controversy; it matters not whether a term is a pejorative term (we don't eliminate such terms from the dictionary or fail to cover them here); it matters not whether a subject is covered primarily from one POV, as long as other POV are mentioned (it's a matter of WEIGHT, and in this case the weight is determined by the English language and cultures, as well as giving the scientific POV the dominant weight it deserves as the closest thing we can come to ultimate reliability and documentability), etc.. All of these matters will be dealt with in a different manner on other versions of Wikipedia, and rightly so. To try to eliminate language and cultural bias from the various versions of Wikipedia would mean that in the end the only differences would be the languages themselves, IOW the World would just have one big Wikipedia with only one content, and then translate it into other languages. That would be absurd and much would be lost. The current matter at hand avoids OR and makes it possible to use very authoritative sources in a very nice manner. Interestingly many of these therapies are in those categories by their own choice, so I don't understand this weird objection and have never heard it before (IOW it's a fringe POV), and my f***ing hobby is alt med! I have been immersed in it for decades, including studying it, practicing it as a former practitioner, and now as a scientific skeptic who is still immersed in it and can see both sides of the arguments, since I've "been there and done that" (I've seen plenty of deaths very close, both inside and outside of the mainstream). -- Fyslee / talk 04:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point made was not that the classification is fringe within alt medicine, but that it is completely fringe within the actual practices that the system classifies. No one in the yoga or tai chi communities, or their published works, refers to these practices using the NCCAM classification system. I don't exactly appreciate my objection being derided as "weird" either. VanTucky ^Talk 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies for a very poor choice of words. It is now crossed out. -- Fyslee / talk 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand what you mean about the self-identification by practitioners themselves and their non-use of the NCCAM system (although many practitioners and their websites in the western world do use its terminology to describe themselves). Wikipedia presents subjects from all POV, and thus the NCCAM POV is presented using V & RS, and it would certainly be permissible and desirable to also add the practitioners self-view if it could be done using such sources. Whatever the case may be, both POV should be included. It's in the articles themselves that POV issues could be a problem. This particular classification system doesn't present such a problem, especially considering that the NCCAM is pretty much pro-alt med (most of its funding gets used to sponsor alt med practitioners in their often poorly done studies), yet with some ties to the real world through the use of attempts to document effects and side-effects using objectively verifiable and repeatable research methods. The real world scientific facts we have so far can be presented alongside the subjective anecdotes and claims made by practitioners. Everyone gets their say. -- Fyslee / talk 20:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A related discussion is occurring at Template_talk:Alternative_medical_systems. Many of the same arguments apply there. -- Fyslee / talk 04:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no POV issue here ... at least not in the template itself, anyway. •Jim62sch• 10:52, 28 September 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.

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 Deleted as housekeeping by Neil, since all the linked articles have been deleted. Non-admin closure. Xtifr _tälk 22:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Yung D. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-notable group, main article was deleted and current song articles have pending AfD. — Mbisanz 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's a shame that the speedy on this thing was declined. Not only is Yung D. not notable, the efforts by TeddyBairz to keep this around have crossed the line into vandalism.Kww 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Kww as to this probably can just be speedied - templates are meant to group articles together, and having a template that only has one working link is ridiculous.--danielfolsom 21:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but not speedy - the reason I declined a speedy for this was because I didn't feel it met the criteria for Speedy T1 or T2, which are divisive/inflammatory templates or blatant misrepresentation templates, as defined at WP:SPEEDY. I also don't see a general criteria that it falls under either. Given that, it would be inappropriate to speedy delete it, unless someone can make a good argument (which I'm willing to hear out). Speedy deletion is not to avoid a TfD process, it's for extremely clear cut cases under very constrained conditions, none of which I believe apply here. TfD is the correct venue. I'd love to have someone talk me out of it though. (As for my "delete" here... it seems obvious that this Template does not exist to correlate any of several articles to each other and therefore is appropriate for a delete). - Philippe | Talk 22:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that templates could be speedied if they met the criteria for an article speedy (A7, for this one). Aren't the template speedies additional reasons?Kww 23:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that template speedies are additional reasons. However, we diverge in our interpretations once you bring up A7. The General speedy reasons (the G series) all specifically say that they apply to all namespaces (Article, Talk, etc). The article series (A1-A8) do not say that, and based upon that omission and the title, I interpret that to mean that the article series apply to only that: articles, not templates.

In fact, in the "non-criteria" section of WP:SPEEDY, it says "Failure to assert importance but not an A7 category. There is no consensus to speedily delete articles of types not specifically listed in A7 under that criterion."

Again, I'm open to hearing an argument the other direction, but right now, my interpretation is that this needs to be at TfD. - Philippe | Talk 02:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your interpretation is correct. It might make sense to have a speedy criterion for navigational templates that point only to deleted articles, similar in spirit to WP:CSD#R1 for redirects. But at the moment, we have no such criterion. Xtifr _tälk 10:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: deletion of this template should probably wait till the debates about the album articles have completed. There is one left, though it looks like it will definitely be deleted. Once that last article is gone, it has been suggested (and I mentioned at the album debate) that this can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 (housekeeping). Xtifr _tälk 21:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this has been deleted by me, as all articles on it have now been deleted. I never close TFDs, so someone else probably should. Neil ム 11:34, 24 September 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.

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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fb-winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Superseded by parameterised ((winners|fb)). — StuartBrady (Talk) 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - and probably speedy. All transclusions replaced. Andrwsc 17:55, 22 September 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rugby union in Australia links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused and redundant to ((Rugby union in Australia)), ((APC)), ((ARC)), ((QRU)), ((NSWRU)), ((NSWSRU)), ((Tri Nations)) and ((Super Rugby)). — Bob 16:30, 22 September 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.

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 procedural close and userfy per WP:UBM to User:UBX/High. Large amounts of precedent have established the use of WP:UBM as a preemption of TfDs involving userboxes. The box was made by a now-banned user, but it was made prior to banning and has been adopted by a number of editors in good standing with the project. Because Rhanyeia clearly intends to nominate a pair of similar userboxes for deletion, it seems that a group nomination at MfD would be in order for consistent discussion in a consistent forum. IronGargoyle 20:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User high (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not helpful. The creator was an indef blocked sock. Best regards Rhanyeia 15:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't exactly promote well-being. Drug addicts shouldn't edit anyway--Phoenix 15 16:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTOH, I wouldn't characterize a cannabis user as necessarily a "drug addict". szyslak 19:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• To be clear, even though I don't think smoking pot makes you a drug addict, I endorse deletion. To say the least, this does not facilitate productive user collaboration. szyslak 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:MYSPACE. Carlosguitar 22:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. Clearly not something that should be in template space, but nothing wrong with it otherwise. PC78 11:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per PC and consistent with GUS. Joe 05:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote about two similar kinds on a userspace here. Best regards Rhanyeia 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed them to my userspace. If it doesn't work for this because it has "formerly been in a different namespace" (per WP:UP) I'll take it back here, but because it would be deleted from here anyway I think that sentence doesn't need to apply. Best regards Rhanyeia 11:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - don't userfy. It's an indef blocked sock, and this could have been deleted under g5 anyway. Do not feed the trolls by giving credence to their silly edits. The Evil Spartan 01:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you otherwise, but it wasn't possible to use g5 because the user created this before the block. Best regards Rhanyeia¨

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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pitch and putt Playing Countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is no longer needed as all countries have been merged with Pitch and putt. See this diff — Phoenix 15 15:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per red farm links and merge. Carlosguitar 22:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not needed. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:21, 24 September 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.

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. IronGargoyle 05:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KoreanWarCorr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Last month's TfD received little attention and ended with "no concensus"; however, my issues with this template still stand. The template has only one transclusion because only one such article exits, and since it therefore doesn't navigate anywhere it serves no meaningful purpose. Several names have been added to it since last month, but these are all red links. I have no problem with this template being recreated when there is enough content to support it, but the fact that it is nearly a year old suggests that further biographies will not be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. — PC78 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there were 23 journalists and as many photographers killed in the war - the template needs expanding, not deleting. There are now four journalists on the list with articles. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the template that needs expanding, it's the articles that need creating. PC78 22:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, which is no reason to delete the template. There are now several articles on the template which do exist, and enough red links to encourage people to create the others. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 22:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's better now, but there's every reason to delete a nav template with no meaningful content. They are there to aid navigation, not to "encourage people to create the other" articles. PC78 23:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep needs articles but will bbe useful once they are created--Phoenix 15 16:27, 22 September 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vdp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An unused talk page notice of a closed deletion debate, from way back in the Votes for Deletion era. szyslak 09:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Interestingly enough, it predates ((oldvfdfull)) by about three days. I think I used to subst this. Mackensen (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No onger needed--Phoenix 15 16:27, 22 September 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.

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 deleted by ST47 by author request. (Note: Non-admin close.) szyslak 00:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Gravitysig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Signature template for Gravity (talk · contribs), who has no edits. szyslak 07:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was actually created by GravityFong (talk · contribs). Still, GravityFong's latest talk page edits don't use this signature, and the lack of inbound links makes me wonder if it's ever been used. szyslak 07:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I didn't know at that time (oops!) that templates cannot be used in signatures.

Not going to use it now though. Delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GravityFong (talk • contribs) 13:52, September 22, 2007

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.

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. IronGargoyle 05:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PortCoquitlamNeighbourhoods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless navbox in which all links are red except those in the header. szyslak 07:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this template will eventually be recreated if deleted, once a few of those neighbourhoods have articles. Keeping this template will just save work in the future. Carson 23:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly even speedy (G6). This is effectively the equivalent of a redirect to a non-existent article. I'd have no objection to someone keeping a copy in userspace against a hypothetical future when we have some of these articles, but there's absolutely no reason to keep a template when the articles don't exist. Worst case, the template can be recovered later by deletion review or simply recreated. Xtifr _tälk 01:34, 25 September 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.

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, and redesign at editor's discretion. IronGargoyle 17:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Battlestar galactica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Appears to be a promo for the Battlestar Galactica wiki, intended for use in articles. szyslak 07:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I see no reason to delete this iconic template figure.Ryoung122 05:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is your argument based on the importance of Battlestar Galactica? Because that is no reason to keep this template. Wikipedia is not here to promote our favorite TV shows. More to the point, Wikipedia is not for promoting the Battlestar Galactica wiki, which appears to be this template's purpose. szyslak 07:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redesign I propose to redesign in into an EL box (Category:External link boxes) and to rephrase is along those lines as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the external link box idea, and I think we should also clarify that it should only be use when the BSG wiki has a more detailed article, rather than cases where it may have one. — PyTom (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redesign, but into a simple external link such as ((Sww)). A box of this size is nothing less than spam. PC78 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with TheDJ, make it into one of those. I was plannng to make one of those for Rocky Wiki also.–Sidious1701_{(talk • email • todo)} 15:30, 29 September 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.

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. Looks like a test page, so might have been speedy-deletable as G2. IronGargoyle 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GoogleBox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I can't make head nor tail of this template. What's it for?. szyslak 06:54, 22 September 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.

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. John254 03:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Croatianfilmlist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is used in just one article, List of Croatian films, and is completely unnecessary in that article. szyslak 06:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepNot any longer. The template was set up with the intention to connect articles eventually. In now serves as a very useful and attractive tempate to connect to pages related to Croatian cinema. There are now 10 other things linked and the template is used in not just one but in three or four pages related to Croatian cinema. I really don't have time to keep having to save project work from under attack. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 07:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that what ((CinemaofCroatia)) is for though (which is currently being unused)? PC78 11:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Templates of this sort are useful and help encourage development of film articles, particularly for countries with small or developing film industries. — WiseKwai 13:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful
• Keep - we have similar templates for other national cinemas; the lack of Croatian film coverage here, as stated above, is the most probable reason for sparse usage. This doesn't preclude its need, and its links may be fruitful in paving the way for expansion of the topic and its descendant articles. Girolamo Savonarola 13:20, 24 September 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.

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. IronGargoyle 04:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commonwealth Games Associations at the 2010 Commonwealth Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is not useful, and won't be for another three years. It consists of nothing but redlinks to future articles about individual countries' participation in the 2010 Commonwealth Games.. szyslak 06:37, 22 September 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.

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 subst and userfy. IronGargoyle 04:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anonymous anonymous welcome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subst and delete This was used as a welcome message by Anonymous anonymous (talk · contribs), who left the project about a year ago. It's no longer needed, and if it were still used it would be more appropriate in userspace.. szyslak 06:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy or Subst & Delete - agree with Szyslak. There'd be no harm in either userfying or substing this but it's totally redundant--Cailil ^talk 14:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy He might return and want to use the template--Phoenix 15 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Userfy as a courtesy, optionally substing (since user talk page messages generally should be substituted). Gracenotes^T § 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy per Gracenotes and Phoenix. JoshuaZ 01:43, 28 September 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.

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. The point is made that the content could be revised. Because the template is all text and unused, however, it makes more sense to start anew in userspace if a user wishes to propagate a message like this. IronGargoyle 17:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exp anon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a welcome template for long-time anonymous editors. It's slightly uncivil to send an established anon user a template message asking them to create an account, especially with the somewhat flippant tone used here. The template also appears to be outside of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings.. szyslak 06:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reword Yeah, its not part of Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings because it's not a warning. Could be more civil though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix 15 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TEMPLAR. While I feel that should have remained an essay, it is currently a guideline, and there is no use for this template that doesn't violate it. By definition. Furthermore, the premise that IP users should be encouraged to create accounts is something I and many others strongly disagree with. Xtifr _tälk 23:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction WP:TEMPLAR is, once again, an essay. But there's a good chance it will be promoted back to a guideline again tomorrow (and demoted again the day after). In any case, it's still relevant. Furthermore, I don't see any reason to templatize every random suggestion you might want to make to another editor. If you really feel you have to suggest that someone create an account, do so using your own words. A template gives the suggestion a much more official feel than it deserves. Xtifr _tälk 00:44, 23 September 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.

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. IronGargoyle 00:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MacBot Towers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't have a clue what this is for. AFAIK, it's a talk page banner with nothing but red links. It may be a borderline speedy, because it was created by MacintoshApple (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of ForestH2 (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user. szyslak 05:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC). szyslak 05:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Further investigation shows this was intended for use with a bot that was never approved. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MacBot. szyslak 06:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:55, 22 September 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.