< October 10	October 12 >

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(Упражнение В!) 00:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cvg year nav (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template I created, it has been deprecated by a general purpose template ((cat year nav)) (That I made to replace it ;) ). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; this template is already orphaned. — TKD::Talk 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 del. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 01:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore school infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

can be replaced with ((Infobox School)) _→AzaToth 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 05:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redundant, see ((Infobox Singapore School)). --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 08:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 09:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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(Упражнение В!) 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-GI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misleading copyright template. Used to mark images from the Anton Melik Geographical Institute as free use, but I cannot find a statement on their website that states their work is free use with the stated conditions. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom BigDT 01:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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(Упражнение В!) 00:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template is firmly grounded in no Wikipedia policy or guideline. Obviously, many virtues of the good story and, particularly, of the good essay are identical to those of a good encyclopedia article: clarity, precision, structural logic, narrative flow. The primary distinction is that a Wikipedia article must be written from a neutral point of view, particularly on controversial matters—there are many existing templates that more clearly flag that issue. This template seems best geared to promote sterile, lifeless writing. In order to gauge how it is actually applied, the first ten articles tagged with the template (as listed on its "What links here" page) were examined. In eight out of ten cases, there is not a single word of discussion on the article's Talk page supporting the tag; in the other two, a single sentence refers the reader to a third Talk page that talks generally about a set of articles, without offering any specific evidence of a problem or guidance on its solution. The template is thus virtually useless in actual practice, clearly redundant even where it might be useful, and counterproductive in spirit. It shoud be deleted. DCGeist 17:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This template was created for a specific case and has proved useful to others since then as over 50 articles now transclude it. Narrative flow can be used in wikipedia in any explanation of a series of events, the problem comes when an article is written like a story book such as in this example: [1]. The other problem with stories and essays is that their purpose is to present a point of view which disagrees with the NPOV policy of wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:How to structure the content WP:NEU WP:WAF. I won't vote since it's my template, feel free to edit its content if you feel this sould make it more acceptable. --The Talking Sock talk contribs 19:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your response--thought you were off Wikipedia at the moment. Three main points to address in your comment:

• Yes, POV is a serious issue. As described in my orginal statement, in this regard Template:Story is redundant of other templates that are both more widely accepted and more specific.
• The fact that "over 50 articles now transclude" the template does not mean that it is useful. [In fact, 41 articles currently transclude the template.] As described in my original statement, an examination of an essentially random selection of such articles (comprising approx. 20% 25% of the total) demonstrates that, in actual practice, it is not applied in any useful way at all.
• The storybook-style article you provide as an example (Bilibil) is indeed an entry deserving of a cleanup tag. A more specifically crafted one could and should be created to address that and similarly deficient entries. However, modifying Template:Story to produce such a worthy tag would inevitably make the template extravagantly inappropriate to many of the articles where it is now merely unhelpful and likely counterproductive.

For these reasons, I reiterate my position that the template should be scrapped, and one or more new ones that are more specific, clear, nonredundant, and firmly grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines be created in its place (a task I'm willing to participate in or step aside from, as appropriate). Best, Dan —DCGeist 20:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may be many other articles that deserve this tag, but do not have them because the editors may not be diligent enough to use the right template. Rigmahroll 20:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Despite the fact that narrative flow is needed for an encyclopedia article, sometimes new editors overdo it. Take a look at this article, Dave Silk. I tagged it with ((story)) because it is written in a style similar to a piece of fiction or an essay, as if being related by one person to another. For example, the following quote from the above article:

When asked if Silk still ties up the skates he said “I skate maybe once or twice a year for a charity event. I can’t say I miss it. I’m content. I’m good friends with former teammates Jack O’Callahan and also with Jack Hughes and Ralph Cox, who were the last two cuts from the team that year. The friendships, like I said, are the most important things for me to ever come out of my time in hockey” (Carroll). David Silk was a great hockey player and is still a great person. His and Team USA’s story will forever be held as an important part of American history. David Silk’s inspiration will live on forever.

doesn't strike me as being in the correct tone, and I don't know what other specific templates I could use to convey the problems in the article. As such, I believe this template serves an important purpose and should be kept. Green451 20:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. That's rough. But, though it's not used often, Template:NPOV language (a) more specifically addresses the problem you've highlighted there and (b) doesn't steer editors away from the many positive qualities that good stories and essays share with good encyclopedia articles. The very widely used Template:inappropriate tone shares advantage (b). Can you articulate how you find Template:Story superior to either of those? DCGeist 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message I left on Dan's talk page:

After seeing your revised version, I must say that I would much prefer it over the old version. It seems much better worded in comparasion. I still don't think it should be deleted because it deals with a very specific problem (tone problems, yes, but a particular kind of tone problem). Also, see WP:BETTER. Many of the problems mentioned in that policy guideline are covered in the story template. So, instead of having to use multiple templates to get the point across, we just have to use one, succinctly stated problem that will make people quickly realize, "Oh, now I see."

I've rambled on here long enough, so there you go. Maybe I'm just grasping in thin air here, you decide. Green451 00:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've got to say, I've always thought "sterile, lifeless writing" was the goal of encyclopedia prose. Rather, that the only commonalities essays and stories are really supposed to have with articles is that they're coherent, cohesive, and written in prose: the items listed in the nomination, basically. As I understand (and use) this template, it's more an issue of story or essay elements that don't belong in articles: sensationalism, personification, focus on characters, use of the first and second-person, etc. I guess I'd say that I think of Template:NPOV language for cases where the language casts aspersions or lends credence to a specific POV, whereas this is more a Manual of Style issue. Likewise, Template:inappropriate tone is focusing on the NPOV policy; I look at this as more related to template:wikify and template:cleanup than either of those. The Literate Engineer 12:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It's vague. Template:inappropriate tone is specific and I don't think its focus is merely NPOV. --Wordbuilder 14:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep if replaced with DCGeist's new version, which reads: "The current version of this article or section is written in an informal style and with a personally invested tone. It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry." I think I'd still prefer ((tone)) in cases where the tone is merely informal and ((NPOV language)) in cases where the POV of the writing is a substantial problem, but I can see where this might be useful. — TKD::Talk 02:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If we accept the following definitions of an essay: "A short literary composition on a single subject expressing a personal view.(www.peabody.jhu.edu/index.php) or "a short literary composition dealing with a single subject usually written from the personal point of view of its author who may not attempt completeness."(faculty.valencia.cc.fl.us/jdelisle/lis2004/glossary.htm)or "literally a "trial," "test run," or "experiment" (from the French essayer, "to attempt"); hence a relatively short, informal piece of non-fiction prose that treats a topic of general interest in a seemingly casual, impressionistic, and lively way." (www.depaul.edu/~dsimpson/awtech/lexicon.html) then Wikipedia articles that are in the form of an essay DO appear to be contrary to Wikipedia policies. One of the five pillars is "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs....[it] is not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy." Another pillar is that "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view." So essays--articles expressing a personal point of view, that may not attempt to be complete, and which use an "informal," "casual" and impressionistic" manner would seem to be inappropriate for Wikipedia's requirement for NPOV articles representing the consensus of the most reliable sources/experts. I have no quarrel with lively writing in most contexts, but in a Wikipedia context, "liveliness" seems to be associated in some editors' minds with using POV and OR! Nazamo 17:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: But it's already been stipulated, repeatedly, that POV is an aspect of essay writing that is not desirable in the encyclopedic context--and it is inarguable that there are many existing templates that more specifically address that issue. Likewise, OR is a specific issue that can be addressed much more clearly and specifically in other ways. Once again, the problem with Template:Story as currently composed is that it is general and vague and steers editors away from all the positive qualities that good story-/essay-writing shares with good encyclopedia writing. —DCGeist 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when I posted this template on the article on "Aestheticization of violence," I thought that it made reference to the article being like an essay or story. The current template just refers to a story. Am I mistaken, or has the template changed?Nazamo 18:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: As you've clearly sussed out, the template was altered--it's not clear if in reaction to this nomination or not, as the editor has not participated in this discussion. At any rate, everyone else, Nazamo has changed it back to the form it was in when nominated for deletion. Are you aware, by the way, of the existence of Template:Essay-entry? —DCGeist 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to DCGeist...Hi DCGeist, thanks for your answer. I hadn't seen the Essay-entry template.

• Keep There are way too many articles that deserve this template; it's useful enough to warrant keeping. Paul 19:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The discussion will be ending soon, and without a vote recorded in over three days, the current tally may well be the final one. The breakdown stands as follows:

• Delete: 2
• Keep if changed per nominator's proposal: 2
• Keep: 3

The original author of the template (who, in a classy move, did not vote) has written "feel free to edit its content if you feel this would make it more acceptable." Taking all the above into account, my plan at present is indeed to edit the template in a way that makes it clearer, more specific, and still applicable to all of the specific cases mentioned in the above discussion and to most of those other entries where it currently appears. To reiterate, the new version would read: "The current version of this article or section is written in an informal style and with a personally invested tone. It reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry." In addition, I will create a new template, Template:Essay, that is clearer, more specific, and less redundant than the current Template:Essay-entry, which shares many of the fundamental problems of the current Template:Story. (Obviously, Template:Entry-essay, whose main text simply reads "The current version of the article or section reads like an essay," will still exist.) This new template would read: "The current version of this article or section advances a limited or personal interpretation of the subject matter. It reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry." The language of this new template (a) is based on the definition of "essay" in the standard Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, (b) flags an issue not as specifically addressed by any exisiting neutrality/cleanup template, and (c) does not steer editors away from the many positive qualities that good essay writing and good encyclopedia writing share.—DCGeist 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still concerned by your goal c, as there are elements of storytelling that most assuredly do not appear in good encyclopedia writing: personification, suspense, in media res, flashback, metaphor and simile, deliberate use of assonance and alliteration, epithets, tone, mood, conflict, characters, etc. I think in the interests of not steering away editors from the few shared qualities, you've proposed a wording that doesn't do enough to keep out the myriad qualities that aren't shared. I don't think "informal style and with a personally invested tone" covers enough, and would like to see some wording to the effect of "contains elements of storytelling" to address them. The Literate Engineer 06:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree that all the elements you list "assuredly do not appear in good encyclopedia writing," but a lot of any of them and any of some of them are certainly out of order. The issue, I think, hinges on the adjective "informal" to characterize "storylike" style. It would be nice to find a more pointed synonym, while avoiding the use of "story" twice (and perhaps tautologically) in the brief text of the template. One possible alternative would be "individually idiomatic"--rather wordy, that. "Quasi-fictional" would also more precisely cover the sort of elements you list, but that's not a very attractive compound. The closest simple synonyms are "fictive" (surely too easy to misunderstand as an accusation that things are being made up), "anecdotal" (again, too easy, I think, to misunderstand), and "narrative" (too sweeping). Ultimately, while I believe your concerns are completely legitimate in theory, I don't think they quite pinpoint the threat in actual practice. Most of the writing to which any version of Template:Story might be applied is hardly sophisticated enough to have involved the intentional (as opposed to thoughtless) use of most of the undesirable elements you list. I think that the flagging of excessive "informality" of style most effectively addresses the majority of relevant cases--again, in actual practice. But, if I've missed a better synonym or turn of phrase to make this point, do let me know. —DCGeist 07:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I hadn't even thought about that repetition/tautology issue. It does pose a problem. Accounting for that... "literary elements" isn't all that good either, so... what you'e proposed may well just have to satisfice. The Literate Engineer 23:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 10:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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(Упражнение В!) 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Extreme WP:POV and will remain so, because it confuses the Palestine region with a Palestinian State that does not exist. Everything will be disputed from cities to name not to mention "land of Palestine". Should be removed and it's redundant too since such a template already exists: called 'Politics of Palestine' New addition won't serve anything but POV wars , confused and inappropriate. Amoruso 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Confusing - does it include/overlap Israel as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As POV. At current there is no recognized "Palestine" - if this template were for the historic land of Palestine that would make sense but as a country template is is essentially POV. If the template were changed to a template explicitly about the Palestinian territories that might be ok also. JoshuaZ 17:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pray for peace, but in the meantime, delete the template as premature. 64.212.90.254 17:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did anyone read the talk page??? This template hasn't been added to any pages yet so that it can be worked on until people are happy with it. I suppose the Palestine portal should be deleted too? If anyone has a problem with it then there is an edit tab. Discuss and do some work rather than trying to wipe it out. It's not a country infobox, State of Palestine box, Palestinian politics box. It was created so people could navigate around Palestinian related topics (there's a lot of them, not very well connected though). Please be mature rather than getting upset.Pockets23 17:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this template was less than 24 hours old when it was proposed for deletion shows an extreme POV. This template is not on any pages yet. Please work on it. Pockets23 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pockets, I have, as a matter of fact, read the template's talkpage. Calling a deletion proposal a demonstration of "extreme POV" is, in fact, a demonstration of an extreme assumption of bad faith. If you're just tossing this around as an idea, heed the words given every editor, anonymous or otherwise, and mess around with it in your userspace or some random sandbox. That said, your claims about everyone who opposes "your" template being possessed of "extreme POV"s is disingenuous, and I recommend you withdraw it. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by fingerpointing and blamegaming. Now, when you have time, please review my comments on the template's talkpage. Cheers, Tomer^talk 08:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any assumptions - I'm basing what I say on previous experience. I did "mess around with it" - I think I went far enough and created it so that wikipedians could take over and edit it and make it into something balanced and worthwhile. Like you said: "Wikipedia works by consensus" but remember, wikipedia also suffers from Systemic bias. Thanks - Pockets23 06:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Jayg. -- Avi 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No alternative template is available. We need a template for Palestine. Those who claimed it POV did not provide explainationhow it is POV. If they see defects in it, lets modify it not delete it. --Thameen 18:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- tasc ^words_deeds 18:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Beit Or 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename I also believe that an easier method of navigating the Palestinian articles is necessary, but this title, which phrases "Palestine" as being an independent entity, is confusing, somewhat misleading, and results in nonneutrality, even if that might not be its intent. I suggest a renaming to reflect the reality that this discusses not a Palestinian state which has yet to arrive, but the culture and other aspects of Palestinian life. Tewfik^Talk 19:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is this conversation not taking place on the templates talk page. Keep and dicuss and edit. Pockets23 19:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let people who want to develop the template do so. There is a need for a Palestine-related template and it's not linked to anything yet that confuses any issues. There doesn't have to be a state in that name for the template to be relevant. Agree too with Thameen that a move to delete something less than 24 hours old in itself shows extreme POV on the part of the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs)
• Delete - per nom & JoshuaZ. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jay et al. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Kuratowski's Ghost 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Some feel that the creators should be given more time for development. I doubt that it will be NPOV anytime, however, development can be done in userspace. Else, users may be tempted to add it to articles, edit wars ensuing surefire in its present state. --tickle me 07:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete all hystrionics about not talking about it more on the template talkpage. As I have pointed out on the template's talkpage, there is no way this template will ever be anything but a vehicle for POV-pushing. Unless Wikipedia's neutrality is now hostage to propaganda pushers, this kind of tripe has no place here. Tomer^talk 08:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, what is POV-pushing is to suppress attempts to organize Palestine-related articles. Bertilvidet 21:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Palestine's first defined borders were that declared in the Balfour Declaration. What makes something "Palestine"? Which one? Which people? Philistines? What era? Which Palestine? Politically? or what? --Shamir1 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this is a very interesting logic. Following the logic that Palestine is not clearly defined, Israel is obviously also not clearly defined (does it include the occupied areas, how much of Jerusalem, Golan etc). So if this is a criteria for deletion Israel related templates should be deleted too. Bertilvidet 06:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That comment sounds peachy but it's a fantasy. Israel is a COUNTRY, a STATE and is VERY defined. Following your logic, half the countries in the world aren't defined because they all have disputed territories. Unfortunately for the Palestinians, Palestine is simply NOT a country and a state. Amoruso 06:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, then we cannot have templates for Taiwan, TRNC, Greenland etc??? Bertilvidet 15:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan is under the template "Greater China" and Taiwan's tempaltes are called Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan). Uhm ehm is that what you want ? The problem is not with having a template but with having a template called PALESTINE which clearly confuses the REGION called PALESTINE which actually contains ISRAEL, and the Palestinian Arab entity which is not a state. That's why this is so wrong. One can have a template called Palestinian Authority, which like I mentioned already exists in large part. If that is the template and clearly defined that's something else. On the other hand, if it's the region, it's somethig completely else. Amoruso 20:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Pockets23. Also, the template should clearly indicate that Palestine in the modern sense includes all of the territory known as Cisjordan[[2]] during the British Mandate.--DieWeibeRose 21:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template is valid. It is an early work in progress. I have recently suggested and collaborated on the creation of a few others which are related such as Template:Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and Template:Israel-Palestinian peace process. --Ben 03:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a Palestinian people and there is a Palestinian government that is elected. Why can they not have a template? Let's address the confusion and not throw out the baby with the bath water. --Ben 03:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment[3] ---> proof why template should be deleted right here. Indeed no point to throw the baby with the water so this template should be worked in the user page. Having it in existance tempts users to start placing it in in-appropriate places and create edit-wars. Generally, the template can be "Palestine" and then include Israel too and its history - not sure if it has any point - or be called "Palestinian Authority" and focus only on issues related to it. It can also be called other things... . But that should be worked on in the user page like explained above. Amoruso 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That edit doesn't seem overly objectionable. The conflict is called the Israel-Palestinian Conflict and there is an Israel template already on the page. Adding a template representing the other side seems to be more of a NPOV change than one that is pushing one side over the other. --Ben 04:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to ignore the fact the very nature of the template is wrong. <sigh> If it was about the other side it should be a PNA template and half of what it contains right now shouldn't be there. Amoruso 01:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - opposition to this template appears to be based entirely on partisan politics. --Coroebus 13:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename if necessary. I'll keep my thoughts as a Palestinian private, but as a Wikipedian, I am concerned about where this template will be placed without getting into a battle over it every time. I'd be okay with renaming it "Palestinians" or "Palestinian people" for the time being. Alternatively, one could merge it with the Israel template into "Palestine/Israel" or "Israel/Palestine", but that would require tremendous good-will on the part of most editors, although it could then be placed anywhere without sparring over it. Ramallite ^(talk) 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This template is a) a work in progress and b) not redundent with Template:Politics of Palestine. That template covers current politics, while this one covers history, culture and a large number of articles besides the political stuff. These articles about the Palestinian people, their culture, history, heritage are not going away. I see nothing wrong with grouping them together with a template. Regardless what you or I feel about the politics, I don't see how this is a POV issue. Work those things out, but that is not reason enough to delete this template. Seriously. I think Creationism is a bunch of baloney, but we have a template that helps organize that articles on that topic and I wouldn't never suggest it be deleted. So why on earth are people opposed to a template that helps organize articles on this topic? --Andrew c 00:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless renamed exactly per Ramallite. As Amoruso points out, there is a fundamental problem with the present template: it clearly confuses the region called Palestine, which encompasses Israel, with the area directly governed by the Palestinian Authority, which is not a state. As Andrew c points out, the substantive content referenced by the template is "articles about the Palestinian people, their culture, history, heritage." Rename the template "The Palestinian People" or "The Palestinians" and the fundamental problem is appropriately resolved.—DCGeist 04:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per change in template name and main title to "Palestinians."—DCGeist 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. --Ian Pitchford 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Template already exists in unobjectionable form. IronDuke 03:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - combines several disputed concepts (land of Palestine, Phillistines, modern Palestinian people, the Palestinian National Authority, etc.) and attempts to paint it as one and the same. Inherently POV. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The template name and main title has been changed from Palestine to Palestinians. Does this change anything?--Andrew c 19:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Template name has been changed, and the template itself can be very helpful in linking all Palestine-related pages together. Amjra 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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 as userfied. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User porn2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete or at least userfy. Unencyclopaedic and unhelpful. Konst.able 12:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopædic. -- Avi 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is no more "unencyclopedic" than the Template:User film upon which it is based. It is useful and helpful in that pornography is a particular subject I happen to write about on Wikipedia. What I find "unhelpful" is this stupid Tfd. What the heck is motivating you people, anyway? Are you playing Wikipedia morality police, or is this some kind of extension of the "great template purge" from a few months back? I'm quite disgusted with this – Wikipedia either needs a blanket ban on personal banners of any kind whatsoever, or it needs to lay off and give users extremely wide latitude in what they put on their userpages. The purge of some templates and not others has simply resulted in so much moralizing and partisan BULLSHIT, of which this Tfd is a prime example. Iamcuriousblue 21:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Delete none of them or delete them all. --- RockMFR 02:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a good policy. For one if we were to apply this to articles and images, Wikipedia would be bloated into an incomprehensible mess within weeks. Same for userboxes, I see no need to be slack on trash just because there is already a lot of trash out there.--Konst.able 11:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Very encyclopedic.Just because you don't agree with it's existence doesn't mean you should delete it.This templates shares an intrest.If this should be deleted than I think Template:user Guitar should be deleted also. SOADLuver 12:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Userfy it first for those who want to keep it. (I do not want it, though.) --Wordbuilder 14:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and userfy per WP:GUS. There is no more reasons why we should keep userboxes like these in the template namespace. They only disrupt. — Moe 02:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per WP:GUS. — TKD::Talk 02:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfied at User:EVula/Userboxes/porn. All instances (all whopping one of them) have been updated and the template can safely be deleted. EVula 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Template but Keep Userfied per EVula. Not sure why the major outcry on this one. It now exists in the User space for anyone who wants to use it. It has not been "purged" or "censored" or any of the like, simply moved to the appropriate space. --Satori Son 13:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is nothing. Check out "Earth" and "Earthling" in this discussion [4]. --Wordbuilder 13:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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(Упражнение В!) 00:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interwiki category spam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Seems to be a test template that someone forgot to delete. Isn't linked anywhere, broken, etc. --- RockMFR 02:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no use. Punkmorten 12:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.