< December 17	December 19 >

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slow Motion Reign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template of a band that fails WP:MUSIC Delete. Secret ^account 23:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: in addition to the possible notability issue, two relevant links (the band's article and the album's article) are not sufficient for a navbox. Gracenotes^T § 01:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough articles for navigational value. –Pomte 01:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough content for a navbox to be necessary, and band fails WP:MUSIC. JPG-GR (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete interlinking/see also would suffice. SkierRMH (talk) 03:26, 21 December 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 section.

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UK Food (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is basically a list of US restaurant chains doing business in the UK. It really has nothing to do with UK food. A rename might be possible, but I don't think this serves a useful purpose for a navbox. — Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The template doesn't just list American chains (e.g. Hungry Horse which is well and truly British). I'm undecided as to whether it has value as a navbox or not (maybe another option would be for the Spirit Group chains to have a navbox for them, Whitbread group theirs, etc.). -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This template provides an easier link between different chains that have operations in the UK. The name UK Food was just to make it easier to put on pages and is in line with Template:UK Hotels and Template:UK supermarkets. Pafcool2 (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, two more templates with the same problem. They are not UK businesses rather multinational chains operating in the UK. I should add that the supermarket one is mainly UK businesses so it does not have the problems that the other templates have. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A very useful navbox, maybe a rename of the title to "Food chains operating in the United Kingdom" would be appropriate. _└^and-rew_┘^┌_talk^┐ 20:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how many of these nav templates do we need for these multinational companies? Some companies operate in scores of countries and if we add a template for each country consider how useless these become. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Useful, well-organized, and informative yet concise. Jmlk17 23:17, 20 December 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:LFMQ team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant clone of ((Infobox Sports team)), seemingly an error by new user, unused. — Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused/redundant infobox. Gracenotes^T § 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant and unused. JPG-GR (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant/unused. –Pomte 07:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused & redundant. SkierRMH (talk) 03:25, 21 December 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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

A draft template that has never reached consensus for inclusion in articles. Attempts to do so have been resisted by editors of those articles. A general discussion on templates in this topic area is occurring here and seems to favour either (1) no templates at all or (2) unobtrusive, collapsible templates at the foot of an article, rather than side-dwelling banners like this one. A revised template for articles on Wicca may emerge from that discussion, but it will not be this one.. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Prob best deleted. No one seemed to like it, and everyone seemed to prefer a collapsible template at the bottom, if there's even consensus to have one at all. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 10:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Sidebar templates have largely fallen out of favour in articles, and footer navboxes have taken their place. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 10:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If everyone agrees to a collapsible navbox at the bottom, then simply edit the current template. –Pomte 19:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thing is, there's an alternative template ((WiccaandWitchcraft)) which more nearly does the job and is a better candidate for editing into shape. The one we're discussing here is unlikely to form the basis of whatever new template emerges, an its continued existence can be confusing to new editors who go off on a spree inserting it into articles, just because it's there.... Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template only serves as eye candy, and doesn't aid navigation of the subject of Wicca. ((WiccaandWitchcraft)) is more promising, though whether a template is needed at all is debatable. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There still needs to be some serious discussion about whether Wicca-related articles need a template at all, but this deletion should be a no-brainer, since the template is redundant with the more attractive and useful ((WiccaandWitchcraft)). (I mean no offense to those who created and developed it, of course. Your work is appreciated.) - AdelaMae ^{(t - c - wpn)} 12:45, 20 December 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.