< December 27	December 29 >

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 of all. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. per WP:FOOTY guidelines and previous consensus that only FIFA World Cup templates should exist. - Darwinek (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. – Pee Jay 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per nom. and previous deletion. Matthew_hk t c 12:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as a non-World Cup national football templates. Jhony | Talk 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per precedent. BD2412 T 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment The olympics are one of the bigest competitions and at least equal to world cup. These templates are not only football templates. The teams have won an olympic medal wich is more important from a world cup participation. Sportin 31 December 2007
- When the Olympics allowed for full-fledged national teams, this was the case. However, it is now closer to the under-22 level. All of the the templates above are for teams since the age rule was implemented. Neier (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per project guidelines and previous concensus. Neier (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. SkierRMH (talk) 20:54, 2 January 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.

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 Deleted by User:Tone. ><RichardΩ6 12 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly pointless as the only page it links to is the page it is transcluded on!. RichardΩ6 12 22:56, 28 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 Delete per author request below. SkierRMH (talk) 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One transclusion on a historical essay and rather useless anyway.. RichardΩ6 12 22:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subst'ed on that historical essay, template can go now (speedied even) as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article in template space. Convert to article or subst as required. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- La Reine Margot exists in main namespace (dab page now), template is a copy of a former state of that article which I wanted to use as a how-not-to example in a guideline proposal (WP:ENAV). That was its only use (subst'd there now), so there's really no impediment to speedy the template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per creator, User:Francis Schonken. JPG-GR (talk) 01:23, 29 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!) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nav template in which only one link is to an existing article, and it is likely that very few of the linked articles are notable.. RichardΩ6 12 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - severe notability concerns, minimal utility, redlink farm. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just one useful/functioning wikilink. SkierRMH (talk) 08:10, 29 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!) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entries are either red links or redirects to a list. No longer useful for navigation. — Pagra shtak 19:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Bob (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - redlinked & redirected. SkierRMH (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the prevailing consensus seems to be that individual CVG character articles aren't acceptable in Wikipedia any more, and whatever characters we had here have been either mostly merged or exiled to ultima.wikia.com, we can conclude this template has become kind of pointless... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:30, 29 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!) 00:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant as ((Rugby union squad)) has been expanded to cope with clubs and provinces and not just national sides. — Bob (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 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!) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant as it has been moved to ((Rugby union squad)) since its expansion to cope with clubs and provinces and not just national sides. — Bob (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 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!) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template where all the links are to pages that do not exist, and are most likely not notable enough to warrant one. RichardΩ6 12 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wow that is useless. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hah, absolutely. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redlinked to death. SkierRMH (talk) 08:08, 29 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!) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why this is a template, can this not be typed out manually?. RichardΩ6 12 13:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no idea why this template exists. It seems to serve absolutely no purpose but to shorten a wikilink. More user-laziness templates.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bob (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1, else Delete. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, how lazy are we. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utter laziness... SkierRMH (talk) 08:07, 29 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 discussion was Delete --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unnecessary since Wikipedia is not censored. — Metros (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think these are more to do with WP:CIVIL than censorship, but they are redundant. ><RichardΩ6 12 13:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While wikipedia is not censored, I can see how templates asking users not to do this would be a good idea from a WP:CIVIL standpoint, however, there are two big problems with these templates. They act like a stepped warning and implies users will be punished or otherwise blocked for doing so (this isn't vandalism), and second, there are already templates that address this in a better way.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe a cleanup to make it a little better would suffice? After all, it is a quick and simple way of telling a user to refrain from swearing at others.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because people are already goddamn lazy enough. Second, its not editors' jobs to tell eachother what to do. Advising them on the matter is one thing, ordering them around is another entirely. While it may be tactless in most cases, there is nothing against profanity in the policies and in fact, it can be quite productive (see WP:FUCK). This may sound invective, but quite frankly, and quite ironically, the best way to deal with swearing is, well, not to give a fuck to add a sense of irony to this. Telling people to stop swearing is completely useless since it is either unnecessary (as non personal-attack profanity is not against any rule), or is better covered simply by warning them they may be violating WP:CIVIL. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, then a template advising them to stop swearing, like" hello, I notice you're using vulgar language.please don't do it as often" or something like that?IslaamMaged126 (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother in the first place? Its a waste of a template, and user-talk templates are used to advise users of polices, guidelines, and practices, not to take up personal greivances with the way a user talks. If you really care that much about their language, you should be able to make the extra effort to type something out. If the TfD logs are any example at all, there is already a huge problem with people abusing templates because they're lazy.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.Delete it.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. What is wrong with this template? it is a quick and polite way of telling users to please refrain from using vulgar language, as this is uncivil.It's easier then typing an entire message as well.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2 - use of vulgar language is not a criterion for blocking per the Blocking policy. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per creator, User:IslaamMaged126. JPG-GR (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not needed, if cursing is a problem and malicious ((uw-v1)) through ((uw-v4)) should be used.
CommentHold it.What's the thing about " per creator"?What's up with me?IslaamMaged126 (talk) 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply There's nothing personal about the comment by JPG-GR. That's standard shorthand in deletion discussions, meaning that the user agrees with the reasoning behind your argument. In this case, JPG-GR is referring to when you said "Fine.Delete it." Cheers, Darkspots (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even though User:Metros's reasoning is wrong (WP:NOT#CENSORED has nothing to do with discussions), delete the motherfucker. Swearing is not a blockable offense. Personal attacks are, but that's not the same thing. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 12:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean that telling someone to fuck off would be considered a personal attack,but just swearing itself is not?IslaamMaged126 (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I am saying. I used the word "motherfucker" above as a demonstration of that. Lewis Collard! (it's cold out there, but i'm telling you, i'm lonely) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks directly attack another person. Either accusing them of something, attacking their integrity, questioning motives without evidence, etc. Just being rude or profane, if the intent is not to belittle another editor either its generally not a personal attack. In order for something to be an attack, there has to be a target.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, then like I said, delete it.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 14:52, 29 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 Snowball Keep / Withdrawn All participants have agreed deleting the template would be harmful to its host article. Non admin closure Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large, unwieldy and obliterates the layout of articles, this could be subst'ed onto the one, perhaps two articles it would be useful on.. RichardΩ6 12 13:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What do you mean "obliterates the layout", it is a block table moved off euro coins and is the only way to display that data.- J Logan ^t: 13:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, didn't check whether it did actually mess up the layout. However, the point still stands. I am not saying that the information should go, but that it doesn't need to be a template as it is only useful on one article. ><RichardΩ6 12 13:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subs't and delete -- one or two articles may be able to use this (only one currently transcludes it) and any other greivances can then be dealt with on the article itself where the belong. Seems to be an issue of templates being used for content.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) KeepAfter looking at the template more closely, holy crap thats a ton of code. I agree that this could shellshock new editors. Very easily--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's an excruciatingly long piece of table wikicode. - $\mathrm {S}$ . $\mathrm {Solberg}$ $\mathrm {J}$ . 22:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep - this is exactly what the template namespace is for. Have you seen how long the wikicode is? Imagine a newbie clicking "edit this page" on Euro coins and finding that lot in the edit box. Clear utility in moving complicated syntax out of mainspace, possible use in multiple articles (thereby removing duplication), generally a very nice template. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above -- outsourced from the article so as to avoid scaring newbies. —Nightstallion 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per preceding comments. --Bob (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - and kudos to author/editors for the good work! SkierRMH (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. *eyeballs pop out at length of code*. Agreed, this is one template that definitely not be subst:'ed and deleted! I should have thought of that. ><RichardΩ6 12 11:17, 29 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 userfy. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should at the least be userfied, if not deleted.. RichardΩ6 12 13:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Migrate it. Charon X/talk 17:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per nom. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Per above. Happy New Year!! Malinaccier (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per UBX migration. JPG-GR (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 08:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per nom, not permitted in main template space. BD2412 T 01:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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 Speedy delete as G2; there's already a detailed article. --Oxymoron⁸³ 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not appropriate text for a template.. Lankiveil (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Templates should not masquerade as content at the best of times, let alone content that suffers from spelling and grammar issues. ><RichardΩ6 12 13:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oni Ookami Alfador (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete. Actually the template has been speedy-deleted before. Dekisugi (talk) 15:06, 28 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 marked as historical for now, to be deleted later. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is very limited navigational value in linking these vastly different census divisions to each other, with some lacking articles. The information is more appropriate being left to List of census divisions of Canada by population and Census division statistics of Canada. –Pomte 07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trivia at best. Delete. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - trivia. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might make a good table, but not a template. Trivia at best. JPG-GR (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as templifying trivia. Not really useful navigationally. SkierRMH (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TCREEP. Bearcat (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closer: Please keep the template to preserve the edit history and mark it ((deprecated)) or some such, since the template's stats are more up-to-date than Census division statistics of Canada and I am merging there. –Pomte 23:19, 4 January 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.

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 no consensus, lean to keep RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 00:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template will be incomplete so long as it doesn't become cumbersome, which it will if filled out to include a broader selection of European royal houses. As it stands, the houses listed are rather selective and are not even representative of most or all major royal dynasties. It would be best to cut the fuss and settle for reading about such houses on the pages for monarchs of those countries, or by navigating through any of the multiple categories on royalty found on most royal articles. The items are like enough, but this is the same as having a template on all European wars or some other loosely related groupings. — Charles 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Completely rewrite. The current template give per country historic royal houses. That will indeed create an unwieldy template if it is ever finished (don't underestimate issues that will crop up with countries that merged, split etc etc). There might however be a place for a template 'Ruling Royal Houses of Europe' (if that does not already exist) where the ruling Royal houses of Europe (ie England - Winsor; Netherlands - Oranje-Nassau etc) are listed. This is a short list. Arnoutf (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We already have templates on series of French ruling houses, German ruling houses, British ruling houses, etc. Charles 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either rewrite per above or split into more specific templates for more closely related groups such as individual countries, etc (though that may present its own issues). If neither of those is appealing or possible, straight deletion is probably better than leaving it in its current state.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - minimal utility, but otherwise fairly harmless. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand a little as articles justify it. the template is fairly compact,so there is room for additional content without confusion.DGG (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and expand as articles are created. There are not that many royal houses in Europe's history (as opposed to noble houses), so I doubt it will get that huge. Lankiveil (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]

comment Don't underestimate the length of Europe's history (about 2000 yrs), its many past states etc. For example England alone has about 13 royal dynasties; Scotland another 5. Ireland (prior to 1600) consisted of about 13 kingdoms (which all may have hosted multiple dynasties). If you count prince as royal, Wales has its own long list as well. This is only for Great Britain and Ireland. Consider the dozens of German kingdoms withing the Holy Roman Empire, Viking monarchies, (and I have not even discussed the Balkan, the many, many states of Italy and the Iberian peninsula etc etc) there are indeed many, many royal houses in Europe's history. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it doesn't appear to be redundant to any other succinct lists of houses. I think splitting it might create more problems. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What problems would it create? There were no problems when it did not exist. As indicated, many, many dynasties are missing. These are best broken up into German dynasties, British dynasties, etc. Charles 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just sounds like a lot of extra maintenance. • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what people like me and the other fine editors of WP:ROYALTY like to do. Really, it isn't a problem :) Charles 21:32, 3 January 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.

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 speedily deleted per any number of criteria. henrik•talk 23:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template could theoretically be applied to all 2.1 million articles. Unreasonable and unnecessary. — Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This template is pure and utter ludicrous. Anyone idiot off the street can call themselves and expert and we have no way to verify that. Plus, and please don't take this as a personal attack, the creator's rationale is fatally flawed in several fundamental ways. 1) This supports original research. The existence of this template would easily provide people with an excuse in their minds to just make their own assessments of an article's facts and insert what information they deem to be true. 2) There is no qualification for "expert" here, nor is there one for certification. 3)He/she is attempting to fix a fundamental criticism in Wikipedia, simply by slapping a label on it. Please also note that when this goes Category:CertifiedbyanExpert should probably just go with it as its basically the same thing, although slightly less obtuse. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oni Ookami Alfador. JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Per above and: The template mentions all facts are correct; which is an unscientific statement and would not apply to many articles even if they reach FA without any comment. Arnoutf (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Words cannot sum up how much chaos this could bring if widely used. Get rid of it quick! ><RichardΩ6 12 12:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep This template would not cause chaos. First of all, it's existence would only be given to people who admins believe are experts. There would be a locked list somewhere that admins could check. It could be that the template has to be signed. This template allows one to completey trust a wiki page's info. And obviously it wouldn't be put if there is a scientifically debatable topic. Statue2 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This template is a clear example of exactly what Wikipedia is not. Moreover, even if we did implement it, with all of the disruptive changes the creator above suggests (Foundation issues would, of course, prevent this in practice), it would still not allow one to completely trust a wiki page's info. Hence, it's useless even for its intended purpose. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At any given time, an article can be modified with rubbish and render the statement false. However, it will not an unscientific statement in all instances. --Bob (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1, WP:CSD#T1 and WP:CSD#T2. If anyone important ever hears of this you'll have it under WP:CSD#G9 as well (I suspect the foundation lawyer would have a few choice words to say about it). Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 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 speedy delete per CSD G6 and WP:UBM. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just not necessary - Wikipedia is not a social site, and the idea of social networking inherent in identifying specific lists of 'friends' is antithetical to the community oriented and egalitarian principles of Wikipedia. — Avruchtalk 03:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe promotion of cliques is a wise move, and however well-intentioned, this template would appear to do exactly that. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 03:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if done at all, should be done without a template. BD2412 T 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. However, if for some reason delete fails, userfy is the only other alternative. JPG-GR (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a social networking site. Jehochman ^Talk 03:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly, this template worries me. I hope the people using it don't really need a template to tell them who they're friends with! Anyway, it's clearly inappropriate. Terraxos (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only should this be deleted, but I think it would be in the best interest of Wikipedia if every user who has adopted this template is convinced as vehemently (albiet politely) as humanly possible not to simply userfy or subst this as it pretty much slaps WP:NOT in the face.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Oni Ookami's comment above, this is just completely useless. ><RichardΩ6 12 12:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy. I think it's fine. EvanS • talk |sign here 22:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOT#SOCIALNET. Happy‑melon 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this gets deleted, might as well delete all things in Category:Frendship_Templates and the adoption template. C'mon, templates are harmless, even though they are off-topic. Doesn't hurt the encyclopedia at all, and it infact encourages people to stay with wikipedia, where they may become potential editors. Please have a look at WP:EM.-- penubag 23:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about nominating the category and other contents for deletion, but it turns out those other templates are completely different in nature. So, just this one. Avruchtalk 23:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All the pain in the ass things that happen start because they're originally dismissed as harmless. Actually, they aren't harmless. They'll distract from WP:NOT#SOCIALNET, and make that harder to enforce. Wikipedia already suffers criticism for a lack of integrity and professionalism (most of it well warranted too), and this will just make it worse. As for the other templates in the category, its kindof a far cry from this one. The brothers one actually imparts information that could even be relevant to policy purposes for various issues. The "User wants to be your friend" templates are as simple as an outreach to good faith and whatnot. And well, the hug one, that too is just a simple outreach and even has application for dispute resolution. The only one that doesn't serve a tangible purpose, and in fact risks causing harm, is this one we are discussing right here.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not Myspace. --Carnildo (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - moving too close to Myspace/Facebook, etc. SkierRMH (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep OK, Wikipedia is not a social network, that I agree, but I do believe that a certain, uh, "friendship" being estublished between users. And I think that, this is also a way to introduce users (is someone falls on my userpage, say, I am friend with Penubag, and if the person doesn't know him, well, the person gets to know him). Don't reply to me though, my computer is kaput and I'm too soaked in Stargate SG-1 and The Unit these days.-- Vintei Talk 21:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop debating stupid shit like this and work on the encyclopedia instead. 71.127.240.26 (talk) 07:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touché Pump me up 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've userfied this at User:Voyagerfan5761/UBX/friends with Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 20:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, why? The crux of this debate is that it doesn't need to exist. Why do we need ot have it userfied? Metros (talk) 04:51, 2 January 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.

December 28

Football templates

Template:Zimbabweanfilmlist

Template:"La Reine Margot" example

Template:VillanovaCoach

Template:UltimaCompanions

Template:Club rugby squad

Template:National rugby squad

Template:TUTigersCoach

Template:F.Marinos

Template:Stop cursing

Template:Euro coins

Template:User Proud Thai

Template:Benazir Bhutto

Template:Largest and smallest census divisions of Canada

Template:Royal houses of Europe

Template:CertifiedbyanExpert

Template:User friends with

Template:Firearmtable[edit]

Template:Georgia National Football Team[edit]

Template:Nova Scotia-politician-photo[edit]

Template:Slitheen[edit]