< December 2	December 4 >

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!) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arcane character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused. — Pagrashtak 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it is unused. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated and redundant to more generic character templates. SkierRMH (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not used. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:55, 6 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!) 00:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arcane characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused. All entries are either red links or redirects to the series page. — Pagrashtak 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unused. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless as navigational template due to redlinks & redirects. SkierRMH (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not used. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:56, 6 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!) 00:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries with Latin Populations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For deletion. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic) and does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement. — Zer0~Gravity ^{(Roger - Out)} 13:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promptly! - This template, created by user Iamandrewrice (who seems to have an outdated and racialized view of what a Latin is - see, for instance, Talk: Latino (demonym) # Mediterranean people in Europe count as Latino), is OR and POV and must be deleted - it implies that Latins are a homogeneous population (with racial overtones!). The Ogre 14:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also the question of what to do with the orphaned Template:Romance-speaking nations of the world, created by the same user, looking exactly the same and with the same bias. The Ogre 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Template:Romance-speaking nations of the world is now a redirect to the one being discussed here. Good. The Ogre 18:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete both - contains way to much POV and OR. Flibirigit 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cogito est 'propensio animi' et eruditio sui ipsus. (For the "Latin" populations).
  • N.b. this user was banned as a SOCK Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice (but does not qualify as I see it as a G5 deletion - but willing to do it if someone can give further info on it). SkierRMH (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per all, and because there are people of 'Latin' descent in just about every country in the world. (Sorry, Andy.) SamEV 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was going to say Keep and rename Romance-speaking nations of the world. But speedy delete under g5. If you're a sock, there's a reason your contribs can be deleted. The Evil Spartan 00:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • G5 only applies to "Pages created by banned users while they were banned, and as that only happened 12/3, don't see how that could apply. SkierRMH (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad you agree with the deletion. Regarding your former opinion that it should be renamed, remember that we already have Template:Romance languages and Template:Romance-speaking nations of Europe. Furthermore one would have to clearly define what a "nation" is. And if we were to list everywhere a Romance language is spoken... the list would be endless (even more if we would to consider stuff like the people that speak a Portuguese Creole, then you would have to add, amongst many others, the people that speak Kristang (Cristão) in Malacca (Malaysia) and Singapore...!)! The Ogre 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per talkpage discussion. Marlith ^T/C 00:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to the talk page discussion. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless, inaccurate, nonsense. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:47, 5 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 page.

The result of the debate was speedied as housekeeping. >Radiant< 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox actor/testcases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - It was created because <includeonly></includeonly>s were remove, see this revision. They are now restored, see this revision. Wikipedian 13:48, 3 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!) 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Horror Icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - This is the second time the template has been nominated and the same reason will be given: it's a little too subjective for an encyclopedia and doesn't really satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV); especially the modern section, in which people add their own character on the template just because they disagree that another character's not iconic. Also, the template is almost all original research, seeing as how you can't really tell and verify which character is iconic or not until you give evidence that people from different parts of the world actually know who they are. — Enter Movie 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion - I remember when I originally created this template, and it grew so fast that I quickly realized that unless sources could be provide to verify "icon" status then it would almost impossible to maintain. I, at one point, suggested a name change to something less subjective, but too specific becomes POV, and too vague opens the door to a never-ending list of names to be added. It was a novel idea when it was created, but just not realistic. If you look at the debates on the talk page, it becomes "well if you have this guy you have to have this guy".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's no clear definition of iconic. The template is basically all personal opinions.Yaksar 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose deletion - I think it should stay. A list of culturally recognisable horror icons is a very encylcopedic take on the subject - it focuses on reaction. I think people have actually been quite mature over suggesting icons, engaging in debate on the matter, and/or accepting a rejection actually. Kayako, the clown from IT, Candyman, and other suggestions have accepted the rejection. The only real controversial one has been Jigsaw as he is the most recent, and thus the most debatable. The topic has started a lot of discussion on the matter- but I fail to see how that is a bad thing. That's how wikipedia is supposed to work, to debate and discuss. People have been very good in their debates and has not descended into any yelling matches. But at the very least, the classic icon list should definitely stay. It should not be removed if there are on-going debates concerning who is iconic in our era. Definitely keep the classic icon list if not the modern one. Yeldarb68 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The arguements over Jigsaw are over now, it seems. He stays on the template. There is also enough support for Ash to be on the list. I don't see no reason for this template to be deleted simply because of arguements over characters being included on it. At the very least, in place of deletion, the classic horror icons section remains, as the problems lie only with Jigsaw and the Modern Section. The Classics, however, is what the template whole should be: the undisputable icons of horror. --Plasma Twa 2 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can either of you provide any sources that state any of the names currently on that list are horror icons? ALL content is subject to the verifiability policy, and unless there are reliable sources that show the names on that list are indeed considered "Horror Icons", then they need to be removed. This isn't a debate for Wikipedians. You cannot sit on the talk page and go, "well, I think John Doe is an icon, does every else agree?" Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The same thing goes for the "Classic" characters. Who is to say The Invisible Man is iconic? or the Gillman? No one, unless there is a source to back it up. Just because you deem something icon doesn't necessarily mean that it is. The template is highly original research, all original research should be removed on spot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show what kind of original research is taking place, I've pulled this statement from the talk page. THIS is how names are being decided upon:

The Invisible Man is arguably iconic. He first appeared in the novel by H. G. Wells: The Invisible Man. He then was continuously adapted into cinema which led to a series of sequels: The Invisible Man (1933) The Invisible Man Returns (1940) The Invisible Woman (1940) Invisible Agent (1942) The Invisible Man's Revenge (1944) Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951) This then in turn led to the more recent Hollow Man, which also led to a sequel. I think the invisible man is definitely a classic horror icon. Yeldarb68 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not how we determine "iconic" status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as such a compilation is constantly up for interpretation. There's no verifiable criteria to establish a horror icon, only personal arguments and counterarguments to make. Here, the template is a mish-mash of contemporary and classic figures that are not at all backed by any sort of criteria, especially recent figures like Jigsaw. If you have to start an argument for someone being an icon by saying, "I think" or "I feel", then you're off on the wrong foot. Reviewing the template talk page, there's quite a few arguments that start this way. So no, there is no inherent, verifiable substance to the setup of the template. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So delete the invisible man then. Not a big deal. And then we can go through each and every single character on the list, and with each and every single one, research widely as to whether they are iconic or not. Is Dracula an icon of horror for example? okay, fine, if it had been made clear earlier, I'm sure the person who put Dracula up would have researched for things in support of that to begin with, if it was not all of a sudden making it a condition that was not previously explicitly stated on the template description requirements. And to add to that, I have provided sources claiming that Jigsaw at least is a horror icon. Maybe conditions for future templates should be made more explicit, that way not having to waste people's time. Kind regards, Yeldarb68 14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what happens when sources cannot be found that explicitly state that Dracula, The Wolf Man, Frankernstein's Monster, Freddy, Jason, Michael, etc etc etc (fill in who ever, until you name 75% of the names on the template), and you have to remove all those names? How much bitching is going to happen because some character, who we all know is obviously iconic but just isn't supported by sources, is removed, while some other character who is clearly less iconic gets to stay because someone happened to mention "iconic" in this description of the character. Two problems will arise. First, most of the names on there might not be that easy to show with sources--doesn't mean they aren't, just means finding sources won't be the easiest, or possible thing to do. Two, I've read plenty of articles where the reviewer personally thought a character was "iconic", but no one else seemed to share that opinion. How do you tell an editor who has a source like that, "sorry, but it's just not enough." Technically, it meets verifiability, yet, isn't really definitive about the character's iconic status.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Template is too small and who is or isn't "iconic" is only an opinion. However, I do have a suggestion we instead do something else with it. Instead we concentrate on anything horror well known. For example, we list both books, movies, characters, and other things that are well known for horror. This way The Exorcist is mentioned without mentioning Pazuzu (The Exorcist). For movies and books, we go by how much success it had ($) and how well known it is outside of countries of that language. For characters, how much that character has gotten in sales, like figurines. This will be based upon facts, not opinions. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little too broad. There are portals for a reason. And as for this template not being biased, let me use this quote as an example of its lack of objectivity: "And if Aliens is to be considered as horror, then obviously yes, The Headless Horseman, Sleepy Hollow and such are horror as well." With the definition of the template changing around so much, its impossible for it to be encyclopedic.Yaksar 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, arbitrary grouping, original research. >Radiant< 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The template is far too inclusive in the sense that it nearly suggests these horror "icons" rise above mere imitators. Also tossing in "Classic" horror icons almost makes it look like there was no notable horror boogemeny between the 1940's and 1975. I can't be the only one who looks at least one or two names on the list and think "these are 'icon' status? hmm..." Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Mainly due to POV and original research as stated above.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This template does keep track of horror Icons by it only says Classic or Modern. How about cut the Template into decades and whatnot to save all this. Horror Icons 1900 all the way up to the 1950's then 70's 80's and so on as the Horror Genre itself is evolving, the Icons them selfs are evolving. At the moment if you guys noticed The icons that were first created in Japan like from the Films the Ring or the Grudge have not been on the list and only Icons from american films or have originated from american shores. I see that because Horror is changing people of different cultures of the world may not like this type of horror genre and may not watch it which makes that icon unpopular in that part of the world while in another they are a big hit. Kinda see my drift a little? Sorry if my post is confusing. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the template to separate characters by decades, or any other division does not change the fact that all the characters on the template are there based on editor opinion, and not based on any verifiable source that reliably shows they are considered "icons" of Horror.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I came across this template reading one of the articles listed and followed it to Ash Williams where I noticed it wasn't on the page despite being on the template so added it. It was promptly removed and I was intrigued way so I went to the templates talk page and found that pretty much all the discussion was about four or five users having arguments about who or what is iconic without ever explaining why. For example there had been many debates over the inclusion of Ash Williams and Jigsaw Killer but for all of their content both came down to "this character is iconic because it just is". A more telling debte was the exclusion of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde as being "less known" than Dracula or Frankenstein while overlooking that iconic status and popularity are not the same thing. I was thinking about nominating this template for deletion after reading these under violations of WP:OR and WP:NPOV but forgot about it. I just remembered today and came to the page to do so and find it already has been, what luck. –– Lid^(Talk) 22:59, 10 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!) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shadow Yamato X series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:List of the Shadow Yamato X Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template for hoax game series; see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Yamato X series.. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Terraxos 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the discussions on this entire series at AfD. (Added "List of shadow...)" SkierRMH (talk) 03:49, 5 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!) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Warcraft character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused in the article space due to deletions/merges of non-notable Warcraft characters. — Pagrashtak 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused and unnecessary. Terraxos 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused & redundant to general character templates SkierRMH (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:48, 7 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.