< October 3	October 5 >

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. Mike Peel 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:My Gym Partner's a Monkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As with the below noms for other cartoon templates, this template should be deleted as unnecessary; it only has links to the character list, episode list, and links to two other episodes which should not have separate articles. — MSJapan 17:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. There does not seem to be support for this, and it doesn't work properly, so there's no point in keeping the template around. Mike Peel 20:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link GA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is intended to put little plus signs next to interwiki links for articles given good article status on foreign-language wikis, much as is done for foreign FA's with ((Link FA)). It is also intended to put the articles into categories of the form [[:Category:Wikipedia:Good articles in w:<language code>]] None of this works. The categories in question do not exist, and the interwiki icons don't show because there is no support in MediaWiki:common.js and MediaWiki:Monobook.css. We don't identify our own GA's with an icon on the article page itself, so why identify foreign articles as such? —dgies^t_c 16:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have wondered about that myself. Delete. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Link GA would probably working similar manner as the Link FA. However if there's a consensous regerading that the GA article in foreign editions are not listed, I don't mind having the template is going to be deleted. But in order that the Link GA template to work, a addition to the Monobook.css and Common.js must be applied, which this process requires the sysop privileges. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 03:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As near as I can tell, in the 10 months the template's been around, its never had monobook support; and I don't anticipate it getting sufficient support to justify an ((editprotected)) request. —dgies^t_c 04:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we can consider to put a notice that if the user wants to add display the link to foreign edittion with a icon, it can be customised on the user's Monobook.css or Monobook.js to displaying this template? Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 06:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would mean adding a template to a large number of articles which has no effect unless a user has customized their CSS and JS. I don't think it's a good precedent to make user-specific changes to articles. —dgies^t_c 07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I argee with Shinjiman's idea. Notice that there are already 6 other language editions which have the same template currently in use. Nevertheless, if the final decision is to delete it, please protect that title, so that noone else, who doesn't know such policy, would be able to create it again. -- Kevinhksouth 13:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pages are generally only "salted" if continual recreation is already a problem. —dgies^t_c 15:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If it is decided that this should be used, I suggest changed the icon and removing the category placement. I think this looks better as a bullet. It blends in with , so it's like a happy medium between using and nothing at all. Check out the comparison here. If it's decided that this shouldn't be used, then delete for sure. Rocket000 23:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if this worked properly, it would be a bad idea: as the nominator says, we don't identify our own GAs on their pages, so why should we mark a link to a foreign language article as a GA? It seems like needless over-categorisation to me. In any case though, the template doesn't even work in the most common skin, so no harm will be done if it is deleted. Terraxos 16:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mike Peel 20:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:German rugby international matches 1952 to 1999‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template. Data has been transcluded directly into Germany national rugby union team. — Bob 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mike Peel 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:German rugby test matches 1927 to 1940‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template. Data has been transcluded directly into Germany national rugby union team. — Bob 15:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ducks 2007 Stanley Cup Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per reasoning at a previous TfD for similar templates. Indiscriminate template. The teammates a player played with in any given season is not a defining characteristic. For players and teams that win multiple titles, their articles would be overwhelmed by these templates. Also, basically redundant to 2006-07 Anaheim Ducks season, which should list the full roster for the Ducks during their championship season. — Resolute 15:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GoodDay 17:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pet nom. And previous reasoning last time these type of templates came up. --Djsasso 19:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The proliferation of templates and infoboxes is staggering, and nom's argument is sound. How many Cup winning teams was Henri Richard on, eleven?  RGTraynor  20:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Subst. and delete. Mike Peel 20:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure what the point is of this template. Made as a test?. Rocket000 07:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unused/not working. Although if the author wants to work on it more I'd support userfying it. —dgies^t_c 17:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused, seems not to be useful. Carlosguitar 00:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• TheGrappler (who created this template) wrote, "The principle of an afdbox is essentially that of a stopgap measure until categorization of AfD entries becomes implementable: for motivation, see Wikipedia:AfD reform." We now have categorization of AfD entries (which, by the way, I like using). Since ((Afdbox)) was used in a mockup of this system at User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes/Mock/Articles for deletion, I think we can safely subst and delete this one. By the way, the mockup page at User:TheGrappler/afd-boxes/Mock/Articles for deletion makes for some entertaining reading. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Mike Peel 20:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unit-attn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This "template" adds a page to a category. That's it.. Rocket000 06:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a quieter and more neutral version of ((Metricate)). Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 4 October 2007 (GMT).

But all it does is add a page to a category. It the same as putting Category:Articles requiring unit attention of the page. What's the point? Rocket000 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's quicker to type, and stands out to be removed more easily. Moreover it can be put in an appropriate place in the article. Rich Farmbrough, 09:59 5 October 2007 (GMT).

I understand that, but with that logic, there could be templates created for every category that exists. People that aren't familiar with this temp. may not spot it, because they're looking at the categories on the bottom. IMO, the real solution would be to place ((Metricate)) only on talk pages. Rocket000 23:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is a blanket perennial proposal for clean-up templates. We could make the two synonyms. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07 9 October 2007 (GMT).

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mike Peel 20:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Cities in Senegal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Only used on a few pages and it had many empty fields. It was standardized to ((Infobox Settlement)). MJCdetroit 02:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unused and replaceable by ((Infobox Settlement)). Carlosguitar 04:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep / no consensus. Just because it was created by a disruptive user doesn't mean that it should be automatically deleted. Whether or not it is POV seems to be disputed, and "soviet occupation" appears to be generally accepted as having happened. If there are problems with specific links on the template, then they should be discussed on the template talk page / removed from the template. Mike Peel 21:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Soviet occupation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an inherently POV template created by a user with the long history of disruption Digwuren (see block log: [1]) who also created (and attempted to re-create under other names) already deleted articles Denial of Soviet occupation and Estophobia. The template attempts to integrate very different events. For example, the ongoing Russian-Japanese territorial dispute over Kuril islands is counted as "occupation". Another link redirects to History of Poland (1945–1989). Please note that the topic is havily occupied by a number of related accounts, based in Estonia (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Digwuren, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX). Alternatively the template may be moved to Template:Soviet zones of occupation with heavy rework. — Dojarca 02:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't think Wikipedia should ignore the concensus for the term "Soviet occupation" in the scholarly literature because a handful of anonymous Russian ultra nationalist editors disagree. There are 5360 hits in google scholar for the term "Soviet occupation" [2] and only 107 hits in google scholar for the term "Soviet liberation" [3] Martintg 06:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there is no scholarly consensus to call Russin possession of Kuril islands or post-WWII Poland "occupation"--Dojarca 06:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not talking about Russian possession, we are talking about Soviet occupation. No scholarly concensus on Poland? 2330 hits with "soviet occupation"+poland [4], only 69 hits with "Soviet liberation"+poland [5]. 67 hits "soviet occupation"+kuril [6], 2 hits "soviet liberation"+kuril [7] Martintg 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And now look at which articles this template redirect: to Russian-Japanese Kuril Islands dispute and to History of Poland (1945–1989), implying all that period was "occupation".--Dojarca 07:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a complete lie. The template redirects to Soviet_occupation_of_Poland. Martintg 07:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Soviet occupation of Poland links to History of Poland (1945–1989). You shouldn't make accusations of lying: it contributes to the atmosphere of incivility and inflames disputes rather than resolving them. DrKiernan 11:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as all previous templates by Digwuren were. This one is also inflammatory, created on purpose to illustrate his point that Kuril Islands dispute, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Estonian SSR, and Battle of Berlin are tightly interconnected. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as yet another divisive and inflammatory template created by a disruptive user. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ridiculous template mixing different events joined only by some POV. I especia;;y like inclusion of the Bornholm article Alex Bakharev 10:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So what was the Soviet military doing on the Danish island of Bornholm for a year after WW2 ended, liberating it? [8] Martintg 11:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The same that the U.S. forces have been doing all over Western Europe for sixty years after the V-day. Would you call it occupation and introduce a similar template? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you find verifiable reliable sources that the USA occupied Western Europe, I would encourage you to create such a template. Martintg 13:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and warn the nominator with a block for recurring personal attacks in AfD nominations (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia). The personality of Digwuren is irrelevant here. At some point Dojarca has to learn this. Colchicum 17:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Includes a number of articles on topics which are not generally considered to be an "occupation". Even if trimmed to only topics generally agreed to have been occupations, it would still only serve to promote an anti-Soviet POV. —dgies^t_c 20:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: you've got to be kidding here. Another attempt to censor soviet occupation concept? It's viable template even if some of those events can not be considered occupation. All articles linked have some connection with occupation. Even if some of them are sometimes mistakingly concidered occupation, the articles clearly reflect that. So when navigating through this template user can get better overview of soviet occupation concept. Suva Чего? 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - that is the nth stage of conflict resolution via deletion procedures. User's behaviour is not sufficient basis for deletion. "Sviet occupation" is a widely accepted term in Eastern Europe matters. If some links don't belong in the navigational template, resolve it on its talk page. Renata 16:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems like a proper template: all areas under Soviet occupation are linked here. Useful, although Stalin's glorifiers might not like this. But appropriate sources are given in any case. --Pudeo⺮ 13:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Useful template, outside of Russia there are no sources refuting Soviet occupation - nor any meaningful debate among historians about not calling Soviet occupation an occupation. Specific areas in template may be changed according to sources and consensus. Third similar attempt from Dojarca to censor Wikipedia based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, accompanied with a personal attack and misinformation about checkuser cases. -- Sander Säde 08:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Occupation of what? In fact Soviet occupation of Germany existed and I dont think there is any reliable source claiming Kuril islands are under Russian occupation.--Dojarca 09:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it you have not really read any Japanese sources on the topic, have you? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Like I said - read above "specific areas in template may be changed according to sources and consensus". And you are mixing Russia and Soviet Union - albeit Russia declared itself successor of Soviet Union, perhaps it is time to realize that they are two different countries - and that the template is about Soviet occupations. I see this template as a very useful for quickly navigating between various articles about Soviet occupations. If you don't like some part of the template, then discuss it on the template talk page, don't nominate it to deletion. I don't think you've grasped what are reasons for deletion - and that personal attacks, your grudges against one ethnic group (I do believe it is called "racism") do not belong to deletion nominations or Wikipedia in general. -- Sander Säde 09:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this acceptable or have I, as an Anti-American nationalist, created it because I want to portray the United States as a power-hungry land-grabbing nation of belligerent war-mongerers?

Now replace "United States" with "Soviet Union" and "American" with "Soviet". DrKiernan 10:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh you missed Navassa Island.--Dojarca 11:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly is it relevant to this discussion? Do US occupations somehow invalidate brutal Soviet occupations? -- Sander Säde 12:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose DrKiernan will guide us to the Alaskan tundra mass graves of the tens of millions of victims of Americanism? Yes, even as we write here, the cattle cars are being loaded daily across the planet, packed standing room only, to take families, ripped apart from each other and from their homes, to new productive lives in the frozen American hinterlands. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know of any in Alaska, but the Native Americans in the Continental States were of course shipped from their homelands into concentration camps and wiped out across the entire continent.^{This comment is not meant to be taken as historical truth but as an example of how material may be selected in order to make a point.} DrKiernan 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the British invented concentration camps during the Boer War and the British settlers exterminated Tasmanian aborigines, some argue that the Nazis were no worse than the Brits. But I don't think you can justify twentieth century conduct by pointing to nineteenth century conduct. I don't see any moral equivalence here.

As far as your template regarding American occupations, I have absolutely no problem with it, although I don't agree the inclusion of Turkey, Britain and France and I would rename it "American Occupation" rather than "American Occupations", since latter sounds like it could be concerned with jobs, but other than than, it is perfectly fine. Martintg 04:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not justifying any such conduct. I condemn it utterly and absolutely. DrKiernan 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV template created for political reasons. DrKiernan 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as useful navigational aid between all territories and forms of Soviet occupation. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As useful as Soviet occupations, which has not been deleted.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. To those who say the template is "politically motivated"--has it become so easy to slander intentions? If the Soviet presence in, say, Latvia is reputably deemed (based on verifiable evidence) to have been occupied (it, and other countries), then how is grouping Soviet occupations together for navigation "politically motivated?" It's become all to easy on the part of some to label everything as POV and politically motivated that simply seeks to present reputably sourced, factually verifiable accounts of historic events. Meanwhile, we appear to accept statements (with reference to Soviet occupation in the Baltics/Eastern Europe) that it's hard to tell a denier of Soviet liberation from a "real Nazi"? Am I the only one here to ask what happened to writing/contending anything based on sources? By the logic some present here, everything written by any Baltic/Eastern European editor that documents "occupation" is summarily dismissed as "politically motivated". Have you no shame? —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete teplate that collects different types of events under superficial similarity coming from the word "occupation". `'Míkka 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too POV and not useful. — JyriL ^talk 16:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mike Peel 20:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Private Practice season 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is a redunant template as it only provides links to the episode guides. An alternative page has already been created that serves the same purpose as the template. Also, the template violates WP:IINFO as it only leads to episode summaries, which is clearly not allowed anyway. — σмgнgσмg 13:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "List of FooBar episodes" is the standard for a good reason. Making "FooBar show season X" pages makes navigation and maintenance harder. —dgies^t_c 04:16, 5 October 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.