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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Spuimap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – orphaned
• Template:Spuiother (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – 2 transclusions
• Template:Spuiphoto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – 6 transclusions

These image copyright tags, intended for use by a single user, are redundant to ((pd-self)). There is no reason that each uploader of media should use a different tailored tag, especially when it essentially replicates more general tags. Also, the user in question, User:SPUI, has not edited for several months. Replace with the appropriate tag and delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the templates are deleted, also delete Category:User SPUI contributed public domain maps, Category:User SPUI contributed public domain other images, and Category:User SPUI contributed public domain photos per CSD C3. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and Replace with appropriate tag per nom. I don't see any reason why people need to have personal templates for images, if everyone done this they would be alot of strain and disorganization in the Wikipedia stream. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very few transclusions, SPUI has not edited (but is still invisibly here), and that almost all images transcluded using those templates have been moved to Commons. —O (说 • 喝) 22:46, 9 September 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. — Malcolm (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only used in one article, and there it's function could be better met by simpler in-situ code. — Jack · talk · 19:33, Thursday, 6 September 2007

• Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 20:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am the creator. The template was created back when references weren't handled as nicely as today. before deleteing please fix all usages. Thanks. -- Cat ^chi? 13:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Speedy delete G7 — Jack · talk · 00:56, Monday, 10 September 2007

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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessarily. Rarely are images referred to in the text, and when they are, just type (see figure 1)! No need for superfluous code that can interfere with refs. — Jack · talk · 19:11, Thursday, 6 September 2007

• Delete per nom. In principle an automated system for numbering figures could be useful, but it comes up so rarely that a case by case approach is preferable. Shalom ^Hello 20:16, 6 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Clumsy barely-used reference template. — Jack · talk · 18:55, Thursday, 6 September 2007

• Delete According to talk page, this template was superseded in 2005. Shalom ^Hello 20:17, 6 September 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 deleted by Drini (talk · contribs) Gracenotes^T § 22:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ref-GML (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparently unused, and I don't see how it could be useful. — Jack · talk · 18:51, Thursday, 6 September 2007

• Speedy delete G2, test page (see edit summary in page history). Shalom ^Hello 20:18, 6 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused, and only redlinks. Rettetast 17:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 20:19, 6 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This dispute template is unclear in what it refers to, since it is probably about some possible guideline/policy that never got off of the ground (the deletion log for Wikipedia:Canon is clean). It is completely unused, save its inclusion in a list of unused templates... Gracenotes^T § 03:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia doesn't make distinctions between what is or isn't canon. If two or more fictional sources conflict, then Wikipedia must describe the conflict and leave it to the reader to determine which sources are the more "authoritative". --Farix (Talk) 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suspected that the template might refer to fictional canon, but it also mentions "canon to the media", a phrase which I honestly can't parse :( Gracenotes^T § 15:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, disputes over what is and is not canon tend to be original research, and belong on some fan forum rather than on Wikipedia. >Radiant< 13:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no policy basis for this template that I can see. I suspect that "canon to the media" is a reference to primary sources for fictional material (i.e. the books, movies, comics, games, etc. in question). But since our inclusion criteria have to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability, not whether something is "canon", this borders on misrepresenting policy, and is pointless besides. Xtifr _tälk 11:19, 9 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Unverifiable-external-links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

According to Wikipedia's general disclaimer, "None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." (emphasis mine.) This template duplicates this disclaimer, and was provided as a compromise for the article 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, now called 2006 Lebanon War (see the mediation case). It was intended as a compromise to allow the inclusion of blog links with minimum controversy, but the template's purpose is essentially to say "These links do not meet WP:EL, but that guideline can be bended if we put this disclaimer in". This was somewhat contentious back then, and it should be noted that this template is (within policy) true of many external links sections, and from perusing some of its transclusions, it now appears to be unneeded. Gracenotes^T § 03:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In its current form, it seems like a disclaimer, which is something we do not do except for extreme situations (((HurricaneWarning)) and ((Spoiler)) both currently have very few uses in the mainspace). Furthermore, the template is not used as nor does it appear to be intended as a temporary maintenance tag, but instead is intended to be a permanent self-reference. The template completely sidesteps the real issue which seems to be the reliability and neutrality of the links, not the verifiability of the links and whether they were used as sources in the article. Wikipedia:External links does say "Add comments to [links with one point of view] informing the reader of their point of view"; however, that is not what this template is doing. --- RockMFR 17:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There was never any point to this thing, and the title is even completely different than the point. 2005 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per 2005 and RockMFR above. Rray 00:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or tell me what else to use at Wat_Phra_That_Phanom, where I put a link to PLACES OF PEACE AND POWER: That Phanom, Thailand, which gives a fascinating history of this wat, but which I cannot verify. Pawyilee 11:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In your case, I don't think that you need a template at all. The links appear to meet the requirements of WP:EL (which do not include verifiability). Gracenotes^T § 17:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If a website is being used as a source, it should be placed in the "References" section, not the "External links" section. This is a disclaimer (WP:NDA) for something that is actually common practice. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:06, 10 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Game Music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this even necessary or has the "Infobox album template" itself cover enough information? FMF 00:44, 6 September 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.