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 --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Produserpagewarning (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template exclusively for a deprecated process (the use of WP:PROD in user and usertalk namespaces). Arguably WP:CSD#T2 as it now controverts policy. These templates were always substituted. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (I actually wanted to nominate it, but meh. Thanks, Doug). --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a link to the fact that the use of WP:PROD in user and usertalk namespaces is a deprecated process? I didn't see anyting at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Template:Prod. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Template:Prod subcategory starter says something about "user pages in this category have been proposed for deletion". Suntag (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Those pages don't say anything about it because when it was deprecated the language was removed, in other words it no longer says that you can use it. The discussion where the decision was made to eliminate the use of PROD in user and usertalk space (i.e. to limit PROD to articles) is at: Wikipedia_talk:PROD#Prodding_user_pages.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:58, 5 September 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 delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Produserpagewarningwelcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template exclusively for a deprecated process (the use of WP:PROD in user and usertalk namespaces). Arguably WP:CSD#T2 as it now controverts policy. These templates were always substituted. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:56, 5 September 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 delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Produserpagewarningwelcomeother (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template exclusively for a deprecated process (the use of WP:PROD in user and usertalk namespaces). Arguably WP:CSD#T2 as it now controverts policy. These templates were always substituted. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:56, 5 September 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 Delete. GlassCobra 15:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman Emperor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. All the uses have been replaced with the succ boxes recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. This will make it easier to add other offices held. Bazj (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is no longer used. Leonard^(Bloom) 01:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I love the emperors, that doesn't mean they deserve special treatment with this worthless template. When did the empire end again? 476? Or was it 1453? Does the Holy Roman Empire count? My point demonstrated. Trash this sucka!
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 07:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonstandard and unneeded. Alkari (?), 29 August 2008, 00:48 UTC
• Delete – Nothing more to add, so I'll tell a joke instead: "One emperor, one praetorian, and one merchant entered a bar..." Waltham, The Duke of 09:45, 31 August 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 Keep but modify to be used only in article talk space. Closing admin is taking no action to modify the actual template, leaving that for the associated project, etc. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CFBPriority (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I think it's established that these sorts of templates are only appropriate for talk, while this one is clearly meant for the article itself. Superm401 - Talk 21:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The template is only to be used when there is a specific reason, such as an AFD discussion or other reason that a college football article requires attention. It is to show that the "complaint" about the page has been acknowledged by the CFB project. Also, it is normally supposed to be dated so that if the tag hangs on a page too long it can be removed. You can read more about its intended use in the FAQ section of CFB:N. I'm the creator of the template and would welcome discussion on the idea. At the project, we have gotten some use out of the template.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or convert to a talk page template. This is obviously meant to sit on article pages, but it's not a useful thing to have on article pages. A version targeted for talk page use would be fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If that's consensus, then rather than delete, let me just re-do the template along with use and the instructions to match that. Can I give it a few days to see if that is indeed consensus?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If the template has been useful for the CFB project, then keep. However, do convert it to a talk page template per Gavia immer. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:33, 8 September 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 Redirect - merger would result in copying nothing and a redirect would be the final result, deletion is not a method of archiving as the developers may purge deleted pages without warning, userfication to a blocked user is pointless, redirecting preserves the code in history in case any user needs it in the future. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Commons ok (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

should be merged to ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)) Philly jawn (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind explaining why you think it should be merged? It seems to have a distinct purpose and be part of a system that BetacommandBot uses. That is, a bunch of "authorised" users can use that template to tag images and then the bot will do the move for them. At the same time informing other users that the image is about to be moved.

--David Göthberg (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates serve different purposes. I don't see why it should be TfDed. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BCB has been long blocked, so it now serves no purpose. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legoktm: Ah, now I see. And I double checked, Legoktm is correct that BetacommandBot is now blocked. (Philly jawn: You really should have explained that.) Okay, I guess that means this template can be deleted. But as far as I understand the bot wasn't blocked for the image moving, so there might come a day when that bot is allowed to run that task again. So another option could be to move the template to the bot's user space and inform the bot owner where it has been moved.

--David Göthberg (talk) 11:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Either would be fine, but I think that the templates are duplicative, and that either template could be used to signal a bot. Philly jawn (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ((move to commons)) ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)). It shouldn't be userfied, see WP:AN/B, I doubt he will be allowed back into bot running soon. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a double redirect, it should go to: ((Copy to Wikimedia Commons)) Philly jawn (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• One template for the two would do surely? :) --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If the bot isn't running, the template is misleading, so either delete or merge (I support merge). If it comes back, it can always be un-merged (or un-deleted; deletion need not be permanent). Richard001 (talk) 06:55, 9 September 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 Delete. GlassCobra 15:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:VeniceDogeSuccession (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. All the uses have been replaced with the succ boxes recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. This will make it easier to add other offices held. Bazj (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely Delete — Yet another painfully worthless old s-box for the deletion archives. This monster was never necessary, anyway.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 07:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; redundant and unused. Alkari (?), 29 August 2008, 00:46 UTC
• Delete – The age of the dedicated office-succession-chain templates has long passed. "Adaptability over rigidity" is the new slogan. Waltham, The Duke of 09:47, 31 August 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 Keep - No substantial policy based arguments to delete. XFD are not for content disputes nor for disputes with individual editors over highjacking of an article. Take your issues to a dispute resolution forum. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US-airport (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:US-airport2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:US-airport-ga (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:US-airport-mil (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:US-airport-minor (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template adds external links to articles about airports in the United States. The links do not add any value to the articles but provide indiscrimate information which is not encyclopedic including, current weather, live flight tracker, current airport delay information. The template is subject to long and heated discussions about which link should or not be included (my links better than yours type discussion). Wikipedia should not have to make a choice of which unofficial websites should be used. Wikipedia is not a flight planning resource. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the templates are long term link spam targets by a number of single purpose accounts. I agree with the nominator, wikipedia is not a collection of links, it is not a directory of links and it is not suitable source for pre-flight preparation. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; if a template like this is desired, should be created from scratch with a clear purpose and set of criteria rather than spammed ad hoc. 38.100.147.146 (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DNS resolution for that IP is natpool.gwp.corp.flightaware.com --Dual Freq (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Most of these seem to be pretty good links in line with WP:EL. Disagreements over the content of a template is not a legitimate reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 23:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I agree with RockMFR, and I feel the existing links are of good quality and add value by giving the reader direct access to a glimpse of the changing conditions regarding any airport. -- Bovineone (talk) 03:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I also agree with RockMFR. It also offers access to information relevant to the article's subject, which is the point of an encyclopedia. bahamut0013♠♣ 15:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These links seem to add supplementary information that cannot be incorporated into the articles, but which are quite useful to readers, in accord with WP:EL. With protection, we avoid the spam problem. Cool Hand Luke 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Luke (great movie). This template has not been the target of spam to any real degree. A few links were added over a period of many months and all had arguable merits. The real reason the template was protected was to quell attempts at further discussion. A very unfortunate situation that was spearheaded by one particular editor. Gladtohelp (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp[reply]

• Comment If any of these items are useful as references, then I don't see a problem with adding individual ones, specifically selected for the article, but there is no need to use a template. These templates allow spammers to focus on one target that gets them spammed to multiple pages at once. There is no encyclopedic reason to include current weather conditions for locations. Would this information be appropriate to add to each article about a city? Same thing about delays and flight tracking, if I went to a city article and added a few traffic and weather links, would those links be encyclopedic? Even if those links are needed, there is no need to have them included in a template, editors can select individual links specifically agreed upon and tailored for individual articles. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The links provided by these templates are good resources for researching additional information about a U.S. airport. I also see no reason to replace the templates with individual links, since for there are variations that work for almost all U.S. airports (the rare exceptions I have found are a few airports outside the continental U.S. and in those cases individual templates such as ((AirNav)) and ((SkyVector)) were used). Keeping the links in a template eliminates the need to change every airport article if the format of a URL changes. If someone wants a particular link removed or changed within the templates, that should be debated on the talk pages and changed if there is a consensus to do so. -- Zyxw (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last sentence is one that has been overlooked by too many other editors. Thank you for saying that! The problem is that Airnav has attained sainthood and a couple of editors have taken it upon themselves to squash any attempts at discussion of competing/better choices. This campaign to quell the purveyors of newer alternatives (to airnav) is the root of this whole issue.Gladtohelp (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp[reply]

• Comment Not sure that some users mix up an encyclopedia with a flight planning resource, three of the six links are different websites providing flight planning information, not what Wikipedia is for, all the relevant information is already in the infobox. One link to latest weather which is not encyclopedic, one link is to current delay information wikipedia is not a travel guide. Live flight tracking again not a travel guide. Some of them are amateur sites which are not reliable sources of information (SkyVector a site for student pilots and flight simulator aviators) Most could be considered external link spamming. This is just a link farm that does not add to the value of the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The types of links in these templates are the sources that establish verifiability for airports in the US. These are real, acceptable and reliable sites for general information about an airport, starting with FAA airport data. Frankly, the nom looks on the surface like an anti-US statement, or at least a deep lack of understanding of how airport information is distributed in the US. It sounds absolutely silly when you consider that the Federal Aviation Administration provides only raw data - the web sites listed in those templates are the usable web sources for US airports! See NACO's web site for the raw unprocessed/unpresentable/inconvenient original info. Anyone may at some point want info about an airport whether as a business resource, source of flight training, geographic reference or to answer other questions. If these templates are deleted, what next? I suppose they'd lick their chops and start AfD'ing most General Aviation airports in the US whose primary sources of verifiability would have just gotten the rug pulled out from under them. If you proceed with this AfD, then WP will cease to have any consistent useful info about airports. WP:NOTDIR was never intended to be used for dismantling whole categories of info on WP that some editors happen to be unfamiliar or uninterested! Ikluft (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a references template and no "primary sources" would be removed. In any case these websites are not primary sources anyway, several of them take the data from the FAA's primary source material. The likely reason that NACO does not provide the direct linking, that you describe as inconvenient, is because the information changes periodically, they don't want someone to direct link an old approach plate or similar. The FAA is concerned about safety, they'd probably be appalled if they thought people used wikipedia's dangerously stale and potentially vandalized information as a source for flight preparation. Additionally, what does weather, flight tracking or flight delays reference? Current weather and flight tracking etc provide no source material to use in an article. Accusing the nominator of not being interested in aviation related articles is absurd, since they have made significant contributions to aviation related articles. There is no slippery slope here, just a deletion nomination of a template used for external links that are not exactly encyclopedic. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Managing the content of the templates is an entirely different issue from nominating them for deletion. These are real sources. There is no issue about the FAA or anyone else fearing that someone might use some links for some reason. Pilots already had to prove to an examiner and on a recurring basis to an instructor that they know how to look up the legally-approved navigation and weather info. There is still a matter of adequacy of coverage to have such information available as handy links for considering where to fly for business or recreation, well in advance of the final planning. For people who do not fly, they do no harm. For people who dream of learning to fly some day, these links help open a path to learning how things work. (Whether any editor shares such an interest/dream is not the issue - the interest does exist.) Wikipedia is already used in many other ways by people who want to look up information about places they will visit, no matter how they will travel there. It isn't a WP:NOTDIR violation to have these templates because they only cover a specific closely-related subject - the essay specifically refers to loosely-related topics as the types of directories to avoid. The nomination appears to be based on a disinterested position about General Aviation and US airports, and I strongly object to it. Ikluft (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • FYI, a comment was left on my talk page. I'll forward part of my response to this discussion: "You'll have to find a better way to handle this info rather than just simply making it go away." I suggested looking to the tools that exist for mapping web sites as a possible model. Ikluft (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2008
        • In order to better support the position of "keep and improve" in this discussion, let me clarify that the web mapping tool I referred to is ((GeoTemplate)). That template uses a latitude and longitude to make links to as many mapping web sites as it needs to. A similar tool can and should be made which takes an airport code (ICAO, IATA, FAA, etc) and makes links to all the airport-related information sites which can be keyed off those codes. It won't clutter the articles with links because they'll just have a link to the tool, just like pages which have lat/lon coordinates have one ((coord)) link. The US-airports templates should not be deleted because, for US airports, they would be where the link to that tool would be placed. If these templates are deleted, then the work to deploy a new template to link to the tool explodes a thousandfold or more. Ikluft (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that more damage would be done by removing these templates then leaving them. The issue boils down to what links should be included. This is not the forum to discuss that. I say leave it to the projects involved to resolve content issues and then change the templates. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, adds useless linkspam and also generates systemic bias. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is better to improve rather than delete them.--Jusjih (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This template has been held too sacred to even be discussed. One or two editors have gone so far past objectivity and conformation with wiki guidelines that a useful discussion on the talk page has been impossible. If it is not possible to have rational, objective discussions about a topic, then there is no oversight provided. Oversight is necessary to ensure that the topic has been given rational, objective treatment. This is the foundation of wikipedia. Heavy-handedness and a cavalier disregard of wiki guidelines by over-zealous editors has tainted this one. Gladtohelp (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp[reply]

• Comment I am not going to vote on this issue simply because I am the registered new guy, so I will let the more experienced editors discuss and decide upon this major issue. I will however say that I think these links are a good resource for pilots and non-pilots. I just believe that we need some standard in how to choose which links go on the said template. As is shown on the talk page of the template, a few editors can block all discussion on a page simply by them believing their opinion matters more then a group of editors. - Neilh89 (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said, Neilh. This template could be a useful resource. The problem is that a couple of editors have made it their personal crusade to maintain the status quo and have blocked discussion with every tactic possible. Objective standards for inclusion are the only way to make this one work. Until that happens, all commercial websites should be removed from the template. Leave the non-commercial ones, but scrap every privately-operated site until objective standards can be applied. Gladtohelp (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp[reply]
    • While not ideal, that would preserve these templates on the airports' pages. I cringe at the thought of having to re-add a new equivalent template to all the US airport pages on Wikipedia once the information management issue is sorted through. I can hardly think of a stronger reason to oppose deletion than "we're going to have to add something just like this back again one way or another". Either that or everyone will have to give up on Wikipedia for finding useful airport information. I don't have a bot to re-add a template for US airport information to thousands of pages, and am not going to write one. It's possible that it might not get added back at all if these are deleted. Ikluft (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There will be no need to replace an unneeded template. As far as I know, this is the only template that wikipedia has to systematically add external links to articles. Wikipedia is not an collection of links. As for Gladtohelp and Neilh89, I suggest that they pay for web advertising for their companies instead of trying to add them to a template. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There you have it folks - exactly what I've been talking about. Dual Freq is the prime editor who has been repeatedly trying to stop me from being a part of this discussion. He makes assertions about me that he cannot prove. He follows me around to any talk pages where I make suggestions and tells me my suggestions are not needed. He demonstrates a clear animosity and bias. Well maybe HE doesn't need to hear my suggestions, but what right does he have to try to prevent me from making suggestions that others might like to hear. Whether or not anyone has any affiliation with any proposed link is IRRELEVANT in the discussion. Wiki guidelines ENCOURAGE EVERYONE to offer up their suggestions in article talk pages. Jimmy Wales (wiki founder) discussed this in an interview and there are numerous references to it in wiki policy pages. People with affiliations to article subject material should not enter it themselves, but should offer it up for discussion on the talk page. The material should be objectively judged on its merit. I don't think statements like those DuealFreq has been making for months show anything even close to objectivity. I believe he should recuse himself from any further part in this discussion. I'm tired of being stalked and told what I should do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladtohelp (talk • contribs) 13:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you've made my point. The bulk of your contibutions has been to add external links and try to change this template. You ask for me to recuse myself? I ask you to recuse yourself, since you're obviously affiliated with some of the companies you're adding external links for. Your only interest in wikipedia is to change external links and that's not what we're here to do. We're supposed to be making an online encyclopedia, not fighting over whether or not your company is a better external link for a template than the other ones listed. The bottom line is that wikipedia does not need templates to spam external links, regardless of the company. Delete these templates and we won't have to worry about which company is better to spam onto a thousand pages. We don't need to include any of them. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • DualFreq, your assertions about me are not a factor in this discussion. In that contibutions page you linked, you apparently didn't read it. It quite clearly says to focus on the topic, not the person who says it. I am not "obviously affiliated" with anything, and if I was, it wouldn't matter. The Wiki guidelines are crystal clear - the merits of a topic being discussed on a talk page are independent of the person talking. You've been stalking me for months, torpedoing my inputs into discussions based on your opinions of me personally. Every time I have requested objective discussion, you have either ignored my questions or responded with accusations about my personal agenda. OBJECTIVITY, OBJECTIVITY, OBJECTIVITY. The one thing we do agree on is that the way things are currently, no links should be included.Gladtohelp (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp[reply]
              • All I'm saying is the airports project needs to agree on content of an external links template, not a bunch of single purpose accounts who want to add their favorite site or the company they work for. One of the reason it was suggested to be deleted. I apologize, you're doing a fine job adding external links, and thanks for your other contributions to wikipedia whatever they are. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I dislike this in this format. It makes me sad. :( --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Great resources AMAPO (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because this template is a great resource to have on each page. I don't know why someone would want to delete it because it really is a good thing, even if some links are spam. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:53, 8 September 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 Delete per consensus here and at the relevant project. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Music (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Music project has decided not to use this banner, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_8#Banners_and_assessments. Kleinzach 01:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per discussion in the Project page. Please remember to removed banner from the 4,000 talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What is the best way to remove the banner? A bot run? --Kleinzach 02:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think AWB can do the job perfectly. If you don't know how to do it you can request help from a bot user. Right now I am on holidays and I can't do it for you. In a week or so I can help with that if you still need help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wouldn't replacement by the more specialized banners (where appropriate) indicated at the WPMusic discussion, be better in many cases? 70.55.85.143 (talk) 07:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, it really wouldn't be feasible as a central operation. Bannering is best done on an individual project basis. The existing Music Project banners were assigned without any recognizable system. I've been involved in bannering four different music projects, in each case based on specific sets of categories. --Kleinzach 07:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just keep the template on the talk pages, but modify the template to include work project parameters to further categorize the project articles? Suntag (talk) 05:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4,000 pages and over 80 projects involved. Surely it's much easier to do specific bannering or categorization on a project by project basis? --Kleinzach 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Surely the active participants in the project are the best people to comment.--Poetlister 12:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've notified them again on the project page. (See the nomination above for the link to the discussion that preceded this tfd.) --Kleinzach 00:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, eliminate this as discussed. Eusebeus (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Per the discussion at the project page. User:L^BPub 19:09, 3 September 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 Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:D:TNGSeasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superfluous to Template:Degrassi now that the season links have been added to that one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The big template can be added in all the cases. No reason to have the short one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Candlewicke (Talk) 02:49, 5 September 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 Keep. GlassCobra 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:XxxHolic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Characters are now listed on a character list, template is now redundant and unnecessary Kraftlos (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I only see one character (Yūko) that has been merged and redirected into the list (although I do see another one which needs to be moved (since when do we use circumflexes?)). —Dinoguy1000 16:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As DinoG.M. notes, all but one of the articles still exist, enough of them that a nav template isn't out of bounds. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks like I jumped the gun. Sorry. --Kraftlos (talk) 19:17, 27 August 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.