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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason for this template, it is nothing more than text. The point of templates is to make code easier to use (like userboxes). — -Babelious 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Violates WP:EL. JPG-GR (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete weak Keep. There is already a userfied myspace userbox located User:Disavian/Userboxes/Myspace link. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC) MJCdetroit (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hold on here. This isn't a userbox, look at where it's used (currently more than 2,000 pages). A great many celebrities have official MySpace pages, which is the purpose for this template. Looking at the template usage, I see it on pages like Van Morrison, Tina Turner, 50 Cent and Death Cab for Cutie. In all of the cases I looked at through a random sampling of the usage, they link to the official pages for the artists. Which provision of EL is this violating? Slambo (Speak) 11:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous deletion discussions for this template: August 19, 2006, result keep and November 25, 2006, result no consensus. Slambo (Speak) 11:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the result is keep again then we need to put links these discussions on the page or talk page (can't remember where you put those notifications for templates), I would have read the discussions first had I known about them. -Babelious 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is documented at the top of the talk page of the template, Template talk:MySpace, where you posted. –Pomte 10:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, this template makes code easier to use. Look at links to MySpace without this template, and you will see improper style. The point of templates is also to standardize appearance across pages, and to have a central location for editing in case MySpace changes their URL scheme. WP:EL allows links to official MySpace pages; there are certainly improper uses of this template, but that just calls for fixing. –Pomte 12:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clear utility, also a good way of keeping track of how links to myspace are utilised. Happy‑melon 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Keep. If we're linking to MySpace, let's at least have tidy links. Nominator appears not to have understood purpose of template and so I suggest an early close. Whether to disallow MySpace links should be decided elsewhere; until then the template should stay. --kingboyk (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - currently mass used. As kingboyk says, whether myspace links are allowed or not is not to be decided in this venue. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep standardizes the apperance of links to MySpace pages. Also, this template is used on thousands of pages, so deleting it would cause pandelirium. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if this template is really only to be used in mainspace then we should make sure that it stays like that. -Babelious 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This can legitimately be used in any namespace. I don't see where you got that view from. You already know that you have other options in userspace. –Pomte 10:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. as per Kingboyk, if we are going to have MySpace links, lets have good, well formatted links. ><RichardΩ612 17:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Widely used, and yes THIS is making code easier to use. Every template doesn't have to generate an infobox or else. ViperSnake151 14:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Clone Wars (21.6-19 BBY) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most of these redirect to the same article about the Clone Wars, and others to articles about the planets with no solid section on the conflict. These individual battles generally aren't notable enough to sustain the kind of separate articles a navbox like this is useful for. --EEMIV (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Clone Wars (22-21.7 BBY) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Most of these redirect to the same article about the Clone Wars, and others to articles about the planets with no solid section on the conflict. These individual battles generally aren't notable enough to sustain the kind of separate articles a navbox like this is useful for. --EEMIV (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Independentist parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete -Doesn't actually appear on any pages, will never be as complete as List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. — Kevlar67 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete scope too broad; no direct navigational value. –Pomte 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was procedural close. Premature. If the articles are kept at AfD, this is a valid navigational template. If they're deleted, the template can be speedy deleted. kingboyk (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moonlight Cruisers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Procedural nomination, all articles in template are listed at AfD.. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Pointless nomination. There's nothing to discuss while the AfDs are ongoing. This would be speedy deleted by G6 anyway. –Pomte 12:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top ten Asian female tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 9#Old Tennis Templates.

It is updated but it violates WP:OR. michfan2123 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not aid navigation, not a particularly encyclopedic way of connecting articles. --kingboyk (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top ten Asian male singles tennis players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 9#Old Tennis Templates.. michfan2123 (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The rankings are from the Asian Tennis Federation and are updated once a month. Therefore, not WP:OR. Nabs (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not aid navigation, not a particularly encyclopedic way of connecting articles. --kingboyk (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Already exist template User:UBX/Euro adoption wish, where can be put any country you want. So there is no sence in creating many different templates.--Dima1 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Long live the Queen (on banknotes)... just kidding there is already a standard USER template that should be used. —MJCdetroit (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 02:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tripoli weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Stockholm weatherbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Another single use template. Replaced by ((Infobox Weather)) — MJCdetroit (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (nominations combined) JPG-GR (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - jeez I'm getting bored of these. Happy‑melon 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete single use template that has no functional advantage over ((Infobox Weather)). Maralia (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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