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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject has an article, and when it is mentioned on the player biographies the information should be presented in prose, with a link to the relevant article, rather than in a template. Templates are not intended to be used as a substitute for prose. Templates such as this one add to the clutter at the bottom of the most important Association football biographies. King of the North East 23:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is just an immature answer to my statements in the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 15#Template:Zvezdine zvezde discussion. For my arguments, go there.--Vitriden (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This template is completely unnecessary for the reasons given above. – PeeJay 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, other random players, even if they happen to be grouped by some external body, are almost always irrelevant to an individual biography. Resolute 04:43, 17 February 2009 (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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super Bowl lead-out program (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template uses Template:Sequence which is deprecated. This template does not allow show such as The Simpsons, which have been a Super Bowl lead-out program twice to be in one nice box. Template:Succession box should be used instead. Maitch (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote it to use Template:Succession box, though I am starting to think we may wanna deprecate this, and maybe put these on the actual episode pages instead. ViperSnake151 03:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even though you rewrote it to use Template:Succession box, I don't really see the need for it. It does exactly the same thing as Template:Succession box. I agree with you though that it may be better suited to place the succession box on the episodes themselves. --Maitch (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree that one can use Template:Succession box instead of this template. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, author. I think it is useful, and it makes things easier, but if you want to delete it, go ahead. -Zeus-^u_c 18:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. But wouldn't it be better to replace it with a navbox instead of a succession box. That way both shows and their respective episodes (where there are articles) could be included in a template that could be divided up into decades. (e.g. like ((EmmyAward ComedySeries 2001-2025))?) Bradley0110 (talk) 10:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want it deleted, or rewritten? -Zeus-^u_c 21:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it to be deleted, which is why I !voted "delete". It's not difficult to understand. Bradley0110 (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't it be better to replace it with a navbox instead of a succession box

??? -Zeus-^u_c 03:21, 27 February 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject has an article, and when it is mentioned on the player biographies the information should be presented in prose, with a link to the relevant article, rather than in a template. Templates are not intended to be used as a substitute for prose. Templates such as this one add to the clutter at the bottom of the most important Association football biographies. King of the North East 23:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is just an immature answer to my statements in the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 15#Template:Zvezdine zvezde discussion. For my arguments, go there.--Vitriden (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This template is completely unnecessary for the reasons given above. – PeeJay 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sensless clutter. Also, other random players, even if they happen to be grouped by some external body, are almost always irrelevant to an individual biography. Resolute 04:43, 17 February 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject has an article, and when it is mentioned on the player biographies the information should be presented in prose, with a link to the relevant article, rather than in a template. Templates are not intended to be used as a substitute for prose. Templates such as this one add to the clutter at the bottom of the most important Association football biographies. King of the North East 23:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is just an immature answer to my statements in the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 15#Template:Zvezdine zvezde discussion. For my arguments, go there.--Vitriden (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This template is completely unnecessary for the reasons given above. – PeeJay 23:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — CHANDLER^#10 — 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sensless clutter. Also, other random players, even if they happen to be grouped by some external body, are almost always irrelevant to an individual biography. Resolute 04:44, 17 February 2009 (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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Campaignbox Middle East Campaign (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is redundant per discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Middle East campaign (2nd nomination). EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep While the main article was merged, that does not in itself imply that the campaign did not exist, nor that therefore this template is not accurate, nor that it is redundant. Collect (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Please read through the discussion, it was firmly established that there was no single Middle East Campaign but that it was a series of campaigns fought in one geographical region.

  The template is redundant as there is already a template covering all the campaigns fought in this theatre of war, see :Template:Campaignbox Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - redundant to the campaignbox linked by EnigmaMcmxc above, which contains all the articles this one does. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Robofish as redundant to the template linked by EnigmaMcmxc. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:35, 18 February 2009 (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 discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-tracklist (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no consensus that the tracklisting template has to be used- in fact, it is often better if it is not used. Instead, it is down to editors to decide what is best for each article. As such, this template's idea of "track listing standards" is a little misguided. J Milburn (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, under certain conditions. Maybe the text should be modified. Hroyer (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; in discussions with the creators of the template, they revealed their intention that it be used to organize information in "complex" instances, and its use is not necessary in normal situations. This is not explained at all in the template's documentation, which is quite sparse, because (in my view) the whole template is still in the development phase, and is not stable or flexible enough at this time for its usage to be "policy". --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I believe the situation currently is satisfactory. Having a standards is a good idea for any template. Since the template is used on many album articles already there is no need to rock the boat before a proper discussion on the matter. MegX (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Cleanup-tracklist" template is used on many album articles already? Or the "Tracklist" template? This proposal is to delete Template:Cleanup-tracklist, not Template:Tracklist. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought; Regarding the suggestion about rewording, perhaps this template was not intended specifically to point to the tracklist template, but was meant for any issue where a tracklist is not to standard. There are track list standards for albums, and they are here, so changing the link may be part of the solution. However, the wording of this template, stating the track list should be "re-arranged", seems wrong; I'm not sure how often the "arrangement" (order) is a problem, it's usually the format that needs to be fixed. I'm still in favour of deletion, because I don't see this template as useful in its present form, and no correction has been proposed in detail. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and change "standards" link to WP:ALBUMS#Track_listing: I agree with A Knight Who Says Ni, assuming good faith in that the editor who created the template meant to link WP:ALBUMS#Track_listing which are the current accepted standards. --JD554 (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In fact I've just been bold and made that change anyway. --JD554 (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The change is appreciated, but I still don't see the template as useful with the current wording. I'm not even sure what it's trying to say. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 19:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be reworded in a way that it can be used on pages where the track listing is not "standard" (as described here). And as a side note, I think there should be a debate over what the standard track listing format should be: there's Template:Tracklist used on a lot of pages and there's the numbered-list-type. And also the one using tables. In my opinion, I think there should be a single way to list tracks. (PS. Can anyone help me find the place to discuss this point?) Hroyer (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The correct place to discuss it would be at WT:ALBUMS, but it has been a number of times before without consensus being reached for change. You'll need to search through the archives to find the past discussions. --JD554 (talk) 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Current wording appears quite viable for the template. Collect (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with current wording, as altered here by JD554. There are many tracklists that don't meet standards, and this could be useful there. (I've also boldly changed the template to say that it should be "modified", rather than "re-arranged.") However, it should not link to the template, which implies that the template reflects "track listing standards". --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with the current wording as well. This is useful to many of the weakly written articles for wikipedia's list of albums. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2009 (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 discussion was replace all transclusions with Template:Philadelphia Flyers in articles which do not currently have the latter template, remove all other transclusions, then delete. Erik9 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philadelphia Flyers HOF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All information included in Template:Philadelphia Flyers Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete duplicative and of dubious value. Resolute 06:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Resolute -Pparazorback (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and resolute. -Djsasso (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (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 discussion was replace all transclusions with Template:Philadelphia Flyers in articles which do not currently have the latter template, remove all other transclusions, then delete. Erik9 (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philadelphia Flyers Retired (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All information included in Template:Philadelphia Flyers Muboshgu (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete duplicative and of dubious value. Resolute 06:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Resolute -Pparazorback (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and resolute. -Djsasso (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2009 (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 discussion was keep. Erik9 (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

all information included in Template:Philadelphia Flyers Muboshgu (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep the full Flyers template on each coach's article would be ridiculous overkill. This template style is used as a standard across the hockey project on articles for coaches. Resolute 06:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP per Resolute. Similar templates are used for coaches for all of the teams currently. Agree that it would be overkill for the entire template to be used for coaches, especially those that were not players for the team they currently coach. -Pparazorback (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Similar templates are used for other NHL teams without the use of the entire team template. --Flyguy33 (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as former coaches no longer should have the full flyers template on their page. -Djsasso (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2009 (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 discussion was delete delldot ∇. 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zvezdine zvezde (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Selecting certain players from a football club's history as "stars" and creating a template for them is POV and original research. King of the North East 01:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 02:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I have created this template myself and the fact you have requested it to be deleted only shows how little you know of Red Star Belgrade history. In other words, it's not OR, nor have I chosen some random five players from the club history. If you look at the Red Star Belgrade article, you'll see for yourself there was an official title named "Zvezdina zvezda" (lit. "Star of Red Star" or "Red Star star") and these five have officially been given the title. Rajko Mitic was the first one, Sekularac the second one, etc. And finally, if you don't believe me, believe the official site (go to the "History" section, and to the "Red Star Stars" sub-section). You can see a picture of five of them posing together here. Is that enough for you, please?--Vitriden (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every team has a hall of fame, there is no need to create a template for them when the subject is adequately covered in the text of the club article. King of the North East 03:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain if you want it to be deleted because it's an original research, as you have previously stated, which is untrue, or because the subject is adequately covered in the text of the club article, which is something I really don't understand, since the template isn't used in the club article, but in the articles on the players themselves, so it's not redundant. These five players, as well as the title itself, are very important part of the club culture and mentioning it in the articles on these players IS significant, so removing this template makes absolutely no sense, especially since that "per nom" vote by Giant Snowman should be disputed, as the reasons named in the nomination are proved to be invalid.--Vitriden (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is adequately covered in the text of the main article, but it is not even mentioned in the text of Dragan Džajić, Rajko Mitić or Dragoslav Šekularac. If it is so important why is it not even mentioned on the player articles? Some text in the player biography stating the fact that the player has been given this honour, and why the honour is important is preferable to a small box at the bottom of the page which gives no context at all (hence my faliure to realise that it is an official award rather than a random selection of players). I accept the way that I phrased my nomination could have been better, however, this does not mean that hall of fame type navigation boxes are supported by Wikipedia:Football and doesn't detract from the principle that templates should not be used as a substitute for prose. King of the North East 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't say you have just rephrased your statement in your nomination proposal. That's simply untrue. Your statement was proven false and, therefore, this voting should be concluded. Then, if you want to make another proposal with different arguments, do it and then we can talk about your new proposal. But, until then, I would like to see this request for deletion withdrawn.--Vitriden (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's not a necessary template, for things' that if notable is already located in the articles. I've not seen any other famous squads or player groups having similar templates. For example, no such template for the Busby Babes — CHANDLER^#10 — 22:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, go to the templates on NBA or NFL teams, such as Template:Boston Celtics or Template:Pittsburgh Panthers football and you can see all the retired jersey numbers (very similar to this case, isn't it?) in the templates. Also, for example, look at the article on Bronko Nagurski and look at all the templates at the bottom. And, finally, if you want a football example, what would you have to say about Template:WTTC, Template:FIFAWCATT, or Template:FIFADT? In other words, if you haven't seen something, it doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist.--Vitriden (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's redundant, but it isn't original research as stated in the nomination. However, including a subsection on the award on Crvena Zvezda article would be just fine, as well as adding the award in the Honours section of each individual player. Making a separate article on the award would also be fine by me, but the template really isn't necessary as the whole purpose of templates is to ease navigation between pages, and since only five players got the award, I don't see much point in adding yet another template/succession box to players' articles. Timbouctou (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can it possibly be redundant if there is no such section in all of these articles? If you delete this template, you should make an adequate replacement, whether in prose, in the "Honours" section or in any other possible way. Until then, how can it be redundant, when it's just a matter of removing an important information?--Vitriden (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 23:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is pure overkill. A mention of the group in an appropriate article and on each player's page should suffice. Otherwise, we'd have navboxes for all sorts of named groups of footballers, e.g. the Busby Babes, Fergie's Fledglings, the Crazy Gang, etc. – PeeJay 17:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I have to repeat something very simple: there is no mention of this title in the articles on these players! And if you delete this template, the articles will lose a valuable information, without gaining anything. I really can't understand this, but if that's what you want, fine by me.--Vitriden (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this award is as important as it seems, it should be mentioned in the text of the player articles, templates are not intended to be used as a substitute for prose. King of the North East 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is such a notable and important thing, find a RS and source it in Red Star's article in a place you find fitting. — CHANDLER^#10 — 21:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now ensured a mention of the award to the biographies of the players. You may like to use your superior knowledge of the subject matter to improve or expand upon the text I added. I have no objection to the creation of a stand alone article about the award to compliment the Zvezdine zvezde section of the Red Star article, as long as it can be expanded upon (dates the award was given, contribution of the players to the team, etc) and reliably sourced . King of the North East 21:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's settled then, thanks.--Vitriden (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can that be taken as a request by the creator/major contributor for the template to be deleted? – PeeJay 23:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought the debate was over. I didn't think it's necessary for me to agree, since you've reached the consensus, but if that's the case, OK, I agree.--Vitriden (talk) 00:51, 24 February 2009 (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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is effectively worthless as it is incredibly difficult to understand what the hell it is for. Spam should be removed, not wrapped in a template. In extreme cases, a comment can be added to an article indicating that a particular link should not be added. --- RockMFR 00:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 02:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. According to the template's own documentation, this "is effectively the same as commenting out the offending line, while leaving it in the see also list." ... except that using comment tags actually allows the use of comments to document why it's been treated that way. Hence, it's less useful than the native markup it proposes to replace. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep The template is often used on perfectly good links that have nothing to do with spam, but are blocked because of a problems with spam on other parts of that domain. Apart from that, leaving the site will allow for other editors to have a look and search for alternative sites with approximately the same content, but without the spam. Furthermore, there is always the possibility that after a certain time the spam will be removed from the site and the article will remain. And another point, though arguable, is that this way of tagging tells the reader that there is a source, which is important to know, just that accessing that source might be inadvisable. For all these 4 reasons I think this template has an important function and we should not discontinue it. Debresser (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can just do all of that more easily with regular comment tags, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you tell me what tag that is? There is no other tag that by its very name expresses so clearly and concisely all of the above. Debresser (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is: they're referring to HTML comment code like this: <!-- Comment here--> = Mgm|^(talk) 11:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That is hardly as eloquent as using the SpamD template though, is it? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I take back my strong keep and now agree to deletion. I thought that this template prevents the link from triggering a "broken reference", but it doesn't normally. This has been explained to me elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (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 discussion was delete. delldot ∇. 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BS-daten (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Duplicated template with Template:Infobox rail line. BS-daten (Bahnstrecke-daten) mean railway data. Kwj2772 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but not until all of its instances have been replaced - note that this is a widely used template. Robofish (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (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.