< October 20	October 22 >

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Internet User (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use, transcludes Template:Infobox musical artist, seems generally misguided. --PEJL 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unused and large potential for violation of WP:NOT#MYSPACE. JPG-GR 06:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be a test page, also unused and unhelpful. Carlosguitar 23:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, possibly speedy delete as a test and per WP:NOT? --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 21:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's an empty template. Also per nom and WP:NOT. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused & WP:NOT. SkierRMH 21:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Musician's Discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-functional and unused. --PEJL 20:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per norm. —TigerK 69 06:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete broken and unused. Carlosguitar 01:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom; unused and useless. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 15:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused & unneeded. SkierRMH 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evident need, unused, and what it could be used for is covered in ((Infobox Musical artist)) and ((Infobox Artist Discography)), so it's deprecated, if those purposes are what this is for. --lincalinca 06:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unused template, redundant with Template:Infobox Album, Template:Infobox Single and Template:Infobox Song. --PEJL 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per norm. —TigerK 69 06:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreed, I was thinking about a redirect, but seems unnecessary too. Carlosguitar 01:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused and redundant.SkierRMH 21:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Starfleet officer rank insignia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template isn't used any more; template code has been included in the one remaining article that used it. — EEMeltonIV 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - deprecated. JPG-GR 01:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated and in-universe. --lincalinca 06:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per WP:BLOCK, WP:SOCK, and WP:BAN#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. - jc37 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Fullmetal Alchemist soundtrack comparison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template was created by a now banned user (on charge of Sock puppetry). The template has no significant value and was added to pages without discussion, creating a messy, useless section. --Jacob ^Talk 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per above. —TigerK 69 17:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unused and I do not see much value to use this template. Carlosguitar 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused & a royal mess, would be useless on any page. SkierRMH 21:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mike Oak Rovers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphan template, misspelled version of ((Mile Oak Rovers F.C.)). — Qwghlm 13:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant and unneeded. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 17:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JPG-GR 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant and per nom. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 10:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. SkierRMH 20:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merged into Template:TNAPPV, therefore this template is useless.. KipSmithers ^T/C 11:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 20:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merged into Template:TNAPPV, therefore this template is useless.. KipSmithers ^T/C 11:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR 06:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merged into Template:TNAPPV, therefore this template is useless. KipSmithers ^T/C 11:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 17:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. JPG-GR 06:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated. SkierRMH 20:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Title MoS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template serves no particular purpose, and should therefore be deleted.

• It is not an editorial template that is used to inspire fellow editors to action.
• It does not tell the reader anything useful, as 1. the correct title is in fact the title without characters or symbols (per the same MoS) and 2. the title including the symbol is present in the lead section anyway.

My personal opinion, which is not an argument for deletion, but may be useful in forming an opinion on the subject, can be expressed by a paraphrase of the template:

"I, expert/fan attached to the subject, feel this article really should be named 1, but the Wikipedia manual of Style would not me move it, and therefore this big notice is here.". User:Krator (t c) 10:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete it, then. I don't have a strong opinion - I was trying to address a matter that was not addressed by the other Title templates. There was considerable debate in Talk:We Love Katamari as to whether the correct title contained the symbol or the transliteration of that symbol. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of discussing this more thoroughly: I see the rationale above and understand it, but what I'd like to try to address is the ongoing debate about which title (We Love Katamari vs. We [Heart] Katamari) is correct, considering other articles exist and there is no consensus as to how to transliterate them to English words. (The article I'm thinking of in particular is I ♥ Huckabees, which requires a special symbol in order to reach without redirecting.) This seems like a special case where issues of MoS are somewhat ambiguous, thus the template may help to clarify them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, there is no reason for this template at the top of an article: "technical restrictions" are a good thing to inform general readers about, but "I don't like the MOS" isn't. A talk-page box, OTOH, could be appropriate for contentious cases like this once consensus for one title over the other is established; ideally, the box should link to significant previous discussion and exhort the editor to review the past discussion before proposing yet another debate on the issue. Anomie 11:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I should clarify: The purpose of the template wasn't "I don't like the MoS", but rather to explain what the applicable rule in the MoS is. I personally far prefer the MoS version ("We Love..."). — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying you personally were saying "I don't like the MoS", but that's what the template is effectively saying to everyone who comes to read the article. A notice on the article's talk page describing the consensus—and a redirect with history at the other title so only admins can move the page there—should be enough. Anomie 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep per WP:SNOW. This should have been discussed either on the template page or at the wikiprojects (linking to the discussion from the other places) before being brought here. As it stands, it looks like you'll just get all the members of the wikiprojects coming here to vote keep (hence the WP:SNOW). If you need outside opinions, then I suggest you also post a mention of the debate to the Wikipedia:Village pump. If a reasonable number of you (i.e. >50%) want to delete the template once you've had that discussion, please bring it back here then. Mike Peel 07:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is in extreme aberration to the WP:MOS. While I understand there are guidelines for formatting articles relating to aviation, the MOS is still entitled to be followed to some substantial degree, not almost be completely superseded by a project guideline. In addition, this template does not allow free editing of the "see also" section, which is needed to comply with the MOS. FA will not accept this. O₂ (息 • 吹) 02:22, 21 October 2007 (GMT)

• Comment - Thank you for the courtesy and consideration of approaching the WP:AVIATION and/or WP:AIR to discuss this before hand, as recommended in the deletion policies - Oh, wait, you didn't do that! Uh, never mind! I forgot - deletionsits aren't required to be thoughtful, because they think AFDs/TFDs ARE discussions, even though Policy clearly states that they are not to be used as a first-resort. - BillCJ 02:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The project guidelines have been in place for a long time, and were actually formed through lenghty discussions and concensus, which is on record. THe WP:MOS has come along afterward. It is not intended to be a 2x4 to beat projects over the head with. YOu are welcome to dicuss changes with the project as most other reasonable editors do. - BillCJ 02:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about that comment? XFD is purely a discussion, not a vote. Nominators are not obligated to start a discussion beforehand, and a deletion process for anything can purely be a deletion debate with a decision following that. I do not see any policy or guideline that supports your above comment. Therefore, your comment preceding the keep one currently has no teeth. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:18, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
    • Per WP:ATD: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. - BillCJ 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is only what usually happens. What is happening here also appears in XFD, because (in this case) it is a redundant template that can easily be replaced with raw text. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:58, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
• keep - The template is a neat little table providing the important links for the WP:AIR project. I find its presence at the end of each article useful. If there is a problem with the "See also" section, I'm sure it can be fixed within the template. No need to throw out the baby, the bath water and you know, the bathtub. --McSly 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can achieve the same results by not using it at all. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:18, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
    • Then I'm not sure I understand your rational. Do you mean we should keep the same information, just not in a template form? Is it just a layout issue? Let's take the F-14 as an example because the section is complete. Assuming this template is deleted, what kind of information should we retain on the article. Surely you would admit that "sequence" and the "comparable aircrafts" are important information for the article and should stay in one form or an other. So what exactly should replace this template if deleted? --McSly 03:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Subst it and rearrange what comes out of it so that it complies with the MOS. I'm working on that very solution for the Boeing 787 article. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:58, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
        • So the idea is not to delete this template at all, what we need is split it in 2. Remove the navbox and put it in a new template like ((Airbanner)) or something. Keep the info in ((Aircontent)) and move the call for this template above the "external links" section. We comply with WP:MOS and we keep our nicely formated info and everybody is happy. --McSly 04:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Why wouldn't the template be accepted at FA? As BillCJ has stated the guidelines have been in place for quite a long time and have consensus about their formulation within the associated projects. This template is extremely useful for referencing other articles related to the one you are viewing.-MBK004 03:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus among specific projects does not equal consensus across the board. Status-quo for a long time does not equal something written in stone. Sure, longtime members of the Aviation project might not object to this, but what about other users who would like to copyedit so the article meets the FA criteria? Navigational templates are supposed to belong below all external links, not above it. In addition, if a project's guidelines conflict with something stated in the MOS, then it is the project that is at fault for not complying with the MOS. O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:18, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
    • You are forgetting one salient point: the MOS is a set of GUIDELINES - it is not policy. Guidelines can be conrtavened by concensus, either at the page or project level, and that is what has been done here. Also, tho only links below the Aircontent box on aviation pages are supposed to be the intewikis and cats, so I don't know where youre getting this Navigational templates are supposed to belong below all external links, not above it from. Finally, the "Related content section is not the direct equivelant on the "see also" section, as airceraft pages have differnt requirements than regular pages, and the Aircontent template helps to facilite that by keeping the sections together and formatted uniformly. - - BillCJ 03:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shouting your head off isn't going to help you make your point. Guidelines tell us how to do things that is agreed to by the community, and three projects is not a community. The Navigational templates are supposed to belong below all external links, not above it thing comes from the MOS, and every FA supports that. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a system of laws that has to be followed by the letter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a set of policies and guidelines that are followed by their spirits. Finally, why not look at the FAs to see for yourself? O₂ (息 • 吹) 03:58, 21 October 2007 (GMT)
        • The aircontent template is placed like a Navbox below External links and above Categories and interwiki links. -Fnlayson 04:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nominator doesn't know what he's talking about. First off, this template is perfectly acceptable for FA articles. See B-17 Flying Fortress and F-4 Phantom II as examples. Secondly, there's no problem with free editing of the SA section...I add SA links fairly frequently with no problems. I just tried it with the F-4 article and it worked fine. The section of the MOS most applicable, the Wikipedia:Guide to layout, is far from exclusive and inflexible in its recommendations. It says that it is an "example of some of the basics of laying out an article. It is a summary of what some articles look like. For more complicated articles, you may wish to copy the markup of an existing article that appears to have an appropriate structure." Because aircraft articles are unique and present a number of complexities not found in other article subjects, WP:AIR developed the template as well as a standardized page layout for these articles, and per the MOS as just quoted, to look outside the MOS for such structure is acceptable, and the WP:AIR format is entirely appropriate. Since the nom has been shown to be wrong in application of the MOS, wrong in this template's impact on FA articles, and wrong in the issue of editing the SA section, I don't see any remaining justifications for the nom. Nominator might want to rethink things and/or withdraw the nom entirely. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I cannot perceive a single problem with this template.--Father Goose 05:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Who? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Weasel-inline (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Three redundant templates. Suggest merge and redirect all three to ((Who)) Suggest a merge of ((who?)) into ((who)) and ((WW)) into ((Weasel-inline)) per furrykef — Jack · talk · 01:16, Sunday, 21 October 2007

• Shouldnt this request be somewhere else? Since you are merging, not deleting. I like the word "weasel word" better. Maybe merge Template:who into Template:WW? Travb (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ((Who?)) and ((Weasel-inline)) are not quite redundant per my reading— you wouldn't tag "a significant percentage" with ((Who?)) for instance, but that would be appropriate for "Many experts state that...". ((ww)) is a bit iffier, I can't think of a good place where it (and it alone) would have been appropriate, but its meaning is also subtly different. — Coren ^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all—weasel words and "who?" do not match one another. Having the inline weasel-word indicator is highly useful for pointing out individual and brief instances, whereas the weasel tag remains useful for an article saturated with weasel words, phrases and/or sentences.

71.241.80.160 05:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - weasel words inline is really useful, and most of the ways it can be employed are not similar to Who? or even WW. —Muckapædia 15^e mai 2024, 2h40 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK/CONTRIBS

• Procedural speedy keep per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 2#Template:Weasel-inline. This is already being discussed elsewhere. Anomie 17:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was two and a half months ago. As far as I'm aware, no real discussion has occurred since (most discussions and polls had ended in late July). Gracenotes^T § 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Anomie (and WP:ILIKEIT). JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep keep keep.--Loodog 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all but add them all in a category, I never saw WW ww or Who but I use weasel-inline all the time. EvanCarroll 03:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Weasel-inline ((who)) is almost insultingly curt, snarkily-worded and needlessly vague, while ((WW)) is needlessly wordy. Weasel-inline shares enough characteristics with ((weasel)) to be a good counterpoint. MrZaius^talk 04:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely merge ((who)) and ((who?)). The question mark should not make a difference; that's too confusing. Weak merge ((WW)) and ((weasel-inline)). "Weasel words" should cover "weasel word sentence" adequately. But do not merge who/who? and WW/weasel-inline. Those should be kept separate. - furrykef (Talk at me) 07:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all, but merge ((who)) and ((who?)). The wording of these templates is a bit different, and help to use on a case-by-case basis. Carlosguitar 23:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as suggested merge and not deletion related.

No opinion on whether to merge. --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Merge ((who?)) into ((who)) (I prefer the fist one), but the second one is already a target for a bunch of synonyms. Keep the rest. `'Míkka 22:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. Red links are not a valid reason to delete a template; they encourage other users to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Affinity (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Contains all redlinks and is an orphaned template. — TigerK 69 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the author. It is my intention to fill in the red links with pages. It's not a template that has been forgotten, but if you feel the couple of kilobytes is worth saving for a short while until I recreate the template at a later date then feel free. ---- WebHamster 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it isn't orphaned as it is in situ on the Mo Foster page. ---- WebHamster 00:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was to keep. As above. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contains mostly redlinks and is an orphaned template. — TigerK 69 00:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the author. "Mostly" is incorrect, half is correct and only because I haven't got round to writing the pages yet. The artists are there, the red links are the albums. They are going to be done within the next week. ---- WebHamster 00:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deletion, but with explicit encouragement to create a more streamlined, accessible template. This was a good idea which could be implemented better. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 04:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is creating a navbox that is overly broad. Based on the criteria, the 'box itself since there is not documentation, this could contain hundreds of articles, including material covered by more finely tuned 'boxes. This makes it makes it extremely unwieldy, redundant, and potential clutter, especially on shorter articles. — J Greb 00:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this clutter. It is utterly impractical. Characters alone would mean hundreds of entries. The template lacks any inclusion criteria. Any criteria established would be subjective and/or arbitrary. Doczilla 05:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but only if this is slashed back to about a dozen core Marvel pages to create template for the basic Marvel pages as discussed here, which could prove useful. As it stands it has the potential for almost infinite bloat and is only savable with the very strict inclusion criteria I suggest. (Emperor 11:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - this page is too large and impratical. Characters like the Thunderbolts are listed as "major characters," but there is nothing in terms of publication history. It appears to be haphazardly thrown together. 66.109.248.114 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Per Emperor. I think a Marvel nagivation box is neccessary, but not in it's current state. I would suggest cutting it down considerably, to include only main characters (Avengers, FF, Spidey, X-Men, Daredevil, Hulk, etc) rather than the entire fictional universe. I'd also suggest some out-of-universe info such as significant creators. Paul730 22:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think main characters and significant creators could start creeping into subjective areas. Clearly Stan Lee is Marvel in a lot of people's eyes so should be included and you'd need to have a rock solid inclusion criteria in place before adding characters or creators though. (Emperor 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - absolutely nothing done by this template that is not done better by a category. Phil Sandifer 15:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - In its current state, the template is a hulking horror waiting to happen. If it were scaled back to a few articles, perhaps this different separate templates or template areas for some more specific sections, that might be possible. But the existing template is not that possible template. John Carter 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In addition to all the other good points above, choosing who are the "main" heroes and what are the "important" storylines is all POV. The template that list the progression of editor-in-chief is an example of a template using objective rather than subjective information. --Tenebrae 21:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There's no way such a thing could be useful, in my opinion. BOZ 21:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I’m the one who originally made the navigation box. I’m sorry you all dislike it so greatly. As someone who has been a Marvel fan for more than 20 years, I was trying to design something that would be unifying to Marvel articles as a whole, not just an “X-Men only” box or “Spider-Man only” box. I was quite proud of myself after I had finished because aside from contributing to Wiki articles over the past several years, this was my first major contribution. I didn’t think the box was overly big – in fact it seemed far simpler than the ones for many of the rock band or TV series articles I’ve seen.

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory too: “Main heroes” were the characters that, since the beginning of the modern age, have nearly always been in print (Wolverine being the only title begun in the ‘80s still in print and Thunderbolts the only new title of the ‘90s still in print). “Other heroes” were the characters that have their own book for a few years, get canceled for a few years and then get their own book again. “Sidekicks,” self explanatory; “arch enemies,” self explanatory; and “major storylines,” self explanatory. And all chronological as well. So I’m sorry you guys thought the box was such garbage. If the consensus says so, go ahead and delete it it’s fine, at least I know know I can do Wiki code. I probably will do a simpler box for JUST the major storylines at some point in the near future because I think it’s needed So sorry for those I’d offended. I was just trying to help. Icemanjeff 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's OK. It's good you tried to help, and people who are knowledgeable in Marvel stories and characters are seriously welcome and needed. I'd suggest going to the "Welcome to Wikipedia" links on your Talk page and reading up on the nature of encyclopedic research / writing, and Wiki guidelines / policies, particularly WP:NPOV. I hope you understand how your or my opinion on what's a "major storyline" might be different from others' opinions.

Don't be discouraged -- we're a community here that, as I've seen on countless occasions, teaches each other and helps each other out. I can't tell you how much help and encouragement I got then starting out, and how it can be a little tough till you get the hang of it ... and even that I've found we continue to learn new things all the time! Hang in there. --Tenebrae 16:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, I appreciated the contribution. The end product was not quite accessible. Nothing personal, look forward to future efforts. 66.109.248.114 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete... I was against the deletion of the team-based templates, but I favor this one... it's just too big.--Gonzalo84 21:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per above, too over-reaching to be useful. Subdivide to Xmen, Avengers, maybe, but not all in one. ThuranX 22:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per above, too large and primarily dominated by unnecessary links of supporting characters and various storylines. -Adv193 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep but it needs a serious stripping back to the very basics, like the "core comics", core creators (Stan Lee, Avi Arad, Joe Quesada etc) and that'd probably be it. Maybe a link to basic lists, like lists of crossovers, lists of "important storylines" (as they're depicted here), things of that nature. In its present state, the template is far too in-universe, so it needs a lot of work to basically cull out all the inuniversality of it and make it a suitable template for wiki, but it definitely needs to be kept. Sub-templates may be appropriate for sub-sects, such as x-men, spiderman, avengers, hulk, cap america, F4, etc etc, for which my proposed version of this template could be transcluded into. What do you guys think of this proposal? --lincalinca 03:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually all of the links from here should be suitable for the ancillary articles, but keeping the others (major groups) as the primaries. --lincalinca 03:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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