< February 21	February 23 >

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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC) Here are several templates, and I hope that no one minds the batch:[reply]

I request that the following be speedily deleted due to G1, G2, G3, or rougeness; I hope no one minds me listing them instead of tagging each individually.

• Template:Please leave this line alone (Andymilo)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (sandbox headiningggggg)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (sanddbox heading)
• Template:Please leave this line alone if you aren't totally awesome(sandbox heading)
• Template:Please leave this line hi drake alone (sandbox heading)
• Template:Please leave this line alone - why? what does it do?
• Template:Please leave the line below this alone (sandbox heading)
• Template:Please leave this line alone - NAH!
• Template:Please leave this line alone no, not gonna (sandbox heading)
• Template:Please leave this line alone (Excercise)
• Template:Please edit this line as much as you like (go for it)
• Template:Please do not leave this line alone (tutorial sandbox heading)
• Template:Please edit this line before starting (sandbox heading)
• Template:Please edit this page(tutorial sandbox footing)
• Template:Please don't leave this line alone (sandbox heading)
• Template:Please DONT leave this line alone (sandbox heading)

The following were created in what I believe to be good faith, and I would like to commence discussion regarding their deletion.

• Template:Please leave this line alone. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant with Template:Please leave this line alone. No links or transclusions.

• Template:Please leave this line alone (personal sandbox heading) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Transcluded only on User:Fortunecookie289/sandbox, suggest userfy or deletion. That's it. Gracenotes^T § 22:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as per nom. I'm pretty sure that tagging these for CSD would not be contested... -/- Warren 05:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I just tagged them. I was hoping that I wouldn't have to, and rather use this list, but that doesn't seem to be happening. All that requires discussion now is ((Please leave this line alone.)) and ((Please leave this line alone (personal sandbox heading))). Gracenotes^T § 05:57, 23 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PCP-drive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template does not seem needed. It only takes up space in the talk page that is is placed into. Though the Wikiprojectbanners template (which itself is currently nominated for deletion) helps with this, this template just plain is not needed on Wikipedia. The Pokémon Collaborative Project can just add a small message at the end of their project template if they wish for it to stay. So basically either delete the template all together, or combine the PCP drive template with the PCP template. --Funpika 19:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant. - Tetsuya-san (talk : contribs) 21:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- I just checked the project's main template and there is ALREADY a focus parameter in it. This makes the PCP-drive template 100% useless. Funpika 21:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is a useless template. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign here)} 22:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete I agree Gloern 04:00, 23 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Compilation of Final Fantasy VII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Non-standardized template that has been made obsolete by Template:FFVII --El Cid 18:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD G6. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - • The Giant Puffin • 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as superseded, but WP:CSD#G6 does not apply just because there is a better version. —Dgies^t c 04:58, 1 March 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a by-permission image license. We haven't accepted by-permission images for almost two years now. --Carnildo 03:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't see a reason for deletion of this template. Also I think you should perhaps first contact Dijxtra since he was the one who acquired the licence which can be seen here [1]. Tar-Elenion 06:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. By-permission licenses that do not allow modification or use on sites other than Wikipedia are no longer acceptable. Gavia immer 15:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unacceptable template under current guidelines. All instances should be replaced by ((copyrighted)). --Bob 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unacceptable copyright tag. -Amarkov moo! 22:49, 22 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. CharonX said that they would take it, so I will userfy it to him. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:This_user_does_not_shop_at_Wal-mart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

NPOV in Template space — Randall Bart 02:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete what possible neutral purpose could it have. Jethero 02:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I assume that the nom means POV, not NPOV... I would say userfy, but it's transcluded nowhere, so delete. Gracenotes^T § 03:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant NPOV in template space is the policy. POV is the problem. — Randall Bart 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes not following NPOV... that's fine. But I understand that, yeah, this is a bit strong. Gracenotes^T § 06:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sumbuddy correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the policy is that WP:NPOV does not apply to user boxes because it does not apply to user space, but such user boxes have been removed from template space, and should be transcluded from user space. — Randall Bart 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV only applies to article space, so it should also apply to templates that are transcluded there. This template is not meant to be transcluded in mainspace, so NPOV doesn't apply. Gracenotes^T § 03:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Gracenotes. Eluchil404 05:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not transcluded, not linked, "owning" user is inactive. —Dgies^t c 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPOV issues, to be honest its a bit of a pointless user category anyway,Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 12:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with tellyaddict. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 17:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I don't care whether this box is NPOV, it's just superfluous. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 23:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete Although there may be people who would want to use this, it's is not a very descriptive thing and seems like the only real use would be to anger the opposite POV. Gloern 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy - no reason to delete; we have far more NPOV userboxes in the user namespace. The user does appear to occasionally return as well. 64.178.98.57 20:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy' as per WP:GUS if someone WANTS to host it, else delete. — xaosflux ^Talk 08:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Userfy I'd be willing to move it into my little userbox archive, if we need a home for it. Edit: Since it was pointed out that nobody actually uses this userbox, I agree that it might be deleted as well. CharonX/talk 01:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy' if someone wants it. I don't see this as any different than the "I hate MySpace" ubx -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 04:06, 28 February 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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2006-07 Top 14 Table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Single use template. Info can be adequately conveyed within the relevant article without the need for a template. --Bob 00:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No need for a template when a table will do. ― El Cid ∴∵ 05:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not the purpose of a template. Harryboyles 09:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This template isnt only there for the 2007 season but for but is to be used as an example for future Super 14 seasons meaning that this table would be used to comment on teams performance for the 2007 season. This table would go down in the history section of Super 14 and would be used by fellow Wikipedians in the years to come to compare with other years to see how well a team has been playing and the template also saves space and help to keep the article in shape and Iam not sure why it is up to deletion by a non-admin because Dale Arnett who is one of the biggest Admin on Wikipedia has no objection to it being created. It is there for future reference and it should remain.It was created for a season but it will go down in history of Super 14. Dont Delete..--Cometstyles 01:35, 26 February 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 page.