< March 14	March 16 >

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. Herostratus 14:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a myspace template. — Fortyfeet 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Isn't it easier just to write the URL out? I'm dubious for the need to external link to MySpace anyway Pit-yacker 23:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant, and MySpace should generally be avoided. Gracenotes ^T § 23:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no need to tell others your myspace. Also, a direct violation of WP:MYSPACE. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a few reasons whhy this should be deleted, 1) Because there is already a myspace template 2) because myspace should be avoided 3) it is also a violation of WP:MYSPACE. It is a shame to have to delete something someone put effort into but they should of got to at least semi-understand the policies and guidlines before they made it. Peace:) --James, La gloria è a dio 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per James. semper fictilis 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to other myspace templ. —dima/s-ko/ 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already another MySpace template like this. - Nick C 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subst then delete. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:39, 19 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 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 is an early non-admin close. davidh.oz.au 12:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this template encourages biting newbies. As such, it might qualify for speedy deletion, since it could be inflammatory to sensitive newbies. However, a past deletion discussion indicates that many might disagree with me. When new people come to Wikipedia, I believe we should welcome them, not make them feel like outsiders.

I believe administrators are perfectly capable of spotting single purpose accounts on their own. After all, AfD is not a vote, and administrators read people's reasons. New users will often write bad reasons, which will alert administrators. And if some new users do write good reasons, do we really care if their opinions are counted?

If you really want to make sure the administrator notices that a user is new, there are better ways. Try putting Welcome to Wikipedia in bold while you are welcoming said new user, and I am sure the closing administrator will get the idea.

Another thing that bothers me is that this template is transcluded on many article talk pages, and even a few user talk pages. I cannot see what use it would have in those namespaces. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Spa.

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 22:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC), 22:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not agree that proper use of this template violates WP:BITE, and occasional misuse is not a reason to delete an otherwise useful template. I agree with the nominator that it is not appropriate for talk or user pages, and would not be opposed to changing the language to indicate its purpose is for XfD discussions. As such, I have made a proposed change to the language at Template talk:Spa#Proposed language change. -- Satori Son 23:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, inappropriate use is not reason for deletion. I suggest that the nominator's concern be added to the template documentation. (By the way, straw polls might be a good place to use this, eg for an article about an internet community, that sort of thing, where deletion is not the concern.) Gracenotes ^T § 23:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very valuable in sock situations in debates. If you see someone misusing it, contact them. —dgies^t_c 23:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it make a difference to you all if another, more welcoming template was created for pointing out individual editors participating in deletion discussions, while at the same time welcoming them? For example:
Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for participating in this discussion. Note that this is a discussion, not a vote, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not numbers. Consider reading Wikipedia:Deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay! : ) ~~~~

— Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! See ((uw-notvote)). Gracenotes ^T § 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what use would that have? ((Spa)) is most used - and properly so - in deletion debates, not on user talk pages. That's a keep, BTW. Grutness...wha? 01:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...there is already an afd welcome template at Template:Afd-welcome. It and ((spa)) have distinct differences and should be used in different situations IMO. An administrator is capable of figuring out who may be and who likely is not a sockpuppet, yes, but spa certainly helps the admin find out. Thus keep. --Iamunknown 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Abusus non tollit usum ("abuse does not destroy the (correct) use") semper fictilis 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If someone could reasonably be seen as a SPA, then they are new enough that they have little experience with Wikipedia, so there is no great travesty in saying "Sorry, but you're new, and you're not that familiar with Wikipedia, so we have to give your opinion less weight". If someone is offended by that, I don't want them on Wikipedia. True, this can be abused, but so can pretty much every page on Wikipedia. -Amarkov moo! 04:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a very useful tool for AfD closures. Sandstein 06:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and I've found it an improvement in civility/neutrality over words people used to use before this template became popular, such as "sockpuppet". —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-16 10:09Z
Keep. Absolutely invaluable template, not just for alterting admins but for alerting all users. If I see an editor making accusations, it takes a while to judge how to weigh those accusations. This template assists. I do support the wording change on the template talk page. — coel acan — 12:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid tool for noteing meatpuppets/sockpuppets in a debate without resorting to removing comments. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC) — j.smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I am just wondering: why did you mark your own comment with the template? — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you all to participate here to discuss when this template should and should not be used. Thank you, Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 00:51, 17 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, orphan. Herostratus 15:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is, to my knowledge, no longer used on any pages. Half of the links are red, and the others no longer have articles on them as they have been condensed into one solid dwarf section on the List of Dragonlance creatures. Therefore, it's useless. Incidentally, dwarves is spelled wrong to boot. — Dooms Day349 21:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About the spelling: "Dwarfs" and "dwarves" are both right. The original Anglo-Saxon plural was "dwarrow", and there are recorded uses of "dwarfs" dating back to the 17 century. "Dwarves" began being used in the early 18th century, but was not commonly used until JRR Tolkien started using it. However, it is quite likely that "Dwarves" would be preferred in this context. "Dwarfs" tends to be preferred by grammarians and is often applied to real, living dwarfs. "Dwarves", on the other hand, tends to be preferred by fantasists and is often applied to mythical dwarves. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 23:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see. I wasn't actually using the mispelling as a grounds for deletion; it was a bit of a joke. But thanks for pointing that out :) Dooms Day349 00:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the spelling is indeed correct. But, I support the nom. If a few or no pages use it, what's the point in having it? --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unused and useless because its subjects have been merged into "List of ..." articles. —dgies^t_c 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete. semper fictilis 01:00, 16 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 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 delete. Picaroon 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates now unused, obsoleted by the Template:GBthumb series, which in turn have all but been obsoleted by Template:Location map. — Pit-yacker 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete deprecated template. Gracenotes ^T § 20:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above comment. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obsolete and deprecated. semper fictilis 01:01, 16 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unnecessary and not used. Any USC citation to a chapter can already use ((usc-title-chap)).—Markles 17:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Usc-title-part-chap allows you to list title/part/chapter while usc-title-chap only allows you to list title/chapter. Is "part" not use for USC citations? -- Jreferee 19:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not necessary. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there's no use for citing to a part AND a chapter. One or the other is OK, but citing to a Part AND and Chapter is the same as citing to a Chapter.—Markles 12:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Markles' statement that citing to a Part AND and Chapter is the same as citing to a Chapter. -- Jreferee 20:11, 19 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The squad does not exist in real world. — Matthew_hk t c 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 17:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - surely this is a candidate for a "speedy" deletion. Daemonic Kangaroo 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and there are also loads of other templates that should be up for deletion made by the same user. -- Mattythewhite 18:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as extreme fancruft. Punkmorten 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above comments. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was this a hoax? Regardless, it should be deleted. semper fictilis 01:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although, the NOOCH team is a real team (not just part of a video game). Nothing currently transcludes it, so it's a moot point. Neier 01:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of these line-ups exist except on some kid's ......erm, whatever the latest thing kids play video games on is ChrisTheDude 08:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a hoax and false information. Qwghlm 08:44, 21 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to violate our No Original Research policy (now part of WP:A), as it invites people to source content in articles themselves, and sign their name, basically, which appears on the article. Or that's how it's being used on the one article which uses this template, Turnpike Doubles. — Xyzzyplugh 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - people should get information from a verifiable source, not themselves. While this may be troublesome if few sources exist, it's a stopgap against widespread innaccuracy. Gracenotes ^T § 13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This template seems to be a different way to cite the material in the article. However, it generally is not appropriate to use transcluded templates for citation purposes. -- Jreferee 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean transcluded templates like ((cite book))? CMummert · talk 17:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that ((cite book)) is a transcluded template. As far as I am aware, ((cite book)) is not used as a page that is inserted into another page via transclusion. For example, look at footnote 3 of the Albert Einstein article and the Lincoln in art and popular culture section in the Abraham Lincoln article. All the information for the ((cite book)) is within those articles. The information is not inserted into the Albert Einstein or the Abraham Lincoln article from somewhere else. -- Jreferee 19:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "transcluded template". Looking at the source, ((cite book)) adds punctuation, spacing, and an occasional word or two to the arguments that are passed to the template. I don't know what is usally called transclusion and what isn't. But, the way I read Wikipedia:Transclusion, every template call is a transclusion unless subst is used. And subst is certainly inappropriate for ((cite book)). CMummert · talk 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template doesn't fit any of the established norms of the manual of style or of WP:ATT. CMummert · talk 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the heck is this? In addition to everything above, whose idea was the 5 point font and weird lime green? -Amarkov moo! 04:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Addhoc 19:38, 16 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 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. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is unmaintained". First, that's redundant with ((historical)); and second, an awful lot of pages in Wikispace are unmaintained if you look at what the latest edit is in the history. So this template is kind of pointless. >Radiant< 10:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful for placing on old data dumps, which are still interesting historical data, but are no longer current. (((historical)) is more for discontinued policies and processes.) --ais523 13:02, 15 March 2007 (U T C)
keep I made this template, as ((historical)) nor ((update)) was applicable to a certain page. historical is more of a discontinued policy/process tag, unmaintained is more in the line for a page that is still important to the project, but may lack vital/correct/updated information. _→AzaToth 13:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete or Rename~~ - I do not believe that unmaintained is a word.[1] Also, every page on Wikipedia is maintained, its just that some pages may have not been revised in a while. --Jreferee 16:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Additional reasoning - I suspect that the template has little use because the criteria for using the template is not clear. Please refocus the template's use towards those articles that "lack vital/correct/updated information." -- Jreferee 19:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for the articles, bu could be just called out of date insteadCanadianshoper 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not used on articles because Wikipedia does not provide disclaimer templates. Its only use is on Wikipedia:Registered bots. --Iamunknown 19:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's a difference between the historical template and this one; the former is never going to be changed again, but the latter is just outdated. This template is useful and should be kept. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep userful to most articles, but most of it use update templateJer10 95 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but publicize existence, as it's only being used on one page. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:11, 16 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created in February 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. My guess is this was part of some larger group of templates which has since been deleted – Qxz 07:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 23:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hard as I try, I can't find any other templates that would be part of this system. Gracenotes^T § 15:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think ((infobox Ship)) once was multi-template like ((taxobox)) v2.0. Circeus 20:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had searched through the history of that infobox before commenting... may have missed it, though. Gracenotes ^T § 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Nick C 17:01, 16 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created in July 2005 by an anonymous user, edited only to remove a fair-use image. Not used on any pages. Looks like it could potentially have a use, but if there are no articles using it, there's no point keeping it – Qxz 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. Terence 15:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I second that. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, useless template. - Nick C 16:42, 16 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created in July 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. Consists simply of . Since the (({spouse))} parameter in ((Infobox Politician)) is optional, there is no need for this (hence why it is not used) – Qxz 07:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Just plain useless. Canadianshoper 17:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what's the point of it? If anyone can persuade me to believe that this is a useful template, I'll change my vote. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is apparently the best of the workarounds that existed before ParserFunctions, but it's useless now. -Amarkov moo! 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Nick C 17:02, 16 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created in January 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. Consists simply of  . My guess is this was part of some larger group of templates which has since been deleted – Qxz 07:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm guessing that this is part of a set of templates intended to be used to populate an infobox. However, as the Balao class carried no aircraft, it's silly to have a template to populate that field. TomTheHand 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per previous comment. --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Nick C 17:03, 16 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 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 by NawlinWiki as G2 (test page). —dgies^t_c 02:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created in June 2005, not edited since. Not used on any pages. Consists simply of (({1))}. Apparently useless – Qxz 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to nom. Just a parameter call. No need for transclusion. Especially with parameters. Gracenotes ^T § 13:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does nothing. Probably an experiment with using template variables. —dgies^t_c 23:34, 15 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 Keep. See SNOW. Jreferee 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC) – Note that this user is not an admin, see WP:ADMIN – Iamunknown 22:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Listcruft — Aimpples 06:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Note - this user's second post on Wikipedia was this deletion proposal. -- Jreferee 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - In hacker jargon, cruft describes areas of something which are badly designed, poorly implemented or redundant. I contest that this template is well designed and implemented and is far from redundant. It clearly illustrates the convoluted evolution and decline of the modern British Shipbuilding industry, which went from one of the largest in the world to a minor entity in a period of less than 30 years. It covers many very famous names in shipbuilding (i.e Scott Lithgow, at the time the world's largest shipbuilder), Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (important in the social and industrial heritage of Scotland and the UK), the nationalisation and privatisation of the industry into British Shipbuilders and the extant and notable companies i.e BAE Systems (the World's fourth largest defence company.) The alternative is something like this; List of shipbuilders and shipyards. The template covers what that article fails to do in a far more concise manner. Emoscopes ^Talk 13:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Emoscopes; a well-designed template that presents a lot of important information in an intuitive way and ties various British shipbuilding company articles together. TomTheHand 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This template has proved a useful source for more than six months, providing a clear, visual guide to the multiple changes in the British shipbuilding industry since the 1960s. It has recently undergone a massive re-working which in my opinion has resulted in an even better template. I find it odd that somebody's first act as a registered Wikipedian would be to try and remove an item of clear importance to maritime historians. --Harlsbottom 13:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Emoscopes, TomTheHand and Harlsbottom above. Couldn't agree more with them. M0RHI | Talk to me 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Hate to be the person saying, "ditto", but what else is there to add? Novium 13:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I am astounded that this has been listed for deletion. I'm sorry to say the user listing it for deletion obviously doesn't know much about this subject and therefore should think twice about getting involved in deciding what is relevant or otherwise to its coverage on Wikipedia. The evolution of British shipbuilding companies is incredibly complicated and I commend the user who has created this template for providing an extremely useful visual representation of the history and, at the same time, an extremely navigable one. Mark83 13:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. We shouldn't even be having this discussion. --Saintrain 18:29, 15 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! 05:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used on one page, could probably be redirected to one of the other football team infoboxes, or its single occurence replaced with one of those infoboxes and then deleted – Qxz 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already a football club infobox, here. - Nick C 19:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. –Pomte 06:44, 17 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page" (WP:TMP). This template, however, seems never to have been used (c.f. Special:Contributions), is unnecessary for the simple text it contains, and does not appear to be useful. I personally have never encountered a time where I intended to say, "This is a type of clothing that goes on your feet." — Iamunknown 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misuse of templates. Possibly a failed attempt at accessing categories. —dgies^t_c 23:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. –Pomte 06:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per nom; this needs to be closed early per WP:SNOW. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:46, 17 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page" (WP:TMP). This template, however, seems to have only ever been used once (c.f. Special:Contributions) (it was used in Image:0548439.jpg; I removed it), is unnecessary for the simple text it contains, and does not appear to be useful. I personally have never encountered a time where I intended to say, "This aircraft has an airline mark on it." — Iamunknown 05:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless template. Unlikely to be used. Terence 15:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly a failed attempt at categorizing images. —dgies^t_c 23:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. –Pomte 06:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Per nom; this needs to be closed early per WP:SNOW. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 17 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 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no company "Viewers Like You," so there can be no employee of "Viewers Like You", so there can exist no public domain content created by such a non-existent employee. And *poof* the template vanishes in a puff of logic ... or, goes through tfd and then vanishes by using Special:Delete. :P — Iamunknown 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG DISCTIMINATION AGAINST PUBLIC EMPLOYEES... erm, delete. -Amarkov moo! 04:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Viewers Like You" is part of PBS, I think. Or at least that's what they told me many years ago, but of course I didn't donate. Ahem. Delete, since it is not used, and this template looks a bit too specific for it to be used (it should probably be on a "Help:" page somewhere, rather than a template). Gracenotes ^T § 03:46, 18 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 section.

March 15

Template:Myspace name

Template:Spa

Template:Dwarfs of Krynn

Template:GBmap

Template:Usc-title-part-chap

Template:Uzbekistan Squad 2006 World Cup (FIFA WC06 Game)

Template:Primary source

Template:Unmaintained

Template:Ship decommissioned table no

Template:Future Olympics

Template:Infobox Politician/nospouse

Template:Ship aircraft box Balao class submarine

Template:Insert text

Template:British Shipbuilders evolution

Template:Football team

Template:Clothing

Template:Airline

Template:PD-USGov-Viewers