< May 13	May 15 >

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! 04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kiddy Grade Char (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Navigation template that has not been in use since most of the pages on it were merged. — Shiroi Hane 23:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It looks like nothing uses it and all of it's links are redirected to the same page after that merge. Hewinsj 05:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hewinsj --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:55, 15 May 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! 04:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

It does not make sense to have a template on popular DCOM films. Popular films can be seen on the list itself. A template with all the films and not just the popular ones will make more sense. Disney768User 14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A template with all the films would be unwieldy and would end up being the Disney Channel Original Movies page. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Popular is hard to define, and we already have lists and stuff or this. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Popular is a pov --ROASTYTOAST 21:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NRV. Dfrg.msc 23:32, 14 May 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 template is very well defined as a simple notice on the subject matter of the topic. While it may overlap with ((calm talk)), it's still useful as noted by many editors below. Aquarius • talk 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The parameters of this template's purpose remain undefined. The inclusion of this template on many article discussion pages implies a POV, or rather a taboo. Just as Category:Taboo activities was delted, so has the time come for this POV-pushing template to go. Delete — Gilliam 10:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This template only marks that a specific topic is controversial, which can be evidenced by current events, edit waring or inability by editors to reach a status-quo. It does not illustrate what the controversey is, take sides, or push them. The only thing it does is asks people to talk about changes before making them which is not unreasonable. If it is added to an article in error it can always be removed. Hewinsj 12:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This template is nothing like Category:Taboo activities. It is, as Hewinsj notes above, simply to note topics which are highly debated which is a fact that is easy to see from the activity on the article. Lexicon (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no reason to delete, it does not imply a POV it simply says that there are many editors that feel strongly - one way or another - about the topic, so tread lightly. Though I am not sure that the template should say "discuss substantial changes here before making them" what happen to being bold and ignoring all rules? Perhaps it should just recommend that people keep a cool head. Jon513 15:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hewinsj. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see how it is POV pushing. It is just warning potential editors to be careful when editing. Pcarbonn 15:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A helpful cautionary note. MikeHobday 19:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all above. Quadzilla99 22:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I've worked on several highly contentious articles, and having something like this to include is definitely helpful! Akradecki 22:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on Keep As per Akradecki. Dfrg.msc 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the template merely says there are multiple POVs, it's not pushing one particular POV Obscurans 04:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not see how this is POV-pushing. It's an observable fact that certain topics are more controversial than others. On pages marked with this template, examine the article's edit history or the archives of the talk page, and you will get a picture of what is meant by "controversial." I think it's helpful to give an editor approaching the talk page of a contentious article for the first time a notice of what to expect. I also think it's helpful to give some short, constructive advice on how to edit such articles, because, in my experience at Abortion, a lot of editing disputes began when substantial changes to the article were made without discussion or when new information was added without proper citations. -Severa (!!!) 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW --w^{L<speak·check>} 20:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is that a strong WP:SNOW? :) I say, weak WP:PANDA Gracenotes^T § 03:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The template in itself is not POV, and if a user adds this on a talk page, it's because they recognize that the topic can be a source of heated debates and POV pushing. This is a judgment call and may be itself POV, but that doesn't necessarily make the template POV. --- Tito Pao 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a useful reminder for editors to prevent edit warring and additions of poorly cited, POV material. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep controversy templates are helpful, in particular ((Controversial3)). ~ UBeR 18:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think warning users to take caution with very controversial articles is quite the same as POV pushing. ShadowHalo 23:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Misuse of a template is not justification enough for its deletion. Yes, mislabeling something is a bad thing but the template is in use well across the site. Very useful for reminding people to keep cool and not edit war.-Localzuk^(talk) 16:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:SNOW, Tewfik^Talk 04:29, 18 May 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! 04:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippine ABS-CBN-STI senate quickcount, 2007 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't think we'd need specific templates for these, quick counts which will be quickly discarded when official results come out. We can utilize the Wiki syntax fir creating tables anyway.

Also included: Template:Philippine NAMFREL senate quickcount, 2007, Template:Philippine PPCRV senate quickcount, 2007 --Howard the Duck 03:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - Quick counts are probably not notable enough to be listed in detail. If they are controversial or have some impact, then mention them in prose with a citation to some external statistics. –Pomte 05:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oh yeah, a useless template that should be deleted. Jmlk17 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless. Dfrg.msc 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Current consensus is that only the official count (by the COMELEC) and the other accredited "quick count" (by NAMFREL) should be kept as encyclopedic. In addition, do we find any similar unofficial counts on the articles for the Presidential elections in France and the US? --- Tito Pao 22:38, 15 May 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.