< October 13	October 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 no consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Accuracy-1911 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fails WP:NDT (I think). Rocket000 05:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think it does in part and does not in part. We do have warning templates that are not disclaimers; perhaps this should be worded more like those. It's a valid thing to warn a reader about. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We need this one. The misguided decision years ago to add content on the wide range of ordinary subjects expected in an encyclopedia by copying the text from one almost a century out of date has resulted in a situation that needs this precautionary warning. We may not need it indefinitely, if every such article is modernized and the old text only used when still appropriate, or as quotations to show antiquated points of view. (Not that there arent wonderful things in there, but this sort of download was not a discriminating one). DGG (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's meant in part as a notice to editors--please fix this article. In that regard it serves a double purpose. I only used it when I knew full well that our existing article was a pack of lies, but I hadn't the time to repair it. Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I'm not certain that I care particularly even for it, the wording of Template:Gray's (This article was originally based on an entry from a public domain edition of Gray's Anatomy. As such, some of the information contained herein may be outdated. Please edit the article if this is the case, and feel free to remove this notice when it is no longer relevant.), used on articles that incorporate text from Gray's Anatomy, might, inasmuch as it is a bit less self-referential and tends to address editors over readers, be a good substitute. Joe 20:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Fix the articles, and delete the templates. There are only two articles (Transylvanian Mountains and Alfred Graf von Waldersee) which transclude this template. Have someone check them over, then remove the template from them once it's determined that they've been corrected. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think we are so far removed from the en masse copying from 1911 that this template is too specific. It should therefore only be kept in the generalized form of "This article does not meet modern research standards" or whatnot. gren グレン 02:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Peel 19:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete – blatant disclaimer template. If the article is inaccurate, tag it with ((accuracy)). If the article is non-neutral, tag it with ((POV)). Etc. We don't need an template saying "the article is inaccurate/POV/whatever BECAUSE it was copied from 1911 Britannica", and especially not one saying "warning (...) use at your own risk". Melsaran (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it is a disclaimer template, yes, but something out of the 1911 Britannica can easily be accurate. It's just that sometimes it's outdated. Use at your own risk should be removed though. -- Guroadrunner 11:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- it accurately portrays that the information came from a source that while once accurate may not offer updated information. Also, I agree with MacKensen's comment above. -- Guroadrunner 11:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Guroadrunner above.
• Keep. I have seen some users citing the 1911 Britannica because its outdated content was in line with their POV. An encyclopedia published in 1911 is not the best source for a 21st century encyclopedia and readers should be aware of it. Tankred 18:30, 19 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Useless template. Why not redirect your user page to your talk page if you don't want one?. Melsaran (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see the point of this template. If there was a link to leave a new message, this template would be more useful. Carlosguitar 18:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gracenotes update. Carlosguitar 12:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just use a redirect. This accomplishes nothing that a redirect wouldn't. Also, @ Carlosguitar: a link for a new message for talk on user would be unnecessarily complicated. - Che Nuevara 21:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or userfy, people do use it, so there is no reason to stop them from using it. Some people do not like the idea of redirects from user to user talk, and others do not like the idea of a deleted user page. This is a good compromise. I've added a new message link, as well. Gracenotes^T § 22:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per kick-ass update from Gracenotes! --Kralizec! (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see nothing wrong with it. --- RockMFR 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this template is useful. _{Hydrogen Iodide (HI!)} 21:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it lets readers know (i.e. it makes explicit) that the lack of substantive content is intentional. A redirect might implicitly indicate the same, but it might also just lead to confusion of the sort, "Oops, I must have clicked on the talk link instead of the user link." (sdsds - talk) 22:44, 20 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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deneuve movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Filmography navbox that is not in use. I believe we no longer condone these things either do we ?. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - box is a filmography for Catherine Deneuve. Guroadrunner 11:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Template is unnecessary - a list of her film's can be found on her article. (Imagine how crowded the bottom of film articles would be if EVERY actor/actress had one of these templates.) Delete per nom. -NatureBoyMD 17:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per NatureBoyMD above. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:27, 19 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 delete. — Malcolm (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Baseball team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is redundant to another better-designed template (Template:Independent baseball team). Also, the template is not used on any articles. Reccomendation: deletion. — NatureBoyMD 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a hard time making a case to keep a template that's been around for a year and isn't used in any articles.--Fabrictramp 23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hard to determine what the point of this was. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an inventive but ultimately unused idea. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:25, 19 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Navigation Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Navigation Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Duplication of Template:Navbox. The actor, who now support the deletation, had included only an unecessary flag. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 02:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep Navigation is not simply a copy of standard navigation. It also supports placement of image above and below text to complement the left and right of the standard navigation. It is used for ALL navigation in articles supported by wikiprojectperu therefore flag is not unnecessary. Keeping it allows for adaptation of navigation for all peru-related articles not in any way possible when using the standard navigation. --ErickAgain 11:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Has I can see, all templates can be converted to navbox without affect the formatation. In my opinion, it should be removed when finish the conversion process. — Guilherme ^(t/c) 12:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep ((Navigation Peru)) is not a simple copy of ((navbox)) as can be seen by comparing parameters used in both templates. It is also widely used by WP:PERU. On top of that, it is quite useful and NPOV so I don't think it meets any of the criteria for template deletion. --Victor12 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We actually use the template. No reason to delete something that is useful.--Jersey Devil 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral IMO the flag on both templates serve little purpose, not every country has a nav template, yet I can't find a template policy/guideline on this.--Andersmusician VOTE 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep ((Navigation Peru)) as per Jersey Devil above. Delete ((Navigation Brazil)) as it appears to have been superseded by ((States of Brazil)). --Kralizec! (talk) 16:24, 19 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 subst and delete. — Malcolm (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shuttle Mir mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Soyuz ISS mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Templates masquerading as article content, contrary to WP:TMP. These templates are used to automate the lead sections for articles about Space Shuttle flight to Mir, and an arbitarily selected group of Soyuz missions to the ISS. This restricts the ease with which these articles can be edited, and adds nothing to the page content. They should be substituted and deleted. The precedent to this is the recent deletion of Template:Shuttle ISS mission (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I was not aware of the existance of these two templates at the time, however if I had of been, I would have included them in the original nomination. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rillian 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – unlike intros to long lists, this is just one sentence, and having it in a template is not necessary at all. I don't think it needs to be updated frequently. Melsaran (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedent. Guroadrunner 11:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subst and delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:05, 19 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.