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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep and self-trout. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC) According to WP:STUB, the associated category Category:Stubs is deprecated. By association, would that not also mean that this template is too (especially now that nothing links to it)? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I can't tag the template itself as it's protected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and speedy keep. This template is still in very active use. It is deprecated in the sense that anything tagged with stub is sorted as quickly as possible into one of the several thousand subtypes of it. However, unless you want to teach every editor to use the full stub list, it is necessary that they can tag an article simply as a stub until it can be further sorted. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then why is it listed as deprecated on WP:STUB? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reason I said in my second sentence above: it is deprecated in that it is replaced as quickly as possible. Check Wikipedia:Glossary#Deprecated - deprecated has more than one meaning on Wikipedia. You're reading it as the second definition ("pages, templates or categories that have been orphaned or are no longer used"); WP:STUB and WP:WSS use the first ("tolerated or supported but not recommended"), which is also closer to the standard English usage of "disapproved of" that would be better known by editors arriving at WP:STUB for the first time. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW - is there any reason why you've listed this here and the category at CfD, rather than listing them both at WP:SFD, where stub templates and categories are handled? Grutness...wha? 02:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category'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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Npler (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As a member of the National Puzzlers' League, I think it's great that the organization has a page on Wikipedia. But certainly none of its members are known for being NPL members. I noticed this on my own article, and I don't think it makes sense for my article or Gelett Burgess or Mike Reiss to have such a designation on its page. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm a fellow member of the NPL, and I also don't think this template has a reason to exist. Qaqaq (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm the creator of the template and an NPL member. Notwithstanding my friends comments, I don't feel that the question is whether people are known for being NPL members. I believe that was the right question when the associated category was up for deletion. But inclusion of information on a page has a lower threshold, IMHO, of whether the information helps a reader to understand the subject of the article. For example, Fred Phelps is known for picketing military funerals with "God Hates Fags" signs. But it is important background that he has done significant work as a civil rights lawyer. For the subjects noted by Slik, it helps to show a possibly unknown side or further fill out their gaming resume. Ma^t_chups 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, that is so not the comparative case I would have used. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a gaming resume. DreamGuy (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And including appropriate gaming resumes is encyclopedic. JJB 14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • How do you figure? It has to have actual interesting, informative and verifiable content. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You answered your own question. JJB 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as the recent user of this template on 22 individuals, and an on-and-off member myself. With the "former member" option I added to the template as well, it serves a very useful purpose: it standardizes reference to NPL members and permits them to be independently listed by the template's "what links here". Without it, mention that someone is/was an NPL member would be haphazard and less checkable (note that template deletion would not prevent anyone from mentioning membership by pasting in the template text itself instead). I have also taken up the suggestion in the category deletion debate (which was rather inapposite to NPL and one other club, as noted there) and added the list to the NPL article, but this is no substitute for having a realtime template-use check available. I must politely disagree with Mike and Qaqaq; even if Mike's statement is true that article subjects are not known for being members, it is well-established that we may use verifiable background biographical details that appropriately supplement what subjects are known for. I must also add that policy suggests that articles about Wikipedians are often not exactly according to their subjects' wishes— just as in fact many articles about other things are often not according to my or others' wishes. Anyway, good to hear from you all! Now let's see how the nonmembers chime in. (Matchups, thank you for your help in creating and maintaining this template! What's Tom Pulliam's pseudonym, and was his groundbreaking crossword dictionary ever in WP in the past? I don't see it now.) JJB 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • John, what troubles me about it is that it's in inline text, like (in the case of my article, which I don't touch) my game design career is on an even notability level with my NPL membership. That just isn't true. It's only that we have clever pseudonyms that makes it at all interesting, and probably only to those in the League. The NPL article can and should list these, but not the articles themselves.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned that this is getting far too crufty. For one example, before Slik edited it out, you had Julian Ochrymowych listed as a "notable member", and until I just now edited it out, you had a reference to him in a new "Popular culture" section of the opera "The Mother of Us All" (the source of his NPL nom). That obviously means nothing to anyone who would be reading that article, and adds no notable information. Similarly, I don't see how a template about an NPL nom adds new, useful information about anyone. If someone's NPL membership does in fact fill out someone's article in an interesting fashion, then a template won't be enough to convey that information anyway. Qaqaq (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I won't fight you over that one, though I am of course an inclusionist and this results from my habit of adding everything available. But in general, policy indicates that inline text does not indicate equal notability levels; membership and pseudonyms are both presumptively interesting bio details (and thorough pseudonymy seems a WP specialty); even if pseudonyms alone are the problem, the template can be changed (though I'd still retain it for grouping, seeing as members I listed in the NPL article were cut back); if mentioning membership itself is the problem, I've held that that is new and useful info. JJB 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete NPL membership and noms is absolutely trivial to the outside world. DreamGuy (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for saying so, but I take this as a statement that any membership in a small but historic organization, even if related to a subject's notability, is "absolutely trivial", and I don't see that in practice at WP. WP:NNC is the controlling policy, which is on the inclusive side. This content is neutral, verifiable, and unoriginal; WP:DUE does not apply because it is not undue weight unless the person holds a hundred memberships; and WP:NOT does not apply because this is not indiscriminate but very self-limiting. WP:NOTPAPER does apply, though. JJB 14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • An outside person might conceivably care that a notable person with an entry is a member of NPL (though why I don't know), but nobody but nobody would care what their nom is. Another NPLer might, but that's what the member directory is for, and the noms are in the password protected area of the site so general public isn't supposed to know these unless the subject him- or herself released the info. Did you tell anyone you're Ostrich? How would I go about verifying that by Wikipedia standards? The template serves no encyclopedic purpose, and that's what this vote is over... not whether you feel insulted by someone questioning a template involving a group you are a member of. DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • DreamGuy, please note that this information comes from the NPL's 125-year-old journal, which has long been available at the Library of Congress and other sites, so aside from being relatively obscure it meets all the tests of verifiability, despite the site protection. I must apologize for permitting you to think I felt insulted; rather, I said that regarding all memberships in small clubs as absolutely trivial would be inappropriate. I have no wish to turn my minor disagreement with you into anything else. JJB 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - While I'm not sure about relevance to article subjects, this template just seems... strange. So its just tacked on at the end of a paragraph or something? Standardization is good, but getting things down to exact wording of specific sentences in articles is too much. As for tracking, this is exactly what categories are for. If its relevant, someone can actually integrate something into the text, else, just the category should suffice. Mr.Z-man 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it is strange, I was just trying to make it easy on people, giving the automatic wikilinks and--for a time--category inclusion. Ma^t_chups 11:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would happily compromise on retaining the text itself, overturning the deleted category, and then dropping the template, if that's what you and the others are saying, and if Matchups agrees. I would also tend to hold that NPL members mentioned elsewhere in WP may be mentioned in the NPL article even if they don't have their own articles, according to WP:NNC. JJB 17:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm an NPL member. I can't see that the fact of being a member is notable enough to warrant a template. It might be noted in certain individual articles -- perhaps Dmitri Borgmann? -- but in those cases it can be covered in the text. Mike Christie (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Mike. Based on the silence of others and the hints of Mr.Z-man and Matchups, as stated, I am currently taking a TFD result of "delete" to be permission to restore the category in lieu thereof, and to retain the membership info itself, both in the bio articles and in the NPL article for less notable members. JJB 16:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
    • ... what? I don't think you can assume any such permission. Qaqaq (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; I think you'd have to go to deletion review. My position would be that neither the category nor the template is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely not, John. That category's just as bad as the template. This information should only be on the NPL article, if even there. In fact, it's one of the reasons that article is under attack. I don't see any reason that someone who read through every article linked to mine should learn my nom.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pope (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used. All the uses have been replaced with the succ boxes recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. This will make it easier to add other bishoprics held before the papacy. Since all the popes now have a succ box this is no longer needed. Deleting it frees up the name for some other template. Bazj (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Support Deletion – This template has been like the spear in my side since I first founded WP:SBS and I am so proud that someone other than me completed its replacement in all those Pope pages. Thank you very much and yes, I strongly support the removal of this template and will personally add it to the pending deletion list at WP:SBS/T.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Is there an alternative template which would cover those that have only one single title, that of Pope under their belts? If so, what is it? Str1977 ^(talk) 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC) PS. I hope its not Template:Pope before 376 because that seriously sucks. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A: No, but why would you need it? All the work of replacing Template:Pope has been done, and all popes have succ boxes. In time Template:Pope before 376 may be given the same treatment for consistency, and to simplify the expansion of those popes' succ boxes to include prior roles. Bazj (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well my question obviously was, whether the template you are endorsing works for one-title-holders too? And which is it? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And my answer was obviously "All the work of replacing Template:Pope has been done", and Yes, it works. The replacement is not a single template, it's the 6 templates that were used by Template:Pope:
  

  ((s-start))((s-rel|ca))((s-bef|before=xxxx))((s-ttl|title=[[Pope]]|years=xxxx–xxxx))((s-aft|after=xxxx))((end))

  Bazj (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is there no one template? And I would be very glad if you could inform me what the new template is. That is if you are interested in my approving of the TfD. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I've edited out my previous reply. I'd lost it.)
Str1977, The replacement templates are shown in my last comment. I suggest you look at some of the popes pages to see the templates in action. Whether you give your approval or not is a choice for you alone. I don't see what further information I could give you. Bazj (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold On! You've already edited the succ boxes on Pope Siricius to remove Pontifex Maximus, leaving just Pope. You've seen and used the replacement already! Bazj (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if it is that ONE I am content. (From the penultimate reply I was wondering whether you would want to replace one template with a range of templates). Str1977 ^(talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant to existing succession boxes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - what was the point of spamming talk pages? If this issue is as straightforward as it seems at first glance, that seems like an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. ugen64 (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's requested as part of the process as a courtesy to previous editors of the template, which includes you. Bazj (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – because I want it gone. :-D Seriously, though, it is outdated and impractical. Let's follow the trend and hand the baton to the more flexible ((s-start)). (By the way, good work with the popes' templates, but the year links are really, really not needed.) Waltham, The Duke of 08:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For the most part I left the dates as they were in the previous templates (though I DO have a preference for linked dates). Bazj (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about plain years, which are not auto-formatted anyway; they simply link to articles which don't include information of any particular relevance to the subject. That said, I support the global removal of date links. Waltham, The Duke of 14:15, 24 August 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 13:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Papal conclaves (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

No longer used anywhere. Bazj (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused and redundant to the standard succession infobox, which can easily be altered to indicate anything from papal conclaves to Billboard Number One singles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This template was never really used and has been discontinued. Get rid of it...now...
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – same rationale as with the deletion of ((Pope)) above. Waltham, The Duke of 08:04, 23 August 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Copy to Wikispecies (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

While the transwiki templates in general are useful tools that serve a valuable purpose, the 'copy to wikispecies' template is an exception. Wikispecies is a scientific directory of life-forms, not an 'encyclopedia of species'.

I doubt there has ever been a single page copied from Wikipedia to Wikispecies, and it seems unlikely that there would ever be any benefit in doing so. Neither of the two pages currently tagged with this (Oliveridia and Flyriella) are valid candidates for transfer to Wikispecies. I first noticed the problem when the tag was added to Vampyrops which, if copied to Wikispecies, would have created an improperly formatted fork of species:Platyrrhinus.

To quote the Wikispecies FAQ; "Copying Wikipedia articles directly into Wikispecies should be discouraged from the beginning. Wikispecies will need to have strict anti-forking policies that prevent this. The Wikispecies Charter makes it clear this should not be allowed to happen." --CBD 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Good enough evidence for me. The fact that Wikispecies disallows copies of Wikipedia articles is especially convincing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I created this in my first few months on Wikipedia. In retrospect, I should have looked at the host project first. I've lived. I've learned.--chaser (away) - talk 02:53, 19 August 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This serves a similar purpose, I presume as the "standard" Template:NOCin2008SummerOlympics. The differences are that the latter is a page-bottom navbox, and uses full country names. This style of navbox is already used on over 3000 pages of the "Nation at the year Olympics" series. This newer navigation box uses country codes, which makes it less clear for people who don't recognize them. There is no need to introduce an alternate style of navigation for this purpose. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as template creator) I had not noticed the template at the bottom because the page is so long. A country like the US could use a sidebar template for this purpose. Additionally, this template provides navigation by IOC code.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does the country make? Are you planning on replacing the existing templates on all three thousand articles, or just the USA articles? Perhaps your idea should be discussed at WP:WikiProject Olympics. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning on replacing. It is a complement, sort of like the side bar Template:BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox that is completely redundant with Template:Barack Obama. If I can get the format cleaned up a bit, I will add it where necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling it a "complement" is an imperfect comparison—it is a duplication of the same 204 wikilinks, unline the Obama templates, one of which is a subset of the other. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question of whether it is a complement has nothing to do with whether the links are all repeated. Look at United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Think about the reader who wants to go to the page of another country. He has to scroll down forever in hopes that a navbox is at the bottom. This gives the reader a quick navigational aid on the sidebar. When I use the page, that is what I am looking for. It serves the purpose that I am sure many readers want. It serves the same purpose as the country by year boxes in the sidebar for quick navigational aid.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant, and less useful duplicate of ((NOCin2008SummerOlympics)). Resolute 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andrwsc, there is no need for two similar templates. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Andrwsc. Dragging a scrollbar to the bottom or pushing the End button on the keyboard does not take forever. -- Jao (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I suppose the case for keeping makes sense in Tony's eyes (i.e. it is easier to navigate between pages this way), it is obviously redundant, and creates more unnecessary clutter on the pages. Jared (t)  13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I understand your good intention, Tony, but in my view the pros are very few compared to the cons of having such a template. The content duplication, the use of hard-to-guess three-letter codes to identify countries, the potential page cluttering of such lateral template, and the ease to go top to bottom (clicking END does that) are all against the usefulness of this template. Parutakupiu (talk)
• Delete per Parutakupiu, even if such a template were needed this is too cumbersome and confusing. basement12 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. I'll put in the holding area which will give time for anyone who wants to listify it. But I see there is already a List of players from Venezuela in Major League Baseball and it has a column to indicate whether they're active. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Active Venezuelan Baseball Players in the Major League Baseball (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Well intentioned, but a template that sets all kinds of bad precedents. On top of being ridiculously large, how far do we go with this type of template? One for Canadians, Dominicans, Europeans, Mexicans? By American state? Its borderline indiscriminate used on player pages, and completely indiscriminate used on team pages. Resolute 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Maybe you are rigth in the team pages, but I think the page is really useful, maybe because you are not from Venezuela that information looks useless for you. Anybody can create other ones for other countries or states, I dont see anything bad on that. I'm agree to keep it in the player pages. Ridiculously large? It is a template, just keep hide. That is just one line. --Anothercountry (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't the information itself I object to, but rather the format. This information really is not suited to a template, in my humble opinion. I think it would make a good list article, however, something like List of Venezuelans in Major League Baseball. Resolute 04:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, my friend, your humble opinion could destroy the works of another person. Like I said before, you could remove it from the team pages, but at least keep it in the players —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothercountry (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even on the player pages, I think it is unnecessary clutter. If consensus agrees with me, then I apologize for "destroying" your works, but that is the nature of the beast. Resolute 04:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. Resolute is right; we'd end up with a slippery slope where every nationality would have a template, and we don't need to have 25-30 templates on every MLB team page. It's a useful list, but not so much a useful template. Horologium (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Resolute. There is already a list of Venezuelan players and a category. "Destroying the works of another person" is irrelevant -- pages, templates, categories, etc. get deleted on Wikipedia all the time. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 16:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a template, but Resolute's suggestion for making a list gives this content a chance to become a WP:Featured list, perhaps, instead of keeping it in an awkward navigation template. That way, no "works of another person" would be destroyed, but kept in a far more useful format. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. — Satori Son 13:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Digital Praise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has a total of two links - both of which belongs to ((Dance Praise)). haha169 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Also, the "parent" article seems to be a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it lacks usefulness. LetsGo67 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (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.