Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 4

< March 3	March 5 >

March 4, 2006[edit]

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 pending any new userbox policy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Communist[edit]

Delete along with all political Userboxes Nhprman ^UserLists 01:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending development of policy. I would support deletion if there was evidence that the userbox was created solely to make a point rather than to express a sincerely-held opinion. Metamagician3000 01:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political Userboxes should be kept. It establishes a users POV. --myselfalso 14:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there were admins voted in who expressed extremist POVs on their pages, no reason to censor templates. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 08:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all userboxes that violate NPOV.--MONGO 10:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost all of them. SushiGeek 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AdamJacobMuller 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Majin Takeru 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Why does anyone really care if users wish to express their political ideology on their own pages? All userboxes violate NPOV--their central purpose it to express a user's POV on issues, and what's wrong with that? AmiDaniel 21:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Also note that it was nominated alongside the below as an attempt to poison the well to get both templates deleted. That makes the nomination a WP:POINT violation. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with the communist point of view, but if someone wants to identify as a communist, why should we take away their freedom to do so? (Ibaranoff24 02:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is the community here meant to be a battleground. (See: WP:NOT) Nhprman ^UserLists 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Moe ε 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The emerging compromise from what I understand is that we keep userboxes to the tune of "This user is a Democrat" but delete userboxes to the tune of "This user thinks that George W. Bush is a shithe@d." Fears of red spread aside, there are a lot of mainstream communist political parties in the world and it seems reasonable to have a userbox for this. I'd vote delete on "This user thinks the bourgeoisie should be lined up and shot." For me its not a "Wiki-freedom of speech" issue, but a identification issue to help users determine the potential biases of a user. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep at least until there is a policy agreed upon. That, and every Red needs a user box to identify themselves to the Capitalist Pig-Dogs.Mike McGregor (Can) 05:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I also think Savidan's anti-bourgeoise idea should be speedy-created ; ) Mike McGregor (Can) 05:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep There are other political extreme userboxes out there. Until they all go this one stays. DaGizza^Chat ^© 08:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If someone gets rid of it, then every other 'political' userbox should go too. PJB 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly suitable userbox --Tiocfaidh Ár Lá! 19:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If Lenin can be in category:Communists and that's not POV, why can't a user do the same? This userbox doesn't make any statement or judgement about communism. Afonso Silva 23:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite historic controversy surrounding communism, this userbox is just the same as all other political userboxes, and if this userbox goes, all of them will have to. Iapetus 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Otherwise I will just type it on mny user page, but Infoboxes look better. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs 19:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good night and good luck. --Tone 20:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SushiGeek 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's comforting to see that many here are simply wanting to keep this until the larger debate on Userboxes is settled, one way or the other, rather than defending the POV box itself. But bear in mind that if the equally offensive/divisive User_Nazi Userbox is deleted (discussion below) then this one should be, too. If one is deleted for being POV, then the other surely will *not* be saved, or a rethink should occur here at Wikipedia about the so-called "NPOV" policy and about fairness on the whole. Nhprman ^UserLists 00:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Nazi template is probably going to be deleted not for being a Nazi template but for being a WP:POINT violation - that is, it was created solely so that its creator could bring it up on TfD alongside this userbox. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unless it directly insults a group of people, is intended to insult a person or persons, or advocates violence, especially organized violence, I see no problem with it. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 01:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This would be fine, if this was an official policy. It's not, however. Instead we have selective saving and selective deletion, based on these "votes" by mobs of supporters or deletionists. Does that make sense to you?Nhprman ^UserLists 03:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per myselfalso's vote above +Hexagon1 (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I didn't put this on my page so that someone could come along and delete it. I think it's safe to say that every user that displays it, probably would vote keep also --Username132 17:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of Userboxes have been deleted. Your point? Simply cut-and-paste the code into your Userspace, and it will exist FOREVER. Nhprman ^UserLists 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep Wait until we reach consensus on a userbox policy before deletion. Thanks! --D-Day ^{My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes} 11:50, 10 March 2006 (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 speedy kept per WP:POINT nomination. _→AzaToth 11:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Nazi[edit]

Comment - Who creates a Userbox and then offers it up to be deleted as "divisive" in the same day? Nhprman ^UserLists 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is the above comment correct? If so, this userbox has been created solely to make a point.

That said, it is only common sense to speedily delete this userbox. The reason is not that it is merely "divisive", or that all such political userboxes should be deleted. Deleting it would not prove a point about that. Rather, there are some specific viewpoints so extreme and hateful that their expression here tends to bring the whole project into disrepute. Wikipedia is not a public space where there are reasons to allow all viewpoints to be expressed. It is a private space where tolerance of freedom of political speech has an outer boundary. That boundary is reached if the whole project would tend to be brought into disrepute if it lent its resources to the expression of certain very extreme viewpoints, of which Nazism is one. Therefore, deleting a userbox expressing a commitment to Nazism cannot await the formulation of a policy about userboxes in general. I don't know why the userbox was created - whether to express a view sincerely or to make a point - but it was, at minimum, a very unwise and provocative act. In my opinion, there should be some further consequence for whoever did this. Metamagician3000 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but everyone is entitled to their opinion--I don't care how extreme it may be--and I believe that they should be allowed to express that . . . in this case by having a Userbox that says they are a member of the Nazi party. Userboxes should not be used to advocate the death of a person or race. Example: "I support eliminating ______ race." or "I support the assasination of __________." . Granted, the Nazi Party may support these ideas, but it is a legitimate political party, despite their rediculous (and few supporters) positions. The Nazi Party is allowed, care of the First Amendment, in the United States. I know the First Amendment applies only to the United States, but this First Amendment should apply to the whole world, in my opinion (POV!!!!!!). And just so you know my POV, I am Jewish (as well as believing in his Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.). --ALSO-- Political Userboxes should be kept. It establishes a users POV. The reasoning why this Userbox was created is possibly the only reason why it should be deleted. If someone makes a User:Nazi box and actually uses it, I'd support keeping it. In this case, the person created it and then listed it to be deleted. This is simply nonsense by the creator. The creator shouldn't even be allowed to create userboxes if all this person is going to is waste space. --myselfalso 05:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you correctly point out, the world does not have a First Amendment (though similiar free speech rights exist throughout the world, obviously.) Even so, it surely doesn't apply to a private corporation (Wikia) which makes its own rules for what is and is not acceptable in space it's paying for (WP:NOT). I will say this, though, if one view is allowed here as a Userbox, all views should be, not just the ones the elite think are "acceptable," as Metamagician3000 seems to believe. Interesting that "I'm a nazi" is deleted while various "I'm a communist" boxes and two "I'm anti-fascist" ones are allowed to remain as Userboxes. That's blatantly unfair and POV. Frankly, userboxes as templates are a bad idea, and have wasted a whole lot of time. This debate over a bogus one is a good example of that. Nhprman ^UserLists 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has also created the {{User AntiPalestine}} userbox today, which also features Nazis. I am finding it impossible to WP:AGF on this one. - Ne ll is 02:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today the nominator created this userbox, added it to Userboxes/Beliefs, and nominated it for deletion. That seems like a flagrant violation of WP:POINT to me. - Ne ll is 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to apologise for any offence taken. I acknowledge that I was merely trying to make a WP:POINT. Alibabs 06:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You violated WP:POINT. Perhaps you should read over it again. --myselfalso 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably the lamest, point violation I have ever seen. Lame in the sense that not only did you create a template not worth keeping to make a point, but you also wasted the time of editors for something like this. Moe ε 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do have to say, poor Naziism (being sarcastic here) has no defenders, as opposed to the pro-communist box, in the conversation above. If this one is deleted, I sure hope the other is, too. The same if the other is saved. This POV-pushing using Userboxes has to end. I hope this proves it. Nhprman ^UserLists 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes are for user pages. User pages are not articles. Userboxes are not allowed to be used on article pages. Userboxes should be allowed to be POV, since they are for user-space, not article-space. Therefore, User-Nazi and User-Communist should be allowed to exist. The reason why it was deleted in the first place was because it was created "to make a WP:POINT". --myselfalso 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This userbox would be perfectly acceptable if a real Nazi wanted to create it and use it. As it was created simply to cause disruption, it should be deleted. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:05, 7 March 2006 (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 subst and delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Img[edit]

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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SpecialChars and Template:SpecialCharsNote[edit]

Useless, not practical, NPOV. So what characters are "special" characters? Is all characters which Unicode less than 32 or greater or equals to 128 "special", or is Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters "special", or is some characters like ✁✒✣✴❅❖ "special", or is Unicode 4.1 only characters "special", to say if a character "special" is POV, and it is platform and browser critical, it makes no sense. Wikipedia is internationalized, and too many articles include "special characters", so these templates are not practical. I strong suggest delete these templates, and for those users encounter problems to read the specific article, they can try to read Help:Special characters. — Yaohua2000 23:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as above. Yaohua2000 23:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you supposed to vote on your own nomination? —mjb 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — This could be replaced with a template that warns users if the page contains CJK characters as people may not have the fonts installed to display those text properly. fnfd 13:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's useless. --Kunzite 18:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good riddance. Shanes 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. DaGizza^Chat ^© 08:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Jyril 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If an article contains characters which cannot be viewed on some systems, then they have a right to know the problem. Davidpk212 11:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's their own problem, they should configure their system properly, just like previous deleted {{Medical}}, Wikipedia doesn't have to tell everyone for every article contain "special" characters.
Keep per Davidpk212. SushiGeek 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep users should know why text doesn't display. Alpha Omicron 20:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Davidpk212. shaggy 02:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, this is for pragmatic use, on articles with characters that are supported by virtually no system out of the box, such as Gothic alphabet and Old Italic alphabet and Linear B. The template will be obsolete once these characters are commonly supported. Much rather up for deletion should be {{IndicText}} which 'warns' about a unicode range that is widely supported. It is the user's fault if they haven't configured their browser properly for Indic display. It is not the user's fault if their browsers don't support Gothic or Linear B. dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a matter of politeness as long as users are actually having technical difficulties with some Unicode ranges. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful for pragmatic reasons. Michael Sappir • (Talk) 15:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd guess – no, hope – that most Wikipedia users aren't geeks. David Kernow 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as some articles need the templates, they should remain in existence. The content and application of the templates can be adjusted to address the concerns of the person who made the nomination. That is, the templates can be made to be applicable to a smaller set of articles, if it's really a problem (and I'm not sure that it is). I predict that mass deletion of the templates will result in many people complaining about "boxes and question marks" appearing in articles that contain not-widely-supported characters, especially in articles like the ones that deal with specific character encodings. —mjb 00:10, 11 March 2006 (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 for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-kr[edit]

Localized and unused {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. --Puzzlet Chung 18:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Creative Commons specializes their licences to individual jurisdictions and this is just the Korean one.[1] It is in no way redundant to {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} and being unused in this case is no grounds for deleting since someone from Korea, (one of) the world's most connected countries, may well want to use it in short order. -Splash^talk 03:22, 5 March 2006 (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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nprotect[edit]

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

Unused template. Supposedly to be used to protect an article because "the article has achieved wide public notice."

delete This is one situation in which we definitely do not protect (unless there is actual vandalism or content disputes arising). --Tony Sidaway 18:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tony. Pagra shtak 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useable anyway.--MONGO 10:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should not be used. Shanes 19:39, 5 March 2006 (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 all Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Noinclude[edit]

The talk pages of the above templates all redirect to Template talk:Noinclude. According to this page:

This does not function corectly and is in the testing phase, but was intended to function in the same way that {{Template:Hide}} works, but without generating div tags that break justification of text.

The templates were created in November 2005, have not been modified since, and are not currently used anywhere.

Delete – Can we assume that this 'test' is never going to work? – Gurch 17:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Doesn't seem like it would be a lot of work to recreate if somebody ever did want to work on it again. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 08:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — per CSD:G2; _→AzaToth 13:53, 10 March 2006 (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 no consensus -> keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture[edit]

Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Seems too big and cumbersome. And since I was the one who previously marked all of the Academy Award for Best Picture articles with {{Succession box}} about two months ago [2] [3] [4], I think the template nav box is sort of unnecessary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I believe it violates Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Article series boxes: For very long series, it is preferable to use incumbent series, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I feel that it meets all 3 conditions. (1) From any given Best Picture article I would want to be able to travel to any other Best Picture article. (2) An article on a Best Picture winner is likely to mention the previous or subsequent Best Picture winner because it gives context to a victory (its often commented that one years winners have a lot to do with the politics of last years winners, etc.). (3) All Best Picture articles could become substantial. They are all notable films that could one day even become featured articles. I agree that the series is long; I disagree that it is extremely long. Its hard for me to think of examples off the top of my head, US Presidents comes to mind. Seems like we are going to want a template that lists all of them even 1000 years from now when that list becomes huge. I think we have to weigh the length of the list against the usefulness of the connection. Someone might be reading an article about a best picture winner and wonder: "What won in X year?" or "What was the first winner?" "Have any similar films won?" etc. I think its more important for the purposes of this discussion to be talking about the specifics of the Best Picture winners. It's doubtful this template would be used as precedent because there are few applicable situations. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not that cumbersome compared to some of the boxes we have (e.g. Senators, House of Representatives, Star Craft, etc). It provides useful information. The sucession boxes aren't that helpful unless you are only interested in the film immediately before and after. I'm not saying we should necessarily remove them, but if we have to choose between them, I'd go with the template. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 10:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples you mention (Senators, House of Representatives, Star Craft) are organized in such a way that they cannot be converted into an Incumbent series, and therefore do not qualify under the Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Article series boxes rule I mentioned. However, Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture currently does. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about Template:Woody Allen Films? That's 3/4 the size but for something much less signficant. My main problem with just having the succession boxes is that they take up 1/5 of the space of the template but convey much less information. There is no other place where you can see all the best picture winners, in order, in one screenshot. The Academy Award for Best Picture article lists the nominees and thus requires the reader to scroll down a lot. The category is sorted alphabetically, not chronologically. Thus, the template serves a very useful function. I made sure it was always on the bottom of the articles, so its really not that obtrusive. It also has the "Hide" feature for users who don't want to see it. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, forgot to answer your actual argument. {{USpresidents}} could be converted to an incumbent series but isnt. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But Template:USpresidents only has 43 entries, instead of 78. And it does not list the years as Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture does. I might not mind if AcademyAwardBestPicture only listed the links, instead of both the links and the years. Without any type of seperation or formatting, it is very hard to read or scan. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wouldn't mind only listing the links, as a compromise, although I don't know what that would look like. Perhaps if we only listed every tenth year so that you could determine the year... savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's just too big and distracting. The link to Academy Award for Best Picture in the succession box is sufficient. Coffee 17:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Savidan. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above --NSA 11:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as explained above. Its very handy. How can someone think of i being deleted.Vivek 06:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful tool Calwatch 03:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete huge and unnecessary inclusion. Redundant with the category.--nixie 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think I would prefer delete, but I can understand why some would want to keep it. Just a thought, but why not make it smaller by going by decade or by 2 decades? That would be about 10 or 20 films instead of all 78 or however many they're up to. If it's done right, it could be easily navigated. I recommend this. K1Bond007 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are already two simple ways to see the list this template is supposed to help us access: (1) we can go to Academy Award for Best Picture (available from most such articles); (2) we can go to the bottom of the article and click on Category:Best Picture Oscar (this works for all such articles). Why add a third way? 66.167.139.205 10:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, but modify along lines suggested by K1Bond007 above. David Kernow 12:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bloated and not useful (and I'm an Oscar buff!). I also like K1Bond007's suggestion for a replacement. -- MisterHand 14:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because although quite big, it is a useful aid to navigation Kurando | ^_^ 16:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rather than adopt suggestion of K1Bond007 above, because his suggestion makes it impossible to scan a chronological list of Best Picture winners. This is the only convenient chronological list currently in the Wikipedia The Academy Award for Best Picture article is not a list-- it's way too long to scan through for the names of two pictures that are 5-6 years apart. And the template's at a logical location in each Best Picture article.CGMullin 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the template is redundant when using it in a film article. Luigibob 15:00, 8 March 2006 (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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman religion (hub)[edit]

Delete I was going to vote to keep, but then I saw Template:Roman religion on the same page. This template seems to be an unnecessary and redundant hybrid of two templates (Roman religion and Roman mythology). AmiDaniel 21:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and improve Template:Roman religion. No need for multiple templates. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:50, 6 March 2006 (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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Djibouti infobox[edit]

I say delete as unnecessary.Roy boy crashfan 02:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk 05:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nick C 11:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong 16:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use the country infobox. We want to keep all the countries uniform and creating infoboxes for individual countries will make that goal difficult if we decide that X or Y fact should or should not be included in the future. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:03, 10 March 2006 (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.