Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 28

< June 27	June 29 >

June 28 edit

Template:New Jersey Devils roster 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, not included or linked to any pages, and hasn't been updated in months. The actual New Jersey Devils page uses a table to list the current roster, thus making this template redundant. Anthony Hit me up... 18:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The template was originally created just to keep the team's page shorter,[1] but the text was copied back into the article by an IP [2] and no one seemed to care. Since then, the article has gone on to receive FA status. No reason to keep the template and it is not used in any articles. nadav (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — single-use transclusions should be avoided; moving the content inline was the right thing to do. Andrwsc 17:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Hanoi Girl → ^{Please sign!} 03:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would be better if it were a navbox. - Presidentman 11:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Bsroiaadn^Talk 11:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I'm not familiar with the arguments against single-use transclusions, I'm OK with deleting this one since it is not used and is not being updated. EdJohnston 03:18, 6 July 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.

Template:Jew list 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 Delete. Walton^talk 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic. The only purpose this template serves in encyclopedia building is to note that the article it is on is a list of Jews, but this purpose is accomplished much less obtrusively by the simple inclusion of Category:Lists of Jews, and a link (if needed) in the lead of the list article to Who is a Jew?. The rest of the template serves as an editor warning, of the type often found hidden in articles in comments, like "." The admonition in this template about Wikipedia policies is accurate, but applies to every article on Wikipedia... it's the kind of thing found in dispute or cleanup templates like {{neutrality}} or {{BLPC}} but those templates are designed to be temporary. I've checked, and I can't find any templates like this for other types of lists or articles that are designed to be permanent. Note that this survived a prior nomination: (1st TfD) but that debate did not address this issue at all. Mango juice^talk 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unnecessary, repetitive, and takes up server space. Anthony Hit me up... 18:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An absurdly redundant template that serves no real purpose except to restate the title of a few lists. Its use contributes to bizarre situations such as List of Polish Jews, which announces its subject matter four or five times through an overabundance of templates and warnings. Leaving aside the fact that the template is being used on numerous unreferenced lists - which may very well contain non-Jews, or individuals who are not Jewish according to Jewish law - I think our readers are swift enough to figure out what List of Polish Jews is all about without an additional banner stating: This page is a list of Jews. --JJay 20:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As JJay knows well, both he and I have been a little overexposed to this template in the past 2 months. Is there any real justification for its presence? What purpose does it really serve? Does it do a job which the title, the introduction, a category, or a link to Who is a Jew? cannot? I'm not certain where my vote lies on this, as I would prefer to see justification for preservation before I decide where I stand.--C.Logan 21:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews and its talk page thoroughly, if you really want to know how this template came into existence. The template's history will also show that it has been radically altered since its early days. Also, IZAK has written extensively about the subject matter these lists purport to cover, here. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I had previously noticed the drastic change in format, but upon learning why the template was created, I now see the redundancy and uselessness of it's current state.--C.Logan 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the first half of the template should be rather obvious, and is of no apparent utility. The link to Lists of Jews seems useful, but that alone does not appear to justify the existence of this template. That's what a See Also section is for. The second half of the template is a self-reference and always true, no matter what the page. See also Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 19#Template:Citing Links, which was deleted by a unanimous vote. Gracenotes^T § 22:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant, almost common sense-ical template which serves no real use beyond repeating the information which the title, introduction, and categories already convey. It is essentially pointless to reaffirm that 'this is a list of Jews' when the Who is a Jew? link directly beneath it details the difficulties of such a categorization. It would make much more sense to provide the useful links elsewhere in the article (preferably with the Who is a Jew? link near the introduction, as it is really the most relevant element to be included in such lists).--C.Logan 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing wrong with this template. It only expresses that a list contains jews, or only jews.--Sefringle^Talk 04:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As does the titles of these lists. With or without a template, though, most of these lists contain non-Jews on an ongoing basis. The template is thus deceptive, misleading and POV. --JJay 22:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to this is to go back to what the template was originally invented for, and figure out some way, if not by use of this template, then by some other means, to address the relevant issue. Deleting the template doesn't solve the problem you're citing, it actually makes it worse. Tom e r ^talk 03:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. —Sefringle^Talk 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but make it have substance. I think the edit that deleted all the content of the template [3] destroyed it. Every list of Jews must include extremely rigorous criteria for inclusion, with some background on what the word means. Too often, these lists become arbitrary and unverified. Every such list should come with a (metaphoric) big red box explaining its scope and why it exists. This template helps do that. nadav (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Biographies of living people have Template:Blp on their talk page; I would not have that much of a problem with a box (even a big red one) on the top of the talk page of a list of Jews. But not in the article, mainly because of WP:ASR. Take a look at Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Lists of Jews—I see no reason why edits to those lists wouldn't be manageable without the template, given that there are only about 10 edits a day now. (A direct comparison can be made to how BLPs are handled, since many of the same issues apply to these lists.) Gracenotes^T § 12:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gracenotes, the only self reference is found in the text someone put along the bottom, outside the box. That text perhaps should be put on the talkpage, but more likely it should just be put in the dustbin. It adds nothing that wasn't in the template's original form, and unnecessarily duplicates WP policies, which should never be mentioned in any article (except those, obviously, that discuss WP itself). Tomer^talk 14:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep. If consensus is to keep the template, the policy suggestions should (in my opinion) be the second thing to go. (Since {{tfd}} goes first.) Now, the template in its original form does seem to have useful content. Templates are generally not used for in-depth content; articles are. The paragraph originally on the template would do well at Lists of Jews, which all the lists should link to in their See Also section. This template could then be deleted. Gracenotes^T § 17:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      There. That was an easy-enough fix. Tom e r ^talk 17:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant article self-reference. Obtrusive references to editing policy in this template make it distracting and unencyclopedic. Nick Graves 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be useful if it said "...and we use this definition of what constitutes being a Jew", but it doesn't, because there is no such thing. -Amarkov moo! 17:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing against the very idea of lists of Jews, then? nadav (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Things like this can be decided on a case-by-case basis, which is perfectly fine. There's still no point in saying "What constitutes a Jew is debated" if there's no definition provided. -Amarkov moo! 19:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to return to the beefed up version that explained in detail criteria for inclusion. Basically, I see this template as having a potentially important role in improving these lists and making them rigorous. Deletion gets rid of a tool we could use to solve the lists' uniform problems. nadav (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cut-down to the current version was part of what saved the template from deletion last time: many comments specifically endorsed the new version. Something for talk pages might be appropriate. But even there, it's more appropriate to link to Who is a Jew? than to try to have a template make a false claim to having authority over the question. Mango juice^talk 00:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either that, or the template could be deleted, the content could be added to Lists of Jews, and every list of Jews could link to Lists of Jews. Having such in-depth content on every single list seems a bit inefficient. Gracenotes^T § 03:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "making false claims to having authority," it's about having clear criteria for inclusion, which is a requirement for all lists. nadav (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it apparently solves a problem of people sticking marginal Jews on Jew lists (why do we even have those?) We should maintain high standards for inclusion in lists. I agree the template should be reverted and all the non box stuff deleted. -N 19:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, at least where I've seen it applied, it doesn't quite do that. It only really provides a disclaimer to the varied definition of what a "Jew" is, and where I have seen it applied, this most certainly includes 'marginal' Jews. For that reason, I don't really see the usefulness in it, or at least the need for a template which is already more thoroughly explained in the article text, the title, the category, etc.--C.Logan 19:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way to solve that is to improve the template. All lists of Jews suffer from the same problem of lack of clear criteria for inclusion. The WP:LIST guideline tells us: "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources, especially in difficult or contentious topics." The purpose of this template (at least, it should be and was before the edit that removed its substance) is to provide the inclusion criteria for these lists. Category:Lists of Jews is vast, and a template is the best way to address the problem. nadav (talk) 10:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The WP:LIST guideline also explicitly states that inclusion criteria should be explained in the article's lead section: Even when the meaning of the page's title seems obvious, a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes the list, as well as the criteria for inclusion in the list. The template thus does not adhere to guidelines and is superfluous. --JJay 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uh...I follow you until the last sentence. The template would appear in the lead and would fulfill this function. All the lists have the same problem, so a template does the work faster. nadav (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there are 2 ways of resolving this issue: 1) Keeping this while only accepting Ethnic Jews on the list or 2) Deleting this and creating 3 separate sections about a)Ethnic b)Religious & c)Cultural Jew -(Take Borat as a clear example)--Andersmusician VOTE 04:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a far better proposal would be to include people who are only notable because they're Jews. Sandy Koufax is, for example, a noteworthy inclusion on the List of Jews in sports because his refusal to play on Yom Kippur was a noteworthy news event. People who happen to be Jews but aren't noteworthy because of their Jewishness should not be included either in such lists, nor in any such categories. I think IZAK has made some very useful suggestions in this area, if anyone would bother to take the time to read them, as I've stated above. For those who missed it the first time, and can't be bothered to figure out what I'm referring to, please, read it here: User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 05:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per redundancy above. And while I agree with Tomer above that including only those people whose notability is in some way tied to their Jewishness, just about any notable person who has any personal characteristics can be said to be notable by at least some people for those personal characteristics, so I think his/her proposed solution, even if followed, would probably not really solve anything, given our current vague definition of notability. John Carter 17:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Besides redundancy, many people listed aren't actually "Jewish" in some senses. Horvat Den 21:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify how deleting this template will fix the fact that "many people listed [on these lists of Jews] aren't actually 'Jewish' in some senses." That, in point of fact, was the original reason for the template. Tom e r ^talk 02:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the record, but fix, as noted above—at least until a better solution is found to address the inherent problem of these lists, the problem this template was originally created to tackle (i.e., that people, Jewish or not, are added to these lists willy-nilly on a regular basis). Tom e r ^talk 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2 If this template gets deleted then at the lists, you should have separate section for ethnical religious and cultural jews. All this for avoiding misunderstanding--Andersmusician VOTE 17:10, 4 July 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.

Template:LittleBritainNavigation 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 delete. matt br 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Little Britain (series 1), Little Britain (series 2), Little Britain (series 3), Little Britain (specials) have all been redirected to List of Little Britain episodes, I see no reason to extend the lifetime of this template.—♦♦ SʘʘTHING^(Я) 14:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as housekeeping logically following editorial decision to merge. Gracenotes^T § 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as housekeeping. Carlosguitar 13:53, 6 July 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.

Template:AIV 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We warn vandals from test1 - test4 then report them to AIV so they can be blocked, administrators then leave a note on the affected users page explaining that they have been blocked. So why do we need this template to rub it into the faces of vandals that they are about to have their editing privileges revoked? It fails WP:DENY, they're more likely to increase their spree if they know they are about to get blocked. I also don't think it's a good idea publisising AIV to the vandals. — Ryan Postlethwaite 11:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I think the template is well-intentioned, I agree with Ryan that it's a problem and unnecessary. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't see a reason why any user should be informed that they are "about" getting blocked. ~Iceshark7 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't think of any reason to tell the vandal about a report to AIV. And what happens if the report doesn't result in a block? Well intended but wholly unnecessary. Pax:Vobiscum 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments here. There should be a rule against recreating such templates. Riana (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Riana linked to the debate before I could ;) therein, I voted delete, and still hold that position. Gracenotes^T § 22:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy?) Delete I'm going to nominate this for speedy as a recreation of non-admin f-warn. It's basically the same thing. If for some reason, the admin disagrees, this is still a delete comment because we should not be feeding the vandals. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this template has a general name. So if (okay, when) it is deleted, it may be useful to have it as a general AIV report template. For example, {{{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>#ifeq:{{{1}}}|{{uc:{{{1}}}}}|IPvandal|userlinks}}|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}} ~~<noinclude> </noinclude>~~}} or somthing like that. Gracenotes^T § 01:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great idea. People doing it manually must find it annoying to type out IPvandal the other one which I can't remember (though they're not that long). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 02:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least two coding errors in the example new template given; the parameter {{{1}}} needs to be used as the parameter for the IPvandal/userlinks template, not the user making the report (which is what the sig tildes would do; they could be moved to the end or just left off (I have a personal dislike of sig tildes in templates)), and both uc and lc need to be checked against in case a user has an all-uppercase name. --ais523 15:31, 29 June 2007 (U T C)

Yep, you're right. It was just a prototype, after all—I didn't have the time to test it (had to get off of the computer at 2:00 UTC). Gracenotes^T § 16:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is also terrible advice; nobody will unblock just because there wasn't enough warning given. -Amarkov moo! 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very misguided template per nom. nadav (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Creator Charming. While you're all being rather unpleasant, you may wish to have a peep at my userpage.--Rambutan (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which specific part of this discussion do you find unpleasant, Rambutan? I personally did not find anything in my own comments unpleasant, merely citing precedent, but I may be wrong... it's hardest to detect incivility in your own words, after all. Riana (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template would make sense only if there were consensus to use it as part of the usual vandal-fighting process. It does not add any value that I can perceive. I would actually *not* want the vandal to be aware that I had nominated him at AIV, in case my request got turned down. And I agree with the nominator's desire to not publicize AIV to the vandals, so they don't mess with that as well. EdJohnston 03:29, 6 July 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.

More (new) soccer templates 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water; two more national squad non-WorldCup templates were created. Deletion is in line with the football project consensus, as well as many recent discussions (some still listed on this page; most others listed here.

Delete Neier 09:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The consensus is established. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MJCdetroit 12:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus is clear. Andrwsc 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Siba 03:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney 19:48, 4 July 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.

Template:Besiktas 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 21#Template:Floriana F.C.. Some of these violate fair use, the rest are just needless. — Punkmorten 07:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Utterly needless. Mattythewhite 08:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Like why not just use regular inner link bracets? ~Iceshark7 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are designed to do something which shouldn't be done. slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 19:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Useless Ban Ray 09:29, 30 June 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.

Template:Enterprise 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal this template links to has been rejected a while ago. It serves no apparent purpose and can be substituted by other templates linking to active policy and guideline pages.. —AldeBaer (c) 03:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom says it all. nadav (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The policy proposal this links to was marked as rejected on 27 March, and this template is still transcluded in many places. EdJohnston 04:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, policy proposal has been rejected. Carlosguitar 13:43, 6 July 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.

Template:DHARMA 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 delete. —« ANIMUM » 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template that deals with articles within the mythology of the television show Lost. There's already a template Template:LostNav that works perfectly well for the first two links (DHARMA Initiative and Hanso Foundation) and the other six links are just redirects to DHARMA Initiative stations. There are currently no pages that use this template, and I would like to nominate this for deletion. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical 02:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that this template should be deleted becaused there is already a template that does the same job. In my humble opinion, it is not logical to have two templates that serve the same exact purpose.--†Sir James Paul† 02:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unneeded. -- Silva Storm
Delete - although in the form of a navigational template, it is far less useful for navigation than {{LostNav}}, mentioned by the nominator. Gracenotes^T § 01:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ned Scott 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MJCdetroit 12:22, 29 June 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.

Template:Infobox Maxi single 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is redundant with Template:Infobox single. The only difference appears to be the addition of the word "Maxi." Used on a single article only, by the author of the template. — Tabanger 00:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a redundant and unnecessary template. Shalom ^Hello 02:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Tabanger and Shalom, this template is both redundant and unnecessary.--†Sir James Paul† 02:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending a proper replacement. Template:Infobox single appears to be flexible enough for short-term use until a better Infobox can be developed. - B.C.Schmerker 13:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found your original discussion regarding this template. I'll make some points there about the proposal, but this template, as is, appears to have no reason to exist. Tabanger 00:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it's a maxi single, just use {{Infobox Single}} and indicate that it's a maxi in the Format field. ShadowHalo 00:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nadav (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only article that was using this template no longer does so, as of 28 June. EdJohnston 04:05, 6 July 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.

Template:Economy of Mongolia table 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 delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose template, previous use in Economy of Mongolia replaced by Template:Infobox Economy. — Latebird 00:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia no longer has a need for this template.--†Sir James Paul† 02:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant. Pax:Vobiscum 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not used anywhere and obsolete. nadav (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As unused and superseded. EdJohnston 03:31, 6 July 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.