Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 26

< May 25	May 27 >

May 26 edit

Template:Ministry box office header 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 section.

The result of the debate was deprecate to the standard succession templates. Happy‑melon 16:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some oddball reason, someone thought the Canadian ministry templates, and those templates only (as opposed to thousands of other articles across the encyclopedia), requires that succession box use specific rows for saying "predecessor", "office" and "successor" (why there is an absolute need for a complicated series of templates that essentially duplicate the existing SBS project is anyone's guess). Circeus (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand, but maybe the "absolute need" stems from the fact that it importantly designates under which specific Premier (administration) the person served? Could you tell me what and where is the "existing SBS project?" Jonathan Logan (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes in general are developed at WP:SBS (WikiProject Succession Box Standardization). I can explain the general issues separately, right now I'm really finding this (and {{Ministry box title header}}, which I had not noticed) pointless in current presentation and implementation. Circeus (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now A quick look at some Canadian politician articles show that they seem to follow their own standard for succession boxes. Deleting this right now would just cause more problems. First step is to convert Canadian politicians to use WP:SBS templates. This should be stayed until that happens. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 16:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't see why this can't be included directly into the templates instead of being made a subtemplates as it is now. And the presentation with an extra row is ridiculously overthinking. It looks like we're talking down to the readers. Circeus (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominator does a poor job of explaining why it should be deleted. I have no idea what this header does, and going to the template itself doesn't tell me. GreenJoe 04:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's why we have "preceded/succeeded by" Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:18, 3 June 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.

Template:Wrong title 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 section.

The result of the debate was deleted per WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion). —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, not needed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I agree. Delete. -- kenb215 talk 01:54, 28 May 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.

Template:Distinct 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 16:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template was used on two articles, B Velorum and Q Velorum, to put two articles on one page. I have since fixed this by splitting the articles apart, leaving this template orphaned. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Now totally useless due to articles being fixed through disambiguation. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:48, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
Delete, unless this template has some possible use that I'm missing. Terraxos (talk) 23:28, 27 May 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.

Template:Bulacan State University/BULSU Accredited Programs 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 14:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper usage of above templates to format article text boxes to produce a homepage look for the main page Bulacan State University. Delete and revert article itself to preceding version where this was text inside.— Tikiwont (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I have reverted the article back to a basically encyclopedic version. Oh, and delete all these templates, Wikipedia is not a webhost, even for places that do warrant a (proper) article. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:05, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
Delete All The design is nice, but this is an encyclopedia. JPG-GR (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. This goes against the basic standard look of Wikipedia's articles. Midorihana みどりはな 08:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all – as per above. Jared Preston (talk) 10:54, 27 May 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.

Template:WIKICRUFTWARN 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete, per CFD:T1, agreement of creator, and WP:snowball. Alai (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather iffy and incivil template created unilaterally this morning by one user, used to scare supposedly inferior WikiProjects into rewriting their articles. The template's parent project must view itself as some sort of police force. Please also see this. —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are plenty of templates which can be used instead of this, and actually inform people what is wrong with the article rather than a vague "fancruft". Black Kite 11:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete feels like an attack on something the selfstyled police force does not like. Agathoclea (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Kite - better to use a specific template for overly long plot summary, in-universe style, lack of notability etc. PhilKnight (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Labeling articles as fancruft without any information as to how they could be improved is unhelpful and insulting.--Dycedarg ж 11:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- More specific templates could do the job. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 11:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant to other less attack-like templates: {{cleanup}}, {{trivia}} to name just two. Also, it does nothing to improve the article, it would be better to actually fix the fancruft (or AfD it if warranted) than just slap a (badly written) template on. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 11:59, May 26, 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. The writing is atrocious. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 13:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it would be more useful to tag the articles, and if the project survives, for its members to join the relevant WikiProjects and work with them, instead of attacking them. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would not be useful to tag articles, as the purpose of the WikiProject should be to have users Who patrol Wikipedia and remove inappropriate content. T.Neo (talk contribs review me ) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tag, and/or improve, articles was what I intended, not just tag and leave as they are. Also for users to "patrol Wikipedia" why would this template be useful? --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball speedy delete, on the basis of unanimity of input, basic civility, and any hope of constructive communication on the (undoubted) underlying issues. Alai (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Decrufting articles is a reasonable goal, and a decrufting project is no more threatening to other Wikipedia projects than the League of Copy Editors. Kww (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, make that "effective unanimity". Alai (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rather incivil, and there are similar tags. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft is in the eye of the beholder...no need to be rude about it LegoTech·(t)·(c) 15:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under T1 - can't see how it isn't divisive or inflammatory. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:12, 26 May 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.

Football 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 section.

The result of the debate was No consensus, but with a drift towards 'keep' at the end. Happy‑melon 15:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portugal Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:England Squad 1968 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:England Squad 1980 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:England Squad 1988 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Added by Woody: Template:England Squad 2004 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:England Squad 2000 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:England Squad 1996 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:England Squad 1992 European Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Added by Woohookitty: Template:Switzerland Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Turkey Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A few more by BanRay: Template:Russia Squad 2008 Euro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Czech Republic Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Germany Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:France Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Italy Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Netherlands Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Romania Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Added by Tooga: Template:Sweden Squad 2004 Euro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Added by Neier: Template:Sweden Squad 2008 Euro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Greece Squad 2008 Euro Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:Sweden Squad 2008 Euro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Template:South Korea Squad 2007 Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete all per previous and long-standing WP:FOOTY consensus that only FIFA World Cup templates should exist. - Darwinek (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I doubt many people were aware of the 'vote' given that there were few Euro squads in existence. The Euro's are a major tournament, and as such a worthy navbox.Londo 06 10:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro is surely a major tournament but we obey our community consensus. - Darwinek (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but another "major tournament" Copa America were all deleted, and the point is the function of the template. Matthew_hk t c 20:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have added three more to the list. I think these templates are a template too far. They serve little encyclopedic purpos and are highly unlikely to be used as navigational tools. They seem to me to have become a vanity template only serving to emphasise that they participated in a particular tournament. Simply put, they are unneccessary. Woody (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I believe that squad template for top-level continental championships (Copa America, European Championships, African Cup of Nations etc.) ARE notable, certainly more so than squad templates for lower-league club sides which no-one seems to have problems with. Giant Snowman 11:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, they should be speedy deleted per housekeeping rule - rules are rules. If you believe similar templates should be used - try to start a new discussion on WP:FOOTY about it. They are all wrongly named by the way. - Darwinek (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, what should they be named, I merely took the existing 1988 Championship structure and went with that. Also under what rationale would be be a candidate for speedy?Londo06 11:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per housekeeping rule - it was applied already in the past several times. As for the names, try to look at article names of the Euros - it should be named according to them, i.e. UEFA Euro 2000 etc.. However, wait with the moves for the result of this TFD, if kept they should be moved to proper names. - Darwinek (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with lower-league squad templates then nominate them for deletion, but they are a different navigational tool. They are for current lists, something a reader might want to explore. I fail to see the usefulness of a template for every two years played for a national team. See Michael Owen#External links for an example of how the noise-usefulness ratio is increased hugely. Woody (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per housekeeping does not apply - ~~no opinion on actual TfD.~~ see below Agathoclea (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The WP:Football consensus comes from only a handful of editors. Most of the concerns seemed to come from the template over-whelming short stubby articles. Most of the articles on English international footballers are now well beyond that state and so these templates serve as useful navigational tools. Catchpole (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would you vote if e.g. Russian or Turkish Euro squads would be nominated? As for the consensus, it is true it is kind oldish but its spirit says clearly what do to in similar cases, if these templates will be kept new discussion and consensus should be made. - Darwinek (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Looking at the Turkey 96 squad you can find several well developed articles that would benefit from the template. The 72 USSR squad is mostly stubs, but they were losing finalists and we should try and avoid our recentist bias. I think an argument could be made to have templates for both. Catchpole (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we cannot be selective. If we say Euro squads should be allowed, it means ALL Euro squads. If we say Euro squads should be allowed because it is the highest national teams tournament in Europe, then ALL similar tournaments from ALL continents should be allowed to have own squad navboxes too. - Darwinek (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to that outcome. Catchpole (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per long standing consensus on WikiProject football that only World Cup squads are notable. - fchd (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as per above. If these are to be kept then the first port of call should be the football project discussion page, not here. Nach0king (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, I believe that squad templates for the 2nd highest tier of international football (European Championships, Copa America, African Cup of Nations, etc) are not simply vanity templates, I have used the similar World Cup templates as navigational tools ever since my early days of contributing to WP:FOOTY. The "long standing consensus" against came from a long time before the proliferation of this type of template was allowed to go unchecked and there is an open discussion on the subject at WP:FOOTY which pre-dates this nomination. I would say that any article using more than 3 current squad, tournament squad or managerial position templates should use the Super-collapse template to avoid unsightly piles of navboxes at the bottom of the most successful manager and player articles. People who dislike them would then never even have to set eyes on them. EP 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hiding them solves nothing, why have them in the first place if you only want to further hide them? I will repeat what I said earlier: If you disagree with lower-league squad templates then nominate them for deletion, but they are a different navigational tool. They are for current lists, something a reader might want to explore. I fail to see the usefulness of a template for every two years played for a national team. See Michael Owen#External links for an example of how the noise-usefulness ratio is increased hugely. Woody (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I find these snapshots of sides useful and easier to navigate than our squad articles. Not all of us are only interested in current footballers. Catchpole (talk) 13:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Woody. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking through at the community I have found these recent additions useful, especially for the players who you didn't think made it it to a major championship. Also for more established players super collapse may be a real option. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I find them a useful navigational tool. They are encyclopedic in content. They are definatly notable (as would ones for Copa America or African cup of nations etc.). Most succesful players have lots of these already the addition of one or two will make no difference. For example see Sven-Göran Eriksson, the removal of the one box will make no difference to the overall clutter the super callapse seems like a reasonable solution.Pbradbury (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we not be attempting to combat the clutter such as Sven-Göran Eriksson, rather than try to add to it. I say that as the person who made the manager history templates. Woody (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. But I don't believe removing valuable content is the way to do that. I do however think the supercollapse box works quite well. Pbradbury (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The random teammates a random player had in a random year is non-defining to that player. Resolute 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's encyclopidic and it's standard practice. The question is whether continental competitions warrent that treatment. Pbradbury (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is encyclopedic to list the members of a random team, then write an article on that team. However, I continue to maintain that the random teammates a player played with in a random tournament is not a defining attribute of that player. And, frankly, this includes the World Cup templates as well. Reso lute 17:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually its not standard practice, these sorts of nav boxes have been getting deleted more and more lately. The highest level championships for the basketball and for ice hockey recently were deleted via tfd in the last month alone. (and have been so numerous times in the past). Olympic medalist templates have also been deleted in the past. It is actually fairly common to delete these types of templates as non-defining of the player they are on. Especially since they fail WP:EMBED. -Djsasso (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 2000 and 2004 as recreated material (see here and here) and delete the rest as well. Qwghlm (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is currently a discussion ongoing at WP:FOOTY which came up with the original consensus that was the reason the above two cited case were deleted. The conversation has changed also just because something was discussed before does not mean the right decision was made. As you can see from this thread there is no consensus. The two discussions you cite had no opposition, it seems opinion has changed. Pbradbury (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a discussion at Footy but it is insular at the moment. Yes, WP:CONSENSUS can change, but remember this is not a vote. It is judged on the merits of the argument weighted in policy. Simply saying ILIKEIT is unhelpful. Woody (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. However I haven't simply said I like it. I think it is encyclopedic, I think it is notable, and I think it is a good navigational device. What I am struggling with in this discussion is – the question of whether these kind of devices should be used seems to be accepted as yes (given current team, world cup etc.). The arguments posted here apply equaly to those aformentioned templates. If we accept that these are a valid form of displaying information in Wikipedia then the only question that remains is whether continental competitions such as Euro 2004 warrent one of these devices. I say they qualify since they are notable. The larger question of whether we use these devices at all and whether they provide value should be a seperate discussion. Paul Bradbury 19:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is not a question of notability, the squads are notable, that is not under debate. Whether they provide any use is the question that we need to ask. The managers templates are different as they provide an overview, whereas these provide a random snapshot with little to none navigational value. Woody (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So how is that different from the World Cup squads which are considered acceptable? Paul Bradbury 20:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To me, there isn't much. Yet, the World Cup is inherently the most notable (I know this isn't about notability, but run with it), the most recognisable, and the most used in terms of navigation. Woody (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, but that sems inconsistent. My problem here is I can't at this point agree or disagree since I don't know the conditions upon what we are discussing. Can someone state clearly the reasons that this is a bad thing. Please relate those to Wikipedia Policys where appropriate. Are we discussing squad templates and their value? Are we discussing the notability of squad templates? It is difficult to put together a cogent argument for or against a topic if it is not clearly defined. So in short why are these templates Tfd? Please do not refer back to anpother discussion (I have read them) please summarise your issues. This way I can agree or disagree in an informed manner. Paul Bradbury 20:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) my points, Resolute's and Oldelpaso's. Simply, these are of no navigational value. They are not an adequate replacement for prose. See Michael Owen#External links for an example of how the noise-usefulness ratio is increased hugely with these templates. They offer nothing on top of the text. Woody (talk) 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those comments don't cover it. I agree they are not a replacement for prose, however they are an addition to it. Some things are better captured in a list, people digest information in different ways. I'll ask again, Specifically why are these different to the World Cup templates? I see no argument that holds water other than notability, which everyone seems to agree that these tournaments are notable. The fact that some articles have a miriade of these boxes is irrelevant to this discussion. I agree that it is a problem, but that problem should be discussed in another thread (and is being). While it is acceptable policy to have this device, then what qualifys for this device is the only discussion we should be having. If there are reasons other than notability for that then please raise them. Paul Bradbury 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those comments do cover it, you choose to disregard them, that is your prerogative. As to the myriad of boxes, that is the idea of this discussion, simply put we don't need them and they clutter up the page. That is a problem, and their continued existence needs to be justified. The same can be said for the World Cup templates, if you think they should be deleted, then nominate them once this discussion has finished. Do not simply say that other shit exists and think that justifies their existence. We are an encyclopedia, these templates are in articles not lists. Articles are made of prose, not garish lists, ergo these need to be deleted. Woody (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not strying to start a fight here. I didn't build and of these templates, I stumbled acrross this discussion. The problem I have is that this is a Tfd for these specific articles, it is not a discussion about whether this type of article should exist. Given the following:
      - This is an apropriate way to convey this information (as demonstarted by world cup squad lists)
      - These are notable events (as agreed generally)

Regarding your comment that I should Tfd the World Cup squads, I won't because I believe they provide value. However if you wish to do so please go ahead, however this should be a seperate discussion to this one. On that note please confine your reasons for deleting these templates to these templates. If you have issues with this type of template please raise them in a seperate discussion. Again I really am not trying to be confrontational, I just want to seperate the issues and talk about them seperatly, I really do think I understand your underlying frustration. Paul Bradbury 22:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous TfDs of similar templates and per Woody. Templates are not a substitute for content. Inclusion in a squad for a tournament should be dealt with in prose, not boilerplated in template form to the point that prominent figures have more than a screens' worth of templates. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We cannot squeze every little piece of related information into an article, even if it could be useful for some readers. It does not make sense to list every player Sven-Göran Eriksson has ever managed. That information is logically located in the corresponding team articles, unless there are some players that are specifically important for Sven's career. I do not say that the England squad for the European Championship 2004 is not interesting, I just say that it should not be located in the article about Sven-Göran Eriksson. The WP:EMBED guideline says: When deciding what articles and lists of articles to append to any given entry, it is useful to try to put yourself inside the mind of readers: Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article. These templates provide links to many players that are not, and will never be, featured in the article. Keepin the number of links and navigation boxes down makes it easier to locate the truly relevant information. Focus and highlight the most relevant topics, and avoid the rest. The squad information can still be easily found one or two clicks away. --Kildor (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again this argument is not related to the discusion at hand, it is equally applicable to the World Cup templates. The question is why should we delte these templates. I have seen no argument that relates to that that does not relate to the World Cup templates. Please clarify objections in relation to these templtes specifically and not to this type of template. Paul Bradbury 21:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My arguments may be valid for deletion of World Cup templates as well. But it does not make them less valid for this discussion. --Kildor (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you address the concerns Pbradbury without referring to the World Cup templates? Woody (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The World Cup templates should be deleted as well. Your arguement at the moment is very much an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK here goes, since there are two questions I'll try and answer them both, the second one first.
      - Actualey WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states the following But such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. The point here being that other major football tournaments use this type of template and so the discussion is whether continental cups should also be allowed to use this type of temaplate. Not whether this is a valid type of template.
      - Can I justify this without refering to the World Cup templates? That is more difficult, but here goes, I don't see it violating WP:EMBED I see this as a lower order related link list. I think they provide significant navigational value. I believe the topic is a notable one. The list is not random, in fact it is finite. I am concerned about the poliferation of these devices however I believe that is being addressed effectively at WP:FOOTY. The content is encyclopedic and I have yet to see a compeling reason to remove it. Paul Bradbury 21:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So you are both agreeing with WP:FOOTY's attempt to only have them for World Cups (ie handling the proliferation of them) and you are also disagreeing with it by saying you can't see why these particular ones should be removed. So you are arguing both sides? -Djsasso (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - EMBED refers to lists, not to navigational templates, as such that point is invalid. The "discussion" at Footy is discussing how to hide the problem away and not tackle it directly, this TFD however, is trying to attack their proliferation. Your argument is based on the fact that the World Cup templates exist so there should be able to as well; that is a flawed argument. Just delete the World Cup lists as well. I say again, this discussion is about how valid these templates are. Woody (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I would note that in my opinion a nav box would be exactly the type of list embed is talking about. But everything else you say is dead on. -Djsasso (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As Woody said I am refering to the ongoing discussion and vote at WP:FOOTY not the previous concensus, which appears to no longer hold true. Although I disagree with his charactorisation of it. If you want to broaden this into a discussion about the type of template then start a thread about that and Tfd the lot of them. That is not what this current thread is about. Happy to discuss if you wish to take that step, however please stop backing up your argument by saying they should all be gone unless you are willing to do that. This Tfd relates to the articles listed for Tfd at the top of this thread only. Paul Bradbury 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am willing to do that and have actually been doing it over the last while, just waiting on a DRV to close on one of the previous deletes before I move onto the next sport which might as well be soccer/football. These nav boxes have been in a process of systematically being removed for awhile now in various sports. -Djsasso (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – I find them incredibly useful and do not agree with the above delete arguments. Jared Preston (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - It is not defining that a given player played with another particular player in any given year. It is defining to the team for sure but not to the individual player. WP:EMBED says that links in such boxes should only include articles which would otherwise already be featured in the article. Every player a player played with on any given team is not going to be featured in that players article. In the last month two equivalent types of templates have been completely removed via tfd. Stanley Cup championships for the NHL and NBA championships for basketball. -Djsasso (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW WP:EMBED contains links in the infobox at the bottom that are not featured in the main article ;) Paul Bradbury 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't say which are featured. It says which would be expected to be featured. I would expect most of those links on a quick glance to be mentioned in that page. And they pass the "Where would the reader likely go next?" criteria. I don't believe any reader would likely go next to some player who played one shift in a game on the same team as that player next. Some players should be linked in the player page, but a box having all the players should not. -Djsasso (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well I respectfully disagree I use them all the time and find them very helpful. I can't imagine I am the only person to do so. Paul Bradbury 22:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Basically the usefullness comes down to this, would it not be easier to link to a page about the winning teams tournament (ie like listing the winning team at UEFA Euro 2008 for example) where it lists all the players on the roster, rather than a template. To get to a player page via a template it takes atleast three clicks, one to open the box that holds the templates, one to open the template, and one to click on the player. (on players who have multiple nav boxes, which convention would say should be hidden by a collapsing container). Whereas if its linked in the article in prose or in the infobox (where I would prefer to see championship teams listed) it would be two clicks. -Djsasso (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK now thats an argument that has merit. My counter to that is that a click is different to a page refresh. It is much quicker and easier espicially on slow connections to click three times than refresh a page once. I have a fast dedicated connection and I can get to the information quicker and easier via the infobox than having to click to a page and then to the player. Also from a usabilty stand point I know that on any footballer article if I want that information at a glance I can consistently find it in the same place and format. Prose will not do that for you.Paul Bradbury 22:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Depends on how you look at it. I find that the amount of time it takes to find the expand button on each of the boxes probably evens out the page load times. I am on a fast connections so I can't say for sure but I know page loads are faster for me than having to expand a million nav boxes. So many nav boxes with so many links to very minorly related topics effectively mask the links to the more important topics. Finding the link you want amoungst a large number of extremely loosely related articles is an issue. Secondly if you want to know where to find a link every time, that would effectively be what the categories at the bottom of the page are for. And yes I know categories and boxes are not mutually exclusive. -Djsasso (talk) 22:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, it does depend on how you look at it. Please feel free to ignore this next bit since I can't prove it effectiveley on Wikipedia, but I do spend thousands of pounds on usabilty reasearch every month, including hiring focus groups to wear eye tracking devices that show me what they look at and how they use web pages. Stop ignoring now. It takes me at the moment and I am based in the UK at least 30 secs and some times much more to load a wikipedia page, it takes me about 10 secs to navigate infoboxes, this makes a huge difference. Also as I have stated repeatedly this is enclopedic and it is related to the article at hand. Categories don't really cut it since they are not for this kind of info really, if I started creating categories that replicated this info I would probably end up in a Cfd discussion.Paul Bradbury 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - seems a worthy enough comp. Alexsanderson83 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per ample precedent and concensus. Nothing here that is not more well-presented in 2004 UEFA European Football Championship squads, for example; and, nothing special about the English teams in the template that could not also have been said of teams from Greece, Iran, Hong Kong, and multitudes of others which have been deleted in the past year. Neier (talk) 13:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2004 UEFA European Football Championship squads is not well-presented at all, open up the page and all you see is a long table of contents. I for one find these templates far more accessible than a long list of every squad in a tournament. Catchpole (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Wikipedia:Embedded list. A list of Wayne Rooney's teammates would not normally appear in his article, so there should not be a navigation box for that list of player links. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of the English ones and add the other nations back through the years. No9shirt (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Re-create and keep trying to keep it in TFD by voting is not a solution. Matthew_hk t c 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Please read the discussion above and please provide reason for speedy delete listing the relevant wikipedia policies Paul Bradbury 21:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I never had a chance to vote in the original discussion but I think these do serve a navigational purpose (that argument doesn't really answer the question - why keep WC templates but not the other ones?) and in addition the competitions are, IMO, notable enough to allow for the existence of these templates. ugen64 (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No one has ever said that these tournaments are not notable. But what you should ask yourself is if every player that played for England in the 2004 European Championships are notable enough to be mentioned in the article on Sven-Göran Eriksson. --Kildor (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The argument is not whether the competition is notable (it clearly is) but how these templates fit in with respect to the article and any other guidelines. Arguments also of "Well lower leagues have/doesn't have templates" or "Copa america does/doesn't" are also classic arguments not to use in a deletion debate, the arguments of this would mean Azerbaijan or whoever should have a similar template is also irrelevant. WP:FOOTY (6 editors) has decreed that only world cup teams should have team templates and with this in mind the same argument (from above) could be said "Should the Sven article link everyone played in his world cup squad?" I cannot see any encyclopedic reason for them to be deleted, from the Wikipedia point of view some of them are re-creations and wp:footy has decreed they shouldn't exist. Whether or not rules is rules they are there to be ignored and I found them an interesting means of navigating through the articles, and looking through a few of the articles, they do not detract or spoil the articles. ^Khukri 08:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I added The Spain Squad UEFA 2008 template without realizing that the community had already discussed their grounds for existence. I'm sorry for that first of all. But I also think that an inclusion in a Euro squad is a landmark for a player or a coach. It's like the Euro 1992 Danish squad has become famous and having a navigation template at the bottom makes it easy to both have an overview over with players was included in that squad, and navigate if you're interested to learn more. That's why I made the spanish navigation template, because I thought it was difficult to find the squad from, lets say for an example, Fernando Torres wiki. So my argument is both because of the importance of The Euros and, in my opinion, easier navigation an navigan template for UEFA Euro squad is good idea. Or - only have the UEFA Euro Squad navigation template a week before the EUROs, while and week after. Where you could guess that people would find them useful. Donno if that's possible - TheHundi 11:10, 29 May 2008 (GMT)
Keep ALL, and I mean ALL! - This is a notable tournament - these templates serve the same purpose as the WC ones, and are nearly as important. - Sparrowgoose 11:21, 30 May 2008 (HKT)
Delete all. I'm for deleting all squad templates. They don't actually add much to the articles since almost all of the articles mention that so and so was on the team in Euro Cup X. I added 2 more to the nom. There are others. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I was looking for this discussion a few days ago, when I first saw the France euro template. Now that I've had a chance to think this through, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have them. Euro is the second biggest football tournament in the world (yep, far bigger than the Copa America), so why not? BanRay 10:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all It's really annoying when looking for some footballer to find out whether he was a member of the squad for any UEFA Euro competitons and being mislead due to the lack of template(s). Moreover, I don't think Euro would be less important than the World Cup!! Millions of people care about it even from the non-participating European countries and the rest of the world. --Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree with a lot of the arguments already mentioned. ka la ha 18:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I find it bizarre that they are even up for deletion, some of the reasons even more so. Fronsdorf (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The consensus mentioned at the outset has clearly not been sustained. In fact it would create a major inconsistancy if that now outdated sub-group ruling were to be followed. Interesting aspect of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS in relation to WP:FOOTY is that they have the rule that if the majority of clubs in a league are notable by mainstream rules the rest are notable by default. Agathoclea (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. The concensus at the outset should still hold, despite the spate of !votes that border on WP:ILIKEIT. The only thing different in this discussion and the ones linked here is that the surge in popularity of the upcoming Euro tournament has caused several current teams to be created, along with past-histories for a few select countries. I still don't understand how a template with minimal information is beneficial to the encyclopedia, when the roster page for each tournament has much more details. Is adding 2004 UEFA European Football Championship squads#England to an article so much more difficult than adding {{England Squad 2004 European Championship}}? If the template is such a benefit, then, it should contain all the pertinent info that the roster page holds, because who would want to have to click on the roster page to find out that David James played for Manchester City at the time of the 2004 tournament? Neier (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree, several users have stated that they find the templates useful navigational tools. Many of the delete votes have centred on arguments against navigational templates in general (all squad templates should be deleted, navboxes=clutter, etc), not specific reasons that continental tournament templates should be deleted, most of the rest are referring back to consensus that clearly no longer holds, with many people !voting to keep including several regular WP:FOOTY contributors. If the super-collapse template is used, people who don't like international squad templates never even need to look at them. While those of us that find them useful can access a clearly structured chronological list of links for the major tournaments the player/manager has participated in, and if particularly interested in any specific squad they can click show on that template for more details, without going around the houses to get there. The use of super-collapse templates drastically reduces the clutter at the bottom of pages such as Osvaldo Ardiles (before and after). I can't see how the addition of a Copa América 1975 squad navbox to the international tournaments template in his article could be seen as having a negative effect, especially since like a huge number of football biographies the article completely neglects to mention his participation in a major continental tournament in the article text. E P 12:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, Euro is just as important as the World Cup. --Kjetil r (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, but only because the European Championship is Europe's top tournament for national teams. Anything less would have to be deleted. A lot of these will need renaming, however. – Pee Jay 15:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, and also include top-level competitions of other continents. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 17:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep all, and create all missing, plus the same for each confederations top competition for nations ← chan dler 19:54, 31 May (UTC)
Provisional keep, with the aim to get rid of them after the end of the European Championship. --Angelo (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, Just because Euro is played only in Europe dosent make it less importent then the World Cup. --Halmstad (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are just WAY too many of these templates on many footballers' pages, and it's overkill. Having Ballon D'Or and World Soccer Magazine POY templates was pretty much the last straw. These categories have their own articles, in addition to past Euro tourneys. We do not need templates for EVERY tournament in which footballers have competed. Most of the templates simply repeat incumbent players' names over and over. Only the last World Cup (in this case, 2006) and/or last Euro squad, in addition to current team squads, are necessary. Beemer 69 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the points you make are not really relevant to the issue of deletion of the Euro templates.

The existence of clutter like Ballon D'Or and World Soccer Magazine templates are not really relevant to this discussion, they should be and are being dealt with separately.

Nobody is asking for templates for "EVERY tournament in which footballers have competed". The commonly expressed view amongst editors who find these templates useful is that the World Cup, and the highest level of continental football are the only tournaments that should have them.

Having world cup templates for only the most recent world cup would be recentist (why is World Cup 2006 more important than World Cup 1930?).

Although it is a separate issue I predict any attempt to delete stuff like the England 1966, Argentina 1978, Brazil 1970 templates would cause a pretty big stink.

-E P 22:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, as Darwinek. Vinhtantran (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, The information presented in the navboxes is available other places - tournament page for a start, and we should be linking to that, not repeating the information on each page. Potentially creates too much noise which hides the information you came to the page for. It is all very well saying this is a major tournament, but so are the other continental ones. Keep these, you must keep Copa America, etc. Next someone will argue that the federation cup is also iimportant, then once they are approved, all the next level... Champions league, UEFA cup, World Club championships, home-nations, and so on. Somewhere we should stop, and I say draw the line under the FIFA world cup squads - that is the top level and most important tournament, despite a number of Europeans thinking that their local competition is just as significant. Problem with this sort of thing is Wiki is changing. 12 year old kids get all excited about being able to add stuff, and while I support them in their endeavours, they often do it with an over-enthusiasm that may not be conducive with the preferred nature of an encyclopedia - as shown by some of the votes above. So here is my line in the sand ——Delete—— .--ClubOranje^Talk 11:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Available in other places - yes, but not in one centralised location.
  2. Potentially creates too much noise, firstly having had a look through the pages I have found none, discuss actualities, hypothetical situations are not really a reason to delete the existing templates.
  3. Next someone will argue - again that is not the issue of these templates, what may happen in the future is not up for debate here.
  4. Somewhere we should stop - Why? If the templates are kept to the same format and have the hide facility then in my opinion they add to the article as another means of navigation. If someone is willing to do the work then it is a net positive to the article. ^Khukri 06:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - There actually is one centralized location for these rosters. A page for rosters of each of the individual tournaments. Hypothetical? It already does create too much noise on each page. All the important links are masked by the huge number of very weakly related links. The hide facility only makes deletion more reasonable, because if you have to click to open the box you might as well click to open the page with the rosters on it. -Djsasso (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, Aritajustino (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Refuting any argument that claims that they are at all useful, they aren't. Philc 0780 14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep all of the Euro tournament squads. Julia Brewer (talk) 14:30, 3 June 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.

Template:Threat4 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Happy‑melon 15:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make last warnings before blocking for legal threats, we block until the legal threat is retracted. Therefore this template conflicts with established policy. MBisanz ^talk 09:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —TreasuryTag—t | c 11:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Agathoclea (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per current policy. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, under WP:CSD#T2 (blatant misrepresentation of established policy). Terraxos (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Per Terraxos and nom...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 09:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as contradiction of policy, per nom. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 23:11, 1 June 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.

Template:uw-layout 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete - as written, against policy; rewritten, probably useless. Happy‑melon 15:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is intended to warn a user for something that is not against any Wikipedia policy or guideline, or even an accepted practice. See previous discussion at WT:UW#Layout warning .7B.7Buw-layout.7D.7D. Anomie ⚔ 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or delete. The UWW's templates are generally well-written and organized, but as Anomie says, they are by no means "mandated". I don't think the "efficiency" point is compelling either -- it's easy enough to read and interpret a brief "stop vandalizing" notice. Still, if members of the UWW want some kind of similar notice, I'm sure it would be fine if the language were modified so as to remove the misleading implications. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite or delete per above. Very often I just use the old test templates, depending on the situation. -- Ned Scott 07:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the "rewrite" !votes above, how would you rewrite it? I can't see the point in annoying someone with a warning that says "Please consider using the layout suggested by a few people over at WP:UW that is in no way required and that almost no one actually uses". Anomie⚔ 11:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something like "you may want to consider using these templates to enable you and others to deal with vandalism more efficiently". ~~The UWW's templates are pretty widespread -- not required of course, but lots of users (myself included) like to use them instead of rewriting similar messages from scratch.~~ — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like I was confusing the UWW's template with the UWW's proposed layout. You're right, the layout isn't really standardized. Still, I wouldn't be opposed keeping the template if the misleading rhetoric were removed. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The UWW's layout for warnings is really just a suggestion, and one that is rarely used in practice. Under those circumstances, I can't see much value to this template, however it is worded.--Kubigula (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the layout is only a guideline and one that is dying a slow death. Hardly used, and the guidleine certainly is now without concensus which makes this template is unwarranted, and certainly not what the UW system of templates were orignally designed for. ^Khukri 21:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to userspace maybe, this is not really a warning but someone might be using it. I however agree that the layout is not really used (and useless, imho), so having this template doesn't have much sense. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:14, 29 May 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.

Template:uw-ifu3im 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Happy‑melon 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This warning template is redundant to {{uw-ifu4im}}, and generally an "only warning" in uw style warning templates is named as uw-*4im rather than uw-*3im. Anomie ⚔ 03:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Use {{Uw-ifu3}} instead, since it has better wording for this warning level, and is the one linked from {{Uw-ifu4im}}. I guess that a few redirects are needed to unify the naming of this template. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't add anything but my agreement to the analysis above.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 05:32, 27 May 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.