Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 12

< July 11	July 13 >

July 12

Template:Politics of Nova Scotia

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. Will replace with the aforementioned Nova Scotia politics template. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template duplicates {{Nova Scotia politics}}. The latter follows the format for the other Canadian provincial politics templates ({{British Columbia politics}}, {{Alberta politics}}, {{Saskatchewan politics}}, {{Manitoba politics}}, {{Ontario politics}} etc.) Tompw (talk) (review) 22:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GreenJoe 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This discussion was underway on Wikiproject Nova Scotia and several other politics templates talk pages. This format matches the national and many subregional templates in other parts of wikipedia. We have tried both, and people agreed they like this one better. I am not particularly moved by the argument that NS pages and Ontario pages need to be the same. Please keep - as an aside we already had this debate on the older, existing template Template:Politics of Nova Scotia and Tompw was unsuccessful in convincing the other authors that the change was needed or useful. Please be advised that {{Nova Scotia politics}} is a newer duplication of the existing template.WayeMason 01:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish to point out that
  1. {{Nova Scotia politics}} was created 11 August 2006 by User:Disasternat
  2. {{Politics of Nova Scotia}} was created 3 April 2007 (i.e. later) by User:WayeMason.
  3. It is therefore not true that "{{Nova Scotia politics}} is a newer duplication of the existing template". Tompw (talk) (review) 22:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I withdraw my point with apologies. I had not checked the actual dates, as {{Nova Scotia politics}} was not actually implemented anywhere or I wouldn't of created the other. Assume makes and ass of u and me! WayeMason 20:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate/redundant/fork. Always delete the newest of any redundant templates. WP:ATC. heqs ·:. 10:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. even though it's older, it's more consistent to use the {{province politics}} template. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 17:13, 17 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:Controversial-ital-bold

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 and swap over. Daniel 05:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template was created as a fork of Template:Controversial mainly for the sake of making a word bold (for those among us who ignore templates unless they have bold text in them, I assume). For simplicity, all uses should be replaced, and if the functionality is important, it can be added to {{controversial}}. The "unsigned comments may be removed" has no basis in the talk page guidelines, as well. Gracenotes^T § 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switch the two transclusions to the more common template, and delete per nom. Let's be consistent. Shalom ^Hello 23:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The templates is utterly redundant and unnecessary Gudeldar 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly unneeded template creep. heqs ·:. 10:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant on the condition that all instances are replaced with the standard controversial tag instead. - perfectblue 06:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Switch and delete per Shalom. GDonato (talk) 18:06, 15 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:NativeWarn

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. Daniel 05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant to Wikipedia Policy.. Kebron 15:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the template is redundant and unnecessary as per policy. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I boldly orphaned the template from the one article of similar title where it was transcluded. It serves no purpose per WP:NOT. Do we really need another Bogdanov affair disclaimer? Shalom ^Hello 18:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the template is not incorrect per se, but Wikipedia has a style guideline: no disclaimers in articles. (We already have them linked from the interface.) And being a guideline, there appears to be no reason to ignore it here. Gracenotes^T § 18:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abort - Kebron is an SCOX troll here to revert edits of this user. Although the discussion may be valid, the nomination is illegal and a breach of covenants made by the Wikipedia community and their assurances about these troll users. This del discussion should be voided. A disinterested editor is free to renominate. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not that's an appropriate gesture, it does not strike me as efficient. We now have a constructive consensus-building discussion, so what is the harm? For a similar case, see this nomination and subsequent history. Gracenotes^T § 19:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note this post for what Mr Merkey is talking about. It is irrelevant what he is talking about in my opinion but please note the discussion for information's sake. --Kebron 20:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269#SCOX_Issues_User:Kebron
Delete, if you like, count me as re-nominating. disclaimers are in general not necessary. In this case, anyone using WP for legal advice about membership in a tribe is so far off course that not even this would help. We don;t use such warnings for more critical things, or for other potential crimes. The effect is to say for all the articles for which it is used: Disputed. We have a tag for that. DGG (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a perfect example of why we don't want disclaimer templates: the effect is to magnify the unencyclopedic concerns of particular editors at the expense of balanced article content. -- Gavia immer (talk) 13:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have a template on every single article about historical murders saying "By the way, don't try this at home. You might get arrested". We don't need one here to tell people that they can't legally claim to be Native Americans just because some other people have fought over that claim. --Maelwys 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete It is against Wikipedia policy to use disclaimers, plus the tag can also be constituted as a legal threat to talk page users as it implies that they could be sanctioned if they say that they are NA but are unable to prove it. - perfectblue 06:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is redundant to Wikipedia disclaimers, and our policies. --Haemo 06:29, 15 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:Energy portal selected

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! 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need things like this? It just adds on to the pile of talkpage headers that are already so extensive. Why not just use the category, or at least make this thing substantially smaller? {{Energy portal selected}} is in a similar situation. Some people could even see it as annoying WikiProject/Portal advertisement. I think we should keep to 1 template for projects and one for portals, deal with this stuff within them, or use categories only.. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. —MJCdetroit 13:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In three words: WP:OWN, WP:CREEP and WP:TCREEP. (sorry). heqs ·:. 10:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide 17:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If an significant fact is updated in a Wikipedia article, and that fact is also mentioned in the corresponding 'micro-article' on the portal, then the 'micro-article' needs updating. The template is intended to alert article editors of the existence of the 'micro-article' (and of the need to update it), so increasing the chance of the two articles remaining in step and the portal remaining factually correct. For talk pages with a number of headers, a small version of the template can be used by adding |small=yes to the template name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gralo (talk • contribs) 17:48, 16 July 2007

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 Climate Table

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. Daniel 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was never implemented and does not transclude anywhere. {{Infobox Weather}} has since been implemented; so there is not a need. Talk page is empty — MJCdetroit 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unused --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary template. Hydrogen Iodide 17:33, 16 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:Infobox City North Korea

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. Daniel 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (the latter is a re-direct). Unused and superseded by {{Infobox Settlement}}. — Andy Mabbett 11:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —MJCdetroit 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete superseded. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as superseded by Infobox Settlement. — mholland (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above. Hydrogen Iodide 17:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with {{Infobox Settlement}} --Kralizec! (talk) 19:56, 16 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.

Various Decade(s)(And)Years(BC)(2/3) templates

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. KrakatoaKatie 19:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications to {{DecadesAndYears}} have made all of the above templates redundant. J ɪ m p 08:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete superseded. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hydrogen Iodide 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's useless -Flubeca^Talk 12:10, 18 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:Hobbies

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. Daniel 05:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this one while going through the uncategorized templates. This is way way way too vague for a template. No real criteria for inclusion. Almost any collection activity can be listed as a "hobby". — Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I shudder at the thought of how enormous that could become, and with all of the articles not really having any common thread, either. --fuzzy510 14:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate in both depth and breadth. Gracenotes^T § 19:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Iknowyourider (t c) 20:45, 16 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:Nfbt

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! 10:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unused, and redundant to {{Nft}} Neier 06:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shalom ^Hello 18:21, 12 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:Future energy sources

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. Daniel 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not needed and not used anywhere. Appears to have been created to project a POV. 199.125.109.36 04:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, that's a POV template. How do we know that hydroelectric or geothermal or solar power is not the energy of the future? The only way to know is to arrive at the future, and last time I checked, it helps to have a crystal ball for that purpose. :) Shalom ^Hello 05:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, incomplete, and deprecated template. --Haemo 05:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV, not needed. -- Johnfos 06:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perWP:NOT#CBALL--Sefringle^Talk 06:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a cristal ball -Flubeca^Talk 18:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary, POV. Hydrogen Iodide 17:31, 16 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:Energy development2

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. Mike Peel 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template is a blatant attempt to promote the highly disputed POV that nuclear power is a renewable energy. There are other templates already existant that are legitimate that can be used instead. 199.125.109.36 03:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that deletion is necessary. If nuclear power doesn't belong on the list, then by all means remove it, but don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Admittedly, with no transclusions, we may have a stillborn baby, but that's beside the point. Shalom ^Hello 05:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template was created because changing template:renewable energy sources was reverted from being changed to include nuclear power. 199.125.109.127 17:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I change my position to delete based on this new information. Shalom ^Hello 18:22, 12 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:Bgg title

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. At the risk of overstepping my bounds as a non-admin, I've decided to close this early per WP:SNOW. By a strict vote count, we have two deletes (nom and Haemo), three keeps, and six "strong keeps." I don't see how further discussion could possibly lead to a different result.

Regarding the substantive issue, I believe that the comparison of BGG to IMDb is correct. These user-generated content sites are far from perfect, but they are reliable sources that provide information beyond what Wikipedia can offer. As such, links to them are within the realm of external link policy.

Regarding the technical issue, this template is transcluded onto more than 500 articles. To delete the template and format all these links as standard text would not be worth the bother. Shalom ^Hello 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template's purpose seems to be to promote this website. While it does seem to be a substantial board game website, its not Wikipedia's job to advertise. Teemu08 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Board Game Geek is a site that has a large database of games with much more information about these games than Wikipedia could include. It includes rules clarifications, reviews, game expansions and discussions. Having a link to Board Game Geek adds value to Wikipedia game articles. — Val42 03:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do we really need a template for linking to a given external page? I mean, it's not exactly rocket science here; you find the page, and use normal formatting. Redundant. --Haemo 05:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per reasons that Val42 gives. BoardGameGeek itself has an article here, and linking to the site definitely adds value to the game articles here. Yes, you could use normal formatting, but this template also provides common formatting for the links instead of a slight hodge-podge that would otherwise result. Craw-daddy 07:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Val42 and Craw-daddy, and for all the reasons listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoardGameGeek and especially Wikipedia talk:Counter Vandalism Unit/Archive 3#HELP!. The external links are there to provide extra information, not to promote BGG; it just happens that in most cases BGG has the best information available. If Haemo objects to having a template to make external links easy I suggest that Category:External link templates shows his is not the consensus view; but perhaps he would like to start a larger TfD and CfD to show otherwise. Percy Snoodle 09:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Val42, Extremely useful external resource that adds value similar to Template:Soccerbase --Bedders 11:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no different then imdb and similar external link templates. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has been debated in the past (sorry, I forget where, and it was at least a year ago) if BGG links were appropriate in the general case for game articles. The decision was 'yes', so it is helpful to have a consistent way of formatting the links. --Rindis 15:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly this and this? Gracenotes^T § 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Memory is fuzzy. But neither one really goes in depth to examine 'are these appropriate', which I remember happening at one point. --Rindis 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep think of it as an IMDB for games. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Boardgamegeek has a wealth of information that we are unable to include on Wikipedia, due to our policies here. Photos, variants, reviews, player aids, etc. It is simply the largest respository of board game information online. Clearly appropiate under our external link policy and I don't know why we'd want to delete a template that gives uniformity to how we link to it. -Chunky Rice 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, modify use I think that deletion may be a bit too much, but do we really have to have this template in every single board game article? For example, take a look at the template in Monopoly (game). The link has little information that the article does not cover—other than purchasing and social networking-related functions. Compared to other links, and the article itself, BoardGameGeek has little depth. If there are basically no other sources, however (e.g., Villa Paletti), the template would be worth including. Also, the "IMDb of X" comparison has been made before: see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9#Template:Moby developer, a debate about a situation not unlike this one. Gracenotes^T § 19:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think that whether or not a BGG link is appropriate for a particular article should be determined by the editors of that article in accordance with WP:EL. We don't need to make some sort of proclamation about it here. -Chunky Rice 19:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The example you give looks like it was horribly burdened with the extra issue of the website creator spamming Wikipedia with links. :( Though parts of the discussion there point out that at this level the relevant questions really are 'is it ever appropriate to include a BGG link?' -If the answer is 'yes', then the second question is 'is a template to give a uniform appearance to such links appropriate?'

Problems with the structure of the template should be addressed by editing the template, or discussing it on the template talk. Problems with including the link/template on a particular page belongs in editing that page, or discussing on that page's talk. Or—the subject of what is and isn't appropriate should be discussed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games talk page. (Your Monopoly example is a good point, but it is still possible that it should be kept as a 'unified style' issue—but again, that's not a discussion truly appropriate to this venue.) --Rindis 21:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, echoing TheDJ's opinion. If IMDB stays, this should too. BGG is probably the most authoritative general source on board games. For example, discussions on the item-a-day sale site Tanga.com almost always start with a BGG link when the item for sale is a game. The Dice Tower podcast mentions BGG's ratings for games in almost every episode. The forums on the website of behemoth game publisher Wizards of the Coast mention BoardGameGeek on 129 different pages, with another 49 hits for "BGG". Travisl 23:03, 12 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:IFAF templates

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. (I'm just tagging and closing the discussion. KrakatoaKatie 19:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The following templates were all started by the same author and all basically redundant with the International Federation of American Football article. Only the the first one (NAFootball) has links to actual teams (2 stubs and 1 sorta-stub), the rest are all redlinks or pointless links to country articles. Delete all. (forgot to sign, nom first added then). heqs ·:. 06:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need navboxes that do not assist in navigation. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless, full of deadlinks, and unnecessary. Jmlk 1 7 20:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These templates will be created if they are needed. --Cpt.Miller 14:58, 18 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:Switzer Center Mural

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 both. IronGargoyle 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly large template that groups people simply on their inclusion on a mural. A mural which, apparently, isn't terribly noteworthy, as it only got a section of an article. If this was some world-renowned piece of artwork, I could possibly see it, but as it is the template is just an overly large case of linking things together just for the heck of it. There's a list of subjects at the mural's main article, and that's plenty. — fuzzy510 01:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and take Template:BSC Mural List with it. Avoid template creep! heqs ·:. 01:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really necessary. - KrakatoaKatie 19:45, 21 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:Jimboresourcing

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. KrakatoaKatie 19:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only used in one article. You could pick-a-Jimbo-quote and make any number of such templates. Reference the relevant policies, or quotes, individually as needed. heqs ·:. 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst and delete per nom. It's not likely to be used again. Shalom ^Hello 05:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the policies say it better, and are more sensible in any context. Not all editors worship Jimbo, and I'm sure he wouldn't want people using his quotes instead of guidelines and policies. Redundant. --Haemo 05:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 06:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons above. In addition, I've removed its one transclusion. The template is a good quote to bring up in dialogue, but not a good header. Jimbo said that it's his opinion/attitude, and indeed WP:JIMBOSAID may be relevant here. (For reference, link). Gracenotes^T § 19:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and based on template's uselessness. Jmlk 1 7 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Magioladitis 15:09, 13 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.