Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

November 14

[edit]

Template:Internet_memes

[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.

This debate was originally closed as delete by User:RyanGerbil10, but was overturned after this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The original decision follows.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original decision: The result of the debate was deletion. Good holy God, this is not what templates are for. As time passes, this template will only get larger and larger. There is no way to determine what is and isn't a meme and this could cause edit wars, NPOV disputes, and who knows what else. My advice as an editor would be to create List of internet memes and do away with this. I was tempted to close this as keep until I looked at the template, that's just inappropriate and making it collapsible is simply the equivalent of sweeping it under the bed. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 20:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Potential violation of WP:NPOV, as some people will think some things are internet meme's whilst others won't. This means the template can keep growing even bigger with anything article related to memes. They are all loosely based 'internet meme' things. It's more of list/category than a navigational template. Some of the things may fit into seperate templates.Otterathome (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - absurd nomination. Conflicting opinions on what falls under the 'internet memes' category is not a violation of NPOV. User suggest that the template *must be deleted* because it "may keep growing". As I mentioned when the template was created 1-and-a-half months ago [1] there are currently no templates or categories which interlink these various articles. On a separate note, editors may find this helpful [2] (a possible reason behind requesting deletion?) --Flewis(talk) 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no official list or anyway to say if a something is a 'internet meme', for example what has Albino Blacksheep got to do with meme that other sites don't? Why isn't Digg and a 100 other popular websites I can think of not on there? The 'Internet meme' term is too broad. So it is closer to a list of most popular websites.--Otterathome (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your deletion rationale is mostly based upon "I don't like it, and it probably can't be improved, so lets just delete." - The template can improve. Stricter inclusion guidelines can be enforced. The fact that a meme has its own article on wiki, effectively means that it satisfies the notability inclusion criteria (in the sense that, the article has already gone through AFD, and has been closed as Keep, or the subject is inherently notable and was never sent to AFD). The purpose of this template is to interlink the different internet-memes. Of course, it can merged/split, but outright deletion will not be the most productive outcome. --Flewis(talk) 05:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Instead of saying silly things, it might actually help if you say what the inclusion criteria is, as that is why this template is up for deletion. Then again you don't read other comments, don't provide any argument apart from meme's being popular and just assume bad faith.--Otterathome (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The inclusion criteria is comprised of these two articles: List of Internet phenomena and List of YouTube celebrities - both of which only feature notable memes with their own wiki articles. That being said, the criteria for the template from hereon in, should be defined via consensus by the community, along with astringent watchlisting to avoid any un-notable memes being added. Oh, and you might wanna retract those last couple of comments using the <s>Strike-through text</s>. Your false-accusations bordering hyperbole are baseless and absurd - childish taunts belong in a playground, not an encyclopedia. --Flewis(talk) 15:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You argued against yourself, combining those two articles creates a ridicilously large template. I can see at least 10 memes in those lists which don't have their own article. You still haven't said how you measure if something is notable enough, just that it must be defined via consensus. So as far as I can see, the deletion reason still stands.--Otterathome (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split some of it up. For example, create a separate YouTube celebrities template -- and provide a link to it in the memes templates, in a banner at the top or bottom. Same for Internet celebrities. Concepts, mediums, and phenomena should all stay. The template has value but should cover less stuff; deleting it is an extreme solution. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly vaguely defined and broad. This is going to be linking a bunch of very random things that might have to do with the internet. Maybe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that only a few memese are really notable (Rickrolling for one), and this kind of template just encourages the addition of anything that might be considered a meme. For instance, was the Hampster [sic] dance a meme by definition? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, inappropriate fare for a navbox. We wouldn't link offline fads like this. Better handled as a list. Flowerparty☀ 06:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a good template overall, but I agree with TPH in this case, so delete. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 17:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the ultimate question is whether or not such a template should exist. I would support splitting the template/adding stricter guidelines, or merging with another template - however deletion in this case, seems a little brash. --Flewis(talk) 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have userfied this template for precisely this reason (I have no intention of resurrecting it in its current form should it be deleted), see here (with a banner at the bottom). Lists are difficult to navigate around and serve a different function than templates; and the same is true for categories. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite. Currently, this template is a tangle of all sort of things related to Internet culture, both big and small. Only the people in the YouTube celebrities section seem to have something in common (they originate from YouTube). Note that all the articles mentioned in the template also contain the template, but it always appears out of place because it's just so broad. User:A Man In Black also said this, but I draw a different conclusion. Instead of deleting it, we could turn it into a template which contains only the phenomena from List of Internet phenomena in alphabetical order. This could be handy, because List of Internet phenomena is itself not ordered alphabetically. I personally do not see a point in a Template:YouTube celebrities when we already have a compact List page of them. Cheers, Face 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you just want a big box with an alphabetical list of things only from that article? Lists go in articles, not templates.--Otterathome (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? It seems handy to me. Do you think it would look ugly? Another possibility is that we make List of Internet phenomena somehow sortable, like this, but I'm not sure if that will turn out well. Cheers, Face 22:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you made it you'd see why.--Otterathome (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove anything that does not have an encyclopedic article about the concept. This template should be a navbox of articles about internet memes, as opposed to a navbox of internet memes. The first group in the template, "Internet phenomena", are not a useful grouping - most of these are about a single instance, which isnt a very good criteria for a meme anyway. i.e. Badger Badger Badger is primarily about a single internet phenomena, with a few copy cats, none of which are independently notable - that isnt a meme. Lolcat is starting to become what I would call a meme, but it isnt there yet. I agree with the idea of spawning off groups of related "Internet phenomena" into separate navboxes. e.g. {{4chan subculture}}, {{youtube celebrities}}, etc - these would have different inclusion criteria, tailored towards the reader and the subculture involved. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The items here are not linked to each other, and I don't think that people will be navigating between different disconnected memes unless there is some line of connection between them. A category should suffice, in this case, a navbox is only template clutter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A good way to navigate between the related articles. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 06:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC
    How are they related apart from being 'internet stuff'? This also sounds very WP:ILIKEIT/WP:USEFUL.--Otterathome (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Certainly some people are interested in internet memees as a class, so navigating between them is desirable. This is a useful navbox, and the reason to delete seems foolish. Some people think that the Earth is flat, this disagreement doesn't mean it should not be in the navbox for planets. Maybe split it per other users comments, and set it to auto hide if it's too big.Dillypickle (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have categories and lists to navigate between them. A useful navbox does not have hundreds and hundreds of loosely based articles.--Otterathome (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split, per User:Yohan euan o4 above. --Waldir talk 18:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment, in my opinion there are some really poor arguments being added to keep, nobody has said why this template shouldn't contain every internet site in existence, or every popular internet "thing". Having this template exist is like having a Top 10 most popular singers template, or top 100 websites. There's no way to measure an article on the 'meme scale' so you'll eventually end up adding everything in Category:Internet memes.--Otterathome (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split Split would help to avoid crowding. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a good way to navigate between related pages, see no reason to delete. Perhaps it should be better organised though.--Anon 08:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the fact that they are internet memes is referenced in their articles. Tis the season to be jolly (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is probably the very definition of an indiscriminate template. It's not necessarily clear what objective criteria make something an 'internet meme', and the result is that this links together a whole bunch of relatively unrelated articles. There already is a Category:Internet memes, which is more acceptable, but this is just not a good idea for a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no conceptual difference between agreeing inclusion criteria for a category list and agreeing inclusion criteria for this template, so by your argument you ought to delete the category too. Matt 05:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC).
    • We have an article which should explain what an internet meme is. How about that's used as defining what should be included? MrN9000 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep If we can come up with a better defined and more specific inclusion criteria, this would be worth keeping. Otherwise, it's too arbitrary to be a useful navigational tool. Perhaps splitting it up would be better--in which case, Template:Navbox with collapsible groups would be useful for ease of transition. bahamut0013♠♣ 18:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The concept is not all bad, as I can see people wanting to research Internet memes and quickly moving from one to another. But as others note it needs some trimming/rethinking to make it more accessible. Arguably the YouTube celebrities should be removed altogether. Fletcher (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Very informative template. Jason (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list article (more user-friendly than those unorganised and unpretty category lists) -- Potential violation of WP:NPOV, as some people will think some things are internet meme's whilst others won't. So? Wikipedia is full of things that people disagree about. This is no different from anything else; some sort of consensus has to be reached. Personally I don't see how YouTube, Facebook and MySpace (in and of themselves), just to give a few examples, can possibly be called "memes", so I would delete those, and probably a whole lot of other stuff too. But that doesn't mean the whole list should be deleted. Matt 04:57, 23 November 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.53.78 (talk)
  • Keep but split on the Smosh page, the template is as long as the relevant article - possibly split into YouTube Celebrities, Internet Celebrities (or combine those 2)... at any rate, split up the template, and/or add a list article -TinGrin 05:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems like a good idea for navigation. Keeping does not mean it can't be cleaned up and/or split. Regards SoWhy 15:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it's difficult to define what should be included is not a reason delete. Set-up some guidelines for inclusion and tidy it up. Trying to avoid difficult issues like this simply by deleting things is crazy. If this is deleted the category should also be deleted leaving us with poor coverage of the subject. MrN9000 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Oren neu dag (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Notability of internet memes is one thing that should determine whether or not a meme should be included in Wikipedia in the first place. But the big problem with this template is that it's way too large and not useful at all. The only thing any of the entries in this template has in common is the fact that they're popular, and if anyone wants to navigate between unrelated memes, there's the far better organized List of Internet phenomena and Category:Internet memes, both of which predate this template by years. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After some thinking, this template is too broad to be useful in defining anything. YouTube celebrities might warrant their own category split out of this. But as it currently stands, this template is way too large, and could pull in just about any Internet topic since it's not very well defined. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete', but keep a category for inquisitive and bored wikipedians. The template however is just sapping bandwidth and is not useful and/or manageable. The category can then be expanded to any size, as there are many "memes" that meet basic Notoriety requirements and that it is valuable for Wikipedia to provide social comment on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.108.131 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man in Black; hopelessly vague, no inclusion criteria (and it would be pretty damn difficult to make one), and essentially useless. Not to mention how ugly it is. Giggy (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this appears to be an unwieldy template but a good solution might be to make each section collapsible. This would clear up much of the clutter. Naufana : talk 02:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rewrite. There are a large number of internet events and whatnot that most (if not all) can agree on as "internet memes". We just need to sort the fact from the crap. --24.151.133.95 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's too big; the template can never be "complete". Determining what should be included and what shouldn't cannot be determined objectively and thus violetes NPOV policy. --Gerrit CUTEDH 16:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's unnecessary, unencyclopedic, and based on opinion; who's to judge what is an internet meme and what isn't? sixtynine • spill it • 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 24.151.133.95. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drahcir (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 November 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:Celtic nations

[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 Speedy/snowball keep. WP:POINTy nom by admitted sock. Any suggested reworking/rewording should be discussed elsewhere (i.e., the template's talk page). --Grutness...wha? 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Celtic nations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Numerous things wrong with this template which makes it not suitable for Wikipedia. Mainly this is a WP:FORK for scessionism in the United Kingdom and France. It also fails WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV.

Also for these numerous reasons;

  • The terminology has no bearing in official legal or political discourse. There is no Union of Celtic nations where governmental or politicial figures are involved; non of these are even indenpedent states. So it does not warrant a template where a fringe group assert an identity over entire people; this is not like the Arab League or European Union. The obscure groups who push this stance are Celtic League (political organisation) (who get no votes in elections) and a fringe culture group the Celtic Congress. It simply doesn't warrant being used on notable articles. Such terminology is not recognised by the international community such as the United Nations.
  • The template is being used in a very controversial way. It asserts that there is a nation called "Ireland", which covers the entire geographical frame island of Ireland where Dublin is the capital city. This of course is a violation of WP:NPOV as it acts as if Northern Ireland and its capital city Belfast does not exist. A New Worlder Angr has also added "Ulster-Scots" people into this more than once, the majority of whom do not assert "Celticity" or an interest in it, nor do they speak Gaelic as a second language. This is likely to cause grave offensive, due to The Troubles with Irish Republicanism.
  • Fringe groups such as Celtic League and Celtic Congress assert that lingustics is the measuring stick. This template, used on a highly notable article such as Scotland for example where 99% of the people do not speak a Gaelic, places on an entire geographical frame a reconstructionist and hobby identity that is not necessarily taken up by everybody in the geographical frame. While most have a Scottish and/or British identity, links between Lowland Scot culture (where the majority of its people live) and places such as "Cornwall" or Brittany, is tedious at best. Indeed Lowlands Scots culture is closer to English culture than Breton.
  • Fourthly, the information contained within the box, can and already is more suitably used in nation/regional specifc boxes. Take Template:Wales topics for example, this already helps a visitor to the Wales article natigate through articles on Welsh culture, Welsh language, Welsh music, Welsh people. Che Sell (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Strong keep - WP:POINT. This user's arguments are based solely on opinion and an anti-Celt POV/agenda, and has repeatedly tried to remove information from the template without attempting discussion or consensus, under 3 different usernames. References to Celtic nations are found in numerous sources (check Google Books) and the nominator's belief that a Celtic identity is nothing but a wish of "weekender recreationalists" is pure nonsense. This template serves a useful navigational purpose for those who are interested in the modern Celtic identity as an easy link between related articles. --Joowwww (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can I be "anti-Celt", when I contain Gaelic and Brythonic ethnicity? Assume good faith. The template simply violates all Wikipedia purposes for templates and the NPOV policy. It is rather an opinion piece linking to what a small political organisation who polls no votes states. It violated WP:POINT in itself, by promoting scessionism in the United Kingdom and the French Republic. It also violates WP:NPOV as I have shown by its asserting on a range of people an identity or connection to places in which there is no evidence of them having. Especially in relation to a map showing a nation called "Ireland" which covers that entire island, with Dublin as its capital. It is IMO, racist against Ulster-Scots and many people in Northern Ireland. - Che Sell (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the template "promotes secessionism". It makes no claims of the borders of any sovereign states, the map simply shows the different Celtic identities of north-west Europe, often perceived as "nations", whether or not it is correct to say that. There is no separate Celtic identity for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It doesn't say "these are or should be the geopolitical borders". The template does not even link to any articles on autonomy or independence movements. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest we take it to the talk page, as this is the place to discuss the TfD, not the template's merits or content. --Joowwww (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many people from Northern Ireland do not view themselves as sharing the same cultural indentity as people from the Republic of Ireland though. So who are we to assert that they do? Can you provide a source stating otherwise? Things should be kept in context here. Can you provide a single legal or government source which asserts what this map and what this template says? As it is, the information is simply derived from the Celtic League (political organisation) who are completely non notable, with no authority and have no bearing in the election process at all. The Monster Raving Loony Party gain far more votes and I don't see templates pushing their world view all over high key Wikipedia articles and millions of people. - Che Sell (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Che Sell has a valid point about how the template deals with Ireland and Northern Ireland. Saying the capital of the pan-island-celtic nation of Ireland is Dublin is surely a no-no. WP:NPOV is fundamental here. That Ireland is Celtic is only one point of view as we all should know. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Many people from Northern Ireland do not view themselves as sharing the same cultural indentity as people from the Republic of Ireland." True, but those people generally do view themselves as sharing the same cultural identity as people from the Lowlands of Scotland, who are also included under the purview of Celtic nations. —Angr 13:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is far more verifiable that those who do not consider themselves Irish, identify with being British. But again, Dublin the capital of the Celtic island of Ireland? - we need a rethink/redesign here. It's this kind of psuedo-editorialship that really undermines Celtic history on Wikipedia.
Drifting slightly, what exactly do WP:CELTS do? I'm asking this as Ireland (Home Nation) is considered to be one of their official good articles, which is pretty horrific! --Jza84 |  Talk  17:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with a substantial rework: The whole issue of the Modern Celts and Celtic nations is poorly sourced, and these articles make alot of assumptions and have alot of synthesis. I'm a Celt, but I'm struggling to see why we have a navigation template about Celts which has lists of modern capital cities. Also, what is the map based on? --Jza84 |  Talk  12:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template relates to Celtic nations, not Celtic countries. There is no need to separate Ireland and Northern Ireland. Which state they live in is irrelevant. This has nothing to do with scessionism (sic). It has everything to do with the nations that are generally agreed to be Celtic. Daicaregos (talk) 15:54, 14 November 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:Disturbed Picture

[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 speedy deleted A3 by User:NawlinWiki. JPG-GR (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disturbed Picture (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
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:Kings of Greece

[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. Template was replaced by {{Heads of state of Greece}}. --Magioladitis (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kings of Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We already have a template (Template:Heads of state of Greece) covering all Greek heads of state, including monarchs. This one is superfluous and unnecessary.Biruitorul Talk 03:02, 14 November 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:Oh My Goddess Extlnk

[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. JPG-GR (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Oh My Goddess Extlnk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate and unnecessary template for adding external links to Oh My Goddess! articles. Template can add a link to the official website, which certainly doesn't need a template to do, and is better handled manually. Only other link it adds is to the Oh My Goddess wikia, which fails WP:EL. The claims made in the previous TfD that the template is "necessary" because of changing structure of the official site no longer is relevant as many of those articles have been or are being merged into more appropriate character lists and there are no individual episode articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • They were mass redirectified without adequate discussion. It was done so by an indef banned user, Jack Merridew. Feel free to delete the template as I have no use for it right now. But I am not sure why did you ask for my input. You may save yourself a lot of time by using the speedy delete template. -- Cat chi? 19:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment she notified you because she used WP:TWINKLE to send the template to TfD, and Twinkle automatically notifies the template's (or article's, category's, etc.) creator of the deletion discussion. —Dinoguy1000 21:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why notify someone if you do not care about their opinion the slightest bit. If someone is going to keep renominating the same page for deletion over and over until it is deleted, they shouldn't bother to notify and insult my intelligence. -- Cat chi? 22:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Once again, Collectonian didn't notify you, Twinkle did. Right now, the only one here insulting your intelligence is you. And the template hasn't been renominated "over and over", this is only the second nomination, and the first nomination was done almost a year ago. —Dinoguy1000 22:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is the third nomination, second one by Collectonian. He is persistent, I'll give you that. -- Cat chi? 01:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
            • Ironically, that first TfD was clearly headed towards deletion when it was withdrawn. And FYI, I'm a she, not a he. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And not only that, but the first nom (which is the one I failed to notice) was done well over a year before the second (Feb. '06 --> Dec. '07? Yeah, more than a year), and was not done by Collectonian. If you're going to assume bad faith, at least make sure your facts are straight. —Dinoguy1000 18:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary template, and similar discussions show a precedent for deleting this type of EL template. —Dinoguy1000 21:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In cases where a link to an official site is appropriate, such as the main articles, it can be added like any other official link. But linking to a separate Wiki or Wikia often in violation of WP:EL. --Farix (Talk) 06:08, 16 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_14&oldid=1138692881"