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 -- Drini 19:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:Football manager ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I created this as my first template, but couldn't get my head around it. It's not being used on any page, and never will be unless someone else develops it! Adamjhepton 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete TfD request by template's only contributor makes this a G6. -- ais523 07:51, 29 June 2006 ( U T C)
  • Correction. Obviously, I meant G4. -- ais523 08:08, 30 June 2006 ( U T C)
    • Correction to correction G7. (Checks WP:CSD) Definitely G7. I should really concentrate more. -- ais523 08:59, 30 June 2006 ( U T C)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 21:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:FB Character Zodiac ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This infobox was originally created by me to be used in place of {{FB Character}} in certain Fruits Basket character articles. The additional functionality provided by this template has now been incorporated into {{FB Character}} using #if statements, and so this template has been orphaned and can be safely put to rest. Fnar 12:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom-- Brownlee 12:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Drini 21:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:Washington-Metro-Red ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Washington-Metro-Green ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Washington-Metro-Orange ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Washington-Metro-Blue ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Washington-Metro-Yellow ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Washington-Metro-Silver ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Orphaned, plus a system of categories and infobox components exists that predates this and works better. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Consolidating to a single vote -- these should all be treated the same way.-- M @ r ē ino 19:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Redundant-- Brownlee 12:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete -- Drini 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Template:POV-tag ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Perhaps it's just me, but isn't tagging tagged tags not the best way to deal with POV disputes? To me this template seems like an attempt to make the whole POV tag system obsolete. After all there's always someone who supports certain POV and someone who calls for its NPOVing... Usually those who find their POV in the article acceptable do not consider the arguments of their opponents legitimate, but this does not mean that they are valid just because. // Halibu tt 06:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I believe everyone should consult the discussion on talk page of Russian architecture before posting the tag for deletion. As the case of Russian architecture clearly shows, Template:POV-because needs a counterweight. In that case, one troll has been terrorising the article for about a year with a factually inaccurate tag data, despite remonstrances from dozens editors. Template:POV-because allows POV-pushers like Halibutt to turn any article into a mess by prefixing all sort of nonsense in front of it. As Template:POV-because is a nice way of pushing one's personal POV and they would not allow other editors to modify the phrasing of the tag, we need a counter-tag here. Otherwise, Template:POV-because will mislead the readers and will allow the nationalist trolls to rule Wikipedia. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep One use of tags in Wikipedia is to dispute things. There needs to be a method of disputing tags, e.g. {{ disputedpolicy}}, {{ POV-tag}}, etc., which is more visible than just a talk-page note. -- ais523 08:09, 28 June 2006 ( U T C)
• Delete as per my original nomination, but also per the above explanation by the author. Firstly, from that explanation it's clear that the template was created as a quasi-argument in the discussion on a single page (Hey, you're tagging this article as POVed then I will tag your tag with mine. Secondly, if this is the case, then there already is a proper way to handle such dispute - the WP:DR is enough, no need to bring the revert wars onto new level by allowing people to move the factual or NPOV dispute to the article's page. These should be settled on talk pages and there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Thirdly, if the purpose of this tag is to be featured on a particular page, then why not change the {{ POV-because}} to {{ NPOV}} there and have the issue solved peacefully (with a small help of Ockham's razor)? Finally, it seems that Ghirlandajo has a point in that the {{ POV-because}} tag is a tad fishy and could be solved. But this is not the way to do that - and I can't say I can see Ghirlandajo's signature anywhere on the proper talk page where such issues should be raised. // Halibu tt 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  You already voted above. Seems like the latest entry in your and Piotr's anti-Ghirlandajo crusade. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Thanks for pointing to me that my vote is... my vote. Yes, I voted above and so did you. So what? Also, the anti-Ghirlandajo crusade is your own invention, sorry to disappoint you. // Halibu tt

*Speedy keep widely used widely implemented. -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 13:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• • Comment: well, widely used and implemented means in this context... not used at all. Check what links there. // Halibu tt
• Delete per above -- 199.67.140.83 17:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Anonymous IPs cannot vote. Please create an account.— Ëzhiki (Igel Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I agree with Halibutt, plus if we tag tags, well, can we tag this tag too? And that tag, and that tag...? :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  There is no such problem, as far as I can see. No evidence of such instances has been presented as yet. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Strong keep. This template is IMHO extremely useful to counter the potentially excessive power and POV of {{ POV-because}}, which allow an editor to use a dispute tag to push his own POV. A simple POV tag is quite OK, but not a POV-because. Either both get deleted or both remain. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Ghirlandajo. KNewman 18:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Ghirla. -- Tēlex 18:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Useful. FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 19:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete per Halibutt. See WP:POINT. Ukrained 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm afraid the votes from wikitrolls cannot be valid. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Halibutt. -- Yakudza 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Ditto. The guy appears in WP only to vote in anti-Ghirlandajo campaigns and to add interwikis to uk.wiki. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Are you kidding? If this were a joke, it wouldn't have been funny. There are plenty of other ways to settle disputes without introducing artificial and superfluous templates of dubious nature.— Ëzhiki (Igel Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I wish you would settle the dispute on Russian architecture as you say, preferrably some half a year ago when it all started. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I wish the same thing. Unfortunately, I don't know nearly enough about the subject to interfere with confidence and to judge objectively.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 01:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Not a good way to handle POV disputes. I'd delete POV-because as well, for the same reason. The right place to discuss a POV issue is a talk page, not a tag, which should merely signify that there's a dispute going on at the talk page. -- Lysy ^talk 20:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Once again the voting along national lines. The Polish Cabal always votes as Piotrus says. Bring in a couple of Polish editors more, it would have been an instructive illustration for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. Lysy, that's what I was talking about in my vote. Either we delete both or neither, but not only one... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep As per FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint). A POV tag should not be POV in itself, and it should not contain grammatical errors, which get put back on the revert (as if the guy is not a man but a machine). If the only way to stop people from putting up such tags is tagging the tag itself, we will need to have it around as a weapon of last resort - a level which has been reached in this particular case, I am afraid. -- [User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy | Pan Gerwazy 22:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep both or Delete both. Don't complicate things. If one side wants to place an advertisement of its opinion, then the other should be able to do so too. :NikoSilver: 22:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I agree absolutely. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Ghirlandajo. -- Voyevoda 22:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Ezhiki and Piotrus. I agree with Grafikm, that POV-because should be deleted also abakharev 07:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If you feel yourself capable of resolving the disputes around Russian architecture in any other way, please do. I repeat the argument: If one side wants to place an advertisement of its opinion, then the other should be able to do so too. Why should we encourage tag-warring trolls to disfigure any article not to their liking, without even being able to respond? -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Which is why I suggest deletion of both {{ POV-because}} and this template (or both remain, either is fine by me). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
      • OK, if this tag is deleted, let's hope that the deletionists will have decency to nominate Template:POV-because for deletion as well. For neutrality's sake. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong Keep per Nikos and nom. -- Kuban Cossack 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This is completely silly. Tags are discussed on talk page, not with more tags. heqs 19:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, I'm waiting for Template:POV-POV-tag. Seriously, when people run around and put POV-tags on articles, do you think this tag will make them stop or make the articles nice and readable again? Tags should not replace a discussion. -- Conti| ✉ 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong delete. Ridiculous. The place for commentary on articles is on the talk page, not at the top of the article. {{ POV-because}} may have similar problems, and should probably be brought to TFD as well, but this is no solution. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 00:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No tags discussing tags, please. Dragons flight 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I listed the other template for deletion as well. // Halibu tt 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - useful template.-- Aldux 17:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Ezhiki and nom. — dima ^{/ sb. tk/} 00:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete, inflammatory and divisive template. User:Angr 11:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Very, very silly. -- Tony Sidaway 18:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Tony Sidaway. Russians, cornered after their propaganda sorties, are simply trolling the rest of Wikipedians. Also: de-admin all admins that voted "keep" here. AlexPU 22:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

It is not up to you to decide who should get de-admined here (nor it is up to any user for that matter)... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. `' mikka (t) 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A tag on an article about another tag??? Use the talk page for that. Garion96 ^(talk) 22:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Will ( message me!) 12:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete Only contributor request, and it's useless in its current form anyway. -- ais523 07:33, 28 June 2006 ( U T C)
• speedy delete per above -- larsinio (poke) ^(prod) 13:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.