(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 November 19)
- 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A similar template to this was deleted last year ({{ 109th Senate}}). It's not useful. — Markles 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As an historical object, it provides a context for all Senators sitting at the same time. A model for all of the Senate sessions, if allowed to develop.
- Is there a similar reference list anywhere on wikipedia? If so, point it out.
- On the objection of taking space on the bottom of a page, especially for individuals with long terms in office (mentioned on the talk page for {{
Senators of the 110th Congress}}, a single line show-box / hide-box could be made that holds all of the relevent sessions information. And inside that layer, a set of single-line show boxes, one for each Congress. The interested may open the show box, other readers may pass it by.
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are similar links throughout wikipedia. For example, {{ Super Bowl I}}, {{ Super Bowl II}}, etc. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep See Template talk:Senators of the 110th Congress-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Keep a template only for the current Congress. Past Congresses would be better served in lists or categories. Torc2 ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Grouping the individuals serving in a given session of Senate in one place is encyclopedic and extremely useful. It's a perfect example of when template-created makes a better navigational system than a category. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note - message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress for input. SkierRMH ( talk) 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A similar template to this was deleted last year ({{ 110th Senate}}). It's not useful. — Markles 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons stated for the 109th congress discussion above:
As an historical object, it provides a context for all Senators sitting at the same time. A model for all of the Senate sessions, if allowed to develop.
- Is there a similar reference list anywhere on wikipedia? If so, point it out.
- On the objection of taking space on the bottom of a page, especially for individuals with long terms in office (mentioned on the talk page for {{
Senators of the 110th Congress}}, a single line show-box / hide-box could be made that holds all of the relevent sessions information. And inside that layer, a set of single-line show boxes, one for each Congress. The interested may open the show box, other readers may pass it by.
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep See Template talk:Senators of the 110th Congress-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per dicussion of 110th Congress. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Procedural nom: this was mistakenly placed at WP:MFD, so I've moved it to here. The orginal nom reads:
This template creates a slightly personalized version of the {{ GFDL-self}} template for use by a single editor. This template should be deleted and its use on image uploads replaced with the {{ GFDL-user}} template. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As this nom is procedural only, I abstain-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - GFDL-self, with appropriate note (not disclaimer) is the correct use here. Also, image history shows the uploader for each version, so noting such in a template is redundant. Was used on one image (fixed)- now redundant. SkierRMH ( talk) 19:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Tempate has been superceded by {{ British ice hockey}}. Template not used in any articles. — Flibirigit ( talk) 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Superceeded by new template. -- Djsasso ( talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kaiser matias ( talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It probably should be deleted if it isn't used at all. However, I think the {{
British ice hockey}} template is overly bloated and could do with splitting into different leagues etc. Eg, EIHL, EPL, Competitions... --
JD554 (
talk)
07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think the template is large. However, with the collapisble navbox format, its mostly hidden. Flibirigit ( talk) 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy delete, test. Bencherlite Talk 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Unused template; apparent test edit by new user.. ~ Matticus U C 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No use whatsoever. Thundermaster367 ( talk) 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I tagged it with {{ db-test}} since it appears to be a test. But at the very least, this is a {{ db-housekeeping}} speedy. -- Farix ( Talk) 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This template is redundant, another infobox is in use with other NOC results pages for the 2005 and some 2007 articles -- Template:Nationsin2007SEAG --- RebSkii 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant per nom. It doesn't really matter which of these template we keep, as they're near-identical, but we certainly don't need both. Terraxos ( talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This template purports to separate the "article" from "the other things". It changes the colors used in the article, without regard for skins/themes. It creates invalid HTML - the <div> is never closed. And the creator's idea of where the article ends and everybody else's is different – the parts he/she marks as "outside" the article are key components of it. — RossPatterson ( talk) 02:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The user also created Template:Article-ends as a redirect, it should be kept or deleted with its target. RossPatterson ( talk) 02:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both as having no practical use and violating WP:MOS. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think we are support to visually segregate "article" information from sections such as "See also", "References", or "External links". At least there is nothing supporting it in the MOS. It also looks out of place on the articles it is used and just doesn't add anything. As for invalid markup, fortunately MediaWiki cleans that up. -- Farix ( Talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Article looks good and neat with this template. "See also" etc. are not "article" as such. It conforms with WP:MOS as gray color is used in template.
Achilles.g (
talk)
04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Article looks good and neat without this template, too. Completely unnecessary. JPG-GR ( talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete At best, this is decoration based on personal preference. Serves no functionality. Flibirigit ( talk) 10:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No need for a template on the films of a director who has made a single film. — BD2412 T 02:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a template with only one link. Easily integrated into any appropriate article(s). JPG-GR ( talk) 02:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or add more links to this box. -- RebSkii 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Takes up space. Although the genres listed are real, "punk metal" is a dumb, and non-existent term. — DragonDance ( talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - invalid deletion rationale. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Bad faith nomination.-- WaltCip ( talk) 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Keepchanged to Delete - I would oppose but I have noticed it is based on orginal research and my previous post had my little habit of saying "it's useful" which goes against WP:USEFUL. Thundermaster367 ( talk) 11:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)- Delete It is pointless, takes up space, and Thrash metal has too many templates at the bottom, among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonDance ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 19 November 2007
- Delete- It's largely the result of original research and many of the genres listed (particularly grunge music) have nothing to do with punk metal. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Just clutters up pages. If a genre is relevant to both punk and metal, it will most likely have the a punk template and a metal template on it anyway. No need to have an extra one telling us it's part of both. Unnecessary. Adamravenscroft ( talk) 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a box full of original research. Even if the content would be verified, it would still be unnecessary. Prolog ( talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Unused navbox.. After Midnight 0001 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Has no purpose. Thundermaster367 ( talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nomination. Flibirigit ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Jonathan Webster - It's a useful term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.97.196 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 November 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.
(Redirected from
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2007 November 19)
- 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A similar template to this was deleted last year ({{ 109th Senate}}). It's not useful. — Markles 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep As an historical object, it provides a context for all Senators sitting at the same time. A model for all of the Senate sessions, if allowed to develop.
- Is there a similar reference list anywhere on wikipedia? If so, point it out.
- On the objection of taking space on the bottom of a page, especially for individuals with long terms in office (mentioned on the talk page for {{
Senators of the 110th Congress}}, a single line show-box / hide-box could be made that holds all of the relevent sessions information. And inside that layer, a set of single-line show boxes, one for each Congress. The interested may open the show box, other readers may pass it by.
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are similar links throughout wikipedia. For example, {{ Super Bowl I}}, {{ Super Bowl II}}, etc. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep See Template talk:Senators of the 110th Congress-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Keep a template only for the current Congress. Past Congresses would be better served in lists or categories. Torc2 ( talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Grouping the individuals serving in a given session of Senate in one place is encyclopedic and extremely useful. It's a perfect example of when template-created makes a better navigational system than a category. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note - message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress for input. SkierRMH ( talk) 19:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 to keep. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
A similar template to this was deleted last year ({{ 110th Senate}}). It's not useful. — Markles 23:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep For the same reasons stated for the 109th congress discussion above:
As an historical object, it provides a context for all Senators sitting at the same time. A model for all of the Senate sessions, if allowed to develop.
- Is there a similar reference list anywhere on wikipedia? If so, point it out.
- On the objection of taking space on the bottom of a page, especially for individuals with long terms in office (mentioned on the talk page for {{
Senators of the 110th Congress}}, a single line show-box / hide-box could be made that holds all of the relevent sessions information. And inside that layer, a set of single-line show boxes, one for each Congress. The interested may open the show box, other readers may pass it by.
-- Yellowdesk ( talk) 17:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep See Template talk:Senators of the 110th Congress-- Dr who1975 ( talk) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per dicussion of 110th Congress. Wikidemo ( talk) 00:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Procedural nom: this was mistakenly placed at WP:MFD, so I've moved it to here. The orginal nom reads:
This template creates a slightly personalized version of the {{ GFDL-self}} template for use by a single editor. This template should be deleted and its use on image uploads replaced with the {{ GFDL-user}} template. -- Kralizec! ( talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
As this nom is procedural only, I abstain-- Fyre2387 ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - GFDL-self, with appropriate note (not disclaimer) is the correct use here. Also, image history shows the uploader for each version, so noting such in a template is redundant. Was used on one image (fixed)- now redundant. SkierRMH ( talk) 19:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Tempate has been superceded by {{ British ice hockey}}. Template not used in any articles. — Flibirigit ( talk) 20:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Superceeded by new template. -- Djsasso ( talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Kaiser matias ( talk) 23:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It probably should be deleted if it isn't used at all. However, I think the {{
British ice hockey}} template is overly bloated and could do with splitting into different leagues etc. Eg, EIHL, EPL, Competitions... --
JD554 (
talk)
07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think the template is large. However, with the collapisble navbox format, its mostly hidden. Flibirigit ( talk) 19:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy delete, test. Bencherlite Talk 23:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Unused template; apparent test edit by new user.. ~ Matticus U C 10:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No use whatsoever. Thundermaster367 ( talk) 13:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I tagged it with {{ db-test}} since it appears to be a test. But at the very least, this is a {{ db-housekeeping}} speedy. -- Farix ( Talk) 23:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 01:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This template is redundant, another infobox is in use with other NOC results pages for the 2005 and some 2007 articles -- Template:Nationsin2007SEAG --- RebSkii 03:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as redundant per nom. It doesn't really matter which of these template we keep, as they're near-identical, but we certainly don't need both. Terraxos ( talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. BD2412 T 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This template purports to separate the "article" from "the other things". It changes the colors used in the article, without regard for skins/themes. It creates invalid HTML - the <div> is never closed. And the creator's idea of where the article ends and everybody else's is different – the parts he/she marks as "outside" the article are key components of it. — RossPatterson ( talk) 02:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- The user also created Template:Article-ends as a redirect, it should be kept or deleted with its target. RossPatterson ( talk) 02:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both as having no practical use and violating WP:MOS. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think we are support to visually segregate "article" information from sections such as "See also", "References", or "External links". At least there is nothing supporting it in the MOS. It also looks out of place on the articles it is used and just doesn't add anything. As for invalid markup, fortunately MediaWiki cleans that up. -- Farix ( Talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Article looks good and neat with this template. "See also" etc. are not "article" as such. It conforms with WP:MOS as gray color is used in template.
Achilles.g (
talk)
04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Article looks good and neat without this template, too. Completely unnecessary. JPG-GR ( talk) 23:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete At best, this is decoration based on personal preference. Serves no functionality. Flibirigit ( talk) 10:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No need for a template on the films of a director who has made a single film. — BD2412 T 02:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as a template with only one link. Easily integrated into any appropriate article(s). JPG-GR ( talk) 02:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete or add more links to this box. -- RebSkii 03:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Takes up space. Although the genres listed are real, "punk metal" is a dumb, and non-existent term. — DragonDance ( talk) 01:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - invalid deletion rationale. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Bad faith nomination.-- WaltCip ( talk) 04:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Keepchanged to Delete - I would oppose but I have noticed it is based on orginal research and my previous post had my little habit of saying "it's useful" which goes against WP:USEFUL. Thundermaster367 ( talk) 11:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)- Delete It is pointless, takes up space, and Thrash metal has too many templates at the bottom, among others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonDance ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 19 November 2007
- Delete- It's largely the result of original research and many of the genres listed (particularly grunge music) have nothing to do with punk metal. WesleyDodds ( talk) 04:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Just clutters up pages. If a genre is relevant to both punk and metal, it will most likely have the a punk template and a metal template on it anyway. No need to have an extra one telling us it's part of both. Unnecessary. Adamravenscroft ( talk) 22:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a box full of original research. Even if the content would be verified, it would still be unnecessary. Prolog ( talk) 08:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 02:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete - Unused navbox.. After Midnight 0001 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Has no purpose. Thundermaster367 ( talk) 13:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - per nomination. Flibirigit ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Jonathan Webster - It's a useful term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.97.196 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 25 November 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.