Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 May 7



Template:Asher Roth

 * 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 discussion was keep. Currently has four article links. JPG-GR (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)



Template for a musical artist with only one album and a couple singles out; half of these don't have articles and probably never will (only one of the singles has gotten "notable" enough yet to have an article). A template might be useful several years from now if the individual has numerous albums and singles out, but right now it's unnecessary, it doesn't add any navigational links that aren't already all over each of the articles. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 00:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not enough articles for a template yet. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - it's borderline, but I think there are just about enough articles for a template here. Robofish (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (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.

Template:Sellers movies

 * 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 discussion was delete/userfied.Garion96 (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for actor filmographies are redundant and consensus continues that such are unwarranted and unnecessary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and established concensus. Template is also unused and uncategorised, which is probably why it's lasted this long unnoticed. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per consensus.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to userspace: Consensus seems to be delete, which I would normally agree with since it's unused and perhaps unwanted, but it seems like a lot of work went into its creation and surely I can find some way to use part of it in the future. So I've moved it out of the regular wiki space and into my userspace. :)
 * 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:Donegal senior football

 * 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 discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Template with only 1 link to main article Gnevin (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Delete if no response. Ambitious. But it seems it's been abandoned by its creator considering it was created in 2007 and still full of redlinks. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 05:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - abandoned by creator King of the  North   East  14:49, 20 May 2009 (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.

Template:Burn Up

 * 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 discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)



Only links four articles together; while there is a fifth article which could be linked as well, all five could probably be merged into a single article. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノ ガイ  千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear those really are mergeable, given they include two reboots without continuity, representing different takes on the same premise and characters. The fifth you mentioned, though, is a definite merge candidate (probably to the original Burn Up!?) -- but that's besides the point. Absent an article on the franchise and its different incarnations, with solid wikilinking, I'm hesitant to recommend deleting the template that is the only centralized entity that ties all four series together. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't see that they are really mergeable, since W&X are related alternate formulations of each other, and S is a reboot of those, but the original is separate, other than sharing the name with the later incarnations and the same hair color for the primary character. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - as long as the articles are kept separate, I suppose this template is useful. I'm not sure all the articles themselves are worth keeping, though (but that's a different XfD entirely...). Robofish (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as long as the articles are separate, and add the fifth article to the template. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 20 May 2009 (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.

Template:EHbar

 * 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 discussion was redirect to Template:EHbarName Erik9 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Replaced by Template:EHbarName. This template (EHbar) stopped working a couple of years ago when the linked external site changed its access parameters. No current uses of this template. I was original creator. Oosoom Talk 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect as a shortcut. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect, or whatever Oosoom wants to do with it. If it's obsolete then it's obsolete. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator, Redirect would seem appropriate. I wish I had thought of that before nominating it. Oosoom Talk 11:50, 12 May 2009 (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.

Template:Future public transportation

 * 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 discussion was keep --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Another pointless warning template for a non-current event, cf. Template:Bridge under construction. Like bridges, public transportation projects take years to design and complete and do not change "dramatically" halfway through.

Note: Category:Rail transport temporal templates lists another dozen or so country-specific templates similar to this, most of which are deprecated and redirect to this. A few have different content though: eg. Template:Future London Transport infrastructure seems to be used only for speculative (not under construction) content. Jpatokal (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment No preference yet on whether or not this should be deleted, but just a note...if this template is deleted, you s hould also delete the numerous templates that are now redirects to it, including future australian public transportation, future canadian public transportation, future chinese public transportation, future usa public transportation, future malaysian public transportation, future French public transportation, future uk public transportation, and differently-capitalized versions of those. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 04:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted, changed my note above. Jpatokal (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The value of these sorts of templates, as I see it, has nothing to do with how much the project may or may not change during the planning process; rather, it is to highlight a critical fact that may not be immediately obvious to the casual reader; namely, that the public transportation project does not actually exist. Suppose, for example, the reader navigates to a hypothetical page regarding a planned superhighway. The reader will see, in bold print at the top of the page, the name of the highway. The reader may also see a map showing the route of the highway, section headings regarding the funding, construction, and environmental impact of the highway, and so forth. Because these concepts are prominently displayed in headings and graphics, the casual reader will immediately grasp them. What may be lost on such a casual reader is the information, buried in the text of the article, that this highway is merely planned, and does not yet exist. By highlighting the essential attribute of nonexistence, the template&mdash;in a simple and attractive manner&mdash;alerts the reader to the critical fact that the infrastructure, while important, has not yet been built. And, yes, it also alerts the reader that the interesting details and attractive graphics pertaining to the project may be irrelevant, as the project may change significantly before construction (or the project may not be built at all). Finally, I note that the above criticism applies equally to many of the templates in the Category:Temporal templates, and the debate should be joined on a broad scale, not just to this particular template. –Matjamoe (talk) 08:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per No disclaimers in articles, temporal templates are allowed only to "alert the reader that the article content may be subject to significant changes in the near future for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia." (my emphasis). This is obviously not the case for public transportation projects.
 * The fact that project X is planned or under construction is inevitably mentioned in the first sentence: "Project X is a planned hypermonorail to...". This is quite sufficient, and creating a generic "does not exist yet" disclaimer for these violates WP:NDA. Jpatokal (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. In response to the above keep !vote: Quite frankly, I don't think we should use templates for people who can't even be bothered to read the damn article. Just a few random examples of what you find right beneath the template: "The following lines are anticipated to be opened by 2012" or "Currently under construction" or "(...) is a proposed maglev line (...)", etc. If you can't even be bothered to read those few words, then a gigantic template is not going to help you, either. Or, in other words, our readers are going to be just fine without this (or similar) template(s). Can we please stop assuming that our readers are idiots? :) --Conti|✉ 10:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Currently actually used,  and discussion does not need the "idiots" claim.  Collect (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right, comment struck. --Conti|✉ 11:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unnecessary. The fact that it is a proposed, planned or expected public transportation infrastructure should be made clear in the lead and body of the article. No need for a huge template telling readers that. Garion96 (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as it serves purpose and makes the article like any other article that needs a template. It's like why sitcoms have audiences, it's just tradition. Plus, I kinda like the template too. &mdash; Coasterge ekperson 04 ' s talk @May/07/09 20:47
 * Sorry, can you explain what you're trying saying by "makes the article like any other article that needs a template"? The whole point here is that articles do not "need" these future templates. Jpatokal (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It serves a purpose to allow an article to be built prior to completion of the project, but also acknowledges that the project can change (sometimes drastically). Acps110 (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a debate about the deletion of the template, not a ban on any future transportation topics. Jpatokal (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  —¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nomination assumes that all of the subjects tagged with this template can be edited "within days or weeks" of changes to the subject. This is not true. Transportation subjects do not have as many supporting editors as other topics. Having the template tags text so that when a subject comes up in the news (such as a politician proposing that the project be cancelled), a reader can understand IMMEDIATELY that the information contained is not kept up to date. We must remember that Wikipedia appears near the top of every web search just bacause so many do have some level of trust in what is posted here. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The nomination assumes nothing of the sort. As per General disclaimer, "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY", which applies encyclopedia-wide and is not specific to transportation projects.  Articles that are known to be factually out of date should be tagged with Template:Update d . Jpatokal (talk) 11:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The updated template says it is to be used for sections which may require frequent updating. This does not uniformly apply to the situation in Category:Future public transportation that warrants the Future public transportation template. Once planning or design is under way, the article would not require frequent updating. However, as many editors are noting here, the project IS subject to the whim of the supervising political bodies. These tight economic times show us that our elected officials must drastically slash the budget and are not keeping prior committments, like developing public transportation infrastructure. So the project moves forward in a normal, incremental basis until one Friday when the planners and engineers wake up to find that the politicians have canceled the project because they consider a football stadium to be more important. It is this whim of the politicians for which the template is provided. So each time a "funding" political body meets, the future public transportation project may be subject to significant changes, thus warranting the template. It is already clear that you do not consider this known condition in the development of public transportation projects to warrant an individual warning/disclaimer within the article under the exceptions listed in the WP:No disclaimers in articles guideline. However, it would be more helpful if you try to understand this condition better before proposing something like Updated as a solution. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to link to Update (no D), for "articles or sections with old or out-of-date information". I agree that Template:Updated is not suitable. Jpatokal (talk) 02:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. If you seriously believe 'public transportation projects do not change "dramatically" halfway through', just head on over to Crossrail. –  iride scent  20:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So where's the dramatic change? The edit history of the last few years looks pretty normal to me. --Conti|✉ 20:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The template states that the article content may change rapidly, not will. It is also a good way of informing the reader that the project it is addressing may not have occurred yet\has not been built\etc. Simply south (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why should that be a on a huge template instead of in the lead and body of the article. Barack Obama is the current president of the US and I am pretty sure his article will dramatically change in the near future. But a template on that article would be quite unnecessary. Why do you think it is necessary here? Garion96 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't speak on the size of the template other than it makes it noticeable. It is necessary here as these are proposals andprojects that are yet to begin. They are not quite in the same scope as a current US president. Simply south (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm a bit dense, but.. why not? Information about projects that are yet to begin will quite probably change in the future. Information about current presidents will quite probably change in the future. Where's the difference? --Conti|✉ 21:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that is true, but he is something that is already happening, not a project or scheme that is about to occur. Simply south (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But why is that information not sufficient in the actual article? It is a wiki after all, everything can dramatically change. To look at one example, the Ring Rail Line will likely change less than the Barack Obama article. Plus with both you don't know the exact ending date. :) But this tag will be on Ring Rail Line for at least four years. I really don't see a point in that. Garion96 (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So? What difference does it make? --Conti|✉ 22:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do i feel we are going round in circles? All tagged articles are proposals, Barack isn't. Simply south (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the purpose (if any) is to warn readers that the article might dramatically change. Why is there a difference between something proposed or something happening? With both the contents of the article might dramatically change. Plus, why is it not sufficient to state that it is proposed in the lead and body of the article? Garion96 (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite useful. Informs readers that contents of the article may change at any time. Sv1xv (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. --Conti|✉ 21:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, that's random in this situation. Simply south (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that the content of any article might change at any time, which is possible because of the "edit this page" link at every article, which is in turn exists because this is a wiki. Therefore I don't consider a template useful that states the very obvious. --Conti|✉ 21:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The introduction to any halfway-decent article will make it clear if the subject matter is under construction, so the template is merely visual clutter. David Arthur (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The template does not say the project is "under construction". In my opinion, it should not be used for transportation projects that are under construction (and should be labeled as such). Politicians rarely have the political clout to stop a project that is under construction. However many projects that are "proposed, planned or expected" (like the template says) will die a quick death once a politician needs to spend the money on some other pet project. This template is important in the U.S., where this happens more than you care to know. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What if the template was reworded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.91.131 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To what? --Conti|✉ 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I stand on this template, but I would like to offer an example: SunRail. The state senate failed to pass a crucial piece of legislation that would have allowed the state to buy the line, and we have reliable sources calling it dead. (There's been enough coverage that even if it is dead, it still deserves an article.) But supporters are still promoting it and looking at other ways to make it happen. Someone has just changed "is" to "was", but is this correct? --NE2 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We don't provide disclaimers, and the other things it mentions, such as WP:CRYSTAL violations, are adequately handled by other, more problem-specific templates.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template is informational, it provides an immediate status of a transportation project for both editors and readers. Until a project has entered constructing stage or become defunct, it may change rapidly overtime.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.26.247 (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This template helps easily inform people that the article is not necessarily the truth as public transit projects that are being planned can change rapidly. I agree that it should only be used on "Planned" and not "Under Construction" projects.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Irredeemably pointless, bureaucratic, and insulting to the intelligence of whoever it's aimed at. Flowerparty ☀ 12:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very nice visual cue to the readers. --unkx80 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Has anybody actually read Template:Future? All {future...} templates are not meant to be permanent, they are merely to be applied until someone comes along and properly writes the article in the way all the deleters above seem to naively think happens instantly, and someone puts the proper context into an article about it being a future topic. This does not necessarily happen in a flurry of edits, so comparisons to the related but distinct template {current} are not appropriate, and the general potential for innaccuray of the information for the reader is not simply down to the inherent flaws of the wiki, but is going to be due the unnavoidable fact that the information is speculative and will be subject to change, so talking about whether this template replaces the GD or is no different to Barack Obama misses the point as well. MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, those guidelines are new, and comments about them are still welcome at Template talk:Future. --Conti|✉ 15:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would explain then why I thought everybody above had not read them then. MickMacNee (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nomination, and I think several of these "warning" templates should be eliminated as they distract from the article. The fact that a subject is on a future, or under construction, transport system should be abundantly clear from the lead of the article, making the template here rather superfluous. Any reader with common sense will know that things which haven't been completed are subject to change, we don't need a disclaimer to tell them that. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:25, 15 May 2009 (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.

Template:Current_bankruptcy

 * 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A template that copies the functionality of another template: current, which is capable of providing the equivalent notice as follows:. Note that Wikipedia has at the bottom of all articles a General disclaimer indicating that the article may not be accurate (and by extension, is subject to change). As such, this template is redundant on a second count. In addition, bankruptcy, a complicated topic, and takes a number of months of court process, and no banner at the top of an article can improve on an article that fails to have an adequate lede, adequate citations, informative text and well-drafted section headers. A template such as this is no substitute for the lack of any of the preceding content. As such the template is superfluous. A similar templete went under review in November 2, 2008: Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_2. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral Meh. - Richfife (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. If there's really a need to use a template, Template:Current will do just fine. --Conti|✉ 10:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The all-purpose one size fits all disclaimer at the bottom of the page is not intended to alert editors to the issue of tense, but to cover legal obligations of the foundation. Collect (talk) 11:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - See my comment in one section above. Garion96 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - This template is to notify users that a company is in the midst of dissolution, and I figure that is a good thing for readers to know so that they don't prematurely add the past tense, declare the company dead, etc. If you disagree, fine.  -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is covered by current event. Exactly as like current strike we should delete this one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant to current. This template probably wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the current economic downturn, and if kept, after things get better (which they will soon, I just know it :) this template will collect dust and probably be deleted anyways. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we make enough of these boxes we'll be able to completely do away with the articles. Flowerparty ☀ 12:29, 13 May 2009 (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.

Template:Dontdothat

 * 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Useless user warning template - too vague to be helpful. SharkxFanSJ (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Totally useless and vague. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, redundant of other warning templates. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd !vote to delete, but dontdothat told me not to. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as it seems unprofessional, useless, and, must I say again, vague. If you get a template like that, you'll probably be wondering "What the hell? Do what?" &mdash; Coasterge ekperson 04 ' s talk @May/07/09 20:52
 * Delete Too vague to be useful ("Don't do what?") and bitey because of it. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Made me chuckle. It's easier and takes the same amount of time just to type in "Do not do that" manually. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 05:18, 10 May 2009 (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.

Template:Infobox Hurling All-Ireland 2

 * 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 discussion was delete --Magioladitis (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

dupe of Template:Infobox Hurling All-Ireland Gnevin (talk) 00:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as it clearly not a dupe as claimed. I looked. Collect (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry it's a slight modified version of the correct template,it not used in any articles and the standard box should be edited not a second one create  Gnevin (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused and presumably unwanted. Robofish (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unused King of the  North   East  14:50, 20 May 2009 (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.