Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 1

< January 31	February 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 debate was redirected to Template:Unicode by User:Ryan Postlethwaite. Non-admin close. JPG-GR (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unused specialized variant of {{Unicode}}. Only difference from {{unicode}} is that it also sets the font size to xx-large. Seeing as how {{unicode}} is itself semi-deprecated, I see no reason to keep an unused variant. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete T3 (my first one yay!) and tagged as such. Unused and a copy of {{Unicode}} with a useless addition. JPG-GR (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a useless navigational tool at this point. Everything about the actual topic is covered within the main article. TTN (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Explain please. And for all the others below (so I don't have to repeat myself ten times). Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - all the links direct to sections of the same episode list. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an unused template that serves no useful purpose. TTN (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete - unused, no apparent utility. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Un-used and poorly formatted. MBisanz ^talk 04:50, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an unused template that serves no useful purpose. TTN (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete - all the links redirect to sections of one (horribly messy) episode list. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a pointless template that serves no purpose. TTN (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete - clearly intended to be a boilerplate substitution template for some episode series, this sort of template is not encouraged at the best of times (creativity and human-driven writing is key on Wikipedia, boilerplate articles are strongy discouraged), and if used would encourage the violation of numerous policies including WP:N, WP:TRIVIA and WP:EL. I suspect that any articles created using this template have been merged or deleted. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a useless navigational tool at this point. Everything about the actual topic is covered within the main article. TTN (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete - unused, no utility as navigational template as all the links are redirects to the same section of the main article. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a useless navigational tool at this point. The main article links to both of them. TTN (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a useless navigational tool at this point. The main article links to both of them. TTN (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete, per nom. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a dead template that no longer has any practical use. TTN (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Delete, along with all its redirects - unused and unusable, given that all episode articles have presumably been merged or deleted. Happy‑melon 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - the infobox is being used here until the episodes are improved. Also, there is a big debate going on and the criteria for TV episode articles may change. Or perhaps the infobox's history could be transferred to a WikiProject subpage until it is needed? -AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 02:20, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a useless navigational tool at this point. The main article links to both of them. TTN (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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 section.

The result of the debate was procedural close per Arbcom injunction. This injunction ties the hands of any attempt to fix problems associated with template. No prejudice against renomination following closure of Episodes and characters Arbcom case. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This no longer has any practical use because the articles that mainly used it have now been merged. The actual number can be updated manually when it becomes necessary. TTN (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep Eight articles transcluding it are enough. We can spare editors from editing them all whenever the number changes. –Pomte 04:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Depreciate and keep for historical reasons. What's that? As absurd as I've thought this template was, it's got a funny little place in my heart, so I just don't have it in me to pull the trigger. Lets put the little guy into a retirement home. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

Redirected to new template. Non-admin closure. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This special purpose template was replaced by the general purpose {{Scouting Sections}} in February 2007 and has not been used since. — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete as deprecated by {{scouting Sections}}. Happy‑melon 21:35, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G1 (nonsense). Happy‑melon 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Impossible to discern the purpose of this. No backlinks, as it must be subst'ed. Author has retired. Maybe a deprecated template for Wikipedia:Deletion review — Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The categories that this template is for are being used anymore, so it serves no purpose. TTN (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Close, no opinion. Deleting everything and asking for permission later is pretty definitive WP:POINT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I'm sorry? Would you mind explaining? Happy‑melon 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete as completely unnecessary encapsulation - the template name is almost as long as, and contains as many special characters as, the text it produces. Happy‑melon 21:26, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unused template, not certain we need one for role accounts.. Solumeiras (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - mw:Role accounts are tightly restricted - only one is currently permitted to operate. Other role accounts are blocked on sight but it doesn't appear that this template is used to flag them, so I infer it's not necessary. Happy‑melon 21:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete Even for the 1 remaining account, this wouldn't apply. MBisanz ^talk 04:52, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Same as below. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete - deprecated by {{infobox settlement}}. Happy‑melon 19:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete this & any redirects. This infobox has been standardized to Infobox Settlement. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - deprecated by {{infobox settlement}}. Happy‑melon 19:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was redirect Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Redundant to {{distinguish}}, but without the aid of documentation. Used on only three pages. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T3. Perversely, this TfD will close before it can be "speedily" deleted in this manner, but in future using this speedy template will save some bureaucracy. Happy‑melon 19:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know T3 was live yet, or I would have used it. Oh, well, now I know. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to {{Distinguish}} - name may be useful to some. Grutness...wha? 22:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

When I made that template, I did not think about merging it. Please do it for me as {{Distinguish}} was harder that hell to find. -- penubag 02:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect as plausible search term. –Pomte 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Redirect MBisanz ^talk 04:58, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was userfy. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

New userbox, should Userfy. mitrebox (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from the template's talk page, since I think that's what was originally expected, after re-reading the message:) Noob alert: I don't understand the Userfy warning. My new userbox seems to have been interpreted as something that I intended only to apply to me. As it wasn't, I included it in-line with similar boxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:User_teacher_secondary_school). If it belongs properly as a subset of my userpage, delete away! Msanford (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep not divisive or inherently unencyclopedic, no need to userfy (which just means moving it into your userspace, not deletion; see Wikipedia:Userbox migration). –Pomte 15:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Userfy - not clearly connected to the project in the manner of Babel boxes etc. Certainly no need to delete. Happy‑melon 19:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Userfy We can always move it back out if there is more interest. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Frankly, it's a lot more informative and less divisive than most of the userboxes in template space. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Idea - I think I see why Userfy is even being proposed. If I were to modifiy the box's text to "This user is a graduate TA at a university" rendering it as personally neutral as other accepted boxes (see above), I could then add a more "personal" one in my namespace. Consensus-making? Msanford (talk) 18:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment - is there a good reason not to userfy? Either to User:Msanford/User TA or to User:UBX/User TA? What advantage is there to keeping it in Template space?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I mentioned one above (i.e., same theme as other 'educator' templates, so why not keep them together). Really, I don't care, and I think all this discussion is unecessary for a simple userbox, so I've userfyd it.

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 section.

The result of the debate was keep Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

usefullness. mitrebox (talk) 06:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Deleting it serves no purpose either. When does the line get drawn with regards to which bands deserve a navbox and which do not? It is used in several articles, and it is used fittingly. Seegoon (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep enough articles to have navigational value. –Pomte 15:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep clear utility as a navigational template. Happy‑melon 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Keep - if These Arms Are Snakes is notable, this template should stay. A quick Google search gives a lot of hits for this band - a preliminary (though obviously not definitive) indication that, yes, they are notable. --Hyperbole (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was userfied by the template creator — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

1 is enough. mitrebox (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment from creator - That was quick. I agree the template doesn't belong in template-space; I created it as I thought it might help users locate information on a particlar character - it's not always immediately clear where they're all located. Seeing how it turned out (sprawling and redundant), I was going to offer it up to the Harry Potter Wikiproject on the off chance that they'd find it useful for pointing newcomers in the right direction or co-ordinating efforts to improve information on particular characters. Guest9999 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Userfied. Guest9999 (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was userfied by the template creator — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to userboxes that tell us something unique or useful about a particular user such as where in the world they live especially as the rules on userpage content are fairly relaxed. However I think a userbox for your mobile phone provider is a little too much personal information.. Green Giant (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

i have done userfying these templates! --SMS ^Talk 11:59, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was userfied by the template creator — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing links here. Userfy or delete is required.. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:35, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was userfied by the template creator — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Only one user. Should userfy.. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:32, 1 February 2008 (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 section.

The result of the debate was userfied by the template creator — Gavia immer (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing links here and it is not even notable. Userfy or delete is required.. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:30, 1 February 2008 (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.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] February 1

[edit] Template:Bigunicode

[edit] Template:Gossip Girl season 1

[edit] Template:All Saints season 10 episode list

[edit] Template:Infobox Dresden Files season 1 episode list

[edit] Template:FairlyOddParentsEpisodeModel

[edit] Template:I Shouldn't Be Alive

[edit] Template:Boy Meets World

[edit] Template:Yin Yang Yo!

[edit] Template:Infobox SpongeBob episode

[edit] Template:7th Heaven

[edit] Template:Pokenum

[edit] Template:Scouting Ireland Sections

[edit] Template:DR2

[edit] Template:Pokémon types category lead

[edit] Template:Shared account

[edit] Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia (dual language)

[edit] Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia

[edit] Template:Not to be confused with

[edit] Template:User TA

[edit] Template:These Arms are Snakes

[edit] Template:Harry Potter characters2

[edit] Template:User Telenor

[edit] Template:User Karachi

[edit] Template:User Islamabad

[edit] Template:User Bahria University

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search