Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29

[edit]

Template:Colorado Avalanche seasons

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Colorado Avalanche seasons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Already transcluded in {{Colorado Avalanche}}; no reason for this template to exist.. Jmlk17 22:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Nndb name

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nndb name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Having a template is an endorsement of this website. The website lists no references in its articles and is in my opinion not a reliable source. There is no workable system of correcting errors as I have found on submitting numerous corrections which were ignored. The template has been previously nominated for deletion here and here. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions:

  • Keep An external link doesn't have to be a reliable source to be a valid external link. All it has to do is to demonstrate that it is useful to the article per the guidelines at Wikipedia:External links. However, the nominator has not made any arguments that linking to this particular site is not useful or that the inclusion of the link was linkspam. --Farix (Talk) 20:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I believe a template is an endorsement to some degree, of the reliability of that website. Linking to a site is in my opinion not useful if it is not a site comes from an established organization, or, if it isn't an established organization, it allows corrections and discussions about inaccuracies that are viewable to all readers as they are on Wikipedia. There is no indication on looking at a notable names database article that anything may not be correct as there are no talkpages where corrections can be publicly posted or tags that can be placed marking inaccuracies that can be seen by others. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment As others have already stated, an external link does not constitute an endorsement of the website. Also, Wikipedia cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy of the contents of external links. The main guidelines on external links is found at Wikipedia:External links. To sum it up, so long as the link adds meaningful value—which should be determined on an article by article bases and not Wikipedia-wide—and does not fall into one of the "Links normally to be avoided" or "Restrictions on linking" criteria, it is permitted. However, you have yet to point out how the external links created by this particular template would never conform with Wikipedia:External links. The only argument that you have managed is that it is potentially unreliable and unsourced, which isn't enough to prohibit the link under Wikipedia:External links. --Farix (Talk) 01:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:EL. You are drstically mistating the guideline. And additionally WP:BLP is policy, not just a guideline. The criteria for adding external links is not that they add "meaningful value". That's frankly just silly. And of course the standard is wikipedia-wide. Just because an article is poor doesn't mean you can add lower quality links to that article! Whether this template should exist or not is one thing, but the guideline for external links and biographies aren't going to be rewritten here just so this template can be kept. 2005 23:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies. We have to keep in mind that we're talking about the biographies of people here. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is my opinion that NNDB does meet our style guideline for external links as well as that subsection of policy. If you find a specific link or set of links which you object to, then by all means please do remove them, but I hardly find it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. RFerreira 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an external link isn't an endorsement and even though they don't cite reliable sources doesn't mean they don't have them. I'm sure if you contacted them, they'd be able to provide their references, but some people and organisations prefer to keep their sources and resources private unless requested, as a matter of prudent business practice. They're not an encyclopedia as Wikipedia is and, as such, isn't required to report on their secondary resources. Also, an external link may provide original research. We don't have to provide a disclaimer for this, as there's a "disclaimers" link on the footnote of every article and page in the whole place, one of which relates to external links. This inclusion is no different to having the {{youtube}} template, linking to a commonly used webresource. --lincalinca 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is considered reliable when it comes to filmographies and cast information, etc. I realize that anyone can submit info to IMDB so I don't think IMDB bio pages or trivia pages can be considered reliable. Since we are talking about people's biographies on Wikipedia, WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nomination is misjudged. A template is not an endorsement. The info from a random sample of articles seemed reliable enough to me. Being ignored is not proof that "there is no workable system of correcting errors"; and, besides, plenty of sites have no way to correct errors—that doesn't mean linking to them is forbidden—and there are disclaimers here about external links. Having previous deletion nominations adds no weight to this one—especially when the result in both cases was Keep.
The nominator, to me, seems to have confused justification for linking to the site on specific articles with the justification for a template. While many links to nndb may be superfluous, on others they provide extra information that is unsuitable for direct inclusion here but is, nonetheless, useful to readers. In those latter cases, a template is useful in providing uniformity; the former kind will be added anyway, regardless of whether a template exists. ObfuscatePenguin 01:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, noting the previous nominations is encouraged so that details for and against the article can be reviewed by the voting/discussing parties, though you're right in that it doesn't serve the nominator any good to list them, but it's fairer to the article to list them. --lincalinca 02:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree, a template is a mild endorsement of the site and nndb is not reliable (as per WP:RS) and in no cases I have ever seen on a page I watchlist does it add meaningfully to the article. I have over 13,000 pages (not 13,000 articles) on my watchlist. That said, nndb may be appropriate to link to in some articles despite not being a reliable source. Lincalinca states that nndb is similar to imdb and that imdb is broadly considered to be as reliable as Wikipedia. Note that neither Wikipedia nor imdb meet WP:RS. Anyway, I freely admit that my grounds for getting rid of the template is that I consider nndb to be generally inappropriate and always unreliable (as per WP:RS) and that the template mildly endorses the site. You may not consider this sufficient grounds for removal of the template, though, only grounds for removing that template from 99% of the articles it is currently used in. Or you may disagree on that point, too. --Yamla 15:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As with the identical situation with the IMDB and similar templates, a template standardizes the link format across various pages for which the links are going to appear on anyway, template or no template extant. This is not an issue with sourcing (where NNDB should not appear) but with external links sections. Quatloo 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So you are saying you wouldn't mind people removing nndb links as we consider it to be unverifiable (no refs) and unreliable? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody should be removing external links on the bases of verifiability or reliability. Instead, you have to argue that the external links are either not relevant to the article or does not add any meaningful value. --Farix (Talk) 01:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that -- nobody should be bulk adding or removing external links to anything based on agenda. If links are to be added or removed, they should be done so by existing editors of the articles in question. Quatloo 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The template is useful for linking (which is not an endorsement), and does not mean all NNDB information is reliable. It's another source/POV to make available to our readers, per WP:NPOV. Obviously, we would also link to other sources, and explain where they differ. Superm401 - Talk 19:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an endoresement. An editor may see it in one article and think "oh, they have a template for this" and add it to other articles. WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not think the template is helpful, noteworthy, or encyclopedic. Category:External link templates says "Generally, templates should only be made for links to sites that are...Extremely well-known and covering the subject better than Wikipedia does (e.g. IMDB)" and I don't think NNDB qualifies. Also, WP:EL says external links should be meritable, with accurate research. I think there's a tendency for editors to see templates in external links sections and then think that every similar article needs that template as well. So this template may be an endorsement to add NNDB links to every biographical article on Wikipedia. NNDB has over 27,000 profiles and I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles on Wikipedia. At WP:EL, in the Links normally to be avoided section, it lists: 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 4) Links mainly intended to promote a website. I have no idea if the information at NNDB is accurate, and without knowing that, I can't endorse 27,000 articles potentially linking to it. NNDB links to dailyrotten.com on the mainpage, so I'm a bit wary. NNDB has an Alexa rank of 7,243[1]. The Alexa profile lists Sites with registration info similar to nndb.com and it lists rotten.com, shockumentary.com, gapingmaw.com, ratemyboobies.com, and fcks.com. Soylent Communications runs shockumentary.com (which sells shock DVDs) and also nndb.com. Soylent Communications is a webhost as far as I know, but glancing at the sites it hosts also makes me wary. I don't want to judge a site based on what its webhost also hosts, but I'm not sure if Soylent Communications is the webhost or if they are the people who add the information to NNDB. The NNDB Wikipedia article says it is "produced by Soylent Communications." The profile for Marilyn Manson on NNDB may be useful if the information is accurate, but it also links to the Rotten Library page. I see you can submit information to NNDB. On film articles like Beetlejuice it contains a link to Amazon.com with a referrer tag of "namesdatabase-20." Other than that, NNDB contains no advertising as far as I can tell. I know that IMDB accepts submissions although they are moderated. I also know that IMDB links to Amazon.com (since Amazon acquired IMDB). I suppose I put more faith in IMDB because it's run by Amazon.com, which is a publicly traded company. There is a long discussion at Talk:NNDB about whether NNDB is acceptable as an external link. The NNDB profile for Laura Schlessinger is not one I think Wikipedia can recommend. The first sentence reads "On Laura Schlessinger's popular train wreck of a radio show, listeners can hear strangers' lives ruined by bad advice for three hours daily." Apparently Soylent Communications also hosts (or runs, I don't know) Pornopolis.com which states "This is the best way to support Rotten, The Rotten Library, Daily Rotten, and NNDB." I can understand the need for a template so external links will look consistent, but I don't think NNDB links "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contains if it became a Featured article", I'm not sure where the information comes from, and I think the template can be seen as promotion of a website. NNDB appears to contain no advertisements, but it does link to Rotten.com, another Soylent Communications site. The Rotten.com article says Rotten.com launched NNDB in mid-2004 (although that sentence has no citation). I don't know if nndb.com urls should be blacklisted, but I think the template encourages spamming nndb.com urls across biographical articles and should be deleted. --Pixelface 06:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of this is Straw man argument, and irrelevant to the discussion, e.g., "I don't think that NNDB links need to be added to those 27,000 articles." Nobody is proposing that, nor has anyone been bulk adding them. It should be noted, that Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales, who paid for and ran the encyclopedia from the offices of his softcore porn site Bomis. Does that make you "wary"? Frankly, I have _less_ faith in sites run by large firms -- they must bow to political and shareholder pressures. The only question is, since NNDB links are going to be added to articles anyway, should they have a standard format. Quatloo 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man? We're talking about the biographies of living persons. WP:BLP is a policy and says "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." It also says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles." It also says "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." WP:BLP#External_links says "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies and external links guidelines." I do not think NNDB qualifies as "high quality" or as a reliable source, which is evident by looking at the NNDB profile for Laura Schlessisnger. I really don't know why you're defending an external site full of unverifiable information. It appears to me that NNDB exists to promote Rotten.com. And I don't really care about the format. The template is superfluous. *{{nndb name|id=427/000022361/|name=Laura Schlessisnger}} displays the same text as *[http://www.nndb.com/people/427/000022361/ Laura Schlessisnger] at the [[NNDB|Notable Names Database]]. The template just encourages editors to add NNDB links to all biographical articles, but biographies must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research. I don't think external links are exempt from that. I don't trust IMDB biography or trivia pages either. Links to IMDB on a person's article are helpful for showing full filmographies. And I've never seen an entry for a person at IMDB with a film listing that would defame that person. --Pixelface 19:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the comments in support are completely missing the boat here. Arguments that templates are not endorsements misses the fact that they are explicitly used as such by the people mass adding links to this site everywhere. The people who added it across multiple articles look to have a very clear WP:COI problem, going into outright crass spamming. When the link is removed from individual articles as not being appropriate, there's always the argument that is can't be inappropriate or else there wouldn;t be a template for it. As far as the actual site goes, it very, VERY clearly does not meet the rules on WP:EL for what is and is not appropriate, as the site is in no way a valuable encyclopedic reference and, most importantly, it fails to have anything of value that the Wikipedia articles in question should have themselves. All this is is another example of massive, coordinated self-promotion for a site that simply has no value to our users. Not only should the NND template be removed, but I think a blacklist is probably in order as well. DreamGuy 14:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a blacklist might be in order, but the template should exist if the links are allowed. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A template is not an endorsement, or we'd delete {{MathWorld}}. WikiProject Mathematics has reached consensus that it's not a reliable source, that it's frequently the owner's opinion unsupported by fact or other references, but that it's appropriate to link to as an external link. (I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep a template or an article, but the WikiProject has explicitly non-endorsed the site, while agreeing that the template has a purpose.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has a strict policy about the biographies of persons. I can see how a template used in math articles could be dealt with differently than a template used in biographical articles. --Pixelface 19:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you choose to call it an endorsement or not, the end result is clearly an endorsement. And it seems to me that once we've determined that a site is not a reliable source we MUST delete the template, regardless of whatever odd decision was made with "MathWorld." NNDB should be added to the blacklist, and the template should be removed, and certainly we can do the latter evenif the former hasn;t happened yet. DreamGuy 19:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the NNDB link doesn't have any use for a subject, don't put it on the Wiki page. The IMDb doesn't always give sources; that doesn't mean that it should be removed as a template. Irk Come in for a drink! 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think IMDB bio pages are reliable sources and I don't think NNDB pages are reliable sources. And NNDB pages appear to contain more possibly defamatory information. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's just a convenience, not an endorsement. And, as has been said, external links don't have to lead to ideal, invariably reliable sources. I'm also skeptical of nominating the same template repeatedly with the same arguments until it gets deleted... though it has been a reasonable amount of time so I won't make a big fuss. — xDanielx T/C 16:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about biographical articles about people on Wikipedia, so I think we should expect higher quality links than NNDB. --Pixelface 19:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True... but I think the regular WP:BLP guidelines work fine. If a dubious and potentially libellous (or just plain disrespectful) claim depends on a NNDB link for verification, then it may be appropriate to remove the claim, as exceptional claims require exceptional sources. I don't think editors are likely try to justify the credibility of NNDB with the existence of a template, so I think any good deletion would do is probably negligible. — xDanielx T/C 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Category:External link templates and the fact the template existence has been used to endorse the links inclusion in articles. Templates encourage standardization, which is generally good, but they also encourage inclusion, which is only good when the content being included is high quality. Abuse of templates to lower article quality is problematic and should be discouraged. There is nothing to stop users adding the link without the template just like any other link if it is appropriate for the individual page (which this one rarely is). -- SiobhanHansa 17:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS: the encyclopedia should only use reliable sources, this is clearly not one. See the entry for Britney Spears for example: "the most successful of their numerous experiments, Britney Spears was genetically engineered by the Disney Corporation to bring western culture to its knees." (One of many such joke entries.) DrKiernan 12:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The delete arguments here amount to little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and make many false and potentially problematic claims about a fairly reliable source for information. If you'd like to talk about a highly-visible group that doesn't often cite sources, might I suggest The Associated Press? Myles Long 15:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "many false and potentially problematic claims about a fairly reliable source for information"- do you want to elaborate on that please? This site was created by purveyors of mock/shock sites as a tie-in for their "dead pool". It contains entries such as "the most successful of their numerous experiments, Britney Spears was genetically engineered by the Disney Corporation to bring western culture to its knees". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anything on NNDB that has a reliable source should be in our articles, citing that source; anything on NNDB that lacks a reliable source should not be included, acknowledged or endorsed. NNDB biographies are typically less complete than ours, I don't see that this fulfils the WP:EL ideal of providing reliable information over and above what is appropriate for a general encyclopaedia. What it does provide, though, is a way to spread memes from a source with (even) less rigorous fact checking than our own rather lax enforcement of WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I reviewed many of the incoming NNDB links and they all appear to have been added organically by trusted editors, and there is a valid claim to formatting the links in a uniform fashion. I am also troubled by the many unsubstantiated claims and assumptions of bad faith put forth by Gustav von Humpelschmumpel here, some of which border upon personal attacks. Please try to be polite when interacting with other editors. Yamaguchi先生 19:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template encourages people to think that nndb is a reliable source- that is the whole point of this debate. And there is evidence that various people connected to this website are stacking this discussion to ensure the template is kept- and when you look at the nature of that website it in no way encourages the assumption of good faith. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 21:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:AcademyAwardsproj

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademyAwardsproj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant wikiproject banner. Is now part of the awards task force at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films. I propose it is deleted. — RWardy 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G4. Carlosguitar 06:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link GA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Probably a test page - I cant CSD templates though!. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 16:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a test page. This template needs to be create ! Hourslimit 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Mike Gravel

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mike Gravel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is overkill. Only three of the entries are intrinsically linked to Gravel (Political positions of Mike Gravel, Mike Gravel presidential campaign, 2008 and National Initiative), and these are amply linked to from his page or his campaign's page. The rest is just filler and without it, we are left with a very thin template that serves no real useful navigational purpose. I feel similarly about Template:Ron Paul and Template:Dennis Kucinich, should anyone wish to nominate those. — Biruitorul 06:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:East Rail

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G4. Carlosguitar 06:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:East Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Previously deleted. On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:West Rail

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:West Rail Line

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:West Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page as a redirect. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:KCR Light Rail

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

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 04:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:KCR Light Rail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

On inline template that serves no purpose except to link to a page with coloured font formatting. Basically replaces a Wikilink. Ohconfucius 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_October_29&oldid=1079945266"