Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Skip to current discussions

Purge the cache to refresh this page

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed. Templates are used to insert blocks of common material into multiple pages, often for standardization purposes.

Templates that have been listed for more than seven days are eligible for deletion when a rough consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised.

Template undeletion is not discussed on this page, but on Deletion review.

Please note that stub templates should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Deprecated and orphaned templates can be listed here.

[edit] What (and what not) to propose for deletion at Templates for Deletion (TfD)

Speedy deletion

If the template clearly satisfies a criterion for speedy deletion for general items or templates, tag it with a speedy deletion template. For example, if the template is a recreation of a template already deleted by consensus here at TfD, tag it with {{db-repost}}. If you wrote the template and request its deletion, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Stub templates

List, normally with the corresponding stub category, at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

Policy or guideline template

If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, it cannot be listed at TfD separately. It should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline takes place.

Userboxes

List at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, regardless of what namespace they reside in.

Template redirects

List at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.

Renaming a template

List at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

So what's left for TfD?

Other templates not listed above, including most templates in the template namespace. A nomination here may be appropriate whenever one or more of the following apply:

1. The template is not helpful or noteworthy (encyclopaedic);
2. The template is redundant to another better-designed template;
3. The template is not used, either directly or with template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks);
4. The template does not satisfy Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement.

Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus, nor do these criteria apply in all cases (for example, templates meant to be transcluded in user space, like other content there, need not meet NPOV).

If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

[edit] How to use this page

Administrators: please the the Administrator instructions.

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace TemplateName (do not include the namespace identifier "Template:") & template with the name of the template to be deleted)

It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.

Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

[edit] Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).

People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.

Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to vote "keep until orphaned" or similar. Please instead phrase it as "delete" or "delete after orphaning".

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] August 21

[edit] August 20

[edit] Template:Skopje

Template:Skopje (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

There is a category with the same name listing all the articles in the template. Köbra | Könverse 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: That's not quite correct - none of the articles in the top row of the template are included in Cat:Skopje or its subcategories. Nor are the first two items in the second row (after which point I stopped checking). DH85868993 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - plenty of links that seem to be relevant, seems reasonably useful for navigation. Mr.Z-man 04:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] August 19

[edit] Template:Pope before 376

Template:Pope before 376 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No longer used. All the uses have been replaced with the succ boxes recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. This will make it easier to add other bishoprics held before the papacy. Since all the popes now have a succ box this is no longer needed.. Bazj (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This template was established to allow for the succession of popes to the office of Pontius Maximus (and to skip that title prior to 376 - thus the special template for popes before that date). This succession was denied by other editors who undid the template.Student7 (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom.--S_RX 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NRFA questions

Template:NRFA questions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Should have been deleted as part of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:New adminship proposals. The template was for use in Wikipedia:New adminship proposals which was speedy deleted per the author's request. naerii 13:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom.--S_RX 23:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox kdrama

Template:Infobox kdrama (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox kdrama/Header (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox kdrama/Namebox (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Infobox kdrama/Footer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

I felt the template stupid because it is a consisting of header, simple form of {{Infobox Television}}, Korean name and its romanization and footer. Infobox Television can do anything better than kdrama for the TV shows. But if you need Korean name and romanizations displayed then {{Ko-hhrm}} will do something for you. And it was supposed to be "compatible with animanga templates." Now it isn't because animanga templates revamped themselves in May 2008 while Infobox kdrama remains same and can be solved if someone fix {{Infobox animanga/Drama}} to include non-Japanese adaptations. JSH-alive ^(talk)_(cntrbtns)^{(mail me)} 11:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Per WP:MOS-KO, it is preferable to place the Korean name in an appropriate infobox rather than inline, which is presumably why this infobox exists in the first place. It would be nice if a "vernacular" section could be incorporated into {{Infobox Television}}, which would be useful for all non-English language TV shows. PC78 (talk) 08:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox World Heritage Site (Protected area)

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site (Protected area) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

The template is not used anymore, so it should be deleted per criteria #3. Also note that I am the creator of this template.—Chris! _ct 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Per C3 and authors request. --S_RX 23:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] August 18

[edit] Template:Stub

Template:Stub (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

[edit] Template:Npler

Template:Npler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

As a member of the National Puzzlers' League, I think it's great that the organization has a page on Wikipedia. But certainly none of its members are known for being NPL members. I noticed this on my own article, and I don't think it makes sense for my article or Gelett Burgess or Mike Reiss to have such a designation on its page. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I'm a fellow member of the NPL, and I also don't think this template has a reason to exist. Qaqaq (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm the creator of the template and an NPL member. Notwithstanding my friends comments, I don't feel that the question is whether people are known for being NPL members. I believe that was the right question when the associated category was up for deletion. But inclusion of information on a page has a lower threshold, IMHO, of whether the information helps a reader to understand the subject of the article. For example, Fred Phelps is known for picketing military funerals with "God Hates Fags" signs. But it is important background that he has done significant work as a civil rights lawyer. For the subjects noted by Slik, it helps to show a possibly unknown side or further fill out their gaming resume. Ma^t_chups 03:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Wow, that is so not the comparative case I would have used. :^) --Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is an encyclopedia, not a gaming resume. DreamGuy (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • And including appropriate gaming resumes is encyclopedic. JJB 14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
      • How do you figure? It has to have actual interesting, informative and verifiable content. DreamGuy (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as the recent user of this template on 22 individuals, and an on-and-off member myself. With the "former member" option I added to the template as well, it serves a very useful purpose: it standardizes reference to NPL members and permits them to be independently listed by the template's "what links here". Without it, mention that someone is/was an NPL member would be haphazard and less checkable (note that template deletion would not prevent anyone from mentioning membership by pasting in the template text itself instead). I have also taken up the suggestion in the category deletion debate (which was rather inapposite to NPL and one other club, as noted there) and added the list to the NPL article, but this is no substitute for having a realtime template-use check available. I must politely disagree with Mike and Qaqaq; even if Mike's statement is true that article subjects are not known for being members, it is well-established that we may use verifiable background biographical details that appropriately supplement what subjects are known for. I must also add that policy suggests that articles about Wikipedians are often not exactly according to their subjects' wishes— just as in fact many articles about other things are often not according to my or others' wishes. Anyway, good to hear from you all! Now let's see how the nonmembers chime in. (Matchups, thank you for your help in creating and maintaining this template! What's Tom Pulliam's pseudonym, and was his groundbreaking crossword dictionary ever in WP in the past? I don't see it now.) JJB 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • John, what troubles me about it is that it's in inline text, like (in the case of my article, which I don't touch) my game design career is on an even notability level with my NPL membership. That just isn't true. It's only that we have clever pseudonyms that makes it at all interesting, and probably only to those in the League. The NPL article can and should list these, but not the articles themselves.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm concerned that this is getting far too crufty. For one example, before Slik edited it out, you had Julian Ochrymowych listed as a "notable member", and until I just now edited it out, you had a reference to him in a new "Popular culture" section of the opera "The Mother of Us All" (the source of his NPL nom). That obviously means nothing to anyone who would be reading that article, and adds no notable information. Similarly, I don't see how a template about an NPL nom adds new, useful information about anyone. If someone's NPL membership does in fact fill out someone's article in an interesting fashion, then a template won't be enough to convey that information anyway. Qaqaq (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I won't fight you over that one, though I am of course an inclusionist and this results from my habit of adding everything available. But in general, policy indicates that inline text does not indicate equal notability levels; membership and pseudonyms are both presumptively interesting bio details (and thorough pseudonymy seems a WP specialty); even if pseudonyms alone are the problem, the template can be changed (though I'd still retain it for grouping, seeing as members I listed in the NPL article were cut back); if mentioning membership itself is the problem, I've held that that is new and useful info. JJB 19:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete NPL membership and noms is absolutely trivial to the outside world. DreamGuy (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for saying so, but I take this as a statement that any membership in a small but historic organization, even if related to a subject's notability, is "absolutely trivial", and I don't see that in practice at WP. WP:NNC is the controlling policy, which is on the inclusive side. This content is neutral, verifiable, and unoriginal; WP:DUE does not apply because it is not undue weight unless the person holds a hundred memberships; and WP:NOT does not apply because this is not indiscriminate but very self-limiting. WP:NOTPAPER does apply, though. JJB 14:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • An outside person might conceivably care that a notable person with an entry is a member of NPL (though why I don't know), but nobody but nobody would care what their nom is. Another NPLer might, but that's what the member directory is for, and the noms are in the password protected area of the site so general public isn't supposed to know these unless the subject him- or herself released the info. Did you tell anyone you're Ostrich? How would I go about verifying that by Wikipedia standards? The template serves no encyclopedic purpose, and that's what this vote is over... not whether you feel insulted by someone questioning a template involving a group you are a member of. DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - While I'm not sure about relevance to article subjects, this template just seems... strange. So its just tacked on at the end of a paragraph or something? Standardization is good, but getting things down to exact wording of specific sentences in articles is too much. As for tracking, this is exactly what categories are for. If its relevant, someone can actually integrate something into the text, else, just the category should suffice. Mr.Z-man 04:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pope

Template:Pope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No longer used. All the uses have been replaced with the succ boxes recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. This will make it easier to add other bishoprics held before the papacy. Since all the popes now have a succ box this is no longer needed. Deleting it frees up the name for some other template. Bazj (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Support Deletion – This template has been like the spear in my side since I first founded WP:SBS and I am so proud that someone other than me completed its replacement in all those Pope pages. Thank you very much and yes, I strongly support the removal of this template and will personally add it to the pending deletion list at WP:SBS/T.
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Question: Is there an alternative template which would cover those that have only one single title, that of Pope under their belts? If so, what is it? Str1977 ^(talk) 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC) PS. I hope its not Template:Pope before 376 because that seriously sucks. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• A: No, but why would you need it? All the work of replacing Template:Pope has been done, and all popes have succ boxes. In time Template:Pope before 376 may be given the same treatment for consistency, and to simplify the expansion of those popes' succ boxes to include prior roles. Bazj (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well my question obviously was, whether the template you are endorsing works for one-title-holders too? And which is it? Str1977 ^(talk) 07:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• And my answer was obviously "All the work of replacing Template:Pope has been done", and Yes, it works. The replacement is not a single template, it's the 6 templates that were used by Template:Pope:
  

  {{s-start}}{{s-rel|ca}}{{s-bef|before=xxxx}}{{s-ttl|title=[[Pope]]|years=xxxx–xxxx}}{{s-aft|after=xxxx}}{{end}}

  Bazj (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So is there no one template? And I would be very glad if you could inform me what the new template is. That is if you are interested in my approving of the TfD. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

(I've edited out my previous reply. I'd lost it.)
Str1977, The replacement templates are shown in my last comment. I suggest you look at some of the popes pages to see the templates in action. Whether you give your approval or not is a choice for you alone. I don't see what further information I could give you. Bazj (talk) 09:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hold On! You've already edited the succ boxes on Pope Siricius to remove Pontifex Maximus, leaving just Pope. You've seen and used the replacement already! Bazj (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if it is that ONE I am content. (From the penultimate reply I was wondering whether you would want to replace one template with a range of templates). Str1977 ^(talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Redundant to existing succession boxes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - what was the point of spamming talk pages? If this issue is as straightforward as it seems at first glance, that seems like an unnecessary waste of everyone's time. ugen64 (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's requested as part of the process as a courtesy to previous editors of the template, which includes you. Bazj (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete --denny vrandečić (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Papal conclaves

Template:Papal conclaves (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

No longer used anywhere. Bazj (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unused and redundant to the standard succession infobox, which can easily be altered to indicate anything from papal conclaves to Billboard Number One singles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete – This template was never really used and has been discontinued. Get rid of it...now...
  –Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Copy to Wikispecies

Template:Copy to Wikispecies (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

While the transwiki templates in general are useful tools that serve a valuable purpose, the 'copy to wikispecies' template is an exception. Wikispecies is a scientific directory of life-forms, not an 'encyclopedia of species'.

I doubt there has ever been a single page copied from Wikipedia to Wikispecies, and it seems unlikely that there would ever be any benefit in doing so. Neither of the two pages currently tagged with this (Oliveridia and Flyriella) are valid candidates for transfer to Wikispecies. I first noticed the problem when the tag was added to Vampyrops which, if copied to Wikispecies, would have created an improperly formatted fork of species:Platyrrhinus.

To quote the Wikispecies FAQ; "Copying Wikipedia articles directly into Wikispecies should be discouraged from the beginning. Wikispecies will need to have strict anti-forking policies that prevent this. The Wikispecies Charter makes it clear this should not be allowed to happen." --CBD 14:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Good enough evidence for me. The fact that Wikispecies disallows copies of Wikipedia articles is especially convincing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I created this in my first few months on Wikipedia. In retrospect, I should have looked at the host project first. I've lived. I've learned.--chaser (away) - talk 02:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics

Template:Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This serves a similar purpose, I presume as the "standard" Template:NOCin2008SummerOlympics. The differences are that the latter is a page-bottom navbox, and uses full country names. This style of navbox is already used on over 3000 pages of the "Nation at the year Olympics" series. This newer navigation box uses country codes, which makes it less clear for people who don't recognize them. There is no need to introduce an alternate style of navigation for this purpose. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep (as template creator) I had not noticed the template at the bottom because the page is so long. A country like the US could use a sidebar template for this purpose. Additionally, this template provides navigation by IOC code.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What difference does the country make? Are you planning on replacing the existing templates on all three thousand articles, or just the USA articles? Perhaps your idea should be discussed at WP:WikiProject Olympics. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not planning on replacing. It is a complement, sort of like the side bar Template:BarackObamaSegmentsUnderInfoBox that is completely redundant with Template:Barack Obama. If I can get the format cleaned up a bit, I will add it where necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think calling it a "complement" is an imperfect comparison—it is a duplication of the same 204 wikilinks, unline the Obama templates, one of which is a subset of the other. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The question of whether it is a complement has nothing to do with whether the links are all repeated. Look at United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Think about the reader who wants to go to the page of another country. He has to scroll down forever in hopes that a navbox is at the bottom. This gives the reader a quick navigational aid on the sidebar. When I use the page, that is what I am looking for. It serves the purpose that I am sure many readers want. It serves the same purpose as the country by year boxes in the sidebar for quick navigational aid.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant, and less useful duplicate of {{NOCin2008SummerOlympics}}. Resolute 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrwsc, there is no need for two similar templates. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Andrwsc. Dragging a scrollbar to the bottom or pushing the End button on the keyboard does not take forever. -- Jao (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While I suppose the case for keeping makes sense in Tony's eyes (i.e. it is easier to navigate between pages this way), it is obviously redundant, and creates more unnecessary clutter on the pages. Jared (t)  13:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I understand your good intention, Tony, but in my view the pros are very few compared to the cons of having such a template. The content duplication, the use of hard-to-guess three-letter codes to identify countries, the potential page cluttering of such lateral template, and the ease to go top to bottom (clicking END does that) are all against the usefulness of this template. Parutakupiu (talk)
• Delete per Parutakupiu, even if such a template were needed this is too cumbersome and confusing. basement12 (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Active Venezuelan Baseball Players in the Major League Baseball

Template:Active Venezuelan Baseball Players in the Major League Baseball (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Well intentioned, but a template that sets all kinds of bad precedents. On top of being ridiculously large, how far do we go with this type of template? One for Canadians, Dominicans, Europeans, Mexicans? By American state? Its borderline indiscriminate used on player pages, and completely indiscriminate used on team pages. Resolute 04:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Maybe you are rigth in the team pages, but I think the page is really useful, maybe because you are not from Venezuela that information looks useless for you. Anybody can create other ones for other countries or states, I dont see anything bad on that. I'm agree to keep it in the player pages. Ridiculously large? It is a template, just keep hide. That is just one line. --Anothercountry (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It isn't the information itself I object to, but rather the format. This information really is not suited to a template, in my humble opinion. I think it would make a good list article, however, something like List of Venezuelans in Major League Baseball. Resolute 04:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, my friend, your humble opinion could destroy the works of another person. Like I said before, you could remove it from the team pages, but at least keep it in the players —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anothercountry (talk • contribs) 04:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
      • Even on the player pages, I think it is unnecessary clutter. If consensus agrees with me, then I apologize for "destroying" your works, but that is the nature of the beast. Resolute 04:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Listify and delete. Resolute is right; we'd end up with a slippery slope where every nationality would have a template, and we don't need to have 25-30 templates on every MLB team page. It's a useful list, but not so much a useful template. Horologium (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Resolute. There is already a list of Venezuelan players and a category. "Destroying the works of another person" is irrelevant -- pages, templates, categories, etc. get deleted on Wikipedia all the time. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 16:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as a template, but Resolute's suggestion for making a list gives this content a chance to become a WP:Featured list, perhaps, instead of keeping it in an awkward navigation template. That way, no "works of another person" would be destroyed, but kept in a far more useful format. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Digital Praise

Template:Digital Praise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

This template has a total of two links - both of which belongs to {{Dance Praise}}. haha169 (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per nom. Also, the "parent" article seems to be a red link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] August 17

[edit] Template:David Archuleta

Template:David Archuleta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete)

Very similar case to the Kristy Lee Cook. Just way too early for a template. Let's wait until he actually has a hit that isn't fueled by American Idol Woohookitty^Woohoo! 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - too few links and possible uses to be helpful for navigation. Mr.Z-man 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. It seemed like it was an obvious choice and served our readers well. It seems apparent he's being groomed to release several singles and then his album so unclear why it's so unhelpful - if it's policy that it's just not allowed then so be it. Banjeboi 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Too few links for now. Wait until he's two albums or several singles into his career. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Event

Template:Event (edit|talk|history|links|