Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 5

February 5, 2006

Template:ScratchspinImg

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

I've listed a related page at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Scratchspin images. This template is basically an advertisement for a private photographer who does not want to release images. I asked User:Carnildo about this before moving on, and his/her response was: "The terms of use on that site restrict re-use too much. In particular, it doesn't allow non-website use, it does not allow certain classes of commercial use, and it does not appear to allow modification of the images. I'd shoot the template and list the images for deletion -- there's nothing special about the images, so they don't qualify under Wikipedia:Fair use." Delete. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 22:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 22:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Icons

Template:Icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No text or anything, just adds images to Category:Icons. No need for a template to do that. JYolkowski // talk 18:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. -Chairman S. 20:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Useless. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Capmv

Template:Capmv (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is redundant since a speedy deletion criteria (csd-g6) and the related template {{db-histmerge}} exist (and the category that was only populated by this template ended up deleted a few weeks ago). Having two ways of accomplishing the same thing is confusing and not very useful. - Bobet 14:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to {{db-histmerge}} seems easiest, but I would not object to deleting this. >Radiant< 15:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think that {{Capmv}} is more user-friendly than {{db-histmerge}}. It is a lot easier to use {{capmv}} because it just means "somebody screwed up the history by a cut-and-paste move, please help!". To use {{db-histmerge}}, you need to understand the process well enough to know which of the pages should be deleted. The documentation for this process is currently only directed at admins; user suggestions for cut-and-paste repair should be possible without reading and understanding the process. Or at least it should say somewhere that {{db-histmerge}} needs to be put on the page with the correct title (is that right?). Kusma (討論) 15:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. (Yes, you're right in the last sentence.) I don't see why the page history merging has to be thought of as something difficult, since the actual process is pretty simple (delete, move, undelete, make sure the better version is on top). I tried to clarify the wording a bit on WP:CSD and the {{db-histmerge}} template itself. The thing is that the capmv template is currently pretty unintuitive (because its name among other things) and the fact that to find it you'd most likely have to find Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen first. If the wording on that page was changed to point to {{db-histmerge}} instead and the usage was clarified there, I'm sure it'd be just as easy to use as capmv, and things would get done faster since I assume more admins look at CAT:CSD than the holding pen. - Bobet 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Kusma's reasoning. --AySz88^-^ 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete (20/10). Physchim62 (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User paedophile

Template:User paedophile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Content: Userbox saying "This user identifies as a pedophile" with two related symbols

Needlessly provocative. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• How is it? Only as much as {{User gay}}, {{User lesbian}} and etc., surely. None of which are particularly relevant to Wikipedia, at any rate, but as long as we're doing that sort of thing... // paroxysm (n) 06:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Created in good faith by Paroxysm; doesn't promote a point of view or attack anything, so I don't see how it could be provocative at all. Ashibaka tock 06:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Exceptionally weak keep. It can be considered provacative, and I abhor the viewpoint, but nonetheless, it is helpful to know that a person identifies as a pedophile when working with them on an encyclopedia such as this. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Physchim62 (talk) 06:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How is it provocative? The template isn't trying to offend anyone. If someone is offended by it that's their own business. Ashibaka tock 07:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Because once again, the honchos are missing the point. Wikipedia should have the fortitude to say that garbage like pedophiles, fascists, and racists are not welcome here, have no "rights" other than to leave before they are reported to the authorities for harassment.

Until honchos manage to do that, they should have to bear the consequences of their indecision on their conscience. --Daniel 06:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Just for the record, I plan on indefinitely blocking anyone who uses this template. If someone wants to announce their disgusting tendency to have sexual thoughts about children, so be it. You're not welcome here though. I'd also block anyone identifying themselves as a rapist or murderer. The only user to currently include this template is User:Joeyramoney. He's now been blocked. Carbonite | Talk 14:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  take a gander at User:Phyrex/Sandbox. at least i wasn't serious.Joeyramoney 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • And I will unblock anyone you block. Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No question - this is just pathetic. violet/riga (t) 15:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How so? Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. (For crying out loud.) If this isn't a divisive userbox, I don't know what is. If your pedophilia is actually relevant to your activities on Wikipedia to the point that you feel you need to express it on your user page, I should hope you could do so in a more well-reasoned manner than just slapping on a silly box. We don't need to encourage people to slap this on without context and explanation. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. While I think self-identifying as a pedophile is an entirely different matter than self-identifying as a murderer or rapist, putting this template on your user page is likely to cause a lot of disruption which is detrimental to what we should be doing here, building an encyclopedia. Junes 15:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you vote to delete {{User Hell}}, {{user disBush}} as well? Those are detrimental templates. Ashibaka tock 17:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not an TfD regular, so no, I did not. However, I probably would've abstained on both. I don't really like the political userboxes because of the usual arguments (divisive, diametrally opposed to ideals of Wikipedia). However, it seems that people are really attached to these userboxes, so as long they're civilly worded, it seems wisest to grudgingly tolerate them. The reasons I oppose this particular template are best explained by Mindspillage. Junes 17:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
      • So basically, it depends on how many people support the userbox's POV and how many people dislike it. These TfD debates will never end, then. Ashibaka tock 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Absolutely Delete. Awful and disruptive userbox. — TheKMan^talk 17:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• DAMN IT ALL, SPEEDY DELETE the blasted thing. Now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG delete. Nuke the cute little thing, it is just another stupid userbox, that either is wikijunk (I am ok with) or inflames people, so it is stricly a waste of server space.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - what Mindspillage said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sannse (talk • contribs)
• Very strong delete As a child, I am deeply offended by this userbox — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Why are we even having this discussion? --pgk^(talk) 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Because this isn't a discussion, it's a vote on how many people are okay with the userbox's POV and how many people are offended by it. Ashibaka tock 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry but no. Fkmd 18:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP It isn't about wether you approve of other people's tastes. It's about wether they can express them. And I see no reason why they couldn't. And blocking those users who use this template is blatant discrimination by sexual preference. Larix 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't see how this is a personal attack or disrupts the encyclopedia or creates any sort of caballish thing, which are the principal objections to POV userboxes AFAIK. People are allowed to identify themselves as pedophiles on User pages and (as far as I can tell) there aren't any problems with using a userbox instead, so I don't see any reason to delete the box. (Though, I don't know why any sane person would want to self-identify as a pedophile at all, because of the abuse they're bound to attract.) --AySz88^-^ 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteIt's as vile as the people who would want to use it. Giano | talk 18:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It isn't attacking anyone. Ashibaka tock 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am a kid, and I am not offended by the presence of this userbox.(Or at least, I can't yet. Someone speedied the darn thing). I don't know what's worse. That people would persecue/discriminate against these people, or won't allow them to say who they are. --D-Day 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Userboxes sitting in the main template space have more of an aura of "official approval" to newcomers to Wikipedia than might be obvious to old-timers. A new editor comes along, fresh from LiveJournal or whatever, and starts setting up their user page based on the oh-so-convenient menu of choices available to them. It sends an abhorrent message to have this be one of those easily available choices. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Provocative and in very poor taste. Harms the credibility of the encyclopaedia. I note, however, that the boy who was blocked indefinitely for using it is sixteen years old, and was obviously just behaving in a rather silly and immature way. I support his unblocking. AnnH ^(talk) 19:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I should make a boilerplate box hat says: This is a list of userboxes that are to be used on userpages only. The Wikipedia Foundation does not support or condone any of the viewpoints expressed here.--God of War 19:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This userbox is different than the others because it has actually caused disruption (see WP:AN). Apparently, the only person using it was a 16-year-old who was probably attempting to get a rise out of people. I favor a liberal policy on userboxes, but this crosses the line. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The user wasn't trying to cause disruption, it was the admin who blocked him causing the disruption. Ashibaka tock 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy deleted as attack template. Anyone undeleting this for "process" is a bloody idiot, and you are welcome to RFAr me if you don't like that - David Gerard 19:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Also, even though I voted delete, I fail to see how this was an "attack template", nor does it fit any other speedy delete criteria that I can see. Let the discussion run its course. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So we're idiots for wanting to see what the contents were and if they could be improved rather than just sitting and being told by the admins that it's none of our business and to vote delete? --D-Day 19:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • David may I suggest that you close the tfd discussion before deleting?--God of War 19:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop wheel warring over this template, David. Nobody's using it right now, and it's up on TfD, so it's not causing any problems except for the wheel war itself. Ashibaka tock 23:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, i guess* i put it on my user page as just a joke, but i can see how some would be offended by it.Joeyramoney 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - It isn't attacking anyone. This falls under the exact same category as the debate at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, where people are, ironically, voting massively to keep the offensive image. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It would help if i could see wat the dam thing actually says! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  It sa[id] "This user identifies as a pedophile." Clearly, this is an reprehensible attack and David has rightly deleted it. // paroxysm (n) 20:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an encyclopedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete repulsive, way beyond the bounds of acceptability. If this garbage was used the anti-Wikipedia media would have a field day. It would be suicidal for WP to keep it. Frankly anyone using it is sick. Wikipedia must not let itself become a haunt for paedophiles, given that our site is used by children and some of our contributors are children. It is one thing to have templates covering legal sexual relationships between consenting adults. It is quite another to have a template referring to illegal criminal acts involving children. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Pedophilia != child molesting. This template doesn't encourage anything. Ashibaka tock 22:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep People (including me) may not like these people and their preferences, but I have voted keep for several other expression userboxes, and I cant be inconsistant. I have several politically incorrect views on things, and I would hate it if i couldnt express them on my user page if i wished to do so. And no, the page hasnt been rightly blanked as the discussion hasnt been closed - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, though I very nearly voted weak delete. While, yes, it could damage Wikipedia's credibility, there exists no rule against calling oneself a pedophile on one's userpage. Bearing that in mind, the template does not add any functionality in that regard. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2006 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:User wishful

Template:User wishful (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused template, needlessly provocative. It's one thing to have an opinion, but Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox. This sort of polemic does nothing to advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but just because it's not used by anyone. If anyone actually wants to use this nasty polemic leave me a comment and I will change my vote. Ashibaka tock 06:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. As the user accepts that Wikipedia is NOT a democracy, why are we voting on this? ;) Physchim62 (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Tried, but reverted by Ashibaka. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Divisive. Junes 15:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, needlessly provocative indeed. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This userbox was not divisive. Self-appointed honchos patrolling free speech on Wikipedia is divisive. --Daniel 18:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• I'd like to take a look at what this box had said, if possible. --AySz88^-^ 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been speedied see:

15:50, 5 February 2006 Doc glasgow deleted "Template:User wishful" (attack - it is one thing to declare a POV - another to declare that the US is not in fact a democracy)[1]

• Keep - I always vote keep on any speedied template for the right to see that userbox. I would like to remind Doc that the U.S. is in fact not a democracy, It is technically a Democratic Republic.--God of War 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Just like above: RESTORE and give people a chance to see what a discussion is about. Larix 18:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a good thing we have admins here who are just like regular users except they know better than them. This TfD will now continue based on what we think the userbox might have said. (Hint: It had to do with George W. Bush!) Just kidding, I will restore it again. I would like to see the admins who deleted it while it was on TfD reprimanded. Ashibaka tock 18:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for restoring it. I saw the template, and although I don't agree with the contents, I don't see why it should be deleted - it doesn't seem offensive at all to me. Larix 18:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Admit it, userbox-haters. You've lost. Now go back to writing an encyclopedia like we're supposed to do. --D-Day 18:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - doesn't seem bad, maybe people didn't realize the reference to the 2000 election. Though if someone uses the userbox inappropriately to stack votes or something, block that user. --AySz88^-^ 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no harm in letting people air their political opinions in userspace unless it becomes disruptive for some specific reason. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep User pages don't need to be scrupulously bland and NPOV. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Freedom of speech, user pages are not bound to NPOV, the usual. Plus good political thinking on that democratic republic thing God of War. May i reming you again, user pages are not intended to build the encyclopedia in the sense of articles and other such writing - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User black coffee

Template:User black coffee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Where will it stop? We already have Template:user coffee. Do we really need this? What's next, Template:user black coffee, one sugar, Template:user coffee cream, Template:user decaf, half-and-half, no sugar, Template:user capuccino, double shot espresso, soy milk, artificial sweetener? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Template:user coffee is ambiguous. I wanted one to convey my dislike for all the adulterations you listed above. I can see a flavored coffee one. Lefty 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Unlike most of the userboxes that come up here, this one can't even be construed as an attack template. Your argument that this will result in ridiculously specific userboxes is a wonderful example of the slippery slope fallacy. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Merge in to a user coffee, as a conditional argument. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - So what if there are a hundred userboxes for coffee. We can lump them all together in their own userbox section and you can ignore them.--God of War 18:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Exactly. KEEP with milk. Larix 18:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP What is this even doing here? --D-Day 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, completely harmless. We're not running out of server space, are we? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Lots of people drink coffee in a variety of ways, so there is a need for a number of coffee templates - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 19:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Materially different from other coffee userboxes. Personally, I'm OK with the world not knowing what coffee I like, but let's respect those who feel differently for some reason ;> Adrian Lamo ·· 20:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, even though it's just pretentious silliness. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User USA Police State

Template:User USA Police State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Needlessly provocative. It's one thing to have an opinion, but Wikipedia is not a blog or a soapbox. This sort of polemic does nothing to advance the goal of writing an encyclopedia, and everything to poison the well and convey the message that the Wikipedia community is all about factions identified by reductionist bumper stickers. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• The U.S. Secret Services have taken control of my mind and are forcing me to vote delete. Physchim62 (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Doubleplus Ungood, per nom. :)--Sean Black ^(talk) 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Subst occurences and delete. We don't need this in template space, but I feel that a user should be allowed to express their opinion on this matter in userspace. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 06:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You're perfectly free to make a userbox that says "The U.S. is a police state -- and I'd like to make Wikipedia one too!" --Daniel 06:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not a coherent argument. I'll ask the closing admin to discount it. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 12:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • And this is not a coherent TFD request. --Daniel 17:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I think it's a fine argument. Since when do we discount opinions because of the way they are stated. I have seen many TFD votes with no argument at all or a Keep as per so and so.--God of War 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this and other simplistic, divisive userboxes. Junes 15:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this too, because I am a jackbooted thug this is unnecessarily divisive. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The wording may be strong but the platform limited government has been around forever. While the USA isn't a police state right now, it seems to be headed in that direction with the way Dubya is expanding the powers of government, puttting footnotes on bills saying that the law does not apply to the president and consolidating all of the power in the legislative branch of government.--God of War 18:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete and put the creator in jail As per: — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Userboxes of a political or, more broadly, polemical, nature are bad for the project. They are attractive to the wrong kinds of people, and they give visitors the wrong idea of what it means to be a Wikipedian. ~ The godking himself
    • COMMENT The quote above was added by user:Ilyanep who cleverly tries to manipulate the discussion by pretending Jimbo commented on it. Larix 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP Freedom of expression. Wikipedia isn't a police state. Larix 18:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all the above, with the obvious exception of the delete votes. --D-Day 19:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong KEEP, if you want to take it seriously, then we have the right to say it. If you find it funny, then you find it funny and there is no reason to delete it... but it should stay both ways. --Bky1701 19:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - strongly worded and controversial, but not uncivil or disruptive. As long as people restrict these opinions to their userspace, I don't see why it's such a problem. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It is freedom of speech, and user pages are not NPOV-bound! Userboxes are not intended to greatly improve the encyclopedia, as they go on user pages, so why is it such a problem? If you dont like the userbox, dont use it! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Eleanor Roosevelt rightly observed that no one can offend you without your consent. It's every user's responsibility to maintain a thick skin on the Internet; Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of anything in particular. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:StarWarsWiki

Template:StarWarsWiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Not a Wikipedia sister project. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete... while we ♥ other wikis, only Wikimedia projects get the box link, and, I'm sorry, but Wookiepedia isn't a primary source, so doesn't belong anywhere on the main article pages. -- Netoholic @ 05:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 07:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I wouldnt be against them having an external link template like memory alpha. ive voted delete for other external link templates to other wikis but they were all start-up wikis with barely any content, this seems in the league of memory alpha, I havnt checked thoroughly mind. Discordance 16:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Doesn't the Death Star in the logo violate WP:FUC? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 19:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Al-Salam poeti

Template:Al-Salam poeti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The template only has one valid link (out of six). None of the sister ships have articles yet, and it's only the Boccaccio 98 which has an "interesting" story. As it is now, there's no point in it. kallemax 01:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 02:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't want to judge the template if there were more functioning links... but, without them it doesn't seem to be worthwhile. gren グレン ^? 05:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Zxcvbnm 17:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 21:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)