Wikipedia:Templates for discussion

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Header

Current discussions

December 9

Template:LORD

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

The result of the discussion was maintain status quo at this time. This discussion is much less related to this template and much more related to the Manual of Style, and therefore further discussion should be happening there. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD for said discussion. No prejudice toward any future discussion over this template resulting from any outcome over there. JPG-GR (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:LORD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unnecessary. Against MOS. Redundant to Template:Sc Mhiji (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Depends - If "Unnecessary. Against MOS. Redundant to Template:Sc" is true, then Delete. If, however, "Unnecessary. Against MOS. Redundant to Template:Sc" is not strictly true, then Keep. I'm wondering if LORD is easier to understand/use than Sc. If so, Keep. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Per my comments at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:GOD (sorry I should have listed them together really...) There is nowhere in MOS where it says we should be using this format, so surely it shouldn't be used... The section which mentions deities says that they should be named as "God, Allah, Freya, the Lord" etc. [[User:Mhi

ji|Mhiji]] (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • The MOS also says "Change small caps to title case." Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep, starting with my comment at the Template:GOD discussion. To Legitimate, yes it's easier, and yes it's not redundant (as the Template:Sc docs say). To Mhiji, thank you for admitting that "against MOS" is an argument from WP:SILENCE, which is of course invalid as soon as the silence is broken, which it has been now. Thank you also for demonstrating that the backup reasons for these two noms (those not stated in the nom) are actually more an interpretation of what MOS doesn't say rather than anything else. The two sections on this topic, which you quote, relate to initial-letter capitalization, not to the small-cap stylistic traditions that have been accepted over time, which Template:sc makes clear are at least five: GOD,, and UNICEF. Yes, that's what it says.

You, or others, may need to know about the difference between God and GOD, and Lord and LORD (brief background). As the article tetragrammaton made clear (until the deletion template you inserted broke the article and over 50 others), "In English translations, it is often rendered in capital and small capital letters as 'the LORD'." "LORD" is a personal name, "Yahweh" (or the equivalent) in Hebrew; "Lord" is a title, "Adonai" in Hebrew (literally "milord"). Because both primary and secondary sources make much of the distinction between naming and titling a deity, and because great significance is often drawn from which of the two words appears in a Hebrew text, English translators for more than 400 years have used an all-caps or small-caps formulation to distinguish the two. (I have also often seen the form "ADONAI" used to indicate the presence of "Yahweh" in a text, which should indicate that GOD and LORD are frequent enough that they have their own alternatives.)

"GOD" is rarer because it is used to translate "Yahweh" when immediately adjacent to "Adonai", which is then translated "Lord" (in this case a repetition with "LORD" would obviously lose a lot in translation). Thus GOD is a name and God is a title, just as above. I don't know how many GOD's you deleted when you deleted LORD's, but right now there are still between 50 and 100 LORD's in WP; and, as I said, even if there were no GOD's in WP it would still be a functional template.

Which brings me to the observation. I would think that with you nomming a lot of templates, you would not be completely tone-deaf to the challenging nature of your actions here. It appears you did not seek guidance at any WikiProject but suddenly began changing templates in articles en masse. You neglected edit summaries, which is not constructive. You nommed GOD by claiming it is unused, and you later nommed LORD, considering both "unnecessary" (which is never a deletion argument in itself). You probably didn't know that nomming a widely used inline template would break the 50-100 articles it remains in, but it does. You might not have seen my comment on the first TFD while you were posting the second, but certainly LORD is a much more used name than GOD, and so even without my comments it is quite a leap to nom LORD immediately after GOD as if there is not a significantly higher bar to reach prior to deletion. After I apprise you of the facts on the ground, you argue that Template:Sc is just one editor (wrong, if it were, the next editor to disagree would've cut it; instead, it's consensus); and that since MOS, speaking of initial caps, advises of "God" and "Lord" but neglects separate discussion of "GOD" and "LORD", the latter are actually contrary to MOS; that is, your arguments reveal something really entrenched. Also, your later argument contradicts what you did earlier, because you retained the small-caps in all articles with "/small" tags instead of the template; what were you going to do, lowercase all instances in a second pass once the TFDs passed, to comply with your reading of MOS? Or just ignore your own reading? Or change "LORD" to "Yahweh" throughout or some equivalent, contrary to common English practice? In short, I suspect this is a very bad path to keep going down and you might want to back out before you go much further.

Now to the actual concern, which I am going to guess on your behalf if you don't mind: I can certainly understand if you believe that "GOD" and "LORD" are biased because no other deity gets such a special typographical convenience. Such an argument would at least be an honest statement of position and have roots in an attempt at consistency. If that is your position, first, you should have stated it in the first string, or in the second, instead of alluding to it indirectly. Then, on its merits, it still will not pass, for the simple reason that any deity, or any sovereign in fact, who wants a special typographic convention strongly enough generally gets one. I've already referred to TIME, UNICEF, and UNESCO. Another that comes to mind is "the artist formerly known as Prince": I don't know if he ever got his symbol into Unicode or not. In religion in particular, we have Latter Day Saints redirecting to one article and Latter-day Saints redirecting to a subsection thereof, in an attempt (incomplete I think) to distinguish the two meanings; if you confuse one for the other, or act as if they could redirect to the same place or one is unnecessary or unused, you will hear about it indefinitely from all sides. There was also a big argument, unresolved I think, that cherem and herem, the same word, must be retained as two different articles; and never misspell or mispunctuate Saviours' Day. The happenchance that these two templates are the only two cases of common small-caps traditions when limiting references to deities is not sufficient to derive a case of bias against other deities.

If this keeps up I'll notify a WikiProject and maybe I need say no more. JJB 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —JJB 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —JJB 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I do mind.... Why have you "guessed on my behalf" the "actual concern" was that I was making an argument that this is biased?! How have I "alluded to it indirectly"? What did I say to make you think that?!!?! If I'd thought that I would have stated it. And I don't see how or why my views would be anything to do with this? Why don't you read the words I have written and the arguments have put forward instead of attempting to work out what I might be thinking and then attacking me for what you think I had thought!?! I have not contradicted myself...? The thought that this might not be in line with MOS came after I had made the initial nomination which was that the templates are unnecessary because they are redundant to another template (which is a perfectly valid reason for nomination). Again, why don't you read and interpret the words I have written? Why do you keep using Template:Sc/doc as a definitive guideline? I've seen a number of cases where template docs do not follow with other guidelines or reflect current useage etc. You are saying that because no one has challenged it then it is consensus, but I am challenging it now - that is the whole point of these discussions. For every deletion or move discussion, you could use the argument that "this is how it exists at the moment, therefore it is consensus so we shouldn't change it" - if we used that as a valid argument, nothing would ever be deleted or moved or merged.... And how are Latter day Saints/Latter-day Saints, cherem/herem or Saviours' Day at all relevant!? Mhiji (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete because it is utter WP:NONSENSE since every religion has its own views of who or what God is and how God should be named. In fact this template violates WP:NPOV because it conveys an exclusive view of God's name, mostly based on one vague type of Christian thinking (mostly found of WP, but hard to find in real life!) There is no "one way" to refer or call or name God in the broader Judeo-Christian tradition, see for the varieties of names as an example in Names of God in Judaism. This template is a blunder and must go ASAP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi IZAK, and thank you, incidentally, for your example that showed me how to correctly list this for wider discussion. In general, we do use self-identifications from religious adherents for how to describe God or gods. But this is not that; the use of these two templates is solely restricted to the case envisioned, namely, primary or secondary sources making clear which of three Hebrew words has been translated. (The third word is "Adon", conventionally translated "lord" in lowercase, to distinguish from the specific form "Adonai".) If you see "the LORD" used in any other case feel free to change it to "God" or what fits the context. I think Kevinkor2's data below is conclusive, particularly in that, in the MOS archives discussion, those against small caps committed the same misunderstanding, presuming that this indicates a special reverence today rather than a translation convention that has hundreds of years of very broad usage. JJB 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and update MOS. This is a typing-aid template used to keep the Tetragramaton (the personal name of God used in the Hebrew Bible) rendered consistently across Wikipedia. I believe that if this typing-aid template is deleted, individual articles will once again splinter into having inconsistent styles to render the Tetragramaton. Also, if we keep this template, I suggest we update WP:MOS so that it is recommended for use.

By the way, thank you, Mhiji, for notifying me! I appreciate it!

Here is information about {{LORD}}:

• I created it on April 3, 2007.
• At that time, I found four ways to represent the Tetragramaton (the personal name of God used in the Hebrew Bible):
  • LORD
  • <small>LORD</small>
  • {{smallcaps|1=Lord}}
  • L<span style="font-variant:small-caps;text-transform:lowercase">ORD</span>
• Discussion in that I started in WikiProject Christianity before making wholesale changes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Archive 1#LORD
• Initial changes were accepted by the editors working on their respective pages:
  • Christian views on magic (April 3, 2007)
  • Names of God (April 3, 2007)
  • Book of Genesis (April 10, 2007)
  • Monotheism (April 10, 2007)
  • Messiah (April 10, 2007)
  • List of Jewish prayers and blessings (April 10, 2007)
• After I created the template, it has undergone several changes:
  • September 20, 2007 (minor change)
  • October 12, 2007 (change to resulting HTML code (same as what would be produced by the sc template at that time))
• Currently, it is used in 49 mainspace articles.

I found one place in MOS talk where there was debate on the proper capitalization of the Tetragramaton:

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 26#Exclusion of vowels when referring to deities (September 5 - 12, 2005)

Also, please refer to the following sections of Tetragramaton:

• Tetragrammaton#Occurrences and uses
• Tetragrammaton#In Modern Judaism
• Tetragrammaton#Bible translations into English

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• keep. It's useful. It's widely used. Don't fix it if it isn't broken. If it is broken, fix it, don't afd it. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It isn't/wasn't broken...? Mhiji (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary, redundant with Template:Sc, and a violation of Wikipedia conventions and the Manual of Style. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as religion-cruft --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete blatantly POV style convention for rendering a religious term. oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Imzadi 1979 → 06:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete in direct violation of the MOS and POV. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as POV and a violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. MarnetteD | Talk 11:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've notified everyone who contributed to this discussion.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There are actually 2 sections of the Manual of Style that would need to be changed for this to be compliant. MOS:ALLCAPS and the section on religious capitalization. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Non-withstanding the MOS, completely redundant to {{sc}}. It saves three letters when typing; why is a template needed? — Edokter • Talk • 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the standard English rendering of the Hebrew יהוה and has been for hundreds of years. Refusing to use it ignores the consensus usage of reliable sources. Ozob (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced that we need to follow the conventions of Biblical sources when quoting them, especially where the reason for doing so is a religion-specific convention regarding the speaking of the name of $DEITY. Nevertheless, if these are currently being used in subst format then deleting them is counterproductive. I would rather that existing instances of {{sc|LORD}} and {{sc|GOD}} were de-substituted in that case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:GOD

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

The result of the discussion was maintain status quo at this time. This discussion is much less related to this template and much more related to the Manual of Style, and therefore further discussion should be happening there. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (capital letters)#smallcaps and LORD for said discussion. No prejudice toward any future discussion over this template resulting from any outcome over there. JPG-GR (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:GOD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Redundant to Template:Sc. Mhiji (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, nom is contrary to guidance at Template:Sc, There are dedicated templates {{LORD}} and {{GOD}} for the scriptural use. They are equivalent but streamlined. Preferably do not use {{sc}} for this. Nominator has begun changing a number of occurrences from "{{LORD}}" to the template's content, "L<SMALL>ORD</SMALL>"; due to lack of edit summaries, it is unclear whether GOD is "unused" due to similar changes by the nominator, or just due to attrition. Though GOD is less used, it should be retained for the significant number of cases where it translates the tetragrammaton as an alternative to LORD, both in primary-source quotes and in commentary. It appears to me unreasonable to expect editors to switch either to "G<SMALL>OD</SMALL>" or to "{{sc|G|OD}}" when the phrase is needed, as it surely would be in various places in WP (I dispute the idea that "unused" conveys the big picture here). Even if unused it is natural to permit the widespread users of "LORD" to test "{{GOD}}" and find the concept useful, rather than to have to know about the two alternatives; so even if the assertion is true there is no need to delete a template on some decluttering argument. How many "otheruses" templates do we have again? JJB 22:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The doc at {{Sc}} is irrelevant... It's not a policy or guideline, it's just one editor has added that line. Are LORD or GOD even consistent with MOS?!?! I can't find anywhere where it says we should be using this format, so surely it shouldn't be used... The section which mentions deities says that they should be named as "God, Allah, Freya, the Lord" etc. Mhiji (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (I'm sure everyone will notice anyway, but) I've nominated Template:LORD for deletion too, here. Mhiji (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • My complete response is there, earlier on this page. JJB 02:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —JJB 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —JJB 03:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete because it is utter WP:NONSENSE since every religion has its own views of who or what God is and how God should be named. In fact this template violates WP:NPOV because it conveys an exclusive view of God's name, mostly based on one vague type of Christian thinking (mostly found of WP, but hard to find in real life!) There is no "one way" to refer or call or name God in the broader Judeo-Christian tradition, see for the varieties of names as an example in Names of God in Judaism. This template is a blunder and must go ASAP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete because it is unused.--Kevinkor2 (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

To IZAK, thanks again, please see prior nom above. Kevin, I would agree as far as saying the proper use of this one is pretty rare (unlike the other TFD). I'd still keep due to my reading of WP:PRESERVE and Dbachmann's statement that it ain't broke; unused is not useless, and I'm deliberately not investigating why it's unused at this instant. However, if community consensus deletes this one and not the other, I don't think forcing editors to use the more complex and manifold templates (as you documented above had been done previously with LORD) would be nearly as significant a burden as in the other case. JJB 15:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• keep. It is idiotic to turn this technical discussion into one on religion. {{GOD}} is a substitute for {{sc|God}} just like {{IAST}} is a substitute for {{transl|sa|IAST|...}}. If people find this useful, just let them use it. --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, as unused. Rehman 01:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as unused and easy to replicate with GOD. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Unnecessary and a violation of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Kaldari (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as religioncruft. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as encouraging a particular, unusual style convention used in contravention of both NPOV and the MOS. oknazevad (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Imzadi 1979 → 06:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete in direct violation of the MOS and POV. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as a violation of Wikipedia's Manual of Style MarnetteD | Talk 11:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Non-withstanding the MOS, completely redundant to {{sc}}. It saves three letters when typing; why is a template needed? — Edokter • Talk • 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is the standard English rendering of the Hebrew אֲדֹנָי, and like small-caps LORD, has been in use for hundreds of years. The consensus of reliable sources is to use it. It's pretty rare and I think having a template for it might be overkill, but I don't see any harm. Ozob (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Minute

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

The result of the discussion was redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Minute (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused duplication of Template:MINUTE. Redirect to that. Mhiji (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment you could redirect it without a discussion at TfD... 65.95.15.116 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Cleanup: Delete this nom, and move "MINUTE" to "Minute", leaving a redirect. Rehman 01:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment why would you rename "MINUTE" ? It matches the allcaps of the related templates, and is similar to the allcaps of the MediaWiki magicwords. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Rcl

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

The result of the discussion was subst and delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Rcl (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Only transclusion is on the creator's user page. Substitute and delete. Mhiji (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unused, seems quite unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 17:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Button

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

The result of the discussion was keep as under construction with no prejudice to revisiting the issue in the future. JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Button (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• This appears to be a generalisation of Template:PlayStation key press. 134.253.26.4 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, unused because still in development. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, move to user space. Mhiji (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: If it takes too long to develop, then userfy. Else developing this way is ok. You may use {{under construction}}. Rehman 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Business icon2

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Business icon2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as unused and unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:10TeamRR

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:10TeamRR (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Something like this can just be made manually. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:R help

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

The result of the discussion was keep. It is safe to say that the utility of this page has been sufficiently proven, therefore delete is not an option. While the argument to move said page is compelling, I'm also compelled to believe that moving this template might hamper the efforts of the everyday editor who is used to referring to it. While keeping this page where it is is likely a violation of the spirit/purpose/whatever of the template namespace, leaving it where it is causes no problems. JPG-GR (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:R help (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Content already covered in Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Shouldn't be in template namespace anyway, so I think a redirect is inappropriate. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Unused, unnecessary. Don't redirect as would be cross-namespace. Mhiji (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Please forgive me, because I find this to be a very useful reference, and I fail to understand how anyone can make such a sweeping statement as "Unused" without actually knowing if it really is unused. Seems like I'm always coming across REDIRECTs that need Rcats, and if I'm not certain which Rcat(s) is appropriate, I go directly to {{R from}}, which redirects to {{R help}}, to find out. I view this reference as a handy shortcut for Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages, and this is why editor Dispenser created this page in the first place. His creation comment back in 2008 was "Should've created this a long time ago, would've made searching for the template much easier." Happiest of holidays to you all!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

When I said it was unused I meant it is unused as a template (that there are no transclusions of it). If some people do find it useful there's no reason not to keep it in one form or another, however it should not be in template space - quite simply, its not a template. The content does seem to be the same as at Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages but is laid out in a different order. If the way Template:R help is laid out is deemed to be more useful, perhaps the Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages could be laid out in the same way instead? I don't think alphabetical order is best for this type of thing - it would be better laid out sorted by function similar to how Template:R from is and how Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup is laid out. Or perhaps this could be moved to user space? But definitely shouldn't be in template space. Mhiji (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Profound apologies, Mhiji. This is most certainly a template, and indeed it is a master template. For my explanation, please see my response to editor Bsherr below. Placing this template anywhere else will deteriorate its utility, a utility that is worth quite a bit to those of us who use it often.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep until MediaWiki has link/template name completion built in by default or a good template chooser. It was more useful originally as you could start typing {{R from}} and preview to view a list of template. Anyway, it is hard enough to find templates as it is without needing to making it harder. — Dispenser 04:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and make usable. If you enter parameter 1, it should go to the proper choice, if you don't enter parameter one, it functions as currently. 65.95.15.116 (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question Since people seem to find this useful, I'd like to know where the advantage over Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages is. If there is one, the page should perhaps be moved to WP namespace and interlinked with the other list (as "short form" and "long form" or similar). But 65.95.15.116's is also an interesting idea. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I just reached {{R help}} via a redirect from {{R from}}; I was searching for "R from" as a way to find the list of R templates. Since I quickly ended up exactly where I wanted to be, I'd suggest keeping it as is. A small part of me sympathizes with the cross-namespace concern, but the usefulness of getting the help I wanted as quickly as possible outweighs that affront. For the long term, perhaps Wikimedia Usability Initiative could research the issue and come up with something that doesn't sacrifice usability for elegance. 67.100.126.232 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I appreciate the arguments that it's useful, but it's not a template. Can anyone refute that? --Bsherr (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me, Bsherr. This is most certainly a template. It was created and designed as a MASTER template. To illustrate the importance of this, I'll use my own experience as an example. My WP search field is up at the top of my browser just to the right of my URL field. All I have to do is type the letter "t" in the WP field and a list of several articles that start with "t" are shown within a dropdown list. Just above all those articles are several templates that I use most often (rather intuitive don't you think?). And at the very top of this most-used list is Template:R from. So all I need do is type the letter "t" in the search field, click on the top choice, Template:R from, and I'm quickly rushed to the page herein discussed (remembering that Template:R from is redirected to Template:R help).

Editor Dispenser designed this template as a master template to quickly get editors to where they want to be. It is a shortcut of obvious worth to those of us who use it frequently.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should have defined what is a template. From Help:Template: "A template is a page created explicitly for transclusion – the process of including the contents of one page within another page." Is this a template? If so, how? --Bsherr (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits#Tagging, where a "master template" is defined as a template "with nested parameter calls, or used to manage other templates".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  19:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Correctly labeled master templates, like Template:WPBannerMeta and Template:Db-meta, themselves meet the definition of a template. Please prove that this is a page created explicitly for transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that this page was created not for transclusion, but for its usefulness to editors. As the above definition of master templates states, a template can also be created to "manage other templates". Please keep in mind that the definition you cited above is found on a "Help" page, not on a "policy" nor even a "guideline" page. Therefore the definition, which you seem to think is of far more importance than the usefulness of this master template, is there to serve as a helping hand for people who want to learn the basics about templates— nothing more, nor less. So, it is sincerely hoped that it will be this template's usefulness, its functional helpfulness, instrumentality and practicality, that will serve as the most important reasons to Keep this master template.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a master template, because it's not a template. If you're unsatisfied with the Help page I provided, WP:Namespace addresses what goes in each namespace, and this does not qualify to be in the template namespace. If it's useful, then move it to the help namespace and use a cross-namespace redirect. But it cannot stay in the template namespace because it is not a template. --Bsherr (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Bsherr, it's not a template or master template because it's not created for transclusion (per Paine). As the name is useful to some users, as Paine and 67.100.126.232 have described, and they feel passionate about using it, then it's probably worth using that name (Template:R from) as a cross-namespace redirect. But this is a help page - it should either be moved to the WP or Help namespace or deleted. As some users find it helpful, we might as well just move it to the WP or Help namespace. Although then there would be duplication as we would have this page as well as Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Most (if not all - I've not checked all of them) of the other template pages (see here) are not set out in alphabetical order, but instead by function, so I don't see why this one should be any different. Therefore how about replacing the content of Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages with the content from this template and adding any content which is not included (basically I'm saying merge the two pages, but have it ordered by function rather than alphabetical), deleting Template:R help and using Template:R from as a cross-namespace redirect? Mhiji (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• We'll have to agree to disagree fellow editors. This is a keeper because its usefulness far outweighs any definition problems it might have in your opinion. In my opinion it is a special-case master template designed to manage the most useful and most-used Rcats. Putting it anywhere else will decrease its utility, and once again editors would find themselves spending extra time hunting down the right Rcat. Only those editors who have had to hunt, only those editors who spend some of their time adding Rcats to Redirects, could fully understand how big an error it would be to delete this master template!

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  03:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Again, it's not a "master template"! Did you understand what I meant? I was saying basically we move this but keep Template:R from as a redirect to it. Therefore, you'd still be able to access it by going to Template:R from as you do at the moment. Do you have any objections to that? Mhiji (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither moving this page nor repeating ourselves serves any purpose. I've justified my opinion, and I leave the outcome in capable hands.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  05:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I've read that CNRs are still moderately controversial, and that presently the general consensus is to delete newly created CNRs. If this is so, then redirecting {{R from}} and {{R help}} to another namespace would definitely be undesirable!

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  08:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I realise CNRs are undesirable per my first comment above. I'm a bit confused why your now concerned about CNRs but not at all bothered about something being in completely the wrong namespace?! Mhiji (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ironic that I must DITTO my previous statement about how repeating ourselves serves no purpose. It is obvious, editor Mhiji, that we disagree regarding whether or not this master template is in the correct namespace. From the looks of all the "Keep"s in this section, there is no consensus to delete, but I don't get to make that decision. So as I said, I leave the outcome in Admin's capable hands.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  19:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's ironic that again I must say, it's not a master template. The number of keeps or deletes is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Admins make decisions based on arguments. As yet, you have not provided any constructive argument as to why this should be in template space. You've just repeatedly said that it's a "master template". Why? It can't be a master template, because it isn't a template (I'm not going to explain why again... Bsherr has and I have as well, it's all up there ^^^). The section you quoted about tagging is irrelevant...? If you look further up that same page at Wikipedia:Transclusion_costs_and_benefits#Double_transclusion it explains what is means by the term "master template". This is where "we transclude one page in another, and then transclude that page in a third". I agree repeating ourselves serves no purpose - we're just going round in circles. If you have a constructive argument to back up your position, then please do share it. If not, we'll just leave it at that. Mhiji (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you brought up that link. That section is an explanation of "double transclusion", "triple transclusion" and "multiple transclusion", and that's all it is. It's odd that you don't expect interested readers to see the second paragraph and how it begins: "Some master templates are . . ." Does this not leave the definition of "master template" open to include other definitions? It must... because the so-called "irrelevant" passage about tagging that I cited previously that added to the definition of "master template" retains its relevancy whether someone thinks it's relevant or not.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As you saidimplied when you said that the term is open to a number of definitions ("Does this not leave the definition of "master template" open to include other definitions? "), there is no definition as to what a "master template" is (presumably because the writers of that essay thought that it was obvious what they meant - obviously not everyone has understood what they were trying to say). And really it's rather self explanatory what is meant by master templates and subtemplates.... see here and here. The term "master template" is not really even ever used on Wikipedia - a simple search shows that no-one really uses the term, it's only really used in that essay. Regardless, however you interpret it, that essay doesn't prove anything... It's not a policy or guideline, it's "the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". I'm sure you'd agree (please tell me if I'm wrong), whatever you define as a "master template" (not that it actually matters), it has to be a template. If it's not a template, it can't be a "master" template. Again (I know I'm repeating myself again - sorry it's just I feel I have to for you to actually respond to any of the issues I've raised), if you have a constructive argument to back up your position (to keep the template in template space), then please do share it. Mhiji (talk) 21:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to feel like a last word freak. But everytime you respond, you write things that are either half-truths or not true at all. And it's getting old. I did not say that there is no definition for "master template". Indeed, I pointed out one definition, and you pointed out another. The fact that the definitions are in an essay is a moot point. They are still definitions of a device used on Wikipedia, the "master template".

You seem to be trying very hard to sway me. It's not my job to sway you, and it's not your job to sway me. We state our opinions and move on. It's time to move on. Please respond, because I never like getting the last word in. But unless you specifically ask me to answer you, this is my last word on the matter.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  02:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I do apologise, you're right, you didn't say that explicitly (I've corrected it now). Just stating your position is worthless. Again, if you have a constructive argument to back up your position, then please do share it. Otherwise we'll just leave it there. Mhiji (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way Paine (and anyone else who currently uses this template), if you use Twinkle it adds a "Tag" button which brings up a list of all of the redirect categories (very similar to the Template:R help page) and you can add the category with just one click. I'd definitely recommend checking it out. Mhiji (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep – Useful template and reference, and CNRs are usually deleted. —mc10 (t/c) 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:CFR Line 200

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:CFR Line 200 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 300 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 400 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 500 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 600 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 700 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 800 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 900 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:CFR Line 1000 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary templates. Mhiji (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

All of these templates are used in their respective article. And what do you mean about not being necessary? BineMai 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't know whether they have in fact ever been used or not, but we do know that none of the above is currently transcluded on any page; see Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates and search there for the particular template names. HeyMid (contribs) 15:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

These templates are all used in another template Template:Căile Ferate Române main lines. BineMai 15:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but they've been substituted into that template rather than transcluded. Since this has been done, is there any reason we need to keep them as individual templates? If any changes need to be made to them, the changes can be made at Template:Căile Ferate Române main lines. Mhiji (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok good point. BineMai 18:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Blanked unsourced BLP

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

The result of the discussion was speedy delete both, per the T2 criteria (non-admin closure). HeyMid (contribs) 14:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Blanked unsourced BLP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template's idea is to blank unsourced BLPs for an indefinite period of time, instead of prodding them (which means that they are deleted one week later, if they are not sourced during that time). Per the WP:AN/UNBLP discussion, there is no clear consensus as to whether unsourced BLPs should be blanked. I therefore suggest deleting this template. If this template is deleted, I suggest that also the {{Unsourced BLP flagged}} template is deleted. HeyMid (contribs) 16:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. While not every unsourced BLP need nor should be blanked, there may be situations involving unsourced negative material for which blanking may be appropriate. I'd be inclined to leave this in the toolbox, but to edit the template and write documentation that makes it clear that this action is not the norm. What do you think? --Bsherr (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Since the discussion I linked to above, AFAIK it hasn't been transcluded again. I'm not sure whether keeping templates that have a purpose which isn't supported by consensus is a good idea. HeyMid (contribs) 16:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Delete. I don't think the discussion you link to is on point for any blanking, only for mass blanking. But there's nothing in the BLP policy that mentions blanking as a remedy, so that's a reason to delete it. That should also render it eligible for speedy deletion under criterion T2. I'll identify it as that too. --Bsherr (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• I created that when I discovered that a certain admin was deleting unsourced BLPs, because I thought undeleting+blanking is preferable to undeleting+creating a massive dramastorm on ANI. I'd like to think that it did make it less dramatic (may be not). Don't really care whether it gets deleted or not now. T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have speedy deleted this on criteria T2. If an article needs to be (mostly) blanked, it can be edited if anyone feels the need to do this. Total blanking should only be a prelude to a speedy delete. Well may be other reason such as possible copyright infringement, followed by deletion or restoral if there was not a problem) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox radio station

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

The result of the discussion was No consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox radio station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox broadcast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox radio station with Template:Infobox broadcast.
Propose merge Infobox radio station into Infobox broadcast. It seems these templates are sufficiently similar such that they can each take advantage of their overlap in a merge. Infobox broadcast may have always been intended to take over all broadcast media, but it needs a few more fields from Infobox radio station to meet that goal. Bsherr (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• I would have all the same fields available if they were merged. Don't want to leave anything out that could be useful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree fully. --Bsherr (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge while preserving all the fields, as suggested above. ThemFromSpace 01:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as the "broadcast" infobox seems strongly designed for television stations and will require extensive revision (not merely " a few fields") to meet the somewhat different needs of radio stations. I see no proposed benefit to such a merger. - Dravecky (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The notion that extensive revision is required is very exaggerated. Currently, the Infobox broadcast template can accomodate two-thirds of the parameters in Infobox radio station. Each template currently has thirty parameters. A merger of the two would only require forty parameters, ten more than current. The benefit of the merger is the efficiency gained in the introduction of template improvements—both television and radio stations can benefit from template improvements that are presently installed on one or the other. For example, radio stations will immediately benefit from Infobox broadcast's city/location control feature. As future improvements are introduced, both will benefit. --Bsherr (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The notion that editing two templates is more onerous than replacing thousands of infoboxes for little actual gain and significant complexity and confusion going forward is even more exaggerated. - Dravecky (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The template transclusions can be updated easily using User:SporkBot or User:BsherrAWBBOT. So, actually, a future of needing to edit and keep consistent two templates is more onerous than using bots to replace existing transclusions. --Bsherr (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd add also that another benefit is that information in infoboxes for TV and radio will have the same labels where fields are the same, will be presented in the same order, and will have the same general appearance. This consistency of presentation is asthetically preferable. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge to the broadcast infobox. - User:Supergabbyshoe] 19:02, 10 December 2010 (PST)
• Oppose There is no benefit to this at all as both the television and radio templates meet completely different needs like shares, webcasts, translator stations and HD Radio, and adding all of these fields to the broadcast template will create an unwieldy and complex template which is already large enough as it is. Nate • (chatter) 12:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • False. Both television and radio have in common every parameter you just identified: Both TV and radio use broadcast relay stations (translators, repeaters). Both have share data. Both may have webcasts. And both may have analog and digital stations. --Bsherr (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
    • TV stations never have webcasts except for their minor subchannels (which are unlinkable since they're usually Flash video or a WMV link), the TV box currently has no share data, and there are no virtual frequencies for radio stations, because their digital frequencies are transmitted via their sideband on their existing channel. I stand by my reasoning. Nate • (chatter) 19:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Regarding webcasts, would an example of a major station with a webcast disprove your claim? --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Regarding share data, is there a reason not to implement it for TV stations? --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Regarding virtual channels, this is the first time you've mentioned this parameter. Not every parameter need apply to both. See for example Template:Infobox settlement or Template:Infobox person. But for this particular parameter, I would point out the existence of Virtual_channel#Digital_radio, so at least someone appears to be incorrect. --Bsherr (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia Television Stations Project has generally not linked at all to television webcasts because their availibility varies wildly, along with different file formats. Web streaming of radio is much easier since it's either just MP3, Windows Media, or in a few cases now, Real Media. TV webcasts are usually for only breaking news events and 24/7 rolling weather and traffic data and are in several formats, including Flash, UStream, Brightcove, Windows, Real, and many others. It would be too clumsy at all to maintain a web TV parameter, not to mention the fact that generally the TV stations do not want direct links to streaming in the first place outside of their sites.
        • Meanwhile, we only include Nielsen ratings data for television stations only if it's sourced by a newspaper or industry media article, and only in prose. Arbitron has the sense to link their data easily, but Nielsen is much more protective of it; we had to pull mentioning their defined television markets at their request because of a copyright violation. We're on pins and needles with them enough right now, and to add rating/share data (never mind how it can vary incredibly through the day) is asking for trouble with them.
        • Finally your question about virtual channels, the radio station project has usually focused on making that prose rather than templated, and it's not even in the city station templates. HDTV is an established technology along with subchannels, while right now HD Radio isn't, and right now it remains both on a sideband of the analog channel and is just a step from the regular frequency. At this point it should remain how it is in the template, and a parameter can be added for it in the future. Nate • (chatter) 10:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see the utility in combining the two. While television stations and radio stations have lots of things in common, a single template to handle both seems too homogenized. While I am generally for using a more general template to in the place of a handful of lesser used ones, neither the radio nor television infoboxes are "lesser used." Combining Red Delicious Apples and Granny Smith Apples makes sense. These are Red Delicious Apples and Florida Oranges. JPG-GR (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose The only real similarity between the two is that they broadcast over the airwaves. Having worked in both genres over many years, they are two completely different animals and should be treated as such. One problem I see already: Frequency, or channel? By the time you do two infoboxes incorporating each of those, you might as well have the two separate categories. --Manway (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fully two thirds of the fields are exactly the same. Doesn't that demonstrate that they're similar? --Bsherr (talk) 04:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The issue with that point would be this - why are there so many infoboxes for people. A human being is a human being, and most of the fields in those infoboxes are similar. Yes, yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF, but one can't argue for one and against the other rationally, not in my view. JPG-GR (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• OpposeThe Infobox radio station template works well for us in WPRS & to switch over to another template seems like too much work for too little result. The current radio infobox has been refined as needed. It's not broken so there's no need to "fix" it.Stereorock (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum: The Infobox Broadcast template has no place for A.M. transmitter power (A.M. stations are not measured in "effective radiated power" like F.M. & T.V. signals are, but instead with "transmitter power output").Stereorock (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment to Stereorock: There is the "wattage" field which works just as good. The "ERP" field is for the FM stations, but largely goes unused. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Uh, actually the erp field is used in thousands of FM station infoboxes and should be used in all of them. - Dravecky (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the correction. :) I haven't seen it in use on the ones I run into (mostly in my "area" of editing), hence my comment above. Please disregard my above comment as incorrect. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note to Closing Admin - It should be noted that the link on {{Infobox Radio station}} does not properly link to this discussion (it links to [1]) and as someone who has in the past routinely cleaned this page, it's not exactly fun to navigate. JPG-GR (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:U-Kiss

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:U-Kiss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:U-KISS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not much navigation with only one or two links. If not deleted should be merged. Mhiji (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete both, doesn't seem useful. Rehman 11:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's a copy-paste move. I've tagged it accordingly. --Bsherr (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, there's no need for navigation templates with only a couple of blue links. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Australian Now! series

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Australian Now! series (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. Redundant to Template:NOW music albums. Mhiji (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Creator notified. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, as unused. Rehman 01:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Parachutes

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Parachutes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dewaar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Inquilaab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kashmakash (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete per all of the arguments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_6#Template:Dookie. Mhiji (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Creators are all either banned or blocked. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, per above. Rehman 01:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Wholly inappropriate contribs from a user clearly established to Not having Gotten It. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 03:07, 15 December 2010 (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.

December 8

Template:Wildlife of Norway

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Wildlife of Norway (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was copied from the Template:Wildlife of India template, and the links still point to India-related topics. Simple editing could make this template useful, if only the named articles existed for Norway, but for the most part, they do not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 02:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep sorry but the template not is useless, is just constructed, one moment please :-) --Jackson Harrison (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom plus the fact that the creator just insisted on getting blocked as a sockpuppet. Favonian (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per favonian Kittybrewster ☎ 19:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:WonderPets

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WonderPets (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Remove the cast, which shouldn't even be in this template, and it navigates no more than three articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. When the cast is removed its useless. Mhiji (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Zulapatrol

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Zulapatrol (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too soon. Remove the cast, which shouldn't be there in the first place, and this template navigates absolutely nothing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. When the cast is removed its useless. Mhiji (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Current tennis tournaments

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Current tennis tournaments (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Current tennis tournaments/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is totally unused and nobody updates it. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Unused, and unnecessary. Mhiji (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, unnecessary. Rehman 02:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete just unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Add the documentation of the template. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:2008 ATP Race header

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:2008 ATP Race header (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is redundant to {{ATP Race header}}. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:2010 ATP World Tour Race to Barclays

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:2010 ATP World Tour Race to Barclays (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is completely unused and wasn't updated since July 2010. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, goes well into a table instead. Rehman 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Time ago2

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

The result of the discussion was Merge, but delete redirect. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Time ago2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template created in May that is identical to {{time ago}}, with one exception: The template does not display "ago" at the end. Compare 13 years ago (time ago) with {{time ago2|20101210005215}} (time ago2). It isn't really necessary to have the removal of "ago" as a separate template. I'm proposing redirection of {{time ago2}} to {{time ago}} and the incorporation of {{time ago2}}'s function as a parameter of {{time ago}} cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support feature merge - Yes, this is a vote, but the vote itself is all I really have to say, apart from the redirect.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 02:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge, but delete redirect. Since the template is fairly new, and considering its title, a redirect would be useless. Simply update the few links manually. Rehman 08:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Largest cities of the United States

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

The result of the discussion was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Largest cities of the United States with Template:Largest Metropolitan Areas of the United States.
I think we can capture all the data in one template. There is no need to have 2 different templates with such a similar scope and different data. Its confusing. Kumioko (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - Although being metropolitan (more urban/economic) is not the same thing as been largest (by size/population). It is still confusing to have two templates that serve almost the same purpose. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 22:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delete or merge, as said above, it's confusing to have two templates with nearly the same purpose. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge, per above. Rehman 09:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge as duplicative, can be consolidated. --Bsherr (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• I repaired the TfM tags on the templates, which were broken or inadequate. Please relist this discussion to provide a fair opportunity for interested users to comment. --Bsherr (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge so long as the discrete information of metropolitan areas versus cities is preserved. While a single template will likely see more use (and is thus to be preferred), metropolitan area can be a more practical measure than legal city limit and the merged template should provide both datasets. Citizen Sunshine (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge – templates serve the same purpose. —mc10 (t/c) 21:45, 12 December 2010 (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.

December 7

Template:Anon vandal

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

The result of the discussion was redirect. JPG-GR (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Anon vandal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose redirecting to Template:Uw-vandalism3. In actuality, the only part of this template that is specific to anonymous users is the last paragraph, which is redundant with adding Template:SharedIPAdvice on to a UW-vandalismX template. And the UW-VandalismX templates are superior to this template, because the series has gradations based on the faithfulness shown by the offending user. In contrast, this template assumes bad faith, and does so under the guise that it's the only template that exists to serve anonymous users. It's redundant to the UW templates. Bsherr (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep or redirect to Template:Uw-vandalism2. I think this is a useful one since it really encourages people to join, rather than just saying "you can join" like Template:SharedIPAdvice. I use it often. If it is deleted (and I hope not) I don't think redirecting to Template:Uw-vandalism3 is appropriate, since I'm sure many editors used it for new IP editors who wouldn't necessarily need a third-level warning, and could even discourage them from becoming useful editors. --AW (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • So you want to keep this template because it says "we invite" instead of "consider"? --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What if we changed Template:SharedIPAdvice to say "we invite"? --Bsherr (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy with a redirect to Template:Welcome-anon-vandal, I didn't know it existed. It's not on Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace --AW (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep in some form - a number of people seem to think it worth combining a "Don't be a vandal" message with a "Welcome Anon" message, and have done since 2005 --Rumping (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • What part of this template welcomes anonymous users? --Bsherr (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And what about redirecting to Template:Welcome-anon-vandal instead? --Bsherr (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Welcome-anon-vandal per Bsherr. That has a much better wording. Mhiji (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Welcome-anon-vandal as it does a better job at it, is less accusatory and more supportive, and thus has a (slightly) better chance of actually getting the anon to ever be an editor. --Muhandes (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Welcome-anon-vandal, which gives a better message than this template. —mc10 (t/c) 21:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Welcome-anon-vandal, as it is more... welcoming. --M4gnum0n (talk) 11:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Redirect to Template:Welcome-anon-vandal, this template not only has a better message for anonymous users, teach them what wikipedia is not, vandalism. D6h ^{What's on your mind?} 16:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:TTT

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:TTT (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Was previously used as a demos at Help:Template but not any more. Mhiji (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've notified the creator of this template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Not much point in this case as the creator hasn't been very active for a while now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 08:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant and not used. --Muhandes (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unused and so unnecessary. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as not useful. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 21:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Kōnan Line

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Kōnan Line (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, redundant to Template:Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line, last (non-bot) edit on 24 February 2007 (may fit criteria for speedy delete) EmanWilm (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wait, you are nominating the wrong file. {{Kōnan Line}} is much older than {{Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line}}. I suggest you delete the latter, and rename the earlier to the latter. Rehman 03:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Older does not necessarily mean better. I notified MChew who authored the new one and might want to comment on the difference/need. --Muhandes (talk) 07:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that two identical templates are redundant, and one should deleted. However, the Kōnan Railway operates two lines, and for the sake of uniformity, feel it would be better to keep the naming as {{Kōnan Railway Kōnan Line}} to match the template named {{Kōnan Railway Ōwani Line}}. --MChew (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Professional Colleges of North Malabar

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Professional Colleges of North Malabar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see the purpose of this template. It is not a navigational template, as none of the colleges are actually linked. It seems like WP:NOTDIRECTORY Muhandes (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Rehman 03:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox Channel Island parish

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Channel Island parish (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Infobox parish/settlement.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - useful overview, and also visually appealing. -MacRusgail (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Merge per nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and edit to become wrapper for Infobox settlement. --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, IMO there is nothing that useful to merge. Rehman 12:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This one is not that complicated and could be easily replaced. It would be far easier maintain without having yet another frontend/template. I have already made a few test edits to the ones in Jersey demonstrate the feasibility. I will, of course, revert/change these edits if the ultimate decision is to refactor the template, or keep it outright. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Redundant to Infobox settlement. Mhiji (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Cleanup-now

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup-now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant with {{subst:Dated|Cleanup}}. Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I suppose this was meant to save some typing. The Cleanup-now template must itself be subst-ed, so it saves one from typing only 3 characters vs. using {{subst:Dated|Cleanup}}, although {{subst:clnd}}, which redirects to this one, saves more. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be best if a single convention could be adopted. Either the Dated template, or Template-now. --Bsherr (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep I can't see a strong argument for deleting this typing-aid template. (Never mind that most people write {{cleanup}} and have a bot write the date; it's obviously better to allow or even encourage people to add the date themselves if they can.) The name is potentially a bit long for its purpose, but the redirect avoids that. --ais523 11:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • What about redirecting to Template:Dated? --Bsherr (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Actually, I recently put in a bot request for a bot that automatically adds dates to undated articles in maintenance categories. As soon as the bot gets up and running this template (as well as others like it) will become obsolete. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 00:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Per ais523, most people just add the template and let a bot do the rest. If a reliable bot is set up to quickly add the date after adding the template that would be great and when vgmddg's proposal is up and running there will be little need for templates like this whose sole purpose is for users (like me) who are too lazy to type out the whole |date= parameter - these users will soon just rely on the bot do the extra work. However I don't think it's a bad idea having a method to do this and I agree with Bsherr we need one convention. That should be the {{dated}} template. This can be used for all templates and if new templates are added at a later date, using {{dated}} means extra templates don't need to be created. We don't want to start a trend of creating an additional template for all of the cleanup templates! Just have the one. Mhiji (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:The Santa Clause

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete. CSD G4 JamesBWatson (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:The Santa Clause (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Take away the cast, which is not allowed in film navboxen, and you have only three articles to navigate among — the Laura & Neil Miller links point to other people not associated with the film. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G4, as this was already closed as delete in December 2008. 134.253.26.12 (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2010 (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.

Disambig templates

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

The result of the discussion was keep. JPG-GR (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Airport disambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Callsigndis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Disambig-Chinese-char-title (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geodis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hndis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hospitaldis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Letter-NumberCombDisambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mathdab (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:MolFormDisambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Numberdis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Schooldis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Species Latin name disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{disambig}}. The {{disambig}} template now has parameters to add a page to a particular category. This has the added benefit that one disambiguation page can be added to multiple categories. Mhiji (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also similarly delete Template:Hndis-cleanup as redundant to {{Disambig-cleanup|human name}}. Mhiji (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy keep The individual messages produced by these templates are very useful. Having individual templates in this case would be better than having to remember individual parameters which may not be supported. Ng.j (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Why speedy? Why do you think the individual messages produced are very useful? For example, how does this page benefit from having the hospital message rather than the standard disambig message? I don't see how this is useful or helps anyone, it just complicates things. Keep things simple. Mhiji (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • What you may not have realized is that some of these templates also provide sorting functions, which is very useful for projects or when you are looking for similar information. Deleting these templates will also unsort many dab pages. Many editors use these templates, and we should be adding more tools, not taking them away.Ng.j (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I have realised that... I'm not proposing just deleting them all together, but replacing them with {{disambig}} with the correct parameter instead. This still sorts the dab pages into the correct category so none of the functionality will be lost. Mhiji (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
        • The airport, hospital, school and human name templates all have parameters for sorting alphabetically within their categories. Merging would remove this, and although the categories could be added separately to the disambiguation pages, it seems unnecessary and would not be an improvement. Peter E. James (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
          • What do you mean they have parameters for sorting alphabetically within their categories? They just look like standard categories to me (so are in alphabetical order anyway). I am not suggesting adding the categories separately to disambiguation pages - as you said that wouldn't be an improvement at all. If you look at Category:Airport disambiguation at the top it says there are 3 methods to add a page to the category. Adding it manually, adding {{Airport disambig}} or adding {{Disambig|airport}}. I don't see any benefit in having both of the last two methods for this - this is quite simply duplication. We only need one method for this. Either the parameters should be removed from {{Disambig}} or we should get rid of {{Airport disambig}}. However having the parameters has the added benefit that up to ten of them can be used at the same time (if a number of the above templates where added then one article would have multiple dmbox messages - we don't want that), therefore this method is superior to using the templates above. Mhiji (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
            • For example {{hndis|name=Weber, Max}} - the "name=" exists in these templates but not in Template:Disambig. It looks like it's only used in the human name disambiguation pages (a good reason for keeping the templates used on those pages separate) - is there a way to check whether this option is used with the other templates? Peter E. James (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep all you could simply intermediate transclude the new {{disambig}} from these current usages. 65.94.45.167 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I understand what you're saying. So, for example, the code at {{Airport disambig}} could be changed to simply be {{disambig|airport}}? This would mean that users who want to use these template names can still do so. Mhiji (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep There seems to be no problem with the system as it is. I only usually edit hndis pages, and check the changes to this category every day. If it was just part of the enormous disambig category, I probably wouldn't bother, as it'd simply be too big a job. Also there are slightly different rules for hndis and disambig pages, e.g. no a/an/the at the start of the sentence fragment for hndis, but that's fine for disambig, etc. Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • But adding {{disambig|human name}} does exactly the same job - it still puts the page into the same category. I'm not suggesting deleting the categories. You wouldn't have to look through all of the disambig pages - that wouldn't change. Mhiji (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep all they provide sub categories for more individual topics and are good for categorising disambiguation pages. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 12:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Adding {{disambig|parameter name}} does exactly the same thing - it adds them to the same category so that would not change. I just don't see the point of having two templates which do the same job! Mhiji (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy keep This is a WP:SNOW keep. We're not going to replace every single {{hndis}}/related template on Wikipedia with {{disambig}} with a parameter. Just doesn't make any sense. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Why doesn't it make any sense? Mhiji (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep These are more precise than the generic dab template and very helpful when applicable. ThemFromSpace 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Especially geodis.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? Mhiji (talk) 15:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - the template encodes useful information. A very strong case for the benefits of a single parameterised template would need to be made to justify changing the 28 thousand pages that use hndis - TB (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• What about converting them to wrappers for {{disambig}}, keeping the categorization? --Bsherr (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That sounds good. I'd support this. Mhiji (talk) 18:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• And oppose speedy keep. Unless anyone can show why one of the criteria in WP:Speedy keep applies. --Bsherr (talk) 16:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral leaning to replace. If all the features and benefits of these templates are going to be preserved and the templates themselves remain functional via redirects, I see nothing wrong with replacing this wild variety with just one parametrized disambig. It is a step towards better standardization. On the other hand, if any functionality is going to be compromised during the conversion, then no, I'm not supporting this proposal.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 10, 2010; 18:39 (UTC)
• Keep, though maybe make into wrappers for {{disambig}} with appropriate parameters to reduce duplication of text. I have a decent number of edits (10,000+) and yet I'd never heard of {{disambig}} taking parameters until I read it just now. A straight delete, if it doesn't keep the expected behavior on long-standing template names, will cause a lot of confusion. --Closeapple (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep – Useful substitutes for {{disambig}}; wrappers would be nice if they were possible to implement. —mc10 (t/c) 21:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep all. Everything is working fine. No reason to replace. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep all--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 17:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Why? Mhiji (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:20-cen

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:20-cen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecesssary, against MOS (see WP:DATE#Typography) Mhiji (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Template consolidation is a good thing! --Born2cycle (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• This is the second nomination of this template. --Bsherr (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Muhandes (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unused, unnecessary template. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The previous nom was discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/July_2005#Template:20-cen. I doubt there are enuf occasions to use superscript ordinals ("first" thru "seventh" are IMO obligatory, and should obviate nearly all superscripted-th-ordinals that don't refer to centuries) that the apparent prohibition has ever been adequately thot thru: which reads more smoothly, {{20-cen}} art or 20th-century art? Was that question raised at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)?
  --Jerzy•t 00:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:54, 11 December 2010 (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.

December 6

Template:Family disambiguation

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

The result of the discussion was delete. If someone wants to recreate the title as a redirect, they are more than welcome. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Family disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Mhiji (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Template creator notified Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Just redirect it back to the original target it started out with: Template:Genus disambiguation. Could be useful as some use 'family' name as an alternate for 'Genus', i think. -- œ^™ 23:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Battledis

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

The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Battledis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Links to a category which doesn't exist. Mhiji (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Template creator notified Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 01:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Reference desk navigation

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

The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Reference desk navigation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Former Yugoslavia tallest buildings lists

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Former Yugoslavia tallest buildings lists (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Pointless navbox, because unlike List of tallest structures in former Yugoslavia it doesn't actually have a coherent theme (buildings tallest 1945-1991), it just links the tallest building lists of today. These are already navbox'ed through the European template, so this makes no real sense. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, what's there stopping ppl starting templates of tallest buildings in roman empire or Austrian empire, w/e. just useless piece of spam if you ask me, Yugoslavia is no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.53.72 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I created this template because I thought it would be useful for navigation. If most people don't think so, then delete it. --Local hero ^talk 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• This might be useful if it was converted to a Part of a series on sidebar. In its current state though I'd say delete. Mhiji (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Palestine foreign relations

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

The result of the discussion was delete. The contents of the template have already been merged into the article Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Accordingly, no future need for this template is apparent. JPG-GR (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The result of the discussion was merge. JPG-GR (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Palestine foreign relations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is a redundant template. The content was moved to Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority, and there are no other pages intended to hold a transclusion. The talk page contents were also moved to Talk:Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority/Recognition section and table, by the author (Alinor (talk · contribs)). I previously requested speedy deletion, but was opposed by an uninvolved user. Nightw 08:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I stated that "If there is no need anymore to synchronize content on both SoP and the Foreign relations articles, then yes - the template should be deleted", but here Eliko states that "there is still some need to synchronize content" and that some content is not yet moved. I think that we should wait for him to explain what content is not yet moved and what needs to be synchronized. Currently the duplicated content is not in the SoP page (it contains a link to the Foreign relations page instead) and I don't see any missing content (but haven't checked it line-by-line - so maybe there is something I missed). Alinor (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe he disagrees with the replacing of the content in the SoP page with a link to Foreign relations page - maybe he wants the content to remain on both pages (thus a need to synchronize). Let's wait for his input on these issues. Alinor (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The State of Palestine page is already long enough. Per convention, specific topics about the country (e.g., foreign relations) should be sectioned and summarised, with hatnotes to the Main articles for further information (see current). It won't ever contain the template's content. If the user disagrees with the content, then s/he should take it up on the talk page of the new location, but the template itself is redundant: it isn't being used, and won't be used in the foreseeable future. Nightw 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an "uninvolved user", as you can realize by looking at the history page. Anyways, 126th and 127th footnotes were not moved to the other article, nor the line to which the 127th footnote refers. Eliko (talk) 09:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, those were subsequent edits made after the move? Nightw 09:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• The template {{db-g6}} states that the content was moved by the "author", and this is incorrect.
• When any consensus (for deletion) was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be moved.
• When the template {{db-g6}} was presented, there was still some content to be moved.

Eliko (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're free to add to the article any information that you feel is missing. It's not a reason to oppose deletion of a template that is not being used, and won't be used in the future. There's only three questions relevant to this TfD:

1. Is the template being used? No.
2. Is the template going to be used? No.
3. Is the template needed for any other reason? No. Nightw 10:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eliko, what is the information that isn't moved? I put the 127th footnote (and re-arranged the table a little). I didn't noticed the 126th footnote, but you can add it, no problem. Anything else? Alinor (talk) 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

What you had added was reverted and deleted. See the current version of Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Eliko (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Your edits were made to an unused template after the move had been made. If you want to persist with those edits on the moved content, you're free to propose it on the talk page there. Otherwise, this looks like a case of WP:POINT: You're blocking a deletion of a redundant template because you haven't gotten your way on other pages. You're content to let it sit there and do nothing, until your edits get pushed through. Nightw 04:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who hides incovenient comments by archiving them. I'm recording everything. Eliko (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Re the "unused template": it's been used during the recent days - many times, including some footnotes (e.g. 127th footnote, and the line to which this footnote is linked) that were used as well.

2. Re the "redundant template". It's redundant only in the view of the user who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, however, it's not redundant at all, in the view of another editor, who thinks that it contains some important information (e.g. 127th footnote, and the line to which this footnote is linked).

3. Re the "move": The date of "moving" the content - has nothing to do with the proper procedure required for handling User:Night w' request. What really matters, is the following:

• When any consensus (for deletion) was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be moved, and this content hasn't been moved yet.
• When the template {{Tfd}} was presented, there was still some content to be moved, and this content hasn't been moved yet, because somebody - who has presented the template {{Tfd}} - prevents the move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.

4. Re the suggetsion "to propose on the talk page there" the rest of content which has not been moved yet: This is not me, but rather the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, who must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been moved (see above #3), rather than "proposed". Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "moved" (not only "proposed"), but they also try to prevent the full move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.

5. Re "blocking a deletion of a redundant template because of not having gotten one's way on other pages". First, It's redundant only in the view of the user who has presented the template {{Tfd}}. Second, the reason for rejecting this user's request, is not because of "not having gotten one's way on other pages", but rather because the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}} must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been moved (see above #3). Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "moved" (see above #3), but they also try to prevent the full move, by violating Wikipedia rules, and by hiding any clue of what they have done. I'm recording everything.

Eliko (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should try posting around for some help again? Nightw 10:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk to a user who violates Wikipedia rules. Eliko (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Merge. Let's send it into the holding cell as merge, and if there's anything that needs to be merged, it can be done, and then redirected. If not, it can just be redirected. --Bsherr (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Redirect the template? Where to?

About the merge - I posted the 126 and 127 notes (it seems that this is the non-merged content) at this talk page because Night w insists on prior discussion - but if Eliko refuses to discuss anything with him - I don't see how this will work.

My opinion is that there is no problem in using these sources and we can easily add them and this is fairly uncontroversial - but as it seems it may not be so. Alinor (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• note Eliko, if I understand correctly you accuse Night w of deleting/changing comments. This is a big accusation, so could you provide links to edit history showing this? Alinor (talk) 08:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, I think he's just referring to our discussion on my talk page, which I archived. Nightw 08:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, I was referring to a comment of mine, in which I proved (by direct links) that somebody had violated the three revert rule; Somebody here (not you) knows what I mean. Anyways, as far as the idea of "merge" (of 126th and 127th footnotes) is concerned, I support it as well, so we are now at least two unquestionable editors (and probably three), against one unquestionable editor who rejects that merge. Eliko (talk) 09:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so let's discuss it here - and postpone the template deletion for after a consensus is reached about the 126 and 127 footnotes inclusion. Maybe we should put some tag in the template that it is pending deletion after finalizing a merge (so any future changes by any user are made not in the template, but directly in the Foreign relations article). Alinor (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. so we are now two editors who support this idea. Who rejects it? Eliko (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an outcome. You've already moved the subsequent edits to the talk page for discussion. The template, on the other hand, which is what this nomination is for, is still unused, and, you both agree apparently, won't be used in the future. You're blocking the deletion of an unused template simply over a content dispute elsewhere. Whether or not consensus will be reached about those few edits under discussion is another matter; it doesn't make this template worth keeping. Nightw 09:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The template could have been deleted, only if the parties had agreed about its redundancy. However, not only no consensus has been reached upon this issue of redundancy, but also the template is still used, and probably will be used, unless it's merged (if ever) with the other article. Eliko (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean it is still used? Where is it being used? Your edits were made after the merge, and as you're aware, they're being discussed elsewhere. If a consensus is reached to add them, then they'll be added. Blocking the deletion of unused space because you're not getting your way on another article is plain WP:POINT. Nightw 12:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• The template:Palestine Foreign relatins, is used on this category page and also on this category page. Additionally, it has been used - by readers - during the recent days, many times.
• No merge has ever been carried out, because no proposal to "merge", has ever been agreed upon.
• When the idea of "merge" was proposed (by User:Bsherr on 9 december), there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet.
• When any consensus for deletion was achieved (if ever), there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet.
• When the template {{Tfd}} was presented, there was still some content to be merged, and this content hasn't been merged yet, because somebody - who has presented the template {{Tfd}} - prevents the merge, by violating Wikipedia rules.

Eliko (talk) 13:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It was merged in this edit, at 02:59, 28 November 2010. Any subsequent edits (all of which are being disputed elsewhere) can't be accounted for. If you want to add them to the new page, propose them on the talk page there. Stats for the template show very few views, most likely all editors considering the spike on 6 December, when the template was listed at TfD. Nightw 14:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to talk directly to a user who... Eliko (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• The date of "merging" the content - has nothing to do with the proper procedure required for handling User:Night w' request. What really matters is the dates I indicated above.
• Re the suggetsion "to propose on the talk page there" the rest of content which has not been merged: This is not me, but rather the editor who has presented the template {{Tfd}}, who must make sure that this article is redundant, i.e. that everything has been merged, rather than "proposed". Unfortunately, not only doesn't this editor try to make sure that the whole content has been "merged" (not only "proposed"), but they also try to prevent the full merge, by violating Wikipedia rules.

Eliko (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh*... Nightw 14:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:User Badjokes

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per G2. Mhiji (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:User Badjokes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:User NTCSNS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:User DNKHTMAUB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:User duh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that does not appear to have any encyclopedic value. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Userboxes should be listed at WP:MFD even if in template space (see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Header#What_not_to_propose_for_discussion_here). Mhiji (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Although Template:User duh isn't a userbox. Delete that as unnecessary and unused. Mhiji (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The first three have been sent to MfD. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, although not necessarily per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Infobox bus service

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

The result of the discussion was Merge. Bidgee has converted the two transclusions to the other template. Thank you! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox bus service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template has a limited number of transclusions, and is basically redundant to {{Infobox bus transit}}. My prior attempts to convert the uses of this template to {{Infobox bus transit}} were resisted due to the "bus transit" template being "Americanised". I believe that any WP:ENGVAR can be included in {{Infobox bus transit}} and the two could be merged. Although, it appears "bus transit" is already in use for both Australia and England, so it is unclear what is Americanised about the template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, I would like to see some of the features which Infobox bus service has (Hubs, Depots, Operating since and maybe Disability access), also Australia doesn't use Locale (Its location or locality not locale). I would have been nice if it was discussed (on my talk page) first rather then placed here. Bidgee (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Infobox bus transit already has hubs & depots. founded can be used as an alternative to operatingsince. Disability access is not there but could be added as a param. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge. Essentially duplicative. Doesn't seem to be any difference that can't be overcome by conscientiously merging the two. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge. Features of both can be accomodated in one. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Mhiji (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Merge - What's wrong with writing some prose, rather than stuffing an infobox with lists of Hubs, Depots and Routes? Parameters in an infobox should indicate how many of those exist rather than details. Use service_area rather than locale. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Nebula/Best Novel

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

The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nebula/Best Novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hugo/Best Novel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned succession templates, which could be replaced by a standard {{succession box}} if necessary. Plastikspork (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Pixar animated film chronology

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

The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Pixar animated film chronology (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused succession template. No significant edits since 2008. Plastikspork (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. This use of the succession box template is inferior to a navigation box. --Bsherr (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unused, per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Animation editors/doc

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

The result of the discussion was delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Animation editors/doc (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless documentation page that does not add any understanding to using the template. Usually these templates (e.g. Template:Theories of gravitation) would require no documentation. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons given by the nominator. --Bsherr (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Dookie

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Dookie (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not a common use of navigational boxes. Templates for entire track listings of albums are only useful if all songs on the album have articles such as {{Led Zeppelin IV}} or {{Pet Sounds}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. There are some album navboxes in which not every song has an article. - PM800 (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  But it's unnecessary. All of the articles which use it are singles and there is also the {{Green Day}} template on each one of those. The {{Green Day}} template also links to each of these articles too making this one redundant. What's the point of having 2 navboxes on the bottom of each article when we only need one?! Because of that it doesn't aid navigation it just complicates things. Mhiji (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  For the same reason, Template:Parachutes, Template:Dewaar, Template:Inquilaab and Template:Kashmakash should also be deleted. If not, we might as well make a navbox for every album! Mhiji (talk) 03:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all: Agreed as being unnecessary. The album article will contain all the links that are necessary, and that page will be linked to on every song page. Nightw 10:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  They're not nominated, so they cannot presently be considered. --Bsherr (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

  I've nominated the other 4 for deletion for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_9#Template:Parachutes. Mhiji (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: Redundant to {{Green Day}}. Navigation templates are not discographies (or, in this case, track listings). There are only 5 links, all of which are in the Green Day template, and the other song titles are unlikely to ever be linked as the songs do not pass the criteria for stand-alone articles. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Hmed

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

The result of the discussion was delete. Courcelles 08:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hmed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Doesn't make sense, since Wikipedia does not give medical advice. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as unused. Mhiji (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Template doesn't do anything or link to anywhere. It's purpose is so vague that it is clearly not necessary.--Kudpung (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unused and pretty useless too. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 03:24, 9 December 2010 (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.

December 5

Cricketer templates

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

The result of the discussion was Delete, but can be userfied upon request. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Cricketer templates list

Template:Ajit de Silva (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alan Hurst (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alan Knott (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alan Turner (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Allan Border (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Alvin Kallicharran (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Andrew Hilditch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Andy Roberts (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Anshuman Gaekwad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Anura Ranasinghe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Anura Tennekoon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ashley Mallett (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Asif Iqbal (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Asif Masood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bandula Warnapura (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Barry Hadlee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Barry Wood (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bernard Julien (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bishan Singh Bedi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bob Taylor (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bob Willis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Brian Hastings (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Brian McKechnie (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Brijesh Patel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bruce Edgar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Bryan Mauricette (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cecil Marshall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Charles Baksh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Chris Old (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Christopher Chappell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Clive Lloyd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Cornelius Henry (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:David Gower (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:David Heyn (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dayle Hadlee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dennis Amiss (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dennis Lillee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Derek Randall (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Derek Underwood (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Deryck Murray (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dilip Vengsarkar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Don Pringle (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Doug Walters (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Duleep Mendis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Eknath Solkar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ewen Chatfield (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Farokh Engineer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Frank Hayes (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Franklyn Dennis (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Frasat Ali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gary Cosier (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gary Gilmour (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gary Troup (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geoff Arnold (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geoff Dymock (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geoff Howarth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geoff Miller (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Geoffrey Boycott (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Glenn Turner (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Glenroy Sealy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gordon Greenidge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Graeme Porter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Graham Gooch (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Graham Yallop (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Greg Chappell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Gundappa Viswanath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hamish McLeod (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Harilal Shah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Haroon Rashid (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Hedley Howarth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ian Botham (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ian Chappell (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Imran Khan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Javed Miandad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Jawahir Shah (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Jeff Moss (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Jeff Thomson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Jeremy Coney (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Jitendra Patel (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Jameson (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Morrison (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Nagenda (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Parker (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Snow (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Valentine (cricket) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Vaughan (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:John Wright (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kapil Dev (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Karsan Ghavri (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Keith Boyce (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Keith Fletcher (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ken Wadsworth (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kevin Wright (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Kim Hughes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lalith Kaluperuma (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lance Cairns (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Lance Gibbs (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Madan Lal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Majid Khan (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mark Burgess (cricket player) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Martin Stead (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Max Walker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mevan Pieris (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Michael Tissera (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mike Brearley (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mike Denness (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mike Hendrick (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mohinder Amarnath (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mudassar Nazar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Mushtaq Mohammad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Naseer Malik (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Parbhu Nana (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Pervez Mir (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Peter Lever (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Phil Edmonds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Praful Mehta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ramesh Sethi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ranjit Fernando (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Richard Collinge (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Richard Hadlee (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rick Darling (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rick McCosker (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Robert Callender (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rod Marsh (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rodney Hogg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Rohan Kanhai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ross Edwards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Roy Fredericks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sadiq Mohammad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Samuel Walusimbi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sarfraz Nawaz (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Shiraz Sumar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sikander Bakht (cricketer) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Somachandra de Silva (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Srinivasaraghavan Venkataraghavan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Stanley de Silva (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sunil Gavaskar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Sunil Wettimuny (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Surinder Khanna (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tariq Javed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tony Greig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Tony Opatha (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Trevor Laughlin (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Vanburn Holder (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Viv Richards (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Warren Lees (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Warren Stott (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wasim Bari (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wasim Raja (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wayne Larkins (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Yunus Badat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Zaheer Abbas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Zulfiqar Ali (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary templates. None have any transclusions or links. Mhiji (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all, as well as subpages in each player template (eg. Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/1stclass, Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/bowl, Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/bat ‎and Template:Zulfiqar Ali/meta/dob). Template:Cricket Player, Template:Cricket Player List and Template:Cricket Player List Header also.

I think the idea was a good faith attempt at improvement but the structure is too convoluted for the average user to follow and is of only small benefit. 1975 Cricket World Cup squads and 1979 Cricket World Cup squads should revert back to simple tables. –Moondyne 04:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete It is probably a more efficient manner of doing things, once established - but it is not the way the Wikipedia works, or should work. Editing should be intuitive. I have enough problems trying to edit succession boxes and rail templates without expanding the concept too much further. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Per Moondyne delete the subpages and the other 3 templates as well. Mhiji (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi Guys - I strongly request not to delete this. I accept that it is a bit complex structure, but I can look to simplify that. The idea was to store static information about crickets in a single place and then transclude that using the Templates to show where ever needed. Practically every cricket tournament has either a section or linked page that contains the squad of the teams that took part and as someone who has been looking at it, there are multiple cases of this information being different in different pages.
    I took the idea for this from the way one of the more established templates Template:Infobox Election uses for the party color & party short name.
    If the problem is only the complexity, then perhaps I can discuss with you experts on how this can be simplified and I will make sure I change all of them. This is a passionate request...
    Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Basing it on a similar style to Country data (e.g. Template:Country data Australia) would be a little better as at least all the data for one person would be in one template. Not sure if date of birth needs ot be in every cricket squad article though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really see why they are necessary or useful. I don't think its sensible basing the approach on the way Template:Infobox election works as there are a relatively small number of parties, but there are hundreds of professional cricket players. This would mean creating a new template every time a new cricket player is involved in a tournament (and if the approach was used for other sports, every time a new sports person enters any tournament - literally thousands of templates). I suppose it would make sense to have a centralised record of player details if they would change over time and thus would need updating regularly (so that all the articles would not need to be updated separately) but these details are very unlikely to change so it seems unnecessary. Also I agree with WOSlinker, the player's date of birth doesn't need to be there. Although this would mean having to change every one of the templates separately... This is also a flaw with the method as any changes would need to be made to every template separately. Actually, thinking about it I'm not sure the other details need to be there either. If a reader wants to find out more information about a player (such as whether they are right- or left-handed or their bowling style) then they will click on the link to the relevant player article anyway. Also, any major changes like this should really be proposed at WT:CRIC first. Mhiji (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It was something I found interesting when I first started using Wikipedia to browse through the World Cup history etc. The World Cups used to have this data manually populated. I was simply trying to centralise it so that it doesn't need to be manually entered in every tournament and a change in single place would change it everywhere. Also, in the current design, if the dob needs to be removed from all pages, it only needs to be removed from the 3 main templates.
        Anyway, I accept your point about the number of players and recognise that this could end up mushrooming into a very large number if used as a precedent for other sports. In that regard, I accept that this approach is not that great.
        Thanks for the link to WT:CRIC - I tried looking for a place to bounce my idea off, but couldn't really find the right place (I was looking more at the Template-related projects rather than Cricket specific projects). Anyway, thanks for responding to me in much detail.
        Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for putting so much effort into improving Wikipedia. I know its soul-destroying when your hard work gets deleted and you would have spent many hours on this. –Moondyne 00:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll consider it a learning course.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:SA

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:SA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Hamlets in Suffolk

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hamlets in Suffolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There must be hundreds of hamlets in Suffolk, putting them all into one template would be unweildy and not at all useful Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. --Kudpung (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete unnecessary duplication already included in multiple infoboxes that are in each of the articles see {{Boxford}} {{Edwardstone}} {{Round Maple}} Gnangarra 11:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, such navigation template wouldn't be very useful. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 18:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Hamlets in Norfolk

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hamlets in Norfolk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are hundreds of hamlets in Norfolk and I see no use in putting them all in one template. This current one is far from complete. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete - Hamlets are too numerous to have any worthwhile function as a navigation or search aid. An English county or administraztive area could have thousands of hamlets.--Kudpung (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Nct

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nct (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, is redundant to Template:Cr. Mhiji (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Template contributor notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks for notification. With n substitute being clearly available I've not problem with it's removal. Earl CG (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Den

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Den (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, unnecessary template. Mhiji (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Template creator notified --Bsherr (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Mythological king of Sweden

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Mythological king of Sweden (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

In the process of cleaning up the category sort in articles transcluding this template, I found it easier to just orphan by substitution, since it automatically adds a cat, and it was otherwise impossible to sort the cats. Given that it was only transcluded on about 5 articles, and didn't really save any typing, I felt this was uncontroversial. It was also a bit inflexible, in that it could not be merged with other neighboring succession templates due its transclusion of the {{s-start}} and {{s-end}} templates. Hence, I now present this template for deletion. If my orphaning of this template is controversial, I am happy to revert these edits. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Naismith Award Winners Men

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Naismith Award Winners Men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Wooden Award Winners Men (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically hard coded versions of {{succession box}} which are orphaned and haven't had any significant edits since 2006. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Mhiji (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Rehman 02:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:IPNI

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

The result of the discussion was merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:IPNI (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Ipni (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:IPNI with Template:Ipni.
Duplication. Mhiji (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete {{Ipni}} as duplication. --vgmddg (look | talk | do) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:RomanCentury

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:RomanCentury (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

"18^th century" etc. is not the recommended style for centuries (see WP:MOS#Longer_periods). The template is not used anymore, and even if it would give MoS-friendly output ("18th century"), {{RomanCentury|18}} requires more keystrokes than simply "18th century". Markussep ^Talk 16:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per T2 and WP:MOS#Longer_periods. Mhiji (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete because it is useless and (thus) unused. But it is not a T2 candidate, because it does not "blatantly misrepresent" any policy. Thparkth (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remove superscript tag and subst all uses, per above. ―cobaltcigs 07:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • In fact there are none, so just delete. ―cobaltcigs 07:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing

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

The result of the discussion was ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject American thoroughbred racing (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything besides a couple user and Wikipedia space pages and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons

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

The result of the discussion was ummm, I think this is a nomination for a page that never existed, therefore procedural close. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Atlanta Falcons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This Project has been long dead. It does not link to anything and there is no need to keep it. Kumioko (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2010 (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.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 4 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 3

Old discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 2 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 1 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 28 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 25 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 24 Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 23

Completed discussions

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices

[[Category:Wikipedia templates|PAGENAME]]