Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 5 April 7 >

April 6[edit]

Template:Non-free Australian DoD[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free Australian DoD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used on four images, and in all four cases, the image doesn't meet the non-free content criteria. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:$[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete and salt. JPG-GR (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template violates the Manual of Style (see WP:$#Currencies). For any article not about a US-specific subject: "Fully identify a currency on its first appearance (AU$52);". For US-specific subjects: "the first occurrence may also be shortened and not linked ($34...)". So either a linked USD / US$ should be used (for which there is the template {{USD}}) otherwise an unlinked $ should be used. Arsenikk (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:RecStargate[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary template; minor characters are already linked from an article listed in the "Stargate" template, this just takes up more screen space for little benefit. Ckatzchatspy 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:NYRepresentatives[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete --Fritzpoll (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't object in principle to templates listing other members of a particular set, but this one (of US Representatives from New York) is much too big. The wiki-markup for the template is about 68Kb, and when converted to HTML, it may add twice that much HTML markup.

I was so astonished by the size of it that I copied the source to my own computer and processed the code to count the number of Congressmen listed here: I counted it at 1,909 congressmen, which is an order of magnitude bigger than any other template I have seen.

So this monster is bloating nearly 2000 pages, and even on its own it is approaching the size at which an article is labelled as too big.

It may be that this humunmgous template could be broken up into a dozen or more smaller ones, but in its current form it should simply be deleted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: template creator has been notified of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, but start to break up - Sorry, but the WP:SIZE issues are not convincing enough to delete. You do have a point, and this needs more attention from the community as to how to proceed with a break up, or how to simplify its organization and code (for example, using less complex syntax, and not including information expected to be in other templates in the same series). There is no deadline, but I do not think we should delete a clearly useful template without reasonable alternatives being available.--Cerejota (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I think that the size problems caused by this quite extraordinarily large template are serious to merit prompt action. The syntax of the template is quite simple, so there's nothing to be gained on that front: the problem is simply that by trying to list all 1,909 Congresspeople from New York, it is just far too big. (I have just checked the size of the HTML code generated by it: 163.2 KiB)
      I agree that this could be the basis of something useful, so what I suggest doing is either deleting it from mainspace, by moving it without a redirect to a sub-page of the user who created it ... or leaving it in Template space, but removing it from the 1,909 articles which it is currently bloating. Either way, it can then be used as the basis for smaller and more manageable templates.
      --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons and with the directions that Cerejota aptly stated above.—Markles 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of a larger category of Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes. It is the best attempt to convey analogous information in a similar format. I don't really know why people want to break it into multiple templates. A templates size does not impact a page much and breaking it up will necessitate that many individuals convey their info via multiple templates. It does not seem to make sense have large states have different formats than small states. Whatever precedent is set will affect all large states so we should tread carefully. I think it should be collapsed and fail to understand the bloating argument.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (I have struck out your vote. You, as the creator of the template, are biased, and should not vote on the issue. Kraxler (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
      • While it is uncommon to have two bolded "votes", it is common policy for a nominator to voice a single "vote". Thank you for unbolding your informal vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The template does appear to collapse by default, but that's not he issue. My concern is not the (admittedly huge) visual bulk of this template. See WP:SIZE#Technical_issues: "Even so, the total article size should be kept reasonably low, because there are many users that edit from low-speed connections. Connections to consider include dial-up connections, smartphones, and low-end broadband connections. The text on a 32 KB page takes about five seconds to load for editing on a dial-up connection, with accompanying images taking additional time, so pages significantly larger than this are not recommended."
      This template adds 163.2 KiB to each of the 1,909 articles to which it is attached, and that is a big problem for anyone who is not using a broadband connection. The principle if this sort of navigation template is fine, but the usual practice is to have a template carrying the links to the most directly-related similar articles, such as those representing the same district, with a prominent link to other lists. I know that some Congresspeople may have represented 2 or 3, or even 4 districts ... but that's similar to the situation that applies with sports teams, where usual practice is to have a template for each year's teams members rather than one huge template for everyone who over played for that team. If the reader wants to browse the rest of the list, it need be only one mose-click away, and there is no need to force-feed the reader with such a huge link farm.
      This sort of humungous template also makes the Special:Whatlinkshere function useless, by lumping in links from all sorts of individuals who may have little or nothing to do with the article concerned. I came across this when trying to disambiguate links to Isaac Wilson after moving the article on the Congressman, and was astonished to see such an absurd number of internal links.
      --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you proposing that all states in Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes should be done district by district?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • YOU KEEP MISSING THIS QUERY. ARE ALL THE OTHER STATES THAT EXIST SUPPOSE TO BE DELETED? ARE THE STATES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN CREATED SUPPOSE TO BE CREATED?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not clear to me why this proposal would necessarily affect navigation templates for other states. Can you explain more about what your concern is there? Tim Pierce (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some are proposing splitting this out district by district. It would obviously set a precedent if there is consensus to split out state House of Representatives templates district by district for one state, especially for other large states.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see why that would require it to be done for other states, but even if they did so, would that be a problem? Tim Pierce (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The main problem is procedural. Generally for an XfD of something from a class of identically formatted things the whole class is put up for XfD so that all persons affected can participate in the consensus building. If all states have templates with multiple districts and a precedent is set that the proper format is single district templates then all templates with multiple districts should be XfDed to call attention to all persons involved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Additionally, if the consensus is headed toward a decision that all large templates should be just deleted and listified (lists already exist in most cases), all should be nominated and votes should be something like Delete All with 500 or more links or Delete All with 1000 or more links. All templates should be nominated so that voters are free to put the borderline wherever they want.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • From what I can tell, this TfD is for one template. Your presumption that it then applies to all such templates is incorrect (a fallacy). If, for example, the nominator had nominated every such template... then you would be correct in thinking that this would be a big change. The template at hand has obvious merit, which is why you're seeing a reaction that is mostly "split it" and not "purge it with fire from all 1000 pages you can find it on". For me, this is simply a case of common sense: when you have a template that's bigger than a whole lot of articles, you should either a) split the template or b) delete the template. Since its obvious to me that some of these people can be associated together, I went with option a. A list of these people would also work, and it may be wise that, if the result of this deletion nomination is "split the template" rather than "listify the template", that we do create a list. That list might summarily be deleted at an AfD in the future, but either way, there are more options than "KEEEEEEEEEP" and "Balete it" here. --Izno (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are mistaken. As with all WP:XfD, multiple nominations are common and if you look at the TFD procedures, you will see multi-template procedures. Basically, your problem with the template is that the articles are generally stubs. What you are saying is if a good template is created before good articles, it must be deleted regardless of whether it is a worthy template. Probably every person who is on the template could have an article larger than the template if someone cared enough to research them. Both Congressmen articles I have worked on seriously are up against the WP:SIZE limits. The template should not be judged based on the fact that people have not taken the time to develop the articles. The fact that the template is bigger than the many articles of important people means their articles should be expanded not that the template should be axed. Relative between articles and templates is not really a relevant consideration, IMO. However, consistent treatment of all templates is. Explain again why other templates are not up for deletion now that I have clarified your misunderstanding on multi-template TFDs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. This TfD is for one, I repeat, one template. What ends up applying to this template will not necessarily apply to the other templates (and I understand what a multi-nom XfD is. This exact TfD is not one of those)! My issue is not that the articles are stubs; I was not speaking about the pages this template was on. I was speaking about articles in general. The template is 60kb. That is twice the recommended size that pages be rendered at. This template includes two articles, plus whatever is on the page to begin with. I repeat, this nomination is not about any other template in its category.
          If you want to nominate the others, feel free! However, they will probably be seen as pointy nominations. --Izno (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • O.K. So then you are saying that there is a size limit on templates. I don't see any size rule at WP:TMP and don't know anywhere else to look. In fact, I do not see any policy reason to delete the template. Article size limits are for readable prose. The purpose of the template is to link NY House Representatives. Splitting it defeats the purpose. Since most large state templates have not been made. You may not realize that you are setting a policy against a large class of templates. How are you measuring 60KB. I don't see it. The size arguments have been inconsistent. Some have said it is so large it is unreadable when it is not intended to be readable prose, some have talked about dial-up problems, but if the articles are mostly so short then this is not really as much of a problem as it might seem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a common sensical size limit that need not be codified. A 5-10 kb template... makes sense. A 60 kb template... not so much. I'm setting no policy here, only saying this template needs to change. There's no reason to change the others unless they get really big too and someone says "hey, we should change this". Wikipedia, at this level anyway, doesn't work by precedent in that manner. Only by consensus.
          As for readable prose, it should be, if nothing else, quickly accessible. Large numbers of links compacted into a small space, as this template does, are not accessible.
          "mostly so short" — Moot point. The articles will get bigger, as you yourself indicated, and having a large template will literally make it more difficult to access the page. For example, the article on the US of A is a whopping 200 kb; it takes a long time for slow internets to load that article. This template is 1/3 of that, without the associated article. It really is an issue of "this template isn't useful, so how can we make it more useful"? --Izno (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [per BHG] and split each navbox subgroup at least into a separate navbox. I think I would much prefer that each district have its own navbox, but at the least that should happen. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT-You would have to delete every state in the category if you want each district to have its own template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply No, you would not have to delete every template in the category. The other templates all appear to be of a much much smaller size, and they don't cause the WP:SIZE problems of this template ... and if there was a move to delete them, they would have to be brought to TFD. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is unreadable, and virtually useless. You can not find anything if you don't know beforehand where to look. In the text, nowhere is mentioned in which district the Congressman was elected. Besides, the numbers were several times redistributed, so "District by number" is not leading anywhere because it includes representatives from different parts of the state.Kraxler (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is not prose. It does not need to be readable. The bolding just has to be perceptible. Additionally, your reason that the text does not say districts that a person has served in some cases is a reason that this template is providing information that should be WP:PRESERVEd--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of the course the info should be preseved. But it can preserved in the form of lists or of a series of a smaller templates: there is no need to keep this monster templates attached to 1,909 articles to preserve the info.
      And of course it needs to be readable. Its only possible purpose is to assist navigation, and how can it do that if it is not readable.
      --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which things can you not read?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same info can be accessed by consulting "Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from New York". As a navigational "aid" this template is utterly useless. Sorry, I know someone spent a lot of work on this and does not want to have done it in vain, but this is an encyclopedia, and usefulness is one of the main criteria. Kraxler (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a work in vain case. This is a case where one member of a category of twenty identically formatted templates is being put up for deletion. Are other templates for the rest of the states suppose to be created or should the other templates be deleted?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete them all, they are useless. This info (all members of a quite big group) should be in a Category list, NOT IN A TEMPLATE!. Or would you consider to create a template "People born in 1888"? Kraxler (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I struck your seeming attempt to vote twice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not try to vote twice, this was an informal vote on the other templates, which you proposed informally for deletion too. Kraxler (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and start the processes of dealing with size issues. There may be some technical fixes or template tricks that can help sort this out. The bottom line is serving our readers so mammouth templates may subvert that effort. The obsolete tab? Maybe that could be an article instead and be reduced to one link to the article? -- Banjeboi 09:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read my comments above. The size is due to the fact that the template consists of links to 1,909 other articles. There is no technical way of rendering those more in a more compact form.
      Removing the "obsolete" tab will not reduce the size to a more manageable level, but your idea of making it a link is on the right track. Why not just make the whole thing an article or a list?
      --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I was conforming to the convention of all other templates in Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes. I made the same template that has been made for about 20 other states. These types of deletions are suppose to be for whole categories or no one knows whether the category is no good or whether the rest are still suppose to be created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This likely is the test case then for when these template simply grow too large. You, and others familiar with the content should start identifying which links are of lower value to our readers on that template and start a migration to a links or list article if one doesn't exist already. It will be a process but our readers will thank you! -- Banjeboi 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least drastically revise. Too much code by half. Despite the collapsed boxes, the template does not appear to be more useful for navigation than, say, a link to a list of the currently active New York representatives. A navigation template is a fine idea but we appear to be well past the point where it makes sense for the template to be exhaustive. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Would removing the images reduce the size at all? Astuishin (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only partly, the issue seems to be too many links. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too large to be useful. --Carnildo (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an issue that should be fixed instead. If deleted it would quickly be replaced by a new template largely serving the same fucntion. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Benjiboi, how exactly do you prpose to "fix" the size problem other than by deleting this template? As repeatedly mentioned elsewhere, it is big because of what it does: it's the 1,909 links that makes it so big. There is no way of bringing it down to a manageable size without removing 90% of those links, and if that was done then it would no longer be in any way relevant to 90% of the articles it is attached to. If it was replaced by a new template of similar size, it would be back at TFD fairly rapidly, or speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted material. There are many possible ways of assisting navigation between congresspeople, but attaching a massive link-farm to each article is simply the wrong approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
        • Dleting, at least in this case, would be not only counter-intuitive but a waste of energy. Clearly some template with some of this information is useful and needed. There are many templates that are too big and many solutions with how to rework them. In the LGBT project we have a massive template broken into parts that you have to add, for instance "rights=yes" in order for that section to appear. In the case of this template all the dead folks (or those serving prior to ? 1950 say) - as a suggestion - might be removed to a list and the template replaces them all with 1 link to that list. Those most knowledgable with the articles and content are likely the best judges of what our readers really need. I have a nother suggestion I'll post in a new comment. -- Banjeboi 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. Sorry, but I have to disagree: this template is neither useful nor needed. It's not useful because it provides far too much out-of-context info to each article, and because it adds so much bloat to articles. It's not needed because there are plenty of much beter ways of assisting navigation.
            Deleting this ill-conceived monster of a linkfarm will focus attention on providing a useable, informative and lighweight means of navigation, such as succession boxes like those in De Alva S. Alexander. as noted lower down in this thread, other editors are already at work adding those succession boxes to help the reader as you suggest. b--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We may just have to agree to disagree. As (i) "bloat" issues can certainly be addressed, that's a problem for fixing not deleting and (ii) succession boxes provide a lot less useful information. As has been pointed out the template could be modified to show only the relevant district(s) rather than all of them. The succession boxes only show context of the seat occupier before and after, hardly the same thing and in no way is a adequate replacement. -- Banjeboi 03:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too large: articles should not get too long, for readability, but also for users with slow connections; Adding a 69K template to all these pages makes them way too large for little actual benefit. More targeted (i.e. shorter) templates or replacing the templatewith a link to e.g. a list would be much more useful. Apart from that, beware of canvassed editors, called upon here. Fram (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's 69K of wiki-markup, but when converted to HTML and served up the reader, it's 163.2 KiB of HTML for the reader to download. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure we need to worry about canvassed editors. There appears to be a very strong consensus in favor of reorganizing and breaking up the template somehow. The only strict "keep" vote I have seen is Tony's, and most if not all of the "delete" votes agree that it could be fixed by reorganizing into smaller templates (or lists or categories). Tim Pierce (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed Technical Fix See Jack_Kemp#External_links as an example and click show. I have added a feature to the template that will greatly improve the experience for those who were complaining about "readability". I have added a feature to make the template open directly to the relevant section instead of forcing the reader to "read" each section looking for the relevant information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like that change! It does help quite a lot with navigability. However, the issue of the sheer byte size of the template remains. I still think WP:SIZE strongly points toward not allowing a template to grow that large on a strictly technical basis, above and beyond the question of readability. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In terms of vague instructions herewith to attempt to change it, that is about the best I can think of and it is a vast improvement in many respects. I hope it convinces at least some people that the benefits of the convenient information outway the now diminished costs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might work for people with Javascript-enabled browsers, but for people using screen readers or text-only browsers, it's still too big. For example, using Lynx on a standard 80x25 screen, Jack Kemp has 29 pages of "see also" links. --Carnildo (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against the proposed "technical fix". This is a size issue. The template is useless and grossly oversized. This "fix" does not change that, it is in its current version still 68 kb long. The count now is 6 for deletion and 3 (+1) for keep. What will we do?Kraxler (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The three "keep" votes are: "keep and begin to break up," "agree," and "keep and begin to deal with the size issues." The "delete" votes mostly include "delete and replace with smaller navboxes," "delete, more targeted templates would be much more useful" and "delete or drastically revise." I think this is actually a very strong consensus in favor of reorganizing the template. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I concur that there is a consensus to reorganize the template. This is why my first pass was the recent technical fix. I am open to other reorganization suggestions, but I am averse to district by district templates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another possibility is year-by-year, which has its own pros and cons. In any event, that is a discussion that could take place on Template talk:NYRepresentatives. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As noted by others, TonyTheTiger has proposed a technical fix which may resolve some of the display issues, but unfortunately this fix does nothing to resolve the fundamental problem that this template is just too big.
    As to the notion of this setting a precedent for deleting state-wide templates, I hope it doesn't do that simplistically ... what matters is size. I haven't checked all the templates at Category:United States House of Representatives delegations navigational boxes, but I notice that for example Template:Wyoming Representatives is very modestly sized, as is Template:Alaska Representatives. New York appears to be by a very long way the most populous state in this series of templates, and the size issues which arise with New York don't arise with Wyoming or Alaska. So if the Wyoming or Alaka templates were nominated for deletion, I see no problem with keeping them.
    However, if similar templates are created for Texas or California or Florida, then we can guarantee that they will exhibit most of the same problems of size. The solution is simple: bigger states need a different solution to small ones, and the problem in this case is that a templating logic applied to some very small states has been applied to the 3rd biggest state in the USA without regard to the problems of size.
    I do want to stress, however, that I have no doubt that TonyTheTiger created this template in good faith. I'm sure that the huge amount of careful work work done in creating this template will not be wasted, and that it can be split up into smaller chunks which be much more useful to the reader and less greedy on bandwidth. But the first step is to remove this monster from the 1,909 articles to which it is attached. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Is this linked to 1909 unique pages or does someone like Jack Kemp count three times in that count?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uniques. Your idea above about service years is a good one, but I still see big issues with it. Can't really elaborate on them (atm), so I hope someone can. --Izno (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a count stripping out the headings, and then stripping everything except the links to Congress; then I put the links one per line and took the total number of lines. So it is probably the case that the total of 1,909 links points to less than 1,909 articles. I'm not sure how many less, and since I didn't keep the file it's too late to run it through uniq to strip out the duplicates. I used whatlinkshere on transclusions only, and that's reporting just short of 1,500 transclusions.
    • To be honest, whether it's 500 or 1,500 or 1,909 doesn't make much difference. The template is still splatting 163Kb of extra HTML onto hundreds of pages, and it would be too much even if it was doing this to a dozen pages.
      There are probably several different possible ways of reorganising this data, but does the solution actually have to be a template? British MPs and Irish TDs have succession boxes which include a link to the constituency articles, where there is a list of all MPs (e.g. Peter Bottomley) or TDs (e.g. Mary Harney), showing their years in office and their party affliations. It works well, and it brings the reader very quickly to a much more useful list than is contained in those un-annotated templates. Why not just use succession boxes? They are simple and lightweight.
      --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal to remove: Now we have 7 votes for "delete" and 3 for "keep but break up". (only the creator is for "keep"). Since there is a consensus NOT TO KEEP THIS AS IT IS, I propose now to remove this template from all article pages, and then start (at the template's talk page) a discussion about what to do with this. There have been made several suggestions that could be pondered in good time without having the navigational obstacle on the article pages. (To compare: If an accident occurs, the broken cars are first removed and then fixed at some garage, they are not left blocking the road until somebody repaired them.) Kraxler (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure it makes sense to compare this to a broken car that is blocking the road. There is a strong consensus that the size of the current template makes it problematic, but are there readers who are having technical problems with this template right now? Is it an emergency situation? Tim Pierce (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, Kraxler, but the rules say we have to wait for 7 days. It's not an emergency. Once it has been deleted by the bot, that will be a good time to add any replacements we've discussed. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update -- I've found a better existing template, {{USCongDistStateNY}}, that could easily and quickly replace this template (by bot). WE DON'T NEED TO WAIT. Then, this template would be deleted at the end of the 7 day period. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{USCongDistStateNY}} is for Congressional districts. It's designed to link to articles about the districts. It's quite different from a listing of all the reps.—Markles 13:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Markles, I would otherwise defer to your long expertise in this area, but are you assuming that adding a list of all the graveyard reps to every congressional article (anywhere) was a good thing? It is most emphatically bad! In this case, it's a huge download. Even on a cable modem, this is taking a long time. For most of the world, it's painful. However, the current version of this template "collapses" to a list of districts. (Actually, for me it doesn't; as a security minded user, I don't run with javascript turned on.) An existing template does it better. Reduce, reuse, recycle. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I concur with Markles. The template you are suggesting is a poor substitute for the at a glance information in the template.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • 1,900+ names are not useful "at a glance". Given the intransigent uncompromising stance you've taken, I'll modify my recommendation to delete without replacement. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do votes for the sake of being vindictive count toward helping the project? You are not understanding what I am saying. Let's suppose a person is researching Congressmen from New York. These names are at a glance information. By opening the four sections one can do a find on any name and be pointed to all the relevant names one might be seeking. Many of these individuals do not have succession boxes or infoboxes with congressional service information. This template serves as a substitute for succession boxes for all such articles. That is what I mean by at a glance. Feel free to vote as vindictively as you want if you don't want to think about what is best for the project however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current Tally 5 Deletes with many suggesting reorganization, 4 (3 discounting template creator) keeps with many suggesting reorganizing, 1 person voting vindictively without any regard for the good of the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I don't don't know who you are accusing of being "vindictive", but per WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, please stop it and consider striking out those remarks.
      Secondly, this process is not a "vote". It's arguments that count here, not numbers.
      Thirdly, your claim that this template provides "at a glance information" is not a true description of the template. It gives no indication of where the districts listed are located, or of when the representatives listed were in Congress, or what party they were members of: it's just a huge block of names, which provides far less navigational assistance to readers than would be provided by stand-alone lists.
      Fourthly, this template doesn't serve as a substitute for succession boxes, because it dumps so much information onto the reader without the necessary context that it's an impediment to navigation. (See for example Jack Kemp, where the chunk of the template which opens first includes listings for 13 districts which Kemp didn't represent. What on earth is all that irrelvant stuff doing in the article?
      Fifth, you still have not addressed the WP:SIZE issues involved in splurging 160KiB of HTML into every article to which this template is attached.
      And finally, as I pointed out above, succession boxes are used for British MPs and Irish TDs. You have not provided any reason at all why they could not be used for New York's members of Congress, let alone a persuasive reason. Your replies appear to completely fixated on the notion that one huge template is the only possible way of cross-linking these articles, but there are many others: categories, succession boxes, linked lists, and one-district succession boxes. It's a pity that your comments here have not considered those alternatives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We, as an encyclopedia, make information more accessible and usable. This fails both cases- the size overwhelms when trying to find information, and presents a rather large and unneeded barrier in the form of huge page sizes (WP:SIZE is here for a reason, dial-up would be a pain loading this thing, and older browsers have issues with pages too large. --Mask? 04:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actual tally -- 8 delete, 1 keep, 3 replace (keeping in the meantime) -- disputing the above "tally" by TTT, the author.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can someone tally how many pages will have no succession information without the template. I.E., how many pages with the template have no succession boxes. Also, How many pages have incomplete succession box information. My estimate is that approximately 300-400 pages have no succession boxes or congressional service detail in the infobox and another 100-200 have incomplete information. I am attempting to determine how much encyclopedic information is being proposed for deletion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply -- The lack of a succession box is unrelated to this TfD, as the template in question contains no succession information (a mere list of names implies nothing). No encyclopedic information will be lost, as the master succession listing is United States congressional delegations from New York. And I object to the hubris that somebody else ought to do your work for you (1,900+ articles, are you crazy)! Maybe your time would be better spent actually finishing the appropriate succession boxen?
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although it has not been discussed here, I assume that most people would probably understand that the names are in sequential (as opposed to random) order and that the template substitutes for succession boxes for the hundreds of articles that don't have them. Do you not understand this? Do you think any of the people casting delete votes understand they are stripping articles of their only succession information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • P. S. It is not hubris. Many technically proficient people know how to do a lot of things. I thought someone might know how to count the number of pages without succession boxes. Since the number is surely hundreds and hundreds, it is not worth page by page counting, but someone might know how to program a bot to check or something.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list article that this template would work with is rather a mess, IMHO and that is likely part of the problem. Personally I find the template more helpful than that current list. Ideally the list would be complete, sortable and intuitive easy to find information. It's on its way but not there yet. A current version of this template, IMHO, should be subst there in some form. As to modifying this template I suggest modifying it with a parameter for which district is shown on all the current representatives so that all those in the 13th, for instance, show the template as listing the link to the main list and the full ist for the 13th, and so on. There is likely very few articles that need the whole list, as it is large, but IMHO, all the obsolete bits should be spun off to the list article as well or a new article created just for them. -- Banjeboi 18:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, what about a template which focuses exclusively on the current representatives, with the rest left to succession boxes? --Izno (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you aware that hundreds and hundreds and possibly the majority of the articles that this template is attached to do not have complete succession boxes?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like a great reason to make some succession boxes when this is deleted. -Mask? 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal to remove I renew now (7 days after proposed deletion) my above stated proposal to remove this template from all article pages (this is the consensus), and continue the debate how to proceed further at the template's talk page. If the template was deleted completely, I wouldn't mourn it, but I think a discussion about what, and if something, could be substituted for it, might be helpful for Tony. After all, templates are not obligatory on article pages, or are they? Kraxler (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed -- They are not "obligatory". As soon as the closer handles the obvious, a bot will handle the deletions quite cleanly. The Talk will be deleted, too. According to the Talk, Markles rated the importance of this template as "Low":
      {{Project Congress | class=template | importance=low | subject=people}}.
      I've made 3 suggestions as to replacements, and they've all been rejected by TTT. Usually, it's better to retire gracefully. AKMask is correct, it's best to "make some succession boxes" after this is deleted. I wish them well, and leave them to it.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment rejected is not the proper word. Better would be described as inadequate substitutes for various reasons. I don't know who you think is going to spend their time making 500 or 1000 succession boxes, but don't look at me. I don't even understand the logic of the expectation from a time consumption perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ripost -- probably will take about the same amount of time as your adding them a few per day over the past four (4) months. Indeed, I simply don't understand that you didn't add succession boxen instead?!?! It's about the same effort.... But I can see where the heavy "ownership" is weighing heavily on your mind, with all that time invested. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep RE: "Representatives from New York is much too big." This is an issue that can be addressed without the drama and disruption of a deletion review. RE: "Not useful" see WP:USELESS. Further, how a list of all of the US reps is not useful, is beyond me. With skillful use of collapsable tables, Tony has once again created a really excellent encyclopedic template, the most detailed and comprehensive on the web. but once again, instead of being praised for his work, and the deletion nominator working with him to a mutually beneficial comprimise, he has to defend his work here, in a disruptive deletion review. Is it any wonder that editors contriubtions have dropped in the past few years? Ikip (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a deletion review, but a deletion debate. I fail to see how it is disruptive, this is standard procedure and is clearly not a frivolous timewasting request, since many people agree (completely or in part) with the nominator. And editors contributions have not significantly dropped but are relatively constant, see e.g. here. Fram (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer to the question, "how many pages with the template have no succession boxes", looks like about 954 -- plus or minus some that were tagged incorrectly. I've found half a dozen (so far) articles that got this template even though they weren't in Congress. How in the world did this end up on an excommunicated priest? So, it's a good thing that this came to our attention. A fair amount of incorrect or missing data.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for conducting the tally. Is this 954 or 1909 counting duplicates or 954 of the 1400 plus unique links? I imagine there could have been a 1% error rate in tagging articles that were not dabbed correctly. I am human and did not really pay attention to whether I was on the right article. This means we have to remove them from the wrong page and add them to the correct page. 954 is a huge number for no succession boxes. There are also several hundred that have serverd multiple districts that do not have proper succession boxes for all of their districts. In answer to your question, each page needs both succession boxes and congressional service info box sections. Whereas it would take one minute to slap {{NYRepresentatives}} into the page and move on, it would take 5-10 minutes for each person's succession boxes. Then fixing up the infoboxes correctly as well could take 5-10 minutes a page. This is a one minute solution to a fifteen minute problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we make sure all persons who have cast delete votes know that 954 pages will have no succession information without this template. In addition several hundred will only have partial succession information without this template. I think this is a huge piece of information. When coupled with the navigability improvement of the revision I made, I think people should reconsider their votes. I feel like a bit of a bother since I went back to everyone once with my technical fix. Now, we have very significant new information about the cost of deleting this templat in terms of lost encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment since undoing removing this would take hours and hours of re-adding this to 1400 plus pages through a DRV or something, can we call for a relisting in which all persons who have voted confirm their understanding that removing this template will strip over 1000 pages of succession information. Waiting extra time is a small cost compared to the mainpower cost of correcting an erroneous deletion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This template seems ripe for the use of something like AutoWikiBrowser, which would shorten "[man] hours upon hours" to only about 7-10 man-hours (tops), which I myself would be willing to uptake. If you want to help, that halves the number you and I both have to commit to.
As for calling the debate closed, that's an administrator's job (as there is obviously some lack of consensus); you'll notice we can still talk about this template here, which means the debate isn't over yet. :)
As for being a bother, no, you're not, though (an honest comment) you are being a little WP:OWNy with the template. Chill a little, so we can talk about how we're gonna' fix it, since many of those here are not happy with the template as stands. --Izno (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I need to learn how to use AWB. Do you have any comments on the number of articles that will lose all succession information if this template is removed? I am even surprised by the large majority of articles that will be affected.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any substitute template mentioned above that would not cause the loss of 1000 or so pages worth of succession information?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is way too large to be much useful. Note that being collapsible is no solution for that, in theory we could have all WP in one big collapsible page, yet we don't do that, do we?... I'm not sure how big is 'too big', depends on formatting, subject, possibility to break, etc., but I'd say a few tens at most and certainly 2000 items is too much. I suggest a good (re)organisation of the list(s) article(s) and then maybe a really useful (set of) template(s) may arise. - Nabla (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually a reason to fix this template rather than delete and recreate others. I believe the concensus is that the present version is too big yet some template with this information - whether customized for each district or otherwised reworked - is needed. The point is to move the current template to become one that works for our readers and isn't "too" big. -- Banjeboi 02:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are missing my point. The way to fix this template is to delete it and instead have a good list (and/or category/ies). Whatever way you try to put all that info into a single template it will be big, there is no way to make 2000 names become short. Any possibly useful and related template will be completely different, thus not a version of this one but something new. - Nabla (talk) 03:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The clear consensus is "delete" (not "fix"). Please re-read the discussion. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Days ago, I proposed using {{USCongDistStateNY}}, a medium-sized template with easy links to good list pages. TTT and Markles both rejected that idea. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • First off we'll have to agree to disagree what the current consensus is, it's clear you want it deleted but this is a process with others involved to helpefully make the best decision for our readers. As for {{USCongDistStateNY}}, that's helpful but different information so to me that's something different not a modification. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There is no "succession" information in this template. It's an huge series of undifferentiated names. The formal and official succession template is {{USRepSuccessionBox}}. We only recently learned that TTT found 5-10 minutes effort per page too hard, and was looking for something easier for him. Sounds like a business school graduate: internalizing the profit, externalizing the cost (everybody else pays). --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please comment on the content and not the contributor. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- it's too large. -- User:Docu
    • Just noting for posterity that TTT seems to have known the template was too big, asking for help getting around deliberate designed box size limitations. See also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 10, about size and irrelevance of SISwimsuit templates: "150 names (maybe 100 unique names) is not so big a deal for a template. I doubt that my most inclusive (in terms of number of names) template, {{NYRepresentatives}}, is seen as a problem." --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are misinterpretting my comments. The templates will only handle groups of 20 lists. Thus, I had to make this a four section template with each section having less than 20 lists (districts in this case). That is what the first comment is about. The second comment is a statement that I felt the navigational usefulness of the template as I saw it outweighed any size arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. TonyTheTiger's alarmist comments about "loss of encyclopedic content" may be well-intentioned, but so badly wrong that I have wonder whether Tony has actually been reading this debate. The content already exists elsewhere in wikipedia, in the well-organised and well-presented lists of congressional delegations and congressional districts, where it is presented to the reader in a much clearer and more usable form that in this link-farm template.
    The issue here is not content, it is navigation, and this monster template impedes navigation rather than assisting it. It impedes in two way: A) by adding a 160KiB payload to each article,, thereby making each article take longer to load, and B) by adding so much info irrelevant to the article it is attached to that the reader has wade through hundreds of bare surnames (there are no first names or dates or parties).
    British MPs use succession boxes, which are slowly added by hand, and most of the 8,000+ existing articles under Category:British MPs now have them. There is no reason why the same could not be down for New York's Congressmen, but if editors don't want to do that, then the solution is simply to use this template's contents to create individual templates for each of the congressional districts, and use AWB to attach them to the relevant articles.
    Furthermore, it seems that that it is not only contributors to this deletion debate who find the bloat of this template so absurd that it has to go. The article which first drew my attention to this template was Isaac Wilson (1780–1848), which has since been edited by someone else to remove this bloated linkfarm and replace it with {{USRepSuccessionBoxNeeded}}. Clearly there are others who agree that the absence for now of a succession box is not a good enough reason attach this linkfarm to articles. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in its current version and replace with one template for each district, which are linked among themselves. For an example see User:Phoe/Template.
    ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 20:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's smaller in some ways; but with redistricting every 10 years, many members are in several districts. Each district by itself isn't interestng. They often aren't in the same place. That brings us back to the original problem, articles overwhelmed by massive link farms. The answer is the {{USRepSuccessionBox}}, that already has both links to the master list for the state and to the individual district. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps a parameter could allow for multiple districts to be displayed - just not all. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, William Allen Simpson. I have added already two boxes. (Whenever I get during my project work to any of these polbot-created articles, I clean them up, and now I will add the succession boxes also.) This is the consensus, so far, Tony. Nobody says, that Wikipedia must be complete by tomorrow, it will takes the time it needs... Kraxler (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're welcome. I'm glad I've the technical skills to help. I only happened upon this discussion because of my earlier TfD (now below it). I'm not actually around here much anymore -- although I was much more active 2003-2006, and helped write several of the guidelines, so I'm somewhat familiar with many of these issues. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Russia disambig[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Russia disambig (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) and
Category:Russia disambiguation(edit talk links history) per WP:CDP
  • Delete -- Unused, replaced in some instances by {{SIA}}. Also currently empty category. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can tell, this is the only cases wherein a general-purpose disambiguation template (as opposed to one for place names, for example) is subdivided by geography rather than topic. While many disambiguation pages contain entries that all fit neatly within a single topic (e.g. human name disambiguation), significantly fewer contain entries that all fit within a particular geographic region (one exception is {{geodis}} pages). I see no advantage to introducing "articles concerning [place]" as a new class of disambiguation page. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cálico Electrónico[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cálico Electrónico (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All articles are either red-links or re-directs, and I do not forsee this becoming so notable as to warrant more than a single article, in which the information in the nav box can (and is) included. Cerejota (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Navigation templates exist to facilitate navigation within a set of related articles, which is not possible when the "set of related articles" consists of just one existing article. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Hrwiki[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Not sure whether it qualifies as a reliable source either, but with it being on the interwiki map there's certainly no need to template its links. Happy‑melon 10:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Have been deleted on May 2005 so, technically, this could be speedy deletion candidate. Still 2005 is a long time ago, I guess we better have fresh input. For myself I'm mostly neutral, leaning on delete after reading (part of) the 2005 discussion - Nabla (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The external links will exist whether or not this template does, but this help present a consistent appearance for the links. There is a whole series of similar templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Links#Wikis and Category:Wikia templates that have been voted "Keep" through the TFD process. Apart from a lot of copyrighted material (that the site is about), all information licensed under creative commons. HRWiki: is also on the interwiki map, just as a note. LobStoR (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally, a lot of the "delete" votes on the previous round sound like it was in a large box, this is just a small text link for use in refs and external links. Any editor could type the same thing in, but this is a fast/consistent shorthand. LobStoR (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • HRWiki was already on the interwiki map back then. Also the template was, as you say, a large box yet it still was deleted after it got turned into a single line, quite like the current one. (the one single vote after that change was to delete). template code, just before deletion was: *[[Hrwiki:HRWiki:About|Homestar Runner Wiki]] may have more information about [[Hrwiki:{{PAGENAMEE}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]. Anyway I think the 2005 discussion is not of much relevance, otherwise I would have speedy deleted the template, instead of nominating it.
        As to consistent formating, we would really have that using some generic template, say {{cite}}, that allows for consistent formating for links for different sites, as opposed to the consistency only for each site with unconsistency across sites, that this and other site specific templates provide. Also using a single, or a few templates helps editors to know which and how to use them, again increasing consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by nabla (talk • contribs)
        • Ahh, you've just given me an idea - re-implementing {{hrwiki}} as an extended instance of {{cite}}. This would help it conform to Wikipedia consistency standards. Thanks. LobStoR (talk) 22:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm.. scratch that last one, nevermind. LobStoR (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually it looked like an interesting idea. I note that {{External link}}, a potential meta-template for that have been deleted not long ago. - Nabla (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I'd suggest a rename to avoid conflict with another . The "keep" is here because the wiki in question is on the local iw map and this template probably makes up for the highest amount of internal linking it's ever gonna get. —Admiral Norton (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, good point, the name most certainly could be misleading. I'll have to think of a different shorthand name (I think homestarrunnerwiki would be a little bit long for a template name). If you have any ideas, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks. LobStoR (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see much problem with the name... do we use templates to link to other languages WPs? I guess those are not much needed, as we have interwikis, as [[:hr:Title]]. - Nabla (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace in-text citations with {{cite}} or {{cite web}}, subst any remaining transclusions, and delete. Many of the uses of this template are as citations and should be reformatted with one of the existing citation templates. As for those that are found in "External links" sections, the external links guideline discourages "[l]inks to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", and I see no indication that HRwiki meets these criteria. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was wondering, though, if there any cite templates that can handle double-bracketed inter-wiki links? That was the reason I changed my mind about using Cite (in the discussion above). Also, I would consider this a long-tail-type of topic, so although Wikipedia:External links does discourage links to open wikis, fictitious topics are often backed up by links that can be considered an exception to this policy, within reason. hrwiki.org is basically the definitive source of written information about its topic (apart from the topic itself - a series of animations and interactive features). LobStoR (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not necessary to type double-bracketed interwiki links in citation templates as the "url" parameter takes care of linking. So, for example:

        {{cite web | title=A. Chimendez | url=http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/A._Chimendez | work=Homestar Runner Wiki | date=22 March 2009 | accessdate=8 April 2009}}

        produces

        "A. Chimendez". Homestar Runner Wiki. 22 March 2009. Retrieved 8 April 2009.

        For other uses, such as external links,

        [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/A._Chimendez A. Chimendez] at ''Homestar Runner Wiki''

        would produce

        A. Chimendez at Homestar Runner Wiki

        –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace with {{cite}} and delete per Black Falcon. The wiki itself is already easily accessed with [[hrwiki:...]]. And in several cases, there is already {{cite}} near the {{hrwiki}}. Just confusing overkill. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6&oldid=1084289954"