Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 7

< January 6	January 8 >

January 7 edit

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox County/* edit

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

Both were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox County, i.e. some places didn't have a flag or seal. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every U.S. County can use Template:Infobox County. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. Note that the nominations do not include Template:Infobox County. See also my nomination for Template:Infobox Community below. — Seven Days » talk 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, anytime a sub-template is deprecated, it's a speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I fundamentally agree with this. I wonder if this should instead be rolled into recent Template:Infobox Country efforts, for which some systemic updates/changes will be made shortly ... i.e., not to the actual template, but to ensure that countries use the same one? E Pluribus Anthony 05:50, 9 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Friendly edit

A noncommercial image tag. I've replaced it with a fair use tag for all the images at User Friendly characters. The only remaining image using this tag is on WP:IFD. If this template is deleted, please delete Category:User friendly Images, too. dbenbenn | talk 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ok, rather than tweaking the template to work for all the images under a fairuse protocole, you just decide to delete it. How about you edit it, so that each image can have a uniform description. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't make image-tagging templates that will only ever be used on a dozen images. —Cryptic (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cryptic --Wikiacc ¶ 20:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cryptic. Jkelly 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-free license tags. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cryptic. kenj0418 04:14, 10 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was keep. _→AzaToth 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Qif edit

As some people might know I am a fan of that template, but I do not need that template I need its functionality. We have been told by developer Jamesday on WP:AUM that qif harms the servers and thus we should work to reduce the harm. It has thus been identified as violating WP:AUM. I had some hope that qif could be implemented in code and that we could wait a bit before tearing down its use, but that seems not to be the case as the developers do not answer requests in that direction, which is something I do not want to complain about because this is their right. As we know Netoholic is working his way through templates to remove qif and he is backed by WP:AUM which is in turn backed by Jamesday. Netoholic tries to keep functionality as far as possible but if he does not see a way to keep it he requests to downgrade requirements, again backed by WP:AUM. I know that by nominating qif I will be accused for trying to create a MeatBall:ForestFire as some prefer to tear down qif behind the scenes by doing divide et impera, something which I think is not ok (others have qualified me for "stonewalling"). Moving qif to the holding cell until its uses have been removed would better reflect the actual situation. Please express below how we should proceed. Ligulem 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Inclined to vote delete, but I would really appreciate it if someone showed me a vital usage of this template - it's nearly impossible to look through this (often very complex) pages that include this to find just how it is necessary. However, given that the template is effectively being orphaned at the moment, it makes sense to put it in the holding cell. Terrafire 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example template:book reference, template:web reference, template:journal reference, template:language. Those will loose more or less function, at least they are hard to convert to something else. Netoholic already worked on Template:Conference reference. - Ligulem 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Note label also uses (though doesn't have many whatlinkshere and I don't know whether it's vital...). - Marsian / talk 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Looking at just how integrated this is into our content model, I'm going to have to vote keep until a better solution is implemented. Some sort of a notice encouraging people not to use it unless completely necessary would be good though. Terrafire 23:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy holding cell Phil Sandifer 16:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. If you want this template deleted, why don't you submit a patch to MediaWiki implementing a more efficient solution. Until then, this template really is needed. dbenbenn | talk 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, what? Are you saying that the developers owe it to you to give you the functionality you want before they're allowed to fix the database load? Phil Sandifer 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is User:Ligulem a developer? I'm just saying that there plenty of contributors to Wikipedia who know how to code, and it should be easy enough to implement a more efficient replacement before destroying lots of work by deleting this template. dbenbenn | talk 18:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have a look at WP:AUM - the developers have specifically asked us to reduce usage of this template. Phil Sandifer 18:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Reduce" is not the same as "eliminate". Would you destroy Template:Book reference? As far as I can see, that template really does need the functionality of Qif, or some equivalent MediaWiki functionality. dbenbenn | talk 19:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        How about more than one template? Perhaps a tool for creating citations would be a good idea. That shouldn't be too difficult to program. Even I could probably do it. [[Sam Korn]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, please create that tool. Ligulem 21:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Right, I have created a tool that generates plain wikitext. I will post it for testing as soon as I get a Toolserver account, as I don't want to use my own server. Private information could be garnered from it. It'll be up soon, hopefully. [[Sam Korn]] 21:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Thanks to Robchurch, I have the citation tool available. [1]. Feedback welcomed. [[Sam Korn]] 22:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        bug1 Ligulem 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed at [2]. [[Sam Korn]] 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (blank, remove uses, delete) - I have found no template that Qif can't be completely eliminated from by using other methods. I'd have eliminated it long ago if the templates using it weren't all/mostly protected. -- Netoholic @ 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Ok. Blank and then remove uses. As Netoholic proposes. Ligulem 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)~~ struck out per CBD Ligulem 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For two reasons. 1) AUM 2) Code that is excessively difficult to understand should be removed or simplified. [[Sam Korn]] 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I would propose that you switch off your computer immediately. I'm shure there is some code inside it you do not understand :-). I also suppose you know how IC design works. Ligulem 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not supposed to write my computer code. I am supposed to write Wikipedia code. Making the code more difficult than is absolutely necessary should not happen. I don't know what IC design is. [[Sam Korn]] 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you do not understand template:book reference then leave it. That's what I wanted to say. There are enough people that understand how it works. The point is that you request that the requirements be lowered to make the code simpler. That's not the same. By the way nobody here objects anyone to make any code simpler if that can be done without breaking existing articles. Or do you really believe we stuff in code just for the sake of making it nedlessly complex? Ligulem
      - I pretty strongly think people tend to overthink templates over time. Maybe I'm getting to me a wiki-fogey, but templates really should be simple constructs to help mirror text for consistency, not do complex processing. -- Netoholic @ 09:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        There is something in your statement. It's a slow creeping process. Somebody comes onto the talk page and asks: "I have an idea, couldn't we do feature XYZ. I need that in article OPXYVKLM". First reaction is usually "Oh, no. Not another request." Then someone comes up with an idea and demonstrates: "look, we can do it by doing trick QSW". Then the "group" around that templates sees that it works and that the "world is not tumbling down by doing it", and it gets implemented. It is damned hard to refuse such request to modify a template. And it is very hard for outstanders to understand why that template group went that way. Problem is also that everybody can finger around with templates, there is no "board" that controls it. For wiki articles, this model is fine, but on heavy use templates that wiki model just does not work. Reverting heavy use templates back and forth is the wrong way. Ligulem 09:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed - revert wars are the wrong way. That does not mean, however, that there is not a right side and a wrong side in a given revert war. Phil Sandifer 19:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost orphaned; other methods can be used to get the same functionality. --Wikiacc ¶ 20:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after orphaning is completed. Whatlinkshere shows at least 10,000 uses, so "almost orphaned" may be a little optimistic. —Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of those pages simply include a template using qif (as mentioned above, primarily the reference templates and {{language}}). --Wikiacc ¶ 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep until we have a replacement. I just talked with brion on IRC and he expressed some support for simple replacement syntax like {{ifdef:param|Whatever}}. There's also an existing feature request on Bugzilla. We just need someone to do the coding. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a good first step. The best thing would be if someone could look at book reference and help us implement that without using qif. I believe there are some more functions needed. For example there should also be something like ~~{{ifnotdef:param|text to display if param is not defined}}~~{{ifempty:param|text to display if param is empty}}. This could also be done while qif resides in the holding cell. Ligulem 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once orphaned as per developers. Lord Bob 23:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until we have a replacement that does not rely on CSS hacks. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 01:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't like hacks, there is an alternative... use multiple alternative templates and run bots to convert articles to the appropriate ones. Can we have your delete vote now? -- Netoholic @ 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope - that's not what I mean. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 07:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SPUI, or until my proposed renaming (see talk page at WP:AUM) occurs. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now). Jamesday has requested that we "reduce" this template's use, and I applaud Netoholic's efforts. Jamesday has not, however, requested that we eliminate the template entirely. I won't support its deletion until I'm confident that all of its current uses can be replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. And no, Phil, this doesn't mean that I advocate "ignoring the devs." —David Levy 22:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uses can also be removed while qif is in the holding cell (provided it is not blanked during that). It can even reside there for as long as we want (of course not forever). I see no point in using qif. It is designed to be used in templates, which is banned by WP:AUM. Ligulem 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template's use should be avoided whenever possible, but it has not been "banned." Placing it in the holding cell would imply that we definitely intend to delete it (and would mandate removal from all pages). As I said, I'm not comfortable supporting such a measure until after all instances have been replaced with code that generates functionally equivalent (or reasonably similar) results. —David Levy 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend for "reasonable similar" to replace book reference calls by plain old non-template media wiki source? If not, how far do you intend to go cutting off features from template book reference? The actual version of book reference cannot be implemented without using qif. BTW you can remove every template call if needed. Jamesday requested to work reduce the harm of qif. So where does qif not harm? Ligulem 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with neither the book reference template nor the intricacies of such coding, and I'm not certain that the removal of {{qif}} is feasible. That's why I've voted to keep it for the time being. Jamesday requested that we reduce the extent to which meta-templates are used, thereby reducing the amount of strain placed on Wikipedia's servers. He did not order us to eliminate meta-templates entirely. —David Levy 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot have "a little bit of qif". Technically it would work, but you will never reach consensus where it shall be allowed and where not. And those that remove qif can always cite WP:AUM. So in the end, qif is removed anyway from every template due to WP:AUM. Ligulem 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Just as templates themselves should be used in moderation, there's no reason why we can't do the same with meta-templates (when no suitable alternatives exist). —David Levy 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template:book reference is used in 2'000 articles. It was intended for mass use. Ligulem 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is widely used. A better testing method would be helpful, but this is working for now. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 06:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until an alternative which actually cuts the mustard can be found. The functionality in the reference templates cannot be duplicated by using ugly CSS hacks, which in any case break on certain browsers (not that that seems to deter some people). Reverting to the previous situation where there were umpteen forks for different cases is simply not acceptable. There seems to be an anti-template mentality growing—often expressed in intemperate attacks on those who dare to use templates for performing "simple tasks"—which I find distasteful and unhelpful: I am not particularly interested in having to run to someone else, cap in hand, asking if their bot can do something I am perfectly capable of doing myself. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until orphaned by acceptable replacement templates. I have not seen a single instance where functionality provided by QIF cannot be replicated without using meta-templates. Only instances where those doing the conversion don't know how to do so, or do know how but for some reason refuse. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you make such a statement then the duty of prove is on your side. Show me how to implement the actual version of book reference without using qif and I will believe you. I bet you can't. I will test your implementation and bring up negative test cases. Ligulem 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Take a look at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4. May not be 100% (I threw it together in an hour), but it exactly matches multiple test samples and I think it is certainly a 'proof of concept'. It would require '|if=' to be added to every existing book reference call. Let me know if you are interested in using it and I will iron out any bugs. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bug1 Ligulem 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere, the 'Date' parameter wasn't listed as an option on the talk page for this template. That and various small spacing/punctuation details which I uncovered myself have now been corrected. There are also now two different non-meta versions of 'Book reference' at User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4 and a discussion about which should be used on my talk page. Based on this and other templates I believe that everything which uses Qif can be converted to a non-meta version... and would like to take the time to do that before removing Qif. Breaking them all by removing Qif first and then cleaning up the mess seems needlessly disruptive. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad, I appreciate your tireless work. It's a good idea to do two implementations on an existing template so that we can compare. Nevertheless I still have the strong feeling that some functions of qif cannot be mapped to weeble or CSS. I agree with you that first killing qif and then cleaning up the mess is not good for the articles (have thus changed my vote above). I will test your new implementations.
CBD has successfully converted template:book reference to the CSS hiddenStructure trick. All test cases passed. Thanks and congratulations! Prove adduced for CSS. Ligulem 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same for weeble variant! See test cases. All tests are based on CBD's original implementations. Ligulem 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification - the 'side by side comparison' and initial CSS version were added to that page by Netoholic here. I'd suggested CSS as an alternate possibility, but hadn't written it up. Since Netoholic built the majority of the CSS version I've just adjusted it to have the URL and Title 'merged', rather than as two separate items, adjusted the minutiae of spacing and punctuation which are so convoluted on this template, and made a few other small additions. Also, there were a couple of things which I wasn't sure how to do with CSS (I don't use it as much) so I implemented them in the CSS version with a variant of 'Weeble' which doesn't require the '|if=' parameter (but is 'uglier' and more limited in scope). Netoholic or someone else might want to convert those sections to CSS if there are ways to do so. And just for the record... after working on this template I am now convinced that nested curly braces were invented for the sole purpose of driving dyslexics insane. ;} --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So then! Thanks to both of you for your joint effort in proving me wrong. Ligulem 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (blank, remove uses, delete). Unnecessary complication and a resource hog. There really shouldn't need to be any debate on this. It should be a speedy delete. ^Blank ^Verse 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because no replacement exists right now. I don't want to go back to the days when there were several different versions of a template that took different arguments. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once all uses have been cleaned up, although I don't imagine that's going to be anytime soon. JYolkowski // talk 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until replacement functionality is implemented (per CBD), then delete. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once orphaned - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{T | C} 15:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until fully replaced with functionally equilivant code, as per User:David Levy. DES ^(talk) 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pending suitable replacement or update to Mediawiki. Avriette 21:30, 12 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession incumbent edit

Delete — This template is sparsely used as it is almost identical to Template:Incumbent succession box. Philip Stevens 10:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Philip Stevens. No articles in the article namespace use the template, many use Template:Incumbent succession box, so the decision has virtually been made already. Terrafire 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dustimagic 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{T | C} 22:27, 13 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See2 edit

Speedy delete — was deleted 2005 May, reappeared, deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphaned as of today. --William Allen Simpson 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The fact that it's been recreated suggests that there's a demand for it; perhaps some people avoid automagical syntax. Why insist that everyone do things the One True Way. Septentrionalis 06:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreated by mistake. Ashibaka tock 03:31, 14 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See3 edit

Speedy delete — deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphaned as of yesterday. --William Allen Simpson 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This tag is not orphaned. It is used on Canadian federal election, 2004 and possibly elsewhere. - Cuivienen 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There's something odd going on with What links here, as not everything is showing up. I fixed the Canadian reference yesterday, and it's entirely possible more will show up. Everything deleted will probably have to go into holding until the database is fixed. --William Allen Simpson 02:30, 14 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See4 edit

Speedy delete — deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphan. --William Allen Simpson 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:11, 7 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See5 edit

Speedy delete — deprecated tag since 2005 Dec 16; orphan. --William Allen Simpson 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:11, 7 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:See6 edit

Speedy delete — created with deprecated tag on 2005 Dec 28; orphan. --William Allen Simpson 09:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:11, 7 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bigspace edit

All this template does is create a big space, as in    . Silliness. -- Netoholic @ 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Jmabel | Talk 09:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should be in the creator's user namespace if needed. Also, it takes more characters to use that template than it does to type " " twice. — TheKMan^talk 10:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needless. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy not needed. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 17:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely and utterly useless. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Preaky 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No use - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless, even in the user's namespace. Why not to use &nbps; ? fragmer 05:18, 10 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background edit

Template:Big Brother USA season 6 background (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — A template that consists solely of two other templates and a bunch of text is not partially useful. Also, people can't easily edit the text of the article without having to go through the template. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Golbez 07:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A number of bio articles for Big Brother contestants failed to give the most basic of explanation of what the show is. They talked of things like "HoH" and "secret partner" without explaining their meaning. This template simply repeats standard text, to give context to an article, for those less familiar with Big Brother, or who haven't watched it in a long time (or never watched regularly). The nominator has not explained any problem with it. If it needs to be improved, please do so. The inclusion of two templates is not critical, and if that's a problem, they can be taken out. --Rob 07:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Rob, provides valuable context to readers. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this content should be written into articles, not templates. Phil Sandifer 09:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be written in all ten (more later)? I don't understand how this is different then {{United States}} which avoids retyping stuff 50 times, and eases maintenance? For an "in body" example, look at Hamilton Township, Atlantic County, New Jersey which has {{NJ Congress 02}}, {{NJ Senate}}, {{NJ Legislative 02}}, etc... This seems like a common and efficient approach, that will help us keep information in articles up-to-date, while also providing proper context for individual sub-topic/detail articles. --Rob 11:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apples and oranges. One is a paragraph of text, the others are tabular information. Based on that, you think that if this template doesn't exist, no template should. There are very, very few templates that only insert text. Most are either infoboxes, navigation aids (like the example footers you gave) or procedural ones, not text. Straw man: Crumpled. --Golbez
    - What do you mean "...the others are tabular information...". Only one of the templates I used as an example uses a table. The others were in sentence form, to be blended into various article bodies. I'm not sure how many of these there are, but {{NJ Legislative 40}} makes me think there must be at least 40. --Rob 22:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, sorry, as you can see I switched midway through my comment from "tabular" to "navigational", and didn't go back to change it. And I'm guilty of my own crime, I didn't look at the NJ templates. However, the United States template has nothing to do with this. --Golbez 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are all terrible ideas, and should all be deleted. Article text should ALWAYS be in the article namespace. Phil Sandifer 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you.. actually look at them, Snowspinner? --Golbez 17:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If these are *all* terrible ideas, as you say, shouldn't there be some sort of central place where we tell people of a convention against them, rather than randomly deleting selected ones. --Rob 17:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:BEANS - until someone was stupid enough to create them, there was no reason to ban them. Phil Sandifer 17:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Rob 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Were you the template creator? I hadn't checked. Regardless, my point stands - these templates are stupid, and stupid in a way that had not previously been thought of. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It appears the entire extent of your reasoning is the word "stupid". You haven't given one reason for your opinion, other than to make a personal attack, which you have now repeated (knowing full well how it's being taken). Please consider explaining your position, and let's try to raise the standard for discussion around here. --Rob 20:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rob. --Thorri 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- what a badly written template, with grammar and spelling errors! I've moved the text into the article (and done some work on the badly written article as well). The correct template is {{background}}. Now orphaned. --William Allen Simpson 15:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When did bad spelling and grammar become deletion criteria? --Rob 17:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom et al, meta templates are evil and this one is not sensible - content in article is appropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why do we even have articles on seasons of a television show? --Improv 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this article was getting way to big, and needed to be broke up. I suppose it's a similiar concept to why we have articles for each sequel to a serial movie series that follows a standard format, but has variations worth noting. It's also better than the numerous cases, of individual articles for 30-minute episodes of certain shows. --Rob 17:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom. Dustimagic 18:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Prior to today I hadn't read Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates, which says we shouldn't include templates in templates. So, I used "subst", to avoid this. Perhaps another option is to put the included templates {{background}} and {{spoiler}} in the individual bios (regardless of whether {{Big Brother USA season 6 background}} is kept). I think the issue here is only if we want to give standard background/context information, or if we want to compell all/most readers to read a separate article. --Rob 18:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this information is necessary in multiple articles, make a Big Brother USA season 6 background article and link to it. Or, better yet, implant this information into each article, as necessary. This is really an abuse of template system. fragmer 00:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Article text should always be in the article, not hidden in a template. --Bky1701 01:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So just copy-paste the info into each article. What's so difficult about that? Then at least the info can be customized or edited as appropriate for each individual article, allowing for much better flow and more diverse wording.
Delete per above (which is, incidentally, one of the best arguments I've heard in ages for merging all of these ~~anonymous nobodies~~ "reality" TV contestants into a single article per series. And not starting any article on a TV series until at least twelve months after it's aired, this being an encyclopaedia and not a tabloid newspaper and all.- Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 14:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - abuse. Templates do not serve this purpose. Renata 16:45, 11 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was keep, even if there are a lot of delete "votes", most of them refere to "ugliness". I think there is a strong consensus to keep this template. _→AzaToth 16:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Biography edit

Template:Infobox Biography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — This template is simply ugly, an oversized box that adds nothing to the page. Information on name, date of birth and death is already the first pieces of information on the article itself, so it adds no useful content. Regular old photos is all that's needed. Underwent TLD in the past, survived, but many, many people were upset by the decision. Now that it's spreading to other articles it needs to be stopped. DreamGuy 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As nominator, you didn't add the tfd notice to the template itself (step 1 of the instructions at the top of the page here). I've added it there for you. Slambo (Speak) 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Step one says to put in the template or ont he talk page. If you have a problem with that, take it up with whomever wrote the instructions and not me. DreamGuy 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SatuSuro 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like pushing things a bit. That was the argument last time. I'm transcluding this page so we don't keep rehashing the same argument each time. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous discussion is here. —Cryptic (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It's a very nice accent to a page that gives the reader a good image of the person they're reading about in their older years or their youth. the box is also similar to something you'd see at a funeral, which is fitting. --Rsdio 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. Template is far from ugly, far from a distraction, and is already becoming a WikiStandard. --CJ Marsicano 07:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This issue has already been discussed. The template is also in heavy use: about 50 articles use it. If you find the template ugly, please be bold and improve it in any way you can. The authors of these article (not TfD) should decide themselves which templates to use.--Fenice 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enables editors to move (generally) unimportant details like the day and month of birth out of the first sentence but still allows them to be found quickly. Especially useful for subjects who were born and died in different countries. Kappa 07:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Kappa and others. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not too useful, duplicates info already in text, suggests that place of birth is more important than anything. --Golbez 07:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless decoration, duplicating what ought to be in the text, mostly in the very first sentence. Users whose attention span is too short to get through the first sentence might want to get their information elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 08:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously. Possibly block the nominator for his spamming campaign. -- Netoholic @ 08:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per reasons given above. Needless. — TheKMan^talk 08:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't need infoboxes in biographies, except possibly for popes, kings and other exceptional cases (and I'm not entirely convinced about that either). Up+land 09:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a useless ugly distraction from the main text. It merely duplicates what should be written in the lead, although some of these boxes lately seem to carry so much information the article become unnecessary. Get rid of the aesthetically hideous blight once and for all. I'm not here because I was spammed, its been stuck on my watch list since the last attempt to clean the place up.Giano | talk 09:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This template is used very infrequently in comparison to the number of biographical articles, which shows that it is little valued by the community. User:Noisy | Talk 10:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To reiterate what I said last time, the result of deletion will be that biographies will use normal tools to put an image up rather than a template, and so will be encouraged to shape the article, images and so on to fit the needs of the subject rather than shoehorning it all into potentially irrelevant templates. — ciphergoth 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Unneccessary, just reproducing text that should be in the lead and a photograph that can be added normally. Totally pointless. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Template spamming. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally redundant. Not only does it create a large, clunky, box full of information that is already contained in the first line of the biography, but it places all of this duplicated information right next to... the first line of the biography. I don't think we need to be hitting readers with information in stereo before they've even scanned past the first paragraph. It adds nothing to the article, and aesthetically it detracts a lot, particularly in articles that have a short lead section because the box overlaps into the next section (examples Buddy Holly, Helen Keller) and even two sections (example Henri Becquerel). Rossrs 12:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and enhance Just as country articles have infoboxes (rooted in a template) that summatively provide information regarding them, which are not at all obviated by any sort of lead, so should articles about notable people have bioboxes. Even fictional characters in certain genres have (different) bioboxes. A la dictionaries, (even) refine the template/infobox to include (only) top-level notions uniform amongst all Homo sapiens: dates of birth/death, places of birth/death, nationality, primary function/position/occupation. However, such a box should not contain predecessors and successors for any sort of office/position (which are often accommodated for in footer templates). And nothing more; otherwise, it would get unwieldy and redundant. And as a prior TfD occurred a scant three months ago (without consensus to delete), it's this TfD that is rather redundant. E Pluribus Anthony 12:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is redundant, and when lives become uniform, then "important features" can become uniform. Until then, boxes like this mess up existing formatting, duplicate material already present (a deletion reason), and, unfortunately, lead to edit wars, as original authors get "bold" and remove them and box fanatics get "bold" and insist that there is no option: it must be in, that it is "standard," that it makes everything look exactly the same and that's good, and that all we can do is "improve the box," but not remove the box. If box authors put this in biographies that they themselves had written, you'd never see this level of opposition, but, of course, they go to featured articles where someone else has done the research, found the pictures, and done the formatting and then destroy it all by introducing redundancy and "improving" with an infobyte. Geogre 12:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I learned about this TfD from a spam on someone's page. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 13:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with qualifications. I don't like the template much, and in some cases (Benito Mussolini) a more specialized template would be more appropriate. I also don't appreciate having my talk page spammed; as I've never touched the template in question this falls under the category of solicitation. Ah well, such is life. So yes, keep, but try not to use it. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep - This template even has snap on accessory templates IIRC, and is used in a large number of articles. Deleting it will force some large amount of work on someone or another, to fix all those articles up, that could instead be spent on new articles or useful improvements to things. To the charge that it is large and ugly, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It seems similar in size to other infoboxes I have used (see American Bridge Company which uses {{Infobox Company}} or Poughkeepsie Bridge which uses {{Infobox Bridge}}). To the charge that it repeats info in the lead sentence, a LOT of infoboxes do that, I don't see it as a bad thing. I am not even really sure why this was proposed for deletion actually. I watch TfD so would have seen this but I saw it sooner thanks to it being on someone else's talk page... that seems harmless. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for redundancy with the lead. It just isn't useful. Tuf-Kat 16:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the argument against causing people to do extra cleanup work. However, this vote is strongly premised on retaining its use as an optional feature. I have written many bios, but do not use the Box for some of the reasons above. Hal Jespersen 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless, redundant. Varizer 17:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Worthless. Dustimagic 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - adds nothing to articles except a sense that they've been dumbed down. Worldtraveller 18:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and popular template. No reason to handcuff editors by deleting this. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - it adds NOTHING to the article. Nothing. I have always been against this template; it's useless. --Matjlav^(talk) 20:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was nominated previously and survived then. I don't see why it should be deleted now. Slambo (Speak) 21:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and *fD is not a good place to attempt to make sweeping changes to style guidelines. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely uneeded as mentioned above. MechBrowman 02:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete - an unwanted eyesore. Fawcett5 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Needlessly repeats information that should be included in the article's introduction. Also, ugly. android 79 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my resons on the previous TfD. Unneeded, duplicates info whioch should be in the lead or in the text of an early paragraph. There is no style guideline on the use or non-use of this box -- if ther were there would be no need for this debate, at least not in this form. DES ^(talk) 07:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. needless. --Pamri • Talk 08:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same reasons as last time around. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason as last time. JYolkowski // talk 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not further the aims of the encyclopedia known as Wikipedia. Repeats information that should already be mentioned in the intro paragraphs (i.e. a few inches to the left) if significant, and should not have to be mentioned near the top of the article at all if it's not significant (i.e. the exact place where these people were born and died). Needless consumption of space, needless overstandardization, needless overboxation. No credible encyclopedia wouldn't do anything as ridiculous as this, so why should we? This is the sort of thing you see in high school textbooks and baseball cards, not in credible academic resources. Plus it's such a fixture of attention and debate all throughout Wikipedia that it draws much-needed attention away from the article text itself; people have spent so much time arguing back and forth over this silly template over so many hundreds of articles, when all of that time could have instead been spent on improving the text of the actual articles. That's what Wikipedia's about, in the end: cold, hard, solid paragraphs of textual information, not all the bells and whistles, all the elaborate boxes and pretty designs and lists. And I love the bells and whistles!! I'm a layout nut. But this just isn't necessary, in any way, shape, or form, on any article. It's just too patronizing, too unencyclopedic, and, above all else, too redundant. -Silence 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and enhance. A variation is used on many of the biographies of philosophers - see FI David Hume. Usualy I hate unnecessary navigation tools, but this one is potentialy useful. Banno 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that variation used on the biographies of various philosophers is without a doubt the worst thing to ever happen to those articles. If that template is ever nominated for Deletion, I'll give it my biggest "DELETE" vote ever; it's even worse than this one, by far. Truly a horrible, tragic, wasteful, and ridiculous template, if there ever was one. Until the day that scourge of a template is removed from Wikipedia, I'm on strike from improving any articles that use it, even though I'm a huge fan of western philosophers. There are some things that a person simply cannot stand for lest his human dignity be forever eroded; boxes like that are among them. Whether this one is deleted or not, that one certainly needs to be. -Silence 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons give by Fenice. And, if you think it's ugly, improve it. That is what Wiki is about, not deleting things you don't like. --Falcorian | Talk 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just ugly but totally pointless. If I decided to add random circle graphics for no reason to tons of articles, would you like it if I said, "well, if you don't like a circle, make it some other geometric shape spread all over articles for no reason"? No, of course not. Wikipedia is making an encyclopedia, which means getting rid of crap like this that has no reason whatsoever to exist, other than for a few box-happy people to lie about and claim it is supported as policy and shove it in everywhere. DreamGuy 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's nice to have that information in a standard, table form instead of having to wade through text for it, especially if it has info not in the intro. It could be made more attractive, but something like it definitely has a place.--ragesoss 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary. Postdlf 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not needed. Mrwojo 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - It's useful for articles where the subject is deceased. I find it easier in writing header paragraphs which include info on birth and death places. --LBMixPro ^<Sp ^e ^ak|on|it!> 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly pointless. --Saboteur 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto. – Ham 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the SECOND time it has been listed. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, yes it is, but so what? It did not have consensus to be kept last time. If there is no consensus it's pretty silly to try to portray that as consensus to keep, especially when the vote was as close as it was last time. The way things are set up anyone can make anything and then sneak it in on articles and try to portray it as having broad support (as someone tried to claim to me when they started inserting it across articles on my watchlist) when it has no such thing, just not quite ENOUGH support to get rid of it. That's a completely backassward way to do things, you should only do something like this if it has full consensus to actually do, not just because enough people weren't brought together to oppose it. It's horrible way to run anything. So we vote again hoping for a clear consensus. That's the only reasonable thing to do. DreamGuy 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It usefully sets up the essentials of a subject.Why is so much of wikipedia full of useles arguments anyway?.Gareth E Kegg 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I do not see any change in the situation since my previous vote and hence, I do not see any reason to change my vote. --Gurubrahma 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I can't believe a template as popular as this has been nominated for deletion - this is pathetic. It's not harming anyone, its not ugly, its not large! I'm fed up of these stupid nominations! — Wackymacs 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is widely used and looks just fine in my opinion. Hall Monitor 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redesign or delete Exceptionally ugly template that in its current form defaces articles. There is arguably a need for a well designed template, but this version is hideously ugly in the extreme. Given the amount of design talent on WP, is this monstrosity the best we can come up with? Surely not. FearÉIREANN \^(caint) 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Enhance - This template is very useful as it gives a user a quick glance about the subject's birth date/city/country, death date/city/country. It works very well as a quick overview of a subject. Yes it's information that is in some bios but remember, not all Wiki bios contain everything. I've come across so many Wikipedia bio articles where the subject's death date or city or country isn't even clearly written in the article and is only available in the infobox. And some subject's birth or death dates/city/country isn't even written in the article. Believe it or not, I've seen such articles. I would suggest enhancing the biobox to include nationality, occupation, etc. If it's ugly, then someone should improve on it, not delete it. --speedoflight | talk to me 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
very strong keep, only because this has been discussed before, and the result was to keep it. Mac Domhnaill 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Rama's Arrow 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep template is concise, useful, and aesthetically pleasing. -- MisterHand 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use {{Infobox Celebrity}} instead. - David Björklund (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto to Golbez. RexNL 23:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I've edited it so perhaps it works/looks a little better now. — Seven Days » talk 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, Haven't we have faced this kind of dispute before?, Come on guys, it is silly to be just foolishing around and just stating, I am going to delete this template because is ugly, What kind of statement is that? this is silly. My proposal is this template should be enhanced and improved, i find it usefull on articles.--HappyApple 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant and ugly. Fredrik | t c 04:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Because:
- 1) Ugliness and beauty are subjective. There is not a scientific criterion to decide if something is beautiful or not.
- 2) 237 articles use it! If it is so useless, why are there so many artices with it???
- 3) Many serious books use such things to give fast informationabout the biography.
- 4) It is not at all a distraction, and is very useful to standarize the information that every biography should have.
- 5) An article/template/etc should not be listed for deletion twice! Even if the first time there was no consensus.
- 6) If you think this article is ugly, simply change it!

Eynar Oxartum 05:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. A student, for instance, would not be inconvenienced by having to look at the first sentence to find out the person's dates of birth and death (the locations are optional anyways), and would certainly not be inconvenienced by having to look in the infobox's current location to see a photo or portrait of the person. On the other hand, having an infobox for a country is much more handy, because it would take much longer to find out the country's currency, for example, in the absence of an infobox – the reader would likely have to find the Economy section and look for some mention of the currency there. If the intention is to have an infobox for every article at Wikipedia, then may I suggest Wikidata? Before deleting this template, the information given for its parameters should be moved to a more appropriate place in each article. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gives redundant information, has ruined many good articles. Quaque (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ugliness is subjective, usefulness is objective. If over 200 articles use it, it means it is actually useful. --Angelo 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that means it is used. Usefulness is also subjective. I find it useless. android 79 17:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- Subjective reasons for deletion; box could provide handy "flash card" information for younger and home-schooled Wiki users; provides handy and quick visual detailing for those who might need it. David Hoag 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP for all of the same reasons that were brought up the last time this was nominated as a TfD.--Lordkinbote 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Briefly: it's too big, it highlights trivial facts (merely because they're easy to standardize), it is inflexible. Much better to simply use the caption feature, which allows the authors to highlight truly meaningful information, which will be different for every subject. The number of times this template appears is meaningless, because this box is often simply imposed on articles by people who did no prior substantive work on a particular biography. -- PRiis 21:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems harmless. There's no law that says you have to use it if you don't want. Sdedeo (tips) 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More articles are currently used with this infobox. Why does it happen all the time? Adnghiem501 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm falling out of favor of infoboxes in general. --tomf688^{talk} 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Cooper template adds some good info about his birth and death. It is something that deserves to be kept, maybe add some info like DreamGuy says but don't delete it. Thistheman 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too big, too useless. --Hn 07:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I love the theory of infoboxes, and think they do have a place for biographical information. Perhaps it could be expanded upon to include other information like a date of birth, nationality, and other quick information. This way people could get an overview on the individual before having to dive in to the article to find what they are looking for. I'd also cut down on the size of the photography a bit. --Toddbloom7 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I like it, it's great for getting the most important information at a glance, and it's nice to have a standardised form for that. Oliphaunt 12:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Do we have to have this discussion every couple months? This template should be kept until someone comes up with a new argument to delete it. The complaints ir should be redesigned should be met by redesigning it, not by this waste of time. Septentrionalis 18:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Better yet, write a small version as an alternative. Give people a choice. If it is better, it will sweep this one out of Wikipedia. Isn't that the Wiki way? Septentrionalis 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. D. Wo. 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcar1986 (talk • contribs) Adnghiem501 02:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and enhance. Add a few more items to it. Its a good template and there needs to be one for non-Presidents or heads of states.--Kross ^Talk 01:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Infoboxes provide a standard template for representing important information. From the simple standpoint of usability, it is easier to draw information from an infobox than a paragraph (no matter how prominent the information may be in that paragraph). If you feel there is some extra information that could fit in the infobox that is standard to most biographies, improve the infobox. If you don't like the infobox, don't use it in your article. However it is poor form to nominate a template as popular for this (200+ articles) for deletion. Cedars 02:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dammit. Phoenix2 05:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template is a very useful visual aid to an article, since (like all templates) it filters relevant information out of the article into a separate box. If it's too big, then by all means resize it, but don't delete it altogether. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo} ^risin' 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dammit. Ugly like Mother Love and overtemplatization. - Darwinek 14:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is just getting silly - I don't like your template so I'll recommend it for deletion. We need creativity to add to the blandness of text, we need templates to give a common look and feel to articles of similar subject matter. Ok if this is not a good style or content improv it provide or something better. Oh let's not do that when we can get the current one deleted for no good reason and we'll just get on each other nerves. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Arguments to remove entirely subjective. CaptainCarrot 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Halibu tt 03:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--the template is already suggesting to people some form of inappropriate standardization. It's one thing to use a template for a particular field. But the information that matters most for one figure will not be the same as it will be for another. Keep specific ones, but delete the general one. Chick Bowen 16:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sometimes the biobox is useful for containing other information, such as Post-Nominal honors and titles which tend to clutter up intro sentences. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you see it in an article and it bothers you, remove it. It may start an edit war, but it will make you feel better and that's what Wikipedia is all about right? Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think asthetics, superficial matters qualify as a valid reason for delteting anything.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 14:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - this is just getting silly - I don't like your template so I'll recommend it for deletion. We need creativity to add to the blandness of text, we need templates to give a common look and feel to articles of similar subject matter. Ok if this is not a good style or content improv it provide or something better. Oh let's not do that when we can get the current one deleted for no good reason and we'll just get on each other nerves. :: Kevinalewis : please contact me on my Talk Page : 17:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Arguments to remove entirely subjective. CaptainCarrot 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep The Template has some potential, but if only applied in few areas it makes the website look mistmatched and unorganized. If this template is kept it should be applied to a majority of articles, and simular templates should be made for articles not about people PlasticMan 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete the foul infobox that clatters the articles' space per reasons stated by Giano. --Ghirla | talk 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete generally useless, distracting and adds nothing. JackO'Lantern 08:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless --Angelo 12:26, 13 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Community edit

Delete — Please consider deleting the following templates:

All were created for use with places that were incompatable with Template:Infobox City, i.e. some places didn't have a nickname or flag. Now that certain rows can be hidden, every place defined by the U.S. Census can use Template:Infobox City. Thus, the above templetes are now obsolete. I have replaced every instance of them I knew of. — Seven Days » talk 02:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm with you. Only 4 total left using it (go to the template and hit "what links here" John (Jwy) 02:20, 13 January 2006 (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 page.

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

The result of the debate was delete _→AzaToth 15:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bahamas TV edit

Template:Bahamas TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Only linked by {{Miami TV}} as a see also, and whatlinkshere therefore shows several other "usages" of the template (really the Miami TV link) (it is also linked to by an article that I don't know how), and only serves to navigate between one redlink -- which practically eliminates the need for such templates!. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WCQuidditch --Qirex 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved — For the moment, it has no real purpose. However, if other links are added, this could become useful. — Seven Days » talk 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve on it: Apparently, every template i edit reverts. Every template i CREATE is nominated for deletion, or is simply deleted without notice. It's nice to see wikipedia follows its own rules. Or not.

I think i'm moving on to greener pastures from this desolate wasteland. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site where you can share information and not have to worry about cliques and abuse by senior members and Administration. I guess it's gone that way already. What a pity. Wikipedia had so much potential...

Raccoon Fox 17:12, 9 January 2006 (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 page.