Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 20

< August 19	August 21 >

August 20 edit

Template:Talk page 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 replace with {{usertalkpage}} and redirect to {{talkheader}}. There seems to be general agreement following the past TfD that this is the most logical course. The raw code can always be added to User talk: pages if users are attached to the template design. IronGargoyle 00:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally redundant to {{talkpage}}. I suggest replacing all uses with {{talkpage}}, and then delete it. –sebi 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a user talkpage template, replacing it with {{Talkpage}} would not be appropriate. I've also looked through Category:User talk header templates and {{Usertalkheader}} is the only suitable candidate to redirect. However, some users may not like that particular design. Maybe rename the template {{User talkpage}} or something similar and redesign it to make it look better, but definitely keep it. --Farix (Talk) 01:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd prefer to rename it to a more appropriate name. –sebi 01:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the same thing that happened to {{talkpage}} (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 August 10). Replace all transclusions of this template with {{usertalkpage}} and then redirect to {{talkheader}} as a plausible search term. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and redirect, as suggested by Black Falcon. Gracenotes^T § 04:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a merge with {{Usertalkheader}}, making the most efficient use of space possible as to not dominate user's talk pages. Otherwise, keep it and rename the template to something more appropriate. I find {{User talk}} as equally redundant as this one. —Down10 ^TACO 07:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this template is a lot more useful than {{usertalkpage}}, as it has links to talk page guidelines and new section creation. Plus, the original rational for deleting it is flawed as this is about user talk pages, not article talk pages (which is what {{talkpage}} is for). Editmaniac 07:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, when you place {{talkpage}} on a user talk page, it displays an entirely different template (it uses an #if construction). See my talk. Melsaran (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, do not make template forks. >Radiant< 07:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence that this is a template fork. And redirect where? --Farix (Talk) 13:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is a de facto fork, by definition. Redirect per Falcon. >Radiant< 08:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace/merge per Black Falcon. Melsaran (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace per Black Falcon. That seems to be the best way to solve the issue. - Koweja 12:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename if necessary (why?). I'm not using the template to communicate with people on mirrors or anyone off-site, so Usertalkpage is useless. If I cared to have that disclaimer I would already be using it. I *am* using it as a guide for people who may not be familiar with communicating over talk pages on Wikipedia. Talk page is a helpful template. It reminds people to be civil, to sign, and follow standard by adding new comments to the bottom. Talkpage is also not appropriate because it will imply we're trying to improve my User space page. Usertalkheader has the same disclaimer and I don't care to include it at the top. I might chose to include it at the bottom, but that template gets into tl;dr territory. - BalthCat 02:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is this a productive use of our time? - BalthCat 02:05, 26 August 2007 (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:ONThighways 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. IronGargoyle 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Large template, red link farm. Furthermore, the precedent has been to delete these. — Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Templates like these are better served as a list article - use {{infobox road}} browsing templates instead. master son^{T - C} 23:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Other provinces have similar templates, maybe even larger templates. And I object to MasterSon's opinion. How could you make a list of road templates into an {{infobox road}}? It is impossible. An Infobox road only shows some particular information about ONE particular road, not the whole thing. "Red link farm"? {{MB Highways}} has a bigger red link farm than the Ontario one, as far as I am concerned, and no one had proposed a deletion ever since its creation at November 2005. Smcafirst | Chat at 02:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification - The list should be a seperate article (see List_of_numbered_highways_in_New_York and its subpages for an example. In the case of the Ontario routes one might break it up by route type (King's highways, 400 series, secondary, etc and use an index page then each type gets its own list. Infobox road allows browsing the very list sequentially between routes by number (all major types mixed in - minor types - access the list). Then put a link to the list onto the article pages (we used {{infobox road}} for putting the link on there (see New York State Route 17 - where the link appears as Numbered highways in New York right above the browse box). Infobox road can be customized to set this automatically for each province/territory as required. master son^{T - C} 13:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then apparently it needs to be deleted. The ones for VA and RI have been deleted, to cite a few. Your mention of {{infobox road}} is not relevant here. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Other provinces that have similar templates should be deleted. Infobox road would be used for browsing purposes, as it should be. Given prior similar templates that have been deleted, which I supported deletion of, I have no reason to change my opinion on the matter. --Son 04:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously strong keep - This template has under 10 red links out of the hundreds on it, is clean, and is auto-hidden by default. Now, Manitoba's template is a "red link farm" and Saskatchewan's template looks like a big blob. The other templates that were deleted should not have been. Linking to the List of Ontario provincial highways article would do little good, particularly in navigating between highway articles. If you truly MUST insist on the "red link" reason for deletion, this is being remedied, as i'm writing articles for the secondary highways at this time. If you MUST delete this, at least separate it into Kings Highways (2-148 at this time, formerly 2-169), Secondary Highways (500-673), and Tertiary Highways (800-7273, Northern Ontario Resource Trail, and other provincially-maintained roads). The only reason i don't like this idea is that the other templates spun-off from this would then become criteria for deletion under this rationale (being "red link farms"). What does {{infobox road}} have to do with this? This article is NOT a red link farm. Manitoba's is. If you open that template, be sure to have Moses with you to Part the Red Sea! Anyway, keep, keep, keep! RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a plethora of other reasons why this should be deleted: it is way too big. All the other ones have been deleted in the US; I believe one has been deleted for Canada as well. Furthermore, lists and categories are preferred to monster templates. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with the in-infobox browsing system supported by {{Infobox road}} and recommended by WP:CRWP. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does infobox road have to do with ANYTHING? That tells the information for ONE road, not a series of them within the province. What you suggest (an in-infobox browsing system) is exactly what this is! RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 13:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This has in-infobox browsing. This template is nothing of the kind. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 02:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its extremely cumbersome and takes up half of an average article. Again it is emphasized that the infobox includes a link to a list of all highways (with article links) and that is just as effective at gathering all possible routes as this template - without eating server space or overtaking an article. master son^{T - C} 13:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent recorded at WP:USRD/P#State highway system templates; eleven such boxes have been deleted in the past. Cumbersome, overpowering, and chock full of red links, templates of this sort should all be sent to the bin together. —Scott5114 ↗ 04:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is way too large to be useful. List of Ontario provincial highways already has a list that doesn't "bloat" other articles. --NE2 20:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it - who cares about Ontario's highways anyways? Pointless and silly. -Signed by 66.82.9.79 07:21, 28 August 2007 (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:Campaignbox War of Sauron and the Elves 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. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant campaingbox. The relevant fictional campaign from Tolkien's legendarium, War of the Elves and Sauron, refers to an earlier event with no subtopics. Battle of Dagorlad and Siege of Barad-dûr are parts of the Last Alliance of Elves and Men, where they were recently merged into. Disaster of the Gladden Fields refers to a later event. — Súrendil 22:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'll take your word about all the Tolkien-related facts, and so would recommend deletion. If anyone with knowledge in the subject area is able, chime in. --Haemo 00:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I like the new Last Alliance of Elves and Men following the merges! Sorry, that was a side note. Yes, delete looks fine here. Súrendil, could you also note deletion debates at the WikiProject talk page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/AfD? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no contest here; it's wrong. Uthanc 03:14, 22 August 2007 (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:Usercheck 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 no consensus for either. There seem to be limited uses for these templates, but some possible uses are raised, and I am not entirely convinced by the "humiliation" argument. IronGargoyle 03:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily humiliating and derogatory. This lists possible RfAs, arbitration cases, checkuser requests, RfCs, etc that contain the user's name. It automatically "fishes up" old complaint pages etc regarding the user. It's like a kind of track record for everything a user has done wrong. We don't need this at all, {{userlinks}} is sufficient. A link to a relevant case can be provided if needed, in addition to a regular user-template. Delete. Melsaran (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't see any reason to delete. It could be useful, perhaps in RfAs, (I Know we already have a template for that), to check to see whether there has ever been an RfCU, or other type of behavior dispute against them. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 23:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, quite often, an RfAr with the name of a certain user doesn't mean that they were sanctioned there. For example, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, no action was taken against MONGO, but in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan, he was desysopped. The template is not only humiliating, but also confusing. Melsaran (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it could be used in ArbCom, just RFA. It's possible that even if they were not punished in any way because of an ArbCom case, or an RFCU, it helps to know that the user has been involved in disputes. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - definitely has a use. It's needlessly demonstrative outside of an administrative context, but I could definitely see uses on WP:ANI, WP:AN and WP:RFA. --Haemo 00:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As demonstrated here, it is also misleading and quite useless. Also, why would you want to look up any "complaint" page ever made against a user? If a certain RfC or sockpuppetry category is really relevant in an ANI debate, you can link to it. This template is also excessively long, {{userlinks}} is sufficient. Melsaran (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can't this become quite misleading? RfCs and ARBs are not necesserily named after one user, so a user with no blue link showing on the template may have had several of those. And, OTOH, the presence of a blue link may cause a unjustified bad feeling about the user? - Nabla 02:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Furthermore, links to RFC tend to be spurious and/or irrelevant, the link to RFA messes up if (as with many users) there's several, and the link to RFB is frankly more than a little bit silly. Delete or prune heavily, as misleading. >Radiant< 07:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll go for delete. - Nabla 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above reasoning. –sebi 02:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC) So indenting is all the range now ;)[reply]

Comment Also relevant to this may be {{usercheck-short}} (used on RfA, a version with much simpler coding to keep the pre-include expand limit there low). In reply to Radiant!: the original usercheck template is apparently designed to automatically identify the most recent RfA; is it failing in this job? --ais523 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's failing in that RFARs tend to have different names, RFCs tend to be spurious and/or irrelevant, and RFBs are a little silly here. >Radiant< 08:56, 22 August 2007 (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.

GetNWTURL templates 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 no objections = delete. >Radiant< 07:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old system used to link to Bible citations. A couple in the list have transclusions, but about 95% do not have any transclusions. --MZMcBride 20:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(67 templates in all)

Template:GetNWTURL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 Chronicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 Corinthians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 Kings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 Peter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 Samuel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 Thessalonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-1 Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 Chronicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 Corinthians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 Kings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 Peter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 Samuel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 Thessalonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-2 Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-3 John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Acts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Amos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Colossians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Daniel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Deuteronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Ecclesiastes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Ephesians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Esther (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Ezekiel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Ezra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Galatians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Habakkuk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Haggai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Hebrews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Hosea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Isaiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Jeremiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Job (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Joel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-John (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Jonah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Joshua (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Jude (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Judges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Lamentations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Leviticus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Luke (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Malachi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Mark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Matthew (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Micah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Nahum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Nehemiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Obadiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Philemon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Philippians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Proverbs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Psalms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Revelation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Romans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Ruth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Song of Solomon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Titus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Zechariah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:GetNWTURL-abbr-Zephaniah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nabla 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting: not a single opinion in a week?! I also unhidden the template listing, maybe no one noticed it... Nabla 19:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I think you are correct. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subst those that are transcluded, and nuke them all. Circeus 23:07, 20 August 2007 (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:Infobox Reborn character 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. Mike Peel 07:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused character infobox which has been superseded by Template:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 19:41, 20 August 2007 (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:Phobia 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. Both keep arguments mention that the template includes only clinical phobias, but comparing the category to the template I note that the number of pages linked to each is nearly the same. This weakens the argument that the infobox provides distinguishing information that could not be conveyed by a category alone. GRBerry's suggestion for future subcategories is a valuable future direction. IronGargoyle 04:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template adds nothing useful for navigation beyound the Category:Phobias. What is worse, it makes the function "What links here" useless by including hundred of articles included via this template. — `'Míkka 19:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this looks like way, way too many entries for a navigation box, and is basically duplicating the category function at this point. --Haemo 00:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply duplicates the category and adds nothing useful.--Strothra 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom & both other statements made here. Way too many entries for a nav box, thus cluttering articles its placed on too. --Yksin 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This template only includes clinical phobias and the category contains all kinds of phobias. T Rex | talk 01:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This navbox makes WP more user friendly than the category does by focusing on clinical phobias only. Build the Web and make WP accessible. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both these keep opinions sound like they could be addressed by making a sub-cats akin to Category:Clinically recognized phobias and Category:Unrecognized Phobias. Anyone want to tackle that? GRBerry 13:30, 29 August 2007 (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:Konata character 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. Mike Peel 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another series specific character infobox, was only used one until I just redirected the article to the List of Lucky Star characters. Superseded by Template:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 20 August 2007 (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:SL Character 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. IronGargoyle 23:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character infobox for a relatively obscure manga series (Sand Land) by Akira Toriyama. Only used once and is superseded by Template:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 18:32, 20 August 2007 (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:CW Character 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. IronGargoyle 23:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Character infobox for a relatively obscure manga series (Cowa!) by Akira Toriyama. Only used once and is superseded by Template:Infobox animanga character. --Farix (Talk) 18:32, 20 August 2007 (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:Economy of Sri Lanka table 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 Subst. and Delete. Mike Peel 07:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a single-use infobox used only in the article Economy of Sri Lanka. Per ample precedent and consensus, single-use templates should be subst'ed and deleted. — Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:24, 20 August 2007 (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:Shaman King characters 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. Mike Peel 07:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same as with Template:Infobox The Big O character below. I noticed that this template has been abandoned when I was turning it into a transition template for Template:Infobox animanga character to be subseted. --Farix (Talk) 15:52, 20 August 2007 (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:Northern Irish Cities 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. Please don't create forks of the template to get around the page protection imposed due to edit warring - discuss the issue instead. Redirection was a strong possibility, however it looks to be quite likely that the redirection would be reverted in this case. If the template is recreated after deletion, then it can be speedy deleted (G4). Mike Peel 07:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV fork Template is redundant to Template:Northern Ireland cities. — Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The term is possibly usable. The only difference I see between the two is that one is collapsed and the other is not. --Farix (Talk) 14:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the template was created to avoid a edit block placed on the other template, and was a attempt to continue a edit war which resulted in the other template having to be blocked.--padraig 14:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The template is correctly named in line with Template:Welsh Cities , Template:Scottish Cities and Template:English Cities (note the adjective and capital 'C' in each case. The other template (Template:Northern Ireland cities is the one, if any, which should be deleted/redirected. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why are you continuing to add a defunct flag to this template [1] it was this that resulted in the other template being protected, you are edit warring to WP:Point this Banner has no status and isn't recognised by either the British Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive and has not had any official use since 1973 when the goverment it belonged to used disolved under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. This has all been explained to you before and is set out in the Northern Ireland flags issue article, which you continue to ignore to push your own POV--padraig 15:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply Comment The template is the Northern Irish counterpart of the other home nation's respective templates. Both name-wise and style-wise. It is not redundant. You may prefer not to see the Northern Irish flag, or even the adjective "Northern Irish" on wikipedia, but that is tough. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to have Template:Northern Ireland cities moved Here to Template:Northern Irish Cities and failed, you then tried to insert a defunct flag which resulted in the template having to be protected, so you created this template to try and push your POV, what you are doing is disruptive, this template should be deleted.--padraig 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a simple case of capitalisation for consistency. The template Template:Northern Ireland cities was moved to Northern Irish cities by administrator user:John at my request. That was then reverted without an edit summary by user:Barryob. This template was created to be consistent with the other templates, nothing more. It is not irrelevant (which is what this nomination was for) and so should not be deleted. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The template is a POV fork, also I did provide an edit summary when I moved Template:Northern Ireland cities back to its original location [2] please do not spread misinformation. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It simply is not POV. What is POV is having a template improperly named so as to undermine a national identity. The template nominated does not do that! Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The present Northern Ireland cities template is correct. It is the other UK ones that are wrong. Small 'c' is correct. --Bill Reid | Talk 16:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect duplicate template created as a POV fork.--padraig 01:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only POV thing about this are those people who are campaigning for its removal because they don't recognise people's right to identify as "Northern Irish". Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Created to make a WP:POINT. Also not many people in Northern Ireland identify as "Northern Irish", they identify as "British" or "Irish". Brixton Busters 17:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has absolutely nothing to do with how people identify themselves as. This is about cities not people. Biofoundationsoflanguage 14:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You brought nationality into this discussion above.--padraig 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find a difference between national identity and nationality. Nationality is a legal term. Biofoundationsoflanguage 16:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is little difference between national identity and nationality in Northern Ireland, please read the Belfast Agreement. There is no such legal concept as "Northern Irish". This debate is a red herring. You created a duplicate template to avoid the protection on the existing template, that is why the new template needs to be deleted. Brixton Busters 17:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what is a legal definition. "Northern Irish" is just are correct as "English", "Scottish" or "Welsh" when used as an adjective. This template is correctly named in line with its counterparts, unlike the template which got locked despite having been moved by an administrator who agreed it was incorrectly named! Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the correct course of action would be to discuss a change of name for the original template, not simply create an identical template at your preferred name. Brixton Busters 17:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He tried that and failed so then he created this one.--padraig 18:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- "Northern Irish" is an adjective acceptable to use for cities in that area of the UK Astrotrain 12:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to create a new template to push POV. BigDunc 12:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that these are not cities in Northern Ireland? Astrotrain 12:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do I even need to answer that stupid question.BigDunc 12:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - No personal attacks please- I was merely asking why you think a template with cities in Northern Ireland is POV? Astrotrain 12:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I made no personal attack but ask a stupid question get a stupid answer you know what the POV is I am talking about, it's the inclusion of the Ulster Banner.BigDunc 12:56, 24 August 2007 (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:Infobox The Big O character 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. Mike Peel 22:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of converting this template into a transition template to Template:Infobox animanga character and WP:SUBST all instances of it when I noticed that the template wasn't being used at all. --Farix (Talk) 14:04, 20 August 2007 (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:Medical advice 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. Mike Peel 22:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recent addition to the "user warnings" line of templates, this implies that giving well-intentioned medical advice is a blockable offense on Wikipedia. This does not strike me as a good idea (regardless of the fact that Wikipedia does not give medical advice, this template is not the way to handle it, and may bite newbies). >Radiant< 12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is it that pervasive of a problem that we need a boilerplate warning? No, I thing a non-template note would be a better approach. --Farix (Talk) 14:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You may be interested in the discussion over how to handle medical advice on Wikipedia. It can be found here. (It HAS been proposed that medical advice is a blockable offence here; even without warning.) This template is need for illustrative purposes in the discussion. I have no objection to its deletion once it is no longer needed there though. --S.dedalus 21:16, 20 August 2007 (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:In progress 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. >Radiant< 12:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles on Wikipedia are "in progress". This template simply says that it's not a finished article and says that people are allowed to expand and edit it - I would hope that would be obvious on this project! This isn't needed when we have templates such as Inuse which shows that the article is having a significant edit right now. A quick browse of the articles it is used on shows that it is being placed on articles and then no further edits are done for a week or more. violet/riga (t) 15:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to redirect to {{inuse}} and remove the incoming links. violet/riga (t) 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Violetriga. •Malinaccier• ^T/C 22:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree An administrator (Reedy Boy) kindly placed an "inuse" tag on an article I created (and also provided guidance and help starting the article). I changed it to "in progress" because the "in use" tag seems to "stay away and let me write this article for now". The "in progress" tag is a bit more inviting to others. I put it because I wanted to say "this new article is in a sorry state but I'm working to improve it right away...you may also work on it, too" Archtrain 15:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The timescale here is one of the problems. You say "right away" but the template has remained on some articles for over a week when it should really be a day at the most. violet/riga (t) 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep and restrict it to the first week/10 days of creation. It really should not be a day, as not everyone has free time, and some can only do this on weekends or late at night. template:inuse would mean that editing is discourage in the (hour/short time period) that you're doing some big work. OR redirect to Template:Underconstruction (but that one is also for hour/short time period use) 132.205.44.5 21:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles are "in progress" and could be edited over the space of a week or so - we shouldn't have a template to tell people that. violet/riga (t) 22:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per User:violetriga's proposal. I have some alpha articles in the early stages of construction, and Template:Underconstruction is, in my judgment, a better tag for just-MOVEd new articles. - B.C.Schmerker 05:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inuse effectively does the same job as this. Articles are re-written all the time, a template is not needed to inform editors/readers of this. Dave101→talk 18:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Underconstruction" is the most widely used template of this sort and should be the standard oneDGG (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couple things - 1: newer articles ideally would be done in a sandbox or written as stubs - and if that - an article is always in progress. 2: this template is essentially a carbon copy of {{inuse}} (for exclusive edits) and {{underconstruction}} (for notifying of a large amount of change over time) . master son^{T - C} 21:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given above. Redundant to {{Underconstruction}}. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to underconstruction, which is essentially the same only uglier. — The Storm Surfer 23:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a relist is required. There are eight people saying delete/redirect and only two (one of which is an anon) thinking it should be kept. violet/riga (t) 12:48, 20 August 2007 (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:List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Introduction 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 subst and delete. The article content within the template has been added to the subpages of the list. The template is now in the parent article alone and its creator has (ambiguously) called for its deletion. Subst: doesn't really add much code to the page because the template is now little more than a set of templates itself. IronGargoyle 03:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a template masquerading as content, for which there can be no excuse whatsoever, it is the editors' job to make sure the intro remains correct, and occasionally subst: a new version kept somewhere else. Subst and move to a subpage in Wikipedia: namespace, then delete. Circeus 00:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea about what to do with this template, although it's not the simplest. First, copy the template's content (that is, article content) into List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. Then, remove the content from the template. The "parent article" and "siblings" functions are useful; having the same content on each page is not. The particulars of the list can be kept of the main page, and the lists themselves (without an intro) can be kept on "subpages". This is basically a keep and remove article content. Gracenotes^T § 01:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So I'm confused - do no other lists have the problem this one did - which is that the same introduction content should be on all the pages? We had the intro as content for each one, but they started to diverge. I tried to just use a sub-page (like "List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/Intro") but couldn't figure out how to transclude it. Is there a better way? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that templates were never intended to replace text content. If someone attempts to edit the intro, he might expect to find up to 3 templates (navbox, "main" article, navigation between the parts of the list), but he has absolutely no reason to expect a template to contain the text of the intro. I agree this list is a weird one, but the template represents a serious breach of accessibility. Circeus 01:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would it help if I moved it to Wikipedia space under the wikiproject? But then there would be content in wikipedia space, another no-no if I understand you correctly. Is there another way? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - My biggest is that the text of the intro should be... well... in the friggin' article, not transcluded! Whatever happens to the template in the end is really secondary. Circeus 04:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've altered the template to address the concerns noted here. Does it look okay? Gracenotes^T § 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm - that removes all the text from all of the lists that it was transcluded into. I understand that content doesn't belong in templates. My issue is that the text is the same for each of the lists, which is what templates are for. A bit of a catch-22, but if required, I'll pull the text back into each of the lists. My reason for putting it in a template is so that all of them would be the same and wouldn't diverge from each other. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was intended... sorry if you didn't intend it :( The sublists (for example, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people/A) don't need an overview of the list, because the main article (List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people) already provides an explanation and overview. So long as each sublist links to the main article, the only content that should be needed on each sublist is the list items themselves. Is this reasonable? Gracenotes^T § 05:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. This appears to be a deviation from the original design. If that's not all right, feel free to revert it, and we can try to find another solution. (If worst comes to worst, the template can include the article content.) Gracenotes^T § 05:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I kinda feel like the introduction needs some explanation. For instance, since being labeled LGB is considered "controversial" by BLP standards, the lists need to mention that every entry is sourced. And I don't know if the historical information about the words "lesbian, gay, bisexual" really needs to be on there, but maybe a mention that points to the main article?
      - It's perfectly okay to have an introductive text standardized. It's NOT okay to have it hidden away in a template. If someone makes an edit to only one part of the list, it's either improper and reverted, or it's pertinent, and is easily spread to the other parts. An HTML comments may be made recommending discussing edits on the talk page of the master list before making them. Circeus 21:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine, I've replaced the text, so delete the template. But I object strongly, since the reason I put that text in the template is exactly that - to have an introductive text standardized. The main article has all the information, so I don't see it as "hidden away", and the argument that changes will spread defies common sense - entropy will see them diverge from each other, and keeping the same is what templates are for. But delete away. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        The main reason that templates should not contain article content is that templates are meant to be transcluded on more than one page, and it is not intuitive (and kludgy) for the exact same article content to be included on more than one page. If the same content needs to be accessed from more than one page, keep that content on one of those pages, and link to it. In this case, something like "For information about this list, see the overview" would be great. In fact, the template already has a pointer to the parent article.
        
        If BLP is a concern, a small summary of the scope of each list could be included in this template. What was on the template previously (This is a partial list of confirmed '''famous people who were or are [[gay]], [[lesbian]] or [[bisexuality|bisexual]]'''. Famous people who are simply rumored to be gay, lesbian or bisexual, are not listed.) would be fine for this function. Gracenotes^T § 04:52, 22 August 2007 (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.