Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 27

< February 26	February 28 >

February 27 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 Speedy Keep - Dident stand a snowballs chance in hell of being deleted.-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 04:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User vandalized edit

What purpose does this template serve other than encourage further vandalism?--Azer Red Si? 22:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it allows the user, or anyone else to count how many times the page has been vandalised. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pride. If someone vandalizes your user page, maybe you're doing something right. I think it's a small enough breach of WP:DENY to let it slide. —Dgies^t c 22:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as the reasons above. Nol888_(Talk) 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *sigh* we've been through this nom before, to be honest it is a simple way to keep count of how many times the userpage has been vandalized. ~ Arjun 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what's the point of keeping count of how many times your page is vandalized. Having this on your page is like daring a person to vandalize it.--Azer Red Si? 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion on this before and the result was: speedily keep. I'm going to stick with my decision to keep and remove the tfd tag. Nol888_(Talk) 23:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Just because it has been speedily kept before doesn't mean that it can never be re-nominated. It looks like this is going to be speedily kept, but wait for the closing admin to close this before removing the tag.--Azer Red Si? 23:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How long before this is closed up and we can remove the {{tfd}}} tag? It's getting in the way. Nol888_(Talk) 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It lets me count how many times my Wikipedia page has been vandalised. Given all the other personalized non-wikipedia related userboxes, I'd say that this particular userbox is somewhat more appropriate than most of the others (religions, hobbies, places of birth). El Krem 23:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep *Mishatx*-In\Out 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snowball close. John Reaves (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - I had this opinion when I nominated this template for deletion before, and I still have it: "All this does is encourage vandals to vandalize the user page to raise the counter." (from [1]). That's all it does, plain and simple. Nothing more to it. It idolizes vandals, encourages vandalism, and goes against our philosophy. People should take pride in having their userpage never vandalized, not the opposite. Vandals are not toys to play with and have them press a button to raise a counter on a userpage. —METS501 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can you maintain "userpage virginity" like that??? I revert vandalism and that makes me a target. Now can you kindly ask the real perps to leave my userpage alone? Thanks kindly! :) - Alison ^✍ 01:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a never-vandalized user page means one is probably doing nothing to fight vandalism (or, at least not warning the vandals). IronGargoyle 01:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - having a vandal immortalized in our culture is different from having a vandal immortalized in... erm... one stupid number. If someone comes to Wikipedia wanting to troll, they'll find a way to do it regardless. Gracenotes^T § 00:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment(Reply) why you say numbers are like that?Jer10 95 00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI see it entirely differently. As a member of CVU and an RC Patroller, I occasionally encounter vandalism to my userpage. I see the counter not as a mark of "idolization" of vandals, but as a sort of minor purple heart, or as a scar incurred in the heat of battle (I mean this all metaphorically and a bit exaggeratively, but reversion does often seem like a battle...). So my final word is "keep".--Vox Rationis 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This template is an indicator.Jer10 95 00:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps it should be moved, however, to someone's user subpage as part of the Userbox Migration. --Nehrams2020 00:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - Templates that don't help Wikipedia in any way, such as this one, should be moved to the userspace. VegaDark 00:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shows pride in fighting vandals. Having your userpage vandalized is a byproduct of successful vandal fighting as editors editing in good faith don't usually vandalize a user page after having their edits reversed. Now let's please close this; it's cluttering my userpage. —Ocatecir ^Talk 01:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is created and maintained by volunteers who enjoy what they do. This userbox, like many others, adds a bit of fun to the process... NO, it is certainly NOT necessary (really no userboxes are necessary for Wikipedia to work) but let's not forget that we, Wikipedia editors, are allowed a little fun, too, while we edit. Finally, this userbox does not encourage vandalism. If a vandal's "work" gets reverted, and that vandal is bent on revenge, then that is the motivation underlying the resulting user page damage, not the userbox. Katalaveno^T_C 01:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Majorly >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 01:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It's a badge of honour. I revert vandalism where I see it ergo, I get hit a lot by vandals and WikiTrolls. 42 and counting ... - Alison ^✍ 01:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we DO end up migrating it to the userspace, I have it here already. Nol888_(Talk) 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Richard D. LeCour ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per all above. I've only once had a user vandalize my page to raise the counter, and that was more of a harmless joke than anything else. IronGargoyle 01:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vandals can get considerably more recognition through other means. Why would a vandal do this? -Amarkov moo! 01:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of good reasons above. -- Mufka ^(user) ^(talk) ^(contribs) 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you can argue that it encourages vandalism. I argue that it discourages vandalism. if a page has been vandalized 100 times and there is no sign of it. Id assume it was a lost cause. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 02:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep agree with the previous assesment - it actually is a discouragement to vandalism. Plus, you gotta let people have a little fun with Wikipedia. Locriani 02:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I actually don't mind when anyone vandalises my userpage (although I prefer it to be without an entire series of insults as to the identity of my ancestors, my sexual orientation, my political affiliations, and so on). The more time vandals spend vandalising userpages, the less time they spend vandalising real articles. -- Black Falcon 02:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Most editing of a user page other than by the user him/herself is generally vandalism. To single out this particular userbox as a probable catalyst for more vandalism seems silly and unnecessary to me. I appreciate having a crisp way to tally vandalism to my page; if this particular piece of my page is vandalized, it is easy to fix. I agree with the assessment that if your user page is vandalized (via this particular user box or any other aspect), it probably means you are doing a decent job of fighting vandals. Keesiewonder ^talk 02:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is good idea to keep this vandalism box because it is an indicator of how successful people are in maintaining their pages and preventing them from being vandalized. It also shows what sort of people we as user have to fight continually in order to maintain Wikipedia's growth and success. Chris 03:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless. My count got raised quite a lot when I was on RC patrol but now im blocking the vandals they seem to be cooling off before they come back because I haven't been hit in a while. Viridae ^Talk 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above "Keep" reasons. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep -- Revengeful sockpuppets can target the page if reported/blocked 24h by a certain user. Lets the reverter know if the page is a vulnerable target for future vandalism. Real96 04:05, 28 February 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 page.

Miscelaneous TV station link 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 Delete all. IronGargoyle 01:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidating into bulk nomination —Dgies^t c 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A template which is just useless, just containing the word/s ITV3. It's just easier to put [[ and ]] AxG ۝۝۝҈ ^►^talk_►_guests 19:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Earlier versions offered some style but violated fair use. After being kneecapped they are useless. —Dgies^t c 21:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all along with the following:

that were created in the same fashion. mattbr³⁰ 22:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - useless without logos Pit-yacker 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as useless. John Reaves (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including additions by Mattbr30. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the idea was good, but logo's being fairuse, just useless atm. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 21:52, 2 March 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 page.

Template:Tolkien 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 Keep/Split to Tolkien family —dgies^t_c 23:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template expressly violates WP:NOT a memorial or genealogical site. --Isotope23 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but convert to normal navigational box look. Move template as it is to WikiProject Tolkien project space. Gracenotes ^T § 00:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove as a navigational device. Simply make a link to it via "See also" at the bottom of appropriate articles. --Petercorless 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't understand why this was nominated. It contains much valuable information, besides including several notable individuals. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that it should be included in articles in its current form? Gracenotes ^T § 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think so. It'd be great if it could be converted into an image, but I don't know how to do that. In the meantime, I changed the template to a simple "see also" link at Baillie Tolkien. Is that acceptable to you? --Fang Aili ^talk 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, but Gracenotes != consensus :) To tell you the truth, I would be perfectly fine keeping the template as it is if it weren't to be transcluded on mainspace (as a generalization). Gracenotes ^T § 03:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was nominated because it goes against WP:NOT. Family tree's like this are not suitable content for Wikipedia under our current guidelines. One option I didn't think about though was this being converted to a Navbox. If someone replaced the family tree with a standard navigational box to tie together Tolkein family related articles, that would be a very acceptable solution.--Isotope23 15:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some problems, but these should be fixed following disucssion on the talk page, not by deletion. This template contains information not properly contained in the pages it is linked from, and that needs to be addressed first. While we are here, I note that the nominator deleted a PROD here. Can I make a formal request for that to be undeleted and taken to AfD? There is relevant discussion at Talk:Baillie Tolkien (the talk page was not deleted). Carcharoth 23:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Fang Aili ^talk 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think Tolkien family should be changed from a redirect, and this template only used in that article, and minor members of the family can be merged there - though note that (other than the obvious J. R. R. Tolkien), Edith Tolkien and Christopher Tolkien have substantial articles, and Tim Tolkien (controversial at the time) is now looking much more respectable. Simon Tolkien's article is still a bit stubby. Arthur Tolkien exists, though Mabel Tolkien is a redirect - quite strange considering that the mother had more influence on the son. I think Mabel should have her own article. There is also information about other members of the family that would fit nicely at Tolkien family, such as stuff about Hilary Tolkien (Tolkien's brother) and other existing members (Royd Tolkien has a website, but probably not enough for his own article). Also, the other Tolkien children: Michael Tolkien, and John Tolkien and Priscilla Tolkien - all mentioned in J. R. R. Tolkien, but could be expanded upon in Tolkien family. There is also a younger Michael Tolkien involved with the Tolkien Estate. Carcharoth 09:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace and then delete This is fine information (though in all honesty more than I think necessary) but it should be at an article called Tolkien family not a template. Eluchil404 11:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is and will be sufficient articles on this range of subjects to warrant the template.DGG 18:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as useful template. Matthew 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tolkien family should be changed from a redirect and the information from this template moved into that article while the template is deleted. Subsequently, stubs on minor members of the family can be merged into Tolkien family (see Baillie Tolkien which is up for deletion). >^..^< Nimfaelin 08:41, 5 March 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 page.

Template:Username service suspended 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 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unlikely to ever be used again. --Awyong J. M. Salleh 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unlinked so therefore not of historical interest. —Dgies^t c 18:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outdated and unused. John Reaves (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of no historical interest, period. Gracenotes ^T § 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, now useless *Mishatx*-In\Out 16:27, 28 February 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 page.

Template:Infobox England place with UK flag for UK map 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 02:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused (and AFAICT never used outside tests) duplicate of Template:infobox England place except for a different flag on the bottom. Consensus appears to be that Template:Infobox England place will be replaced up Template:Infobox UK place anyway. --Pit-yacker 15:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, unused outside of tests and/or discussions. Smee 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jhamez84 12:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. MRSC • Talk 16:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regan123 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Barry entretien 20:22, 6 March 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 page.

Template:Campaignbox 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 Withdrawn the nomination on behalf of User:Indon Satu Suro 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV, useless because of the already better template: {{Infobox terrorist attack}} and it does not provide additional encyclopaedic information. — Indon (reply) — 12:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates:

The template above was changed by the author below after this nomination from {{Campaignbox Jemaah Islamiyah}} into {{Campaignbox Terrorism in Indonesia}}, so I renamed the section name, and
I would like also to nominate his other useless Campaignboxes for deletion, with the same reason of redundancy with {{Infobox terrorist attack}} and POV.

— Indon (reply) — 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep you seem to be blind blind regarding new developments on this wiki: see boxes:
- Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism
- Template:Campaignbox Second Chechen War terrorism
- Template:Campaignbox al-Qaeda attacks --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete - agree with nominator. Plus, already has categories that do exactly the same job. This is ust a decoration hence not encyclopedic. Just because another category exists, doens't mean that this is useful.--Merbabu 13:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this type of space wasting infoboxes have become a virus on wikipedia. What do you think categories are provided for? Secondly, a highly complex issue like Jemaah Islamiyah cannot be squeezed into a little infobox without introducing POV as a result of the editor choosing specific details for inclusion in the infobox and omitting everything else. (Caniago 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

template header and name since changed. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. NEw heading 'Terrorism in Indonesia' is no better. It's just a jingoistic simplistic 'banner' that shows no understanding of the subject.Merbabu 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

let's hear non-Indonesians, please --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What difference would that make? Anyway, you've heard from two Australians and 1 Indonesian. Furthermore, if you are questioning the legitamcy of people's opinions, i note all your edits are about military conflicts and terrorist attakcs. Is that balanced? hmmm. Furthermore, your rallyying call to 'save a template' is hardly good form.[2] Merbabu 13:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mil.hist. people should know what's happening to mil.hist.-related things--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

also, pardon on labeling you as an Indonesian --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DOn't apologise. I wasn't at all offended by being called an Indonesia (on the contrary) i just object to you suggesting that Indonesian's shouldn't comment. I guess it illustrates the subjective prism i fear you see things through.Merbabu 13:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TheFEARgod, please elaborate more why Indonesians cannot give a comment here? — Indon (reply) — 14:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said let's hear ALSO others.. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? Your edit here [3] does not include "ALSO". I felt offended in this way. — Indon (reply) — 14:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not that anyone here might have missed this, but navigational templates and infoboxes are totally different things; the former (of which the nominated entries are an example) provides navigation among several related articles, while the latter provides a summary of a single article. Kirill Lokshin 14:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: - true about the definition of the two templates, but the way the campaignboxes here are used is placed just under the Infobox, which makes them as a redundant infobox. Please see September 11, 2001 attacks, for example. Not to mention the POV issue by putting related to Indonesia and Chechnya under the Sept. 11 attack box. What Indonesia & Chechnya got to do with the attack? — Indon (reply) — 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're specifically designed to look like an extension of the basic infobox, since that's typically the neatest place to position small templates like that without making layout more difficult for the rest of the page; but that doesn't mean the two are redundant, merely that they're meant to be used in conjunction. The POV issues are another thing entirely, of course. Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the advantage of such 'navigational boxes' over categories? Ie, to balance out their visual clutter? Merbabu 14:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two main things:

They're more convenient for the average reader, who is very used to hyperlinks, but typically not familiar with the intricacies of Wikipedia's category system.
They provide a chronological ordering, whereas categories generally provide only an alphabetical one. (This is why people haven't replaced all the various navigational boxes with categories; they don't actually work the same way.)

There are some other, more minor benefits in terms of layout and organization, but those are the major ones. Kirill Lokshin 14:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but, why can't it be on the bottom of the page, just like any other navigational templates I know ? — Indon (reply) — 14:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily because nesting them under the infobox has been the established convention for a number of years, because they're designed to provide easy navigation for people who've read the lead section and decide they want to move to a related article, and because many of them are too small to look anything but horrible as full-width bottom-of-page boxes. (Frankly, I'd go the other way and suggest that other relatively small navigational templates be reformatted into this style. It generally produces a much neater-looking result in practice than the usual stack of multicolored blocks at the bottom of some articles.) Kirill Lokshin 14:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I found again the same template {{Terrorism in Iraq}}, oh my, what a mess! — Indon (reply) — 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep {{Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism}} and {{Campaignbox Second Chechen War terrorism}}, which really are part of the well-established military campaignbox schema as branches of {{Campaignbox Iraq War}} and {{Campaignbox Second Chechen War}}; no opinion on the other two. (You seem to have missed, incidentally, {{Campaignbox India terrorism}}.) Kirill Lokshin 14:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the "delete" users: It's a navigational template nice way to link pages. POV problems can be solved by other means. I really don't see the problem in linking Terror in Indonesia (JI) to al-Qaeda. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV issue is one of the TfD criterion #4 above. — Indon (reply) — 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FEARgod, wouldn't links between JI (which you simplisticly term Terror in Indonesia??!?!) and al Qaeda are better served by well-referenced and carefully explained article than the visual jingo of a pretty banner?Merbabu 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather like to have your help on the Terrorism in Indonesia, you know. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 14:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol - isn't that funny that well-planned and informative article appeared part way during this discussion.Merbabu 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Navigational boxes serve a rather useful purpose, and are used on a great many pages, including, but by no means limited to, every battle in the following wars & campaigns listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Campaignboxes. Unlike categories, campaignboxes indicate the chronology of a series of events, and are easily visible and navigable from the main page of an article. Terrorist attacks may not *quite* be the same thing as a military campaign or war, but the purpose and usefulness of the template remains the same. If you delete these, you have to delete all campaignboxes. And then the 500 or so WP:MILHIST members will be mad at you. ^_^LordAmeth 14:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I encountered infobox like this, perhaps my subject of interest is not in milhist. ~~BTW, I still don't get the advantage of putting Campaignboxes over the same Category.~~— Indon (reply) — 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why 'we' would 'have to' remove all campaign boxes. Merbabu 14:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV problems with each one, the Indonesian one has both confirmed and suspected event organisers so there is the possibility that they aren't related. Chechen war one has the same issue, the Al-Q one has unrelated events where associations are suspected through possible third party associations. Only the Iraq appears to have sufficient relations to warrant its use, though the Jordan bombings are a stretch. Overall Indo, Al-Q, and Iraq based on the associations raised in the Al-Q grouping should be combined, even some of the chechen events may also fall into these implied associations.Gnan garra 14:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too POV for my liking. I understand the navigation aspect but using these boxes in terrorism articles oversimplify a complex issue and create false associations. Use =See also=. —Moondyne 15:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful tool and well done at that. Smee 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as per User:Moondyne Topar 22:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user above has less than 20 edits on this wiki --TheFEARgod (Ч) 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --Medule 22:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not a vote (particularly if it is on behalf of your mates), it is a discussion, preferably based on some understanding and contribution to the issues at hand. Merbabu 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes such votes are allowed on this page see [4] --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep --Manojlo 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not a vote (particularly if it is on behalf of your mates), it is a discussion, preferably based on some understanding and contribution to the issues at hand. Merbabu 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Navigational infoboxes = good. --Petercorless 22:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No understanding of Indonesian history or culture or context is reflected in the above template relative to Indonesia. The Indonesia project has been attempting to develop information about terrorism from a totally different perspective and the template is of little relevance or assistance to the project. I have no doubt that if the creator of the template had actually recognised the existence of the Indonesian project and had approached the project rather than creating the template that a very different outcome would have eventuated rather than this gathering of fellow military history friends with 'strong keep' support - in terms of good faith i believe the indonesian template should be withdrawn rather than defended Satu Suro 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment or more question - has the fine array of military history enthiusiasts with speedy keep ever corroboroated with separate projects - like actually negotiate issues, or is it simply 'campaigns to win?' SatuSuro 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC) My apologies - tyop - it should have been 'strong keep ' labels found in the left column. SatuSuro 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, three points:
  - I don't see a single "speedy keep" (which means something quite specific, and would indeed be inappropriate here).
  - The Indonesia template has nothing to do with military history; it just happens to have been lumped in with several that do. (This is why umbrella deletion nominations tend to be more trouble than they're worth; it's difficult to conduct a debate on specific points when you're trying to come to a decision on multiple things at once.)

Rejoinder - equally the creation of template 'creations' from outside projects can be as problemtatic for the Indonesian project.Satu Suro 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - As to the substance of your comments, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Is it the existence of a chronological-template-for-navigating-among-events in of itself that you see as the problem here? I can't imagine what approach the Indonesia project might be taking that would recoil from the fundamental idea of chronological navigation. Or is it merely the current content of the template—the choice of links, in other words—that's the issue? Kirill Lokshin 04:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your query - I do not speak for the other editors who appear to be annoyed by the sudden-un-negotiated template appearing in indonesian articles concerning bombings. I take issue with assumptions of what constitutes terrorism in indonesia- and find the template simplistic and unnecessarily non encyclopediac - my understanding of violence and conflict in indonesia is that it is over-simplified by international media- and this template is making connections that are not necessarily connected by the evidence available - that in itself - the over-simplification and POV aspects reduce the chronological issue irrelevent. Thanks for your query Satu Suro 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: These boxes are further made redundant by the far superior (albeit inperfect) War on Terror info box on some of these pages. See for example 2004_Jakarta_embassy_bombing. Why do we need both? This is not a pretty patch-work quilt project, rather an encyclopedia. Merbabu 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: To explain, there is a difference between an individual event infobox, such as the citation of the 2004 Jakarta embassy bombing, and a series of events infobox. You can have both, and it is typical to use both in succession for historical events, with the event above, and the series of events below. See: Battle of Chickamauga. Note that there is a battle infobox above, and the campaign infobox below showing the various different incidents below. I believe that this template serves as a way to tie the events of the individual incidents together in a way that they may be understood sequentially. --Petercorless 01:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. These campaignboxes are completely different from {{Infobox terrorist attack}}. The purpose of the latter is as an infobox for a single terrorist attack. The purpose of the campaignboxes is to provide a chronology of multiple terrorist attacks and to serve as a navigation tool. -- Black Falcon 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: all the 'keep' votes are based on functionality. But, in a balanced, accurate and verifiable encyclopeida, does this much-trumpted ease of use and convenience override fundamental problems of POV, assertion of clarity where clarity doesn't exist, and simplfication? --Merbabu 05:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from the nominator - I included here only campaignboxes specific to terrorisms which are prone to POV and oversimplification of the issue, see Moondyne's comment above.I didn't include all the Military/War campaignbox. Take for example in this template which has been reverted several times, because in the template there is a strong POV assertion to the related countries which then was worse when it was included, for instance, in the September 11 attack (Chechnya, Indonesia & Iraq had something to do with the attack?). Thus, to the strong keeper from milhist, please take a look again at criterion #4 on what can templates be TfD'ed and see this nomination only applies to the contentious ones. — Indon (reply) — 08:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are ugly little summaries of incredibly complex, longterm, political and military issues. They belittle; for example the 2001 Bali bombings are termed 1st Bali a term that is not used anywhere, in an attempt to fit it into a small box, 1st-8th Baghdad beggars belief. They arbitrarily state that 80 deaths deserves recognition. They are mixing the accepted styles for infoboxes and end of article navigation. They are incomplete, for example there were two rounds of bombings in London. They are POV; for example no-one has owned up to the the Marriott bombings. They attempt to simplistically relate vastly different conflict arenas, for example Al'Qaeda isn't mentioned in the 2nd Chechen war. --Steve _(Slf67)^talk 09:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment The JI article has differing events to those listed in the "campaignbox terrorism in Indonesia" why was After many warnings by US authorities of a credible terrorist threat in Jakarta, on September 23, 2002 a grenade explodes in a car near the residence of a US embassy official in Jakarta, killing one of the attackers. omitted, what about Aug 2000 bombing, is it because these were unsuccessful, this alone violates WP:NPOV
- WHy does the Al-Q only commence in 2000,
- why does the Iraq only start 2003
- Why does iraq include Jordan
The reason these box have significant POV problems is they dont know what they are presenting, they have taken selective successful events and given them simplified associations. Gnan garra 10:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Al-Qaeda didn't statrt in 2000
The bombings of the Iraq War started in 2003
It doesn't include Jordan but it's embassy in Baghdad. (I wonder if you know that's in Iraq) --TheFEARgod (Ч) 10:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - due to a mixed purposes and usages of the four nominations above, I withdraw the current TfD. I realize that I should make a focus on one particular template, as I actually intended when I'd originally nominated, but it turned out that I've made a mistake by adding three more templates. To avoid confusions and too wide discussions into other established campaignboxes, then it's best now to withdraw this nomination first. — Indon (reply) — 12:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a fair enough move. Although your intentions were justified, trying to remove a number at once has just confused issues. Using the comments posted here, you will probably mount a far more successful case for individual deletion/s. Merbabu 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I have not seen the other campaignboxes but am casting my vote for a strong keep of Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism because in the Campaignbox of the Iraq war due to the complexity of that war we need to make a distinction betwen the frontline battles and the rearend battles. The frontline ones are the Battle for Fallujah, Al Qaim, Najaf or Baghdad but the rearned ones are the spectacular suicide and car bomb attacks that have hit the coalition forces and civilians alike. There should be a record of the major attacks durinng the war like there are records of some famous kamikaze attacks of the Pacific war. Top Gun 16:48, 28 February 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 page.

Template:James Badge Dale 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 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; contains a "fair use" image. Could theoretically be used only in the article James Badge Dale, but it isn't. It would be better to have {{Infobox actor}} there anyway. —An gr 12:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant or pointless, really. Infobox works well enough. Gracenotes ^T § 05:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is what infoboxes are for. mattbr³⁰ 15:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is just the infobox put into a template, and should just be an infobox. Part Deux 18:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this should just be an infobox in an article. *Mishatx*-In\Out 16:37, 28 February 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 page.

Template:The O.C. nav 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 02:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old episode succession box for The O.C. It has been deprecated by newer Infoboxes and it's contents were subsequently commented out, but the template was not removed from the pages. (doing that right now) (edit, DONE). TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pomte 10:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cliche "replaced infobox" vote. Gracenotes ^T § 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - *Mishatx*-In\Out 16:38, 28 February 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 page.

Template:The L Word 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 02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox for the television show The L Word, that no longer seems to be in use. Nothing links to it, and the related pages all use Template:The L Word Box it appears. -- TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pomte 10:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orphaned artifact. Herostratus 15:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. been replaced. *Mishatx*-In\Out 16:40, 28 February 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 page.

Template:Capital cities of the caribbean region Colombia 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 keep. IronGargoyle 02:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unnecessary template.--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 08:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why is it unnecessary? This makes it easy to navigate between those cities. Pomte 10:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment could be placed in a category..--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful navigational tool. Smee 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as useful. A category is not nearly as useful for navigation. *Mishatx*-In\Out 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment ok, thats a keep then, so should I add the other towns of this region tp the template?--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 17:00, 5 March 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 page.

Specific GA 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 delete all. IronGargoyle 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that we delete all templates for GA articles under specific categories. Firstly, there seems to be no reason to have templates for GA articles falling under specific categories. But most importantly, Template:ArticleHistory is now in common usage, how would you incorporate the two together? If these get deleted, I would like to see their categories go along with them. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 00:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple problems with the nomination. Those templates are not all alike; they include categories as specific as "biologist or medical scientist", and as broad as "writers". In addition, I'm not sure TfD is the place to discuss this anyway. -Amarkov moo! 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By specific I meant more specific than just "this is a GA about anything". Also, where would this be better discussed? This seems like the best place and a notice about it was put on the talk page for WikiProject GA located here. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs • reviews)} 22:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: serves no useful purpose. There may be overlap between two GA people templates. Categorizing an article is good, but keep it to a category on the article, not on the talk page. Amarkov: I think that Greeves is motioning that we get rid of the system of categorizing (with templates and categories) GAs about people by occupation. Now, a great place to discuss this would be GFD, *loud cough* if it existed. Gracenotes ^T § 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One GA template is seriously enough. Funpika 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These templates were used to categorize articles in one or more WP-CD releases. I do not entirely know how the categories are used, by who or by what bot, but (unless a category has been missed) the categorization function of these templates exists in {{ArticleHistory}}. All previous existing uses of these 13 templates have been converted to ArticleHistory already. (No article had two of them.) I was intending to review these templates for any overlooked category, and put them up for deletion with the other templates made obsolete by ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 02:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be in use now, and as said above, one GA template is all we need. Most WikiProject banners now list the GA class, so people can look at those to determine what kind of article it is. --Nehrams2020 00:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but add optional category flag on T:GA. Noclip 01:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is no need to add any optional category on T:GA. Very few articles were being added to these categories. The functionality these templates provided exists in {{ArticleHistory}} should any futher articles need to be added to these categories. Gimmetrow 05:00, 2 March 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 page.