Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 21

< January 20	January 22 >

January 21 edit

Template:ISB-infobox edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was used only in Islamabad Capital Territory; I just substed it into that article, so it's unused now. —Bkell (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and delete - Green Giant (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard-coded and unused infobox. JPG-GR (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's better to use a standardized infobox than a limited single use one. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we preserve the edit history for this, since it's being used in an article, or is the table formatting too.. whatever its called (basic, lacking creative qualities, something..) to be copyrightable? -- Ned Scott 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point. Perhaps this template should be kept to preserve part of the history of the Islamabad Capital Territory article. —Bkell (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2008 (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:ISB2-infobox edit

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, apparently superseded by Template:ISB-infobox. —Bkell (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and delete - Green Giant (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hard-coded and unused infobox. JPG-GR (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ditto from above. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 21:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (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:Spiritualistic small edit

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is redundant, since a better template has existed for over a month (better because it is less obtrusive--it sits inconspicuously at the bottom, opening only when clicked). This template is a big ugly blemish crowding out other images at the top of the article. In addition, this template is not NPOV--it links to a potpourri of "spiritual" topics that the creator finds interesting, but in fact topics that from a comparative religion perspective have nothing in common. — Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the "better template", I agree that mine is easier and possibly better, HOWEVER I do not think that one needs necessarily to replace the other. Taking other articles on religions like Christianity and Islam, there are both forms of template.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Thank you Midnightblueowl, you will note that I have been active in propagating your template and will continue to do so despite your being drawn into this conflict. I consider that they are meant to do two entirely different jobs. The infobox to catch casual browsers and the template to assist serious scholars.

I am afraid that Anthon has just taken very personally an attempt to separate Spiritualism (religious movement) of the 1840s to 1920s ... note upper case 'S' ... and the widespread and numerous general uses of the word "spiritualism" ... note lower case 's' ... This nomination for deletion, and the previous reversions is merely the latest manifestation for this. I pressume a tit for tat for me placing a WP:3RR message on his website.

I note that infobox are use widely across the Wikipedia and many, including myself, find them useful. By comparison to many, this is one is modest and I think most spiritualists will find Gustave Doré's illustrations for the Divine Comedy, Paradiso, Canto 31 particularly beautiful as relates specifically to the concepts evoked in spiritualistic traditions through history and the world. [[1]]

I did not start the article on Spiritualism but have contributed to expanding it and added references and citations, here; [2]. Even Spiritualism's most vocal supports such as Conan Doyle have acknowledge the universality of the phenomena and the word is as widely used outsides of the limits of the religious movement as the academic references suggest. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion, per arguments given above by Anthon.Eff. Nihil novi (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for a while, other religions webpages have both types of template, why not Spiritualism. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Indeed, as you point out, religions like Christianity and Islam have both types of template. But those are well-defined religions, and putting together a list of names and topics within these religions does not involve original research. One good feature of your template was that it stayed within the bounds of what is recognizably Spiritualism and Spiritism. The template I propose to delete does not stay within the bounds of any religious movement--it is a very personal bringing-together of different religious ideas. Not at all encyclopedic.

The template contains fewer links than your own, but covers a much larger area of the page. It sits at the top, pushing any images further down, so that the first thing any reader sees on viewing the article is the template, as if that were the most important thing in the article. So not only is it not very useful, it is actually detrimental. Of course, editors can always just remove it, but it would be easier to delete the template. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform and broaden individuals' interest and understanding. if we take the dictionary definition of spiritualistic, it is "relating to, or connected with, spiritualism". here we have to accept the difference between generally and specific definitions of the word [[[spiritualism]]], as and Modern Spiritualism, the religious movement. If a student came to the Wikipedia seeking as answer to why, e.g. "Leibniz was the founder of modern spiritualism" in philosophical terms, without an infobox to lead them elsewhere and other pages, they might be somewhat misled! --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, per such precedent as {{islam}} and {{islam topics}}, {{christianity}} and {{christianityfooter}}, etc. Happy‑melon 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to topical differences, some articles have too many floating side templates, and some have too much clutter at the bottom. They're easy to maintain, so I don't see why we shouldn't keep both. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 11:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Anton.Eff - note also that the scope of this template seems to have changed during the debate, it seems to include every possible "spiritualistic practice" now, and the creator is spamming it on every possible page they can think of. If this template is going to be kept, it should only be posted on pages that fall within its original scope. If its purpose is to go on every religion or spirituality related page on the wiki, it should be deleted as way too inclusive (and intrusive). - ∅ (∅), 13:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree it should not go on every religious topic nor even spirituality related topic. That would be ridiculous. Only on spiritualistic topics, those relating to world spiritism, spiritualism or animism in the broad sense. I have paid considerable attention to the references and citations to back this up in my edits and attempt discussion with you on this. it is the only template to inter connect traditions that are obviously, and academically accepted to be connected, see recent work on Spiritualism.

I do not think an infobox should be delete because of what it is not but examined as it is! The choice of language is specific, and informed, to avoid confusion with other more specific uses of the word spiritualism. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Fox sisters article has the template and it's competing with the lead photo. Maybe one of you can fix it. 5Q5 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2008 (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.

Polish counties 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as WP:CSD G6 housekeeping. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to the same template names minus the -Counties suffix. Happy‑melon 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) (originally nominated by Kotniski (talk)).[reply]

Discussions consolidated by Happy‑melon to simplify discussion and prevent needless repetitive posting. Happy‑melon 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:G6 (Housekeeping) Several templates have redirects which should also be deleted.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reworded. Happy‑melon 20:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete nomination JPG-GR (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[on {{WestPomeranianVoivodeshipCounties}}] - Would be CSD:G6 but it's being used on the article Koszalin. You might want to fix that first.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I must have missed that. I've fixed it now.--Kotniski (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD:G6 (Housekeeping) - Now it's not used anywhere. :-) --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[{{WestPomeranianVoivodeshipCounties}} only] Despite this being an incomplete nomination, template is redundant to {{West Pomeranian Voivodeship}}. JPG-GR (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 (housekeeping). Request that the nominator structure the listing in a consolidated form like this if it is known in advance that a large number of templates will be nominated under the same rationale, as it saves on unnecessary duplicate discussions. Happy‑melon 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The basis for the incomplete nomination status was the reference from one nom to the rationale in another nome. This was taken care of when User:Happy-melon consolidated them. Furthermore, even if they were incomplete they are WP:SNOW/WP:CSD#G6 so their completeness as TFD nominations is just a technicality.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 22 January 2008 (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:Lubusz Voivodeship edit

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

The result of the debate was Keep Nomination Withdrawn (non-admin closing). Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is one of those NOT to be deleted. Nom withdrawn for this one.--Kotniski (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2008 (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:Unencyclopedic edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. And please lets stop bringing this up for deletion. This is 4 times in just over a year now. It ain't going to work. :) Woohookitty^Woohoo! 07:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been a convincing explanation given as to why this template is needed. If the topic itself is not suitable for Wikipedia, then the article should be marked with {{afd}}, {{prod}}, or {{db}} as the situation warrants. Is the article written in an inappropriate tone? We have a specific template for that. Does the article or section contain too much trivia? That's what {{trivia}}, {{fictionrefs}}, and {{fictionlist}} are for. Does it lack references or sources? We've got a template for that, too. Unlike the specific templates mentioned above, {{unencyclopedic}} doesn't give any real idea of what needs to be done to fix the problem. If the problem is unfixable, then the article should be nominated or proposed for deletion. Right now, this is basically a fancy way for editors to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We already have a proliferation of tags; we don't need to encourage ones that don't provide any real guidance. — *** Crotalus *** 12:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Quite frankly, this should be used more. This template follows directly from WP:NOT. Basically it invites others to prove the tagging-editor wrong. It also invites others to to express their opinion. Depending on all of that, the next step can be determined. --Jack Merridew 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is just one of many vague tags which I'm unconvinced actually do anything to improve articles. --W.marsh 14:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "not suitable content" isn't a cleanup tag, it's an AfD rationale. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Jack Merridew. The tag is extremely useful in saying "hey, this article seems to fall under WP:NOT, but since I'm not totally sure, here's a chance to fix it." I've used it quite a few times as an early warning that the article may be PRODed or AfDed for being something Wikipedia is NOT if nothing is done to address the problems. Collectonian (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't see the use of this tag, relulent compared to other tags we have. Secret ^account 20:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term unencyclopedic is so vague that it's worthless. For most problems, there already is an overabundance of templates that can be used. There's also -- for every article that has problems -- a talk page. A template like this actively damages Wikipedia by decreasing the quality of communication. If an editor cannot identify a problem more precisely than "seems unencyclopedic" than the editor has no business templating the article. --JayHenry (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~-the criteria for applying this tag is just too vague. In situations where it would be used, it would be better to either use a more specific template (if there's one applicable) and/or just raise the issue on the article's talk page.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On further consideration, deprecate as explained below.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This template should be used for tagging sections (which it is, in Potomac, Maryland for example). While I agree with the above comments on using the talk page, believe it or not, we can both tag the article and talk about why we tagged it on the talk page. Like most cleanup templates, if someone tags it and doesn't discuss it, it should be removed (assuming you can find nothing wrong the section that was tagged). However, this template will assuredly garner more discussion than a prod. Justin ^chat 21:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, but with advice If we decide to no longer use this tag, don't outright delete it. Place one of those "deprecated" notices on the template, asking editors to replace it with another one ("please replace this template with a more specific template, such as one of the following" or something). Then redirect it or something, for historical reasons (a tag used for a long time, might as well. It helps when you are looking at the past version of an article and wonder what the heck a certain template said at that time.) -- Ned Scott 03:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you who think other tags can be used, please do this to all transclusions to show that this actually pertains to every case. The reader isn't going to consult the talk page to see whether any section of the article is disputed. –Pomte 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but deprecate, per Ned Scott. This template is clearly redundant to many other content tags and serves only to advance an IDONTLIKEIT POV. Happy‑melon 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-focus per Justin. While I agree with the comments above that this template is entirely redundant for tagging articles, it does seem to be used in a number of articles to identify suspect sections, so it needs to be reworded accordingly. Regarding concerns raised by Jack Merridew and Collectonian, I believe that {{Notability}} would be best used to tag such articles as a precursor to PROD or AfD. PC78 (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but deprecate, per Ned Scott. Stifle (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom is right - vague and unhelpful, and we already have too many article-space tags. I would rather see this deleted than deprecated - it's one thing for Wikipedia:Esperanza, but a look at the deletion log of the template will suffice here. Mango juice^talk 18:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's quite large and seems custom made for WP:UNDUE IDONTLIKEIT POV. If we keep it then we should also have big smiley templates with bunnies and sunshine so the ILIKEIT folks can have their blanket judgment also advertised. Benjiboi 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template is very useful when one editor is uncertain about the speedy deletion of one article. --Brunoy Anastasiya Seryozhenko (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but deprecate but Ned Scott above. It's essentially always more useful to say exactly what's wrong with a page that makes it 'unencyclopaedic' rather than just adding this template, but I wouldn't want to remove it from its hundreds of current uses either. The best option is to keep it but add a line saying 'Please replace this template with a more exact specification of what's wrong with the article' or something similar. Terraxos (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: by the way, I would change my opinion to 'keep as is' if someone can give just one example of where this template is used that no other template could be. Terraxos (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. covers issues that aren't covered more specifically by the mentioned templates in the nom. Sectional usage and the link to policy at WP:NOT (as mentioned above) is the most useful thing about this template. – Zedla (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The template isn't just for articles, but also for sections with indiscrimminate lists of facts where the "trivia" template doesn't quite fit. See the theremin article, for example. The template does need to be fixed to specify a section rather than an article, however. =Axlq (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2008 (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:uw-balkans edit

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

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed at WP:TT (user warnings disscussion page) [3] and [4], it was suggested that this template be deleted because it is a bit bitey and the message is more preemptive rather than to actually help somebody (Wikipedia:DTTR). In situations where a conflict over an article is complex, a template should not be used but rather a personal message should be given lest we end up with stuff like Template:uw-ireland, Template:uw-name of conflict. — --Hdt83 ^Chat 09:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but probably change to a generic arbitration warning template. There is a recent trend in arbitration committee decisions, as in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, to allow for discretionary sanctions against users editing disruptively in the area of conflict, but only after the users have been notified of the arbitral decision. It is probably desirable to issue such notifications in a standardised manner though templates. These would not be messages about individual content disputes, for which a template would be unsuitable, just boilerplate notifications. WP:BITE concerns can certainly be addressed by tweaking the text of the notification. - I'll be informing the more experienced folks at WP:AE of this discussion. Sandstein (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are not run of the mill conflicts, but topic areas that have been through one or more Arbitration cases for disruptive behavior by multiple editors. It may or may not be necessary to adjust the wording of these templates, but there are several Arbitration cases that allow admins to impose wide discretionary sanctions for disruptive behavior, including page bans, revert limits and blocks, but only after the offender has been warned and informed of the decision (to prevent editors who are new to a contentious area from being sandbagged). Accordingly, having a standard notification message is both a convenience to admins and a means of ensuring that the sanctions are described accurately. Also for that reason a single general warning would be inappropriate as the wording of the sanctions varies from case to case. I would not support similar warnings for a Thatcher 11:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a message in the vein of: "Hello, you seem to be editing articles about X. We'd like to inform you that articles about this subject matter are governed by special rules as determined by the ArbCom at WP:RfAr/X#Remedies. Accordingly, editors should take particular care when editing articles about this subject." X would be controlled by a if-switch-parameter passed to the template. Obviously, the wording could be much better, but you get the idea. Sandstein (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but standardise on an arbitration meta-template, as above. Happy‑melon 21:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute isn't that the template is horrendous and shouldn't exist, but about the wording of it. Therefore, speedy keep and edit the template to resolve concerns. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, current wording is a bit uw4-ish but it's appropriate to have uw templates for such common issues. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite and rename as a generic "You have been being disruptive and may be subject to discretionary sanctions per ArbCom" warning. Do note that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has greatly improved the template from the version discussed at WT:UTM; that previous version was horrendous and shouldn't have existed. Anomie ⚔ 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and re-write - as a more 'generic' template that would be able to point to the specific ArbCom decision, in the vein of Sandstein's proposal above. SkierRMH (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (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:Languages spoken in Romania edit

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

The result of the discussion was Consensus was delete, in addition CSD G5 may apply, and creator was marked as a sockpuppet suspect of Bonaparte. SkierRMH (talk) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a duplicate of Template:Ethnic groups in Romania. Also, there is no generally-recognised "Székely language", and definitely no "Krashovanian" or "Lipovan" language, and no single Chinese language either. — Biruitorul (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the points raised in the request above, I have to say that this template strikes one as terribly contrived and subjective. For starters, Romania has, for better or worse, one single recognized language - Romanian; Hungarian, German, Romani, and some others are given recognition at a community level. The template thus presents the reader with an incorrect image from a political point of view: Romania is diverse, but not that diverse, and there is an overwhelming linguistic majority in favor of Romanian when it comes to mother tongues. There are more Romanian inhabitants who speak French, English, Spanish or Italian as a second language than there are people who speak most of those languages as mother tongues in Romania (by which I mean the real languages, not the dialects and other unexplainable inclusions in the template). And, may I add: if one means to create such templates and have them included under any language used in any country, official or at least semi-official status aside, can you picture the resulting template-to-article ratio? Dahn (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was about to say something on those lines - there is a Template:Romanian religions (full disclosure: I made that one), but the difference is that it links to local branches of those faiths. If (absurdly) we were to have articles on each of those languages as used in Romania (on the model of Irish language in Northern Ireland or Russian language in Ukraine), then the template might be a good idea. But we don't and likely won't have them, so let's delete it. Also, I just realised Yiddish is missing, despite the existence of a State Jewish Theater - so the template, although superfluous, actually omits what has historically been quite an important language in Romania. Biruitorul (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dahn. —dima /talk/ 03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anyways, this is a likely CSD G5, since the editing pattern of the user who created it is virtually indistinguishable from that of the banned user Bonaparte. (Non-admins may have difficulty verifying this because many of his contributions have now been speedied under criteria other than G5.) K issL 09:09, 24 January 2008 (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:Image information edit

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be replaced with {{Information}}. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{information}} - this is possible given the almost identical parameter names. Happy‑melon 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Happy-melon above. Terraxos (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per H-M. SkierRMH (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2008 (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:Government of Europe edit

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

The result of the debate was Keep - Nomination Withdrawn - not a duplicate template (non-admin closing). Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:Politics of Europe. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yeah but it isn't though. :) This one links to "Government of" pages while the Politics one links to "Politics of" pages. And quite a few countries have both. Ireland does, for example. I can see possibly merging these two together and adding a small "politics" and "government" link to each country that has both. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Woohookitty. JPG-GR (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completely different scopes for expansion. –Pomte 09:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw based on the comments above and further checking it looks like I made a mistake and will withdraw the nomination. See further comments at Template talk:Government of Europe. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:48, 21 January 2008 (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.