Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 March 2

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 March 2)
< March 1 March 3 >

March 2 edit

Template:Upper Street edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Upper Street (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I might be wrong, but I don't think that a band that only released one single warrants a navbox. - Bobyllib (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, navboxes are for linking together a set of topics. One article is not a set of topics. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it links multiple topics, not only one. The fact that they only have one single makes a navbox not less useful if it links the band members and other things. SoWhy 11:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of these articles link to each other already, and those that don't don't need to. This was a 'group' that only existed long enough to produce one song - I'd say they probably don't need their own navbox. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too minor. Garion96 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sakis Rouvas singles discography 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 no consensus. You might want to merge the singles template into the main one, i.e. so people can expand a further overview within the normal template. SoWhy 11:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sakis Rouvas singles discography (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template {{Sakis Rouvas}} already exists and has all of the links that this template has. Also this is basically just putting his entire discography on each page. As most of these singles are radio only, they are not notable and will most likely never have their own pages. This is a navbox that does not help navigate between articles. The regular artist one will suffice, it has a link to the full singles discography in it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (for now) I created the template, and I already had this discussion with Greekboy, who mentioned that it could eventually be up for deletion, however, we both decided to leave it in for the time being. We also talked about creating individual pages for the singles, as each are important, despite not having been released as hardcopy CDs. We agreed that there could be a way to create these articles following the notability guidelines, which I and perhaps other interested users are planning to do. The recent singles have all been released as downloads, so they are notable as singles. However, even the older ones can be notable; sometimes the only thing that makes CD singles more notable is the cover. There are plenty of things to mention in these articles (airplay positions, release history, song compostion and style, promotion, and its music video or notable performances. That is why the template has been kept, due to the intent to create the navigation. I say, keep it for now, until the other articles are figured out, because when they are made, it'll probably go back up again. Esp, with the upcoming ESC, a lot of the Rouvas articles have been given more priority, so it is likely that the singles articles will be made. That's My op. thanx.
P.S. The nav box also provides good organization so that any users wanting to create/fix these singles articles may do so with more clarity.(GreekStar12 (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I doubt that any of the pages you hope to create will be much more than stubs and all of the information could be included in a singles section for each article where you could put all of the information (charts, music vid, etc). The problem is that this is a huge template that is easily replaced by the regular artist one, that appears on the same page, and the discography page. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of them would probably start out as stubs, but there are a great number of them that I can say from now that can be very good articles and reach at least C or B-Class status. There is so much information available for some of them that they wouldn't all fit relevantly into the album pages. In Greece, there are only single, digital and airplay charts, 2/3 can be used for non-hardcopy singles. There can be just as much information on them as CD singles. All articles start somewhere, and even some of the GA and feature articles needed time to be built up. The info is out there, which is why I think we should just wait. The template isn't really bothering anything anyway. (GreekStar12 (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Is there anyway to combine it with the regular template then or would it be too large? I just feel like putting the full singles discography on every page is a little overkill. If someone wanted to, they could simply click the full singles disco link from the artist's regular template and find the links. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Turkish ethnicity edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Turkish ethnicity (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used anywhere except Turkish people - no point in keeping as separate page - subst and delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying its content should be moved to Turkish people? -- Mttll (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - that's what subst and delete means. See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too agree with deletion. as it uses both exaggerated figures, and even claims that Azerbaijani-speaking Turkoman minorities of Iraq and Syria are ethnic Turks. It is obvious POV-pushing and promotes kind of pan-turkism ideology. Ellipi (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. Let them hash out what the figures are at the article. This creates two places and leads to duplicity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created this template essentially because of the edit-wars taking place at the time. Many contributors’ would merely ‘mess-around’ and vandalise the figures… and nobody paid any attention to the rest of the article except for deleting the entire content of the article and writing a hate comment (please also see the Turkish people discussion page and the Turkish people history page for a more analytical perspective). I oppose the deletion of the template mainly for this reason… as it will only begin to happen again. If the Turkish people article is to be protected then I would reconsider this statement. Please also sympathise the fact that I am not a major contributor anymore and cannot handle reverting vandalism anymore which I assure is likely to happen… On a more positive not, the template has actually encouraged contributors to the Turkish people article to actually spend more attention on the rest of the article (again please see history page to compare how the article was before the template was introduced). Thank you, and sorry for my long message! Thetruthonly (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am shocked that user:Ellipi wants this article deleted since they have been a contributor to the template and have actually did a bit of vandalising by adding non-existent figures (which are not even sited in the references!) this pretty much supports my points which I have highlighted above and will worsen if put into the Turkish people article. Thetruthonly (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally a very strong reason why this template should be deleted is because of duplicity it causes, as in the recent edit by user:Thetruthonly, who couldnot find the origin of the lower (i.e. real and neutral) figurs for Iraqi and Syrian Turkmen. Also there are more users keeping the article Turkish people on their watchlist, so vandalisms as done by user Mttll would not be invisible. Ellipi (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep: Protecting the article may be the best solution to TheTruthOnly's concern. However, my main worry is that if we subst and delete then this time the Turkish people article will be 93 kilobytes long! Therefore this template seems to be a good tool for obvious reasons.Turco85 (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete - Templates are not created to stop edit wars or as a way to limit the article size. This is only used on one article so that template should be subst and deleted. Garion96 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Take a look at the page on Jewish people. That page uses a similar (almost identical) template. If the template is deleted, then a precedent would be set and all other templates used only in one place would also be open to deletion. WillMall (talk) 14:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and Delete. The fact is that for some reason instead of putting the information into {{Infobox Ethnic group}} which all of the other ethnic groups use, a whole new template was made even thought it would look the same as the general template when all of the information is added. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Poor article assessment edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 11:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poor article assessment (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template used to complain about article assessments that were made without comments or suggestions for improvement. This can be done on the talk page of the editor in question, if it's really found necessary. Jafeluv (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completely re-written the template trying to take into account the comments before now: Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC) Please see my reasoning below about the placement and prominence of article assessments and why the impression made by them needs to be countered. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No one is required to provide feedback when they assess an article. If someone wants to contest an assessment, then they don't need a template to do it. PC78 (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they don't, you're right. But readers of the encyclopedia do need to know that the placing and prominence and offical-looking appearance of the template represents the (usually undocumented/unreasoned) opinion of but one editor who has, by the use of a template and positioning, made his opinion about the article seemingly the most important one in the whole of WP. And that the reader needs to be admonished that his/her opinion is every bit as important. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reader needs no such thing. Talk pages and article assessments are primarily for editors of the wiki, not readers. What you seem to want violates the spirit of WP:DISCLAIMER, even if it's not in the article space. Given your comments elsewhere in this discussion, I view this template as an attempt by yourself to make some kind of WP:POINT regarding assessments and WikiProject banners. PC78 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PC. Grsz11 14:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I do not see the point of this. I created the article (or one of them at least) on which this was attached. It doesn't seem necessary... I do not object to how it has been rated... --Candlewicke ST # :) 18:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A template is merely shorthand. It is ridiculous to say that I should be disallowed use of a tool to say what I would be allowed to say were I to tap it out key by key. I wish it to be possible to assess an assessment with the same ease it was possible to create the assessment. The template needs improvement in its wording, its flexibility and its appearance. I am preparing for a professional exam tomorrow so I don't have time to spend on that or this discussion now, I suggeet the template be left alone for a few days. If it annoys scurrilous scribblers of unreasoned assessments, so be it. But I would prefer they change their behaviour. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You see, it's not just the template that I disagree with. You're criticizing something that, in my opinion, isn't even wrong in the first place. Assessors are (at least in the WikiProjects I have seen, there may be exceptions) not required to leave comments for improving the article. That's what the WikiProject quality scales are for. For example, John L. Smith is rated "Start-class" on the WikiProject Biography quality scale, which defines a start class article as "The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent", et cetera. This usually gives a general idea on what can be done to improve an article, especially when compared to C-class requirements. If you disagree with the rating, you can contact the assessor on their talk page and ask for specific points that s/he thinks need improvement in the article. You can also request reassessment of the article on the assessment page. Note what it says under the "Requesting an assessment" header: "Note: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process." So there's no point in marking an assessment with a tag that says "very poor quality" every time the assessor doesn't provide any feedback because leaving feedback is not required when assessing an article. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You will see I have changed the content of the template to take into account your comments. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've just checked one of the four article talk pages which are marked with this template, and I quite agree with the (C-class) assessment of the article. There are plenty of pages and procedures around the place to find out what could been done to improve an article: this template does not help in the slightest. Physchim62 (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The assessment templates look official. It takes a WP-newbie some time to realise (and most bever ever will realise) they are but the usually unreasoned/undocumented opinion of but one WPian who has chosen to give his/her opinion more weight than anyone else's by hogging the pre-eminent position on the article's Talk page. A false impression is made. This false impression needs to be countered. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – (1) The template is misleading. Assessors are not required to provide feedback (though it is a good habit) either by "Wikipedia guidelines" or "common decency", though the latter is inherently subjective. (2) The template's message is needlessly bureaucratic. There is no need for an assessor to express in writing that a three-sentence stub, for instance, needs to be expanded; the stub template on the article already does that. (3) The template's text is not directly related to articles and their improvement. It focuses almost entirely on the actions of the assessor and treats project assessments as being considerably more important than they really are. –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have modified the wording of the template to avoid being misleading. There was once an admonition in a previous version of the assessment guidelines to provide reasoning for an assessment. It seems that this recommendation seems to have vanished from the latest guideline - but some templates still do advise/demand it, and this advice is rarely followed. Please see my argument below about the apparent importance of the assessment templates. What is "inherently subjective" is the assessment! But it looks official. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your modification addresses the first two issues I raised, but it has the downside of converting the template into what is essentially a disclaimer about assessments. To be honest, I see no purpose to having such a disclaimer since assessments exist for the benefit of editors rather than readers and do not carry the significance that you seem to ascribe to them. In addition, although the focus of the template has changed from the assessor to the assessment, it is still ultimately unrelated to editing and improvement of the article (#3 above). –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hostile, superfluous, and unrelated to policy or practice insofar as I can see. If a user feels an assessment is improper, he or she is free to reassess the article (except if it is a GA or FA of course). If a user feels that no commentary has been left for an article, he or she may add commentary as they see fit. Adding this template--a perfunctory note presumably left only for perfunctory notes--does nothing to add to discussion and adds nothing of value to editors and readers. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made what I hope you will agree is an honest attempt to remove any apparent hostility from the text of the template. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any person or any body of self-appointed group of people keeping track of articles they like, don't like or which (in their opinion) need improvement or a gold star. That it is convenient to do so by prominently placing their official-looking, bold, big, brightly-coloured real-estate grabbing posters at the top of the Talk page is what is objectionable. If they, or anyone, what to add a section (to the then bottom!) of the Talk page saying, simply, "Hey! I like this page" (or whatever), that's fine. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why wouldn't they keep lists of articles grouped into their own peculiar categories on their own Talk pages? Or on the club page of the "WikiProject"? Because they are not merely keeping a list. They want us to be swayed by their opinions. Why else would they exhibit their opinions in the way that they do? Effectively they are creating a false impression about the importance of their assessments by the way they present them. And, now, by complaining about the assessments of their assessments! Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who do these assessors think they are, prominently screaming their unreasoned opinions about the quality/importance of an article at the rest of us. Casual visitors to WP cannot help but gain the impression that these assessment templates are more than I know and you know they are. I think assessors should be uncomfortable with the impression being made, but they seem not to be. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An assessment is not (supposed to be) an indication of whether a particular person likes or dislikes an article. It is a way of keeping track of articles that fall under the purview of a particular WikiProject; of course, this does not give them any special authority or ownership over the article, its contents, or its talk page. Your objections seems to be rooted in a dislike for the way that WikiProject tagging and assessment is handled in general. If that is the case, I think you should raise your concerns at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject rather than tagging individual talk pages with a disclaimer about assessments.
By the way, the reason that WikiProjects use assessment templates instead of lists is that assessment templates create self-updating categories, whereas lists have to be manually updated. Given that most WikiProjects have hundreds or thousands of articles under their scope, maintaining an updated list is an impossible task. It is an internal maintenance issue and has nothing to do with swaying opinions, and I suspect that most casual visitors to Wikipedia do not see assessments (after all, they are on talk pages). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul Beardsell, if you don't like assessments, obtain consensus to remove them. Don't create your own eye-jarring template instead; that's WP:POINT disruption.  Sandstein  06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as disruptive; feedback about an assessment should be a matter of discussion, not templating.  Sandstein  06:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that really is the wrong way around. It is the assessment which should be the matter for discussion! All I am doing is flagging an assessment which has had no documented discussion/reasoning behind it. I am looking for an easy way of doing so. I have happened upon the WP template as being a useful tool to help me. I could also right a macro/bot that did the same. Deleting my template does not remove the problem I have identified - that we have many thousands of assessments the reasoning behind which is not documented. That is the problem! Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're trying to fix a problem that isn't there. As has been said already, there is no requirement for people to provide feedback when they make an assessment; for one thing, it simply isn't feasible in most cases. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever to flag any assessments which do not have any "documented discussion/reasoning behind it". If you want to dispute or change any individual assessments then that's fine, but this template is not the way to do it. Likewise, if you wish to discuss changing the way assessments are handled in general then that's OK too, but adding this template to talk pages is not the way. PC78 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Undeleted edit

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

The result of the discussion was delete. SoWhy 11:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant and inferior to other existing templates, including {{ArticleHistory}}, {{Oldafdmulti}} and {{Multidel}}, all of which have substantially more functionality than this template, which is currently used only on one talk page (and seems to have been created specifically for that talk page). –Black Falcon (Talk) 03:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep mark as deprecated, and categorize as a template needing replacement. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please explain why you think that is necessary? The template does not really require replacement because the only page on which it is transcluded already uses {{multidel}}. Also, since it was recently created and used only on one talk page, it carries no historical significance (that I can see, at least) that might require it to be kept around with a deprecated tag. I would appreciate your clarification. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 08:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to duplicate the functionality of the other templates, with no other redeeming value than to celebrate the undeletion of Encyclopedia Dramatica. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not specifically redundant to article history templates (of which there are a prolieration). It's a short {{FAQ}} style template where the only likely question (and it is asked a lot on the ED talk page) is why the page was recreated. Limited use is simply a matter of choice, no part of the template limits its use in any way. Protonk (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Doesn't seem very useful outside of the ED talk page. Purpose could be served equally well by just placing a rectangle on the talk page. -- Bobyllib (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could also be used on Dragon kill points, where I am using the FAQ template instead. I can think of a few others. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be honest that makes me even less inclined towards keeping it - the FAQ template (which I wasn't aware of when I commented earlier) can do the same thing and more, which to my mind makes Undeleted completely redundant -- Bobyllib (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not familiar w/ the norms of TfD, but given the proliferation of templates we do have, I can't imagine that redundancy is a sufficient reason for deletion. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Template is redundant to a better-designed template" is actually one of the most common reasons to delete a template. –Black Falcon (Talk) 04:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's fair. good to know. I think that this fits in a grey area. It obviously doesn't serve the same function as the FAQ template or the article history templates. As such, it may be incomplete to say that this is simply a less well designed version of those templates. Protonk (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator said it all. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Regions 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 discussion was delete --User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 09:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Regions of Europe (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This "set" of articles has no coherent common defining concept - most articles are there just by the happenstance that the areas they describe are sometimes translated as "region" in English. We have a mixture of historical and ethnographical regions (Lithuania - which also includes territories outside current national boundaries, Croatia and Latvia), national-level Governmental subdivisions (Bulgaria, Finland), EU-level Governmental regions (England), non-governmental NUTS statistical regions (Republic of Ireland, Hungary) and "regions" of completely unknown origin (Netherlands). It's a largely unreferenced mess - putting them in one template gives a facade of academic consistency that just doesn't exist, and the usefulness of that template should be questioned. The potential for misleading readers has now increased manifold now that is being included in many articles via Template:Europe topic. Knepflerle (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support. States of Europe is obvious, regions... I'd expect geographical ones like Alps or such. Perhaps this template could be rewrite, but currently I agree with Knepflerle it is may be confusing. Looking forward to seeing the creator defend it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you are weak supporting the deletion, right? Valley2city‽ 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not the creator, but I believe this navbox to have promise. While it currently has the misfortune, as Knepflerle has pointed out, of overlapping with lists of areas which "are sometimes translated as 'region' in English," this navbox's intention should be, in my opinion, to connect articles which list all types of regions in a particular country. While not in Europe, the List of regions of the United States is a good example of this; it includes a list of official regions, a list of unofficial regions, and a list of interstate regions. In the context of this navbox, "region" should not have a country-specific or official definition, but should rather refer to all types of regions in a given country, both official and unofficial. These types of lists are necessary because they demonstrate the interactions and differences between political, historical, and social boundary lines. This type of list is applicable to all countries in Europe, and all such lists would be naturally related, therefore a navbox linking them together is appropriate. Neelix (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles get written or rewritten, then this template (and its recreation via Template:Europe topic) may a good idea - but that's a lot of work that hasn't been done and isn't currently getting done. We should not be misleading readers in the (indefinitely long) interim. Knepflerle (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:Navigational templates:
  • Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles
  • Red links should be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles, and even if they do, editors are encouraged to write the article first.
Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles
  • If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them.
  • Over two-thirds of this navigation box is currently redlinks (62/92), and as I have demonstrated even the 30 bluelinks are largely unrelated. This is a navigational "aid" for a coherent set of writing and articles that doesn't yet exist. Knepflerle (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_2&oldid=1138693717"