Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 November 19

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19 edit

Template:Urban areas in India by population 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Urban areas in India by population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which article? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:14, 21 November 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:Population of Jerusalem 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of Jerusalem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Population timeline of Dubai (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox population of Swansea (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Population growth of Iceland (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article, and hence, could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the meaning of "substitute and delete". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete all, same as below. Robofish (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete, who is going to do this work? Dentren | Talk 20:28, 25 November 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:Lugo Province Population 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lugo Province Population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Bubi populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Orense Province Population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Igbo populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Pontevedra Province population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article and, as such, could be substituted and deleted. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The templates were created to condense article info on main article pages, and in anticipation upcoming expansion of these articles where the templates would eventually be used on multiple pages. Bab-a-lot (talk)
I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the meaning of "substitute and delete". Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete - templates are not needed if they're only used on one article. Robofish (talk) 19:35, 21 November 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:Significant populations 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Significant populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template (appears to make a table) Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if this template be deleted the template the info should be inserted into the main article so that it is not lost Bab-a-lot (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What information? The template makes a table, but has no content itself. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 05:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused, and no content. Robofish (talk) 19:34, 21 November 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:Population of Miyagi municipalities 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population of Miyagi municipalities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Japan population array (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused in article space Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused, unless anyone wants to add it anywhere. Robofish (talk) 19:34, 21 November 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:South Asian Population USA 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Asian Population USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Southeast Asian Population USA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template. Could be substituted into an article if the information is useful? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if no one wants it. Could be subst'd somewhere, but I'm not sure exactly where. Robofish (talk) 19:32, 21 November 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:Population pyramid 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population pyramid (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unused except on the talk page of an inactive user. Robofish (talk) 19:30, 21 November 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:English populations 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:English populations (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphan. Could be substituted if needed for a particular article. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:22, 19 November 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:Population dynamics topics 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Population dynamics topics (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused sidebar. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this template has been consolidated into another template, and is no longer used. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused, and seems more like a category than a template. Robofish (talk) 19:28, 21 November 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:Galician Population 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Galician Population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like a good candidate to substitute and delete? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and delete. Good info, but as a single-use template it should just be substituted into an in-article table. --RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete per above. Robofish (talk) 19:27, 21 November 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:Toronto population 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. JPG-GR (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Toronto population (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Seems like a good candidate to substitute and delete? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Subst would be fine if it were used, but it appears to be an orphan. --RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no one wants it. It seems like it could be subst'd somewhere useful, though - Demographics of Toronto, perhaps? Robofish (talk) 19:27, 21 November 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:Spanish comarca 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. JPG-GR (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spanish comarca (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox comarca feeding off the standard template. Himalayan 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the comarca template is currently being used on close to 200 pages. You need to realize that most of the comarca pages on the english wiki are actually translated from the Spanish wiki, and the comarca template is very similar to the spanish wiki's comarca template, making the transition extremely simple. Additionally it contains just the field needed for a comarca, as opposed to settlement. Frankly I started writing my first comarca page on the english wiki, I took one look at the settlement template and was so daunted by the sheer complexity of the thing that I gave up on the idea and delayed writing for six months until I stumbled upon the comarca template. So on the one hand, it may be redundant, but are we really trying for a swiss army template?? And besides, Template:infobox settlement has no color whatsoever and is ugly; comarca is prettier. ^_^ --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Mukkakukaku is a significant contributor to the template.
Comment I would say the excessive use of color is actually a reason to delete it, considering the WP:MOS for color. This isn't Skittlepedia. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Skittlepedia it may not be, but the color adds emphasis. Look at infoboxes for other topics, like the {{Taxobox}}. Infobox settlement is plain old, butt-ugly. Not that any of this is important, since I just meant the color comment as an aside. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: complete mis-understanding by the nominator. A comarca is somewhat analogous to an English county. It is a unit of administration in Spain and this template as stated above matches the equivalent in the Spanish wiki precisely. A comarca is not a settlement and this template should be kept for use on artciles on Spain in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't patronise me. I know exactly what a comarca is, We replace this with {{Infobox Administrative division}} or even {{Infobox comarca}}, now find an answer to that one.. Himalayan 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then it's redundant to {{Infobox county}}? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it's more of an administrative division than a county. The exact meaning of the division depends on which region of Spain you're in. For example, in Catalonia it's a local government area governed by a council, whereas in Valencia it's a historical regional representation that has no meaning in today's government. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's redundant to {{Infobox Administrative division}}? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindented) Infobox Administrative division is a redirect to Infobox settlement, which is what the original discussion was about. So is Infobox comarca, which is the current "candidate" for redundancy. IIRC, there are about 500 comarcas in Spain alone, which are different from comarcas in Portugal, Panama, etc -- and none of them are settlements. I'm sure it would be possible to create a swiss army template to encompass all forms of human-defined geographical divisions, but really I'm not sure it's necessary. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that this template could be moved to {{Infobox comarca}} and expanded so that it is not specific to Spain? I could see that as a reasonable compromise. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, tentatively -- yes that would be a fine solution. Frankly I don't know enough about Comacas in countries other than Spain to really be able to say that. In Brazil they're part of the judicial structure, and I have no idea what sort of information might be included in that case, and I know next to nothing about their use in France and Italy. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to any of several mentioned templates. GlassCobra 23:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox comarca}} (revised if necessary) per the compromise discussion above. --RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}} (or an appropriate redirect thereto), slap the opposers for being petty, and shoot the relisting admin for failing to spot the emptiness of the opposition. The two contrary arguments seem to be "it's pretty" and "'settlement' isn't an appropriate word". 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems redundant to the generic templates. Robofish (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: I am willing to perform any necessary cleanup (i.e., merging/substitution/replacement) after this discussion has closed. Just ping me when it closes. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant template. Consistency is needed here. Himalayan 21:34, 30 November 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:Container-cat 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Container-cat with Template:Parent category.
Template:Container-cat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Parent category (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These two templates, and their respective categories, accomplish the same thing. There is no need to have two separate templates for this purpose. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_30#Category:Wikipedia_categories_that_should_contain_only_sub-categories. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. I agree that these essentially duplicate the same function, and should be merged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said in that discussion, I see no justification for this idea, and even if a justification were to be found, I see no need for this template and the category that goes with it. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the template is very useful, moreso than the category. I do use this to perform clean-up of categories, so I would want at least one of the templates kept. The corresponding category is not necessary to perform the clean-up, but the template is crucial to it. I know this won't be convincing to someone who won't consider a justification, but some of us have used this and continue to do so ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. My preference would be to merge {{Parent category}} into {{Container-cat}}, as I think that is the slightly better template, although the other is considerably more widely used. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 22:02, 19 November 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:OriginalHornets 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I fail to see why this particular roster is notable. They weren't members of a championship team —Chris!c/t 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as each played for a professional team, and it was Charlotte's first year in existence in a pro league. ArcAngel (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But many other teams do not have such template? And why is the first year team notable?—Chris!c/t 05:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no particular need for this template; we don't need to highlight the original team members. No equivalents for other teams don't exist. Robofish (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notable achievement from the first season, so no particular reason to navbox its members. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 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:Saudi Arabian political parties 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 keep and expand Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Saudi Arabian political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is only used once, on one of the very pages it links to Politics of Saudi Arabia. Only has one entry, which has been merged to that article too. Fences&Windows 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 19 November 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:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni 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 all. I love the idea personally, but consensus is very clear here. Wizardman 19:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/13 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/14 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

New user has created a string of 14 templates, the only content being in each case a photograph of a person, presumably a past student of the college. It is difficult to conceive of a good use for such templates. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the 14 templates have been created using the {{Random subpage}} template. It is used in the St. Xavier's College, Mumbai#Alumni and popular culture section to display random images of Alumni. It is of encyclopedic use. I know I am the first person to use {{Random subpage}} templates in articles as per [1]. This doesn't deserve deletion at all. Xavier449 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go on Purging the page for random Images. Xavier449 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Random images on articles is a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems like Garion96's personal opinion. Which Wikipolicy prevents articles from random images. Xavier449 (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Randomly displaying one of several applicable photos on an article is an interesting idea and I don't know of any previous consensus against it. Xavier449 is correct that this is the only article using {{Random subpage}}, but novelty doesn't make something bad. If someone has a good argument for why the idea is bad, I'd be happy to consider that. But at least in this particular case I don't see anything obviously harmful about it. The images being used all seem to be equally applicable as illustrations within the article, all fit in the allotted space, and I don't see any licensing problems for the images. --RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Random images within the project is not appropriate. --Blargh29 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you be willing to explain why you think they are inappropriate? --RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes: It makes the pages unstable because each individual view is different. Also, if there is vandalism and one of the images and is replaced by something inappropriate, the vandalism will likely persist longer, because it will only appear 1/14th of the time. The formatting is liable to be altered by different-sized images. Wikipedia encourages mirrors of its content (which is why we're under the GDFL and CC), a goal that is made difficult by these templates, because a data dump might not catch the syntax of the code right. There also might be copyright problems with a random element in the page, because, per the licensing documents, each and every contribution must be attached to a unique user. Something this avant-garde makes the page almost impossible to get through featured article review, which is supposed to be the theoretical goal of every article. It's unencyclopedic and more appropriate for an alumni magagine than a serious encyclopedia. In its defense, it is a pretty creative template, but I don't think it is good for the project.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for explaining. I think some of the concerns you mention are not significant problems. I don't see any licensing issue as long as the individual pictures and templates are appropriately licensed. Images are already included on pages via templates in many cases without issue; the randomness of the display doesn't affect this. Similarly, mirror sites already need to pull numerous transcluded templates and images if they want to display pages in the same format that we have them, so there is nothing new on that front. "Unencyclopedic" is a difficult concern to pin down: This is something a paper encyclopedia couldn't do, but there are many others ways WP differs from traditional encyclopedias. FA review standards move with consensus, but if we require pre-existing consensus for an innovation then we would rule out almost all new ideas. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is a change, so we need to be open to a degree of experimentation. So all those concerns seem to be non-issues to me. The user experience and vandalism concerns are the most troubling to me, especially the latter. But at this stage they seem hypothetical (there do not appear to be any actual layout or vandalism issues on the affected article), and I would rather risk the possibility of minor disturbances in order to see how an interesting experiment turns out. --RL0919 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It' still not clear how displaying random images can harm the project. All reasons seem to be personal opinions w/o proper explanations. I have found it to be an innovative new experiment with great results. Xavier449 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid Objection: The nominator has not mentioned a proper reason for deletion. Xavier449 (talk) 06:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a court of law. Please refrain from "Wikilawyering." Decisions are based on consensus, not on objections/counter-objections.--Blargh29 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you too. should stop giving opinions unless you have valid reasons for deletion. Xavier449 (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unused, and of no obvious purpose. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No obvious purpose, creator seems to be content to deride other opinions instead of providing one about why this is useful or encyclopedic. Blargh29 also brings up some valid concerns. GlassCobra 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're going another round, I'll take the opportunity to add a few points: First, there is a purpose being served by the templates, contrary to the nomination and some subsequent comments. By displaying a selection of different images, we are exposing free-use images that might otherwise go unused. We can also forestall possible disputes about which image should be used to illustrate the section, by giving several different images an equal shot. Second, in order to see this unusual presentation of images preserved long enough to see how it works out, I am willing to take extra measures to help address concerns raised above. In order to make the usage of the templates clear, if they are kept I will create a documentation page to be displayed at the currently unused parent page Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni. This will also provide a single location for editors to access all the sub-pages to verify their content in case there are questions about whether the images are all of similar size and content, and in case of any concerns about vandalism. I am also willing to watchlist all the templates and associated files to help monitor for any potential vandalism. Finally, I note that I had no prior involvement with these templates or the associated article prior to this discussion. I simply don't think that a novel idea should be quashed based on unsubstantiated concerns or any impolitic comments that an editor might have made during this discussion. There's no policy or standing consensus being contravened here, so I'd like to see this idea play out. Xavier449 only created these on November 1, and they were nominated for deletion the next day, without even a full understanding of how they were being used, much less a chance to evaluate the results. If this setup is on the article for a few months and it doesn't work well (repeatedly vandalized, draws complaints, etc.), I'll come back here and nominate it myself with an explanation of how it failed. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for all the reasoned arguments provided above. I'm surprised that a proposal with opposition only from the template creator has needed a second relist. I don't buy the "equal airtime" argument for mainspace - articles should be (reasonably) stable. I don't feel the "exposure" argument has merit - we choose images for their suitability, and that is binary. There is still the very real possibility of sneaky vandalism - you can watchlist the pages, but you can't watchlist all possible pages that have yet to be created, and (most importantly) you would not be able to reproduce the scenario easily ("Hey, I spotted a dick on this page!" "I can't see it. Are you sure?"). There's an important usability issue here - don't give people random content in mainspace unless they specifically ask for it. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but only because of the vandalism issue. Being able to display a range of images is a great idea, but unless we could ensure that it wouldn't be open to vandalism as noted by other editors, this could be a major security problem. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are so much concerned about vandalism, why not protect the templates. Xavier449 (talk) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't feel the "exposure" argument has merit - we choose images for their suitability, and that is binary. - All Images of notable alumni are suitable for the Alumni section. Hence, displaying Random images is a great idea. This is not a Featured picture competition. If vandalism is a major issue, then the templates can be protected. The templates are anyway not supposed to be modified. Xavier449 (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • They're not all suitable. We don't use an image of a person who is mentioned in passing in an article. The vandalism issue is a problem, and protection will not fix it. You couldn't stop someone from creating Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/Dick, other than by protecting that specific title, and you've got 7 million 4-letter combinations alone, assuming you stick to the 26 Latin letters. If it got past NP patrol, you wouldn't spot it unless you specifically looked them up in Special:PrefixIndex - that doesn't really scale beyond a small number of articles. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if I don't completely like the idea of random images, I understand why people may find it good for displaying for examples photos from a place or something like that. I find the idea of displaying random photos of a colleges' alumni completely inappropriate since it gives undue weight to random people. Wikipedia is not a photogallery and photos should not be used solely for cosmetic purposes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've reminded me in a rounabout way that you have to purge the page to get a new image to show, so it's not necessarily as random as some might think. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 as unnecessary duplicates which is putting undue weight on particular alumni for no particular reason. Merge or delete the rest. If someone can point to some prior consensus, where this practice is deemed to be deprecated (e.g., WP:MOS), then delete. Otherwise, merge into one template, as I have already done, which should help reduce the fears of vandalism. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:36, 30 November 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:Louisiana State University 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 merge Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Louisiana State University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:LSU (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Louisiana State University with Template:LSU.
The template is redundant to a better-designed template, plus Template:LSU is older and therefore Template:Louisiana State University should not have been created in the first place. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. {{LSU}} has the better layout and is more widely used. Any valid links from {{Louisiana State University}} that aren't already on {{LSU}} should be moved over and the name redirected. Since this is a navbox there shouldn't be any complications to worry about. --RL0919 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge complete. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:41, 20 November 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:Climate 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. Ruslik_Zero 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request box created in 2006 by an editor who was working to add climate sections to articles about geographical regions. That editor is no longer active and this template is unused outside his own user pages. Willing to withdraw nom if there is someone else who wants to take up the use of this. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might check with WikiProject Cities and WikiProject U.S. counties to see if they are interested in taking over the template. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 06:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cant see any point to the template.Jason Rees (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not used, and not particularly useful - generic request boxes can be used instead. Robofish (talk) 19:16, 21 November 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_discussion/Log/2009_November_19&oldid=1140155024"