Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 15

< September 14	September 16 >

September 15 edit

Template:Infobox Region of Georgia 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) 03:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Region of Georgia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} (as shown here) which has additional features; and used on only 10 articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. No indication of anything special in this infobox that isn't in the more general one. --RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep on principle that a region is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:04, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replied here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:39, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate per nom Redundant, obviously. Not to mention very poorly designed and devoid of any real information, Himalayan 15:04, 19 September 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:Infobox Province of Kazakhstan 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) 03:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Province of Kazakhstan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} (as shown here) which has additional features; and used on only 13 articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. No indication of anything special in this infobox that isn't in the more general one. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep on principle that a province is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replied here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate per nom Redundant, obviously. Himalayan 15:04, 19 September 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:Croatian County 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) 03:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Croatian County (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} (as shown here) which has additional features; and used on only 19 articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. The comparison diff is a good addition in this nomination. It really shows the comparability of the templates and allows easy navigation to versions of the article with each. After looking at both, it's clear to me that the more general template will work just fine for these articles. --RL0919 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. Thanks to Andy for not only proving it, but also showing a way to convert the existing template. GregorB (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense. What precisely in WP:POINT are you referring to? In fact, the process by which these multitude of templates are being nominated for deletion without having previously established any general community support for using {{Infobox settlement}} is also invalid per WP:POINT. 14:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    - I see no evidence of either argument being a case of intentional disruption of the encyclopedia to make a point. You two simply have a difference of opinion about how the matter should be approached. --RL0919 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Voting to keep several redundant and in some cases unused templates, without any rationale as to whey they should be kept, other than that you don't like the process, is disruptive. Falsely insinuating that there is an intention to only have one such template; doubly so; and fragmenting a discussion like this over several TfDs, instead of a more suitable forum, or even raising the matter on my talk page, yet more so. I shan't be replying to your duplicate comments, elsewhere. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whether there is some grand scheme or not is irrelevant since the practical effect is the same, though the scorecard at Template_talk:Infobox settlement#Other templates up for TfD at the least suggests a concerted (if not particularly well-planned) effort. I have no interest and have not implied in any way the you personally are in any way responsible. The templates have been nominated by several persons, so why would this be a subject to raise on your talk page? The fragmentation of discussion is precisely because of the multiple nominations. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Effort; yes. Effort to do what you insinuated; no. This isn't the place for further meta-discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There is an ongoing effort to reduce the amount of unnecessary variation in settlement-related templates. But the result so far has not been the replacement of every nominated template. Some get replaced, others don't because of specific concerns raised by the editors that use those templates. The "fragmentation" is entirely justified because there isn't necessarily going to be one global result that applies to every settlement template. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on principle that a county is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replied here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:40, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
- LOL, even Croatian project members like Gregor see sense that this seperate template is unnecessary. Your reasons are really not valid. Settlement does not mean exactly what is does in Russian english where things are called things like "urban-type settlement". It basically means inhabited place or location. Besides which the clear blue banner stating Province or County overides any potential confusion and actually makes it blatantly clear and obvious. Himalayan 15:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ezhiki actually makes a good argument here, but it would be an argument for the creation of {{Infobox Administrative division}} or such, and not really against the deletion of {{Croatian County}}. But still: settlements and, say, counties, have many properties in common, such as population, area (and thus also population density), governments and/or leaders, you name it. See {{Infobox officeholder}} for a similar situation and - possibly - a slightly more elegant way to handle it. GregorB (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecate per nom Redundant, obviously. Himalayan 15:04, 19 September 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:Tool box 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) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tool box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

only one link -- not substantially used or edited for 2 yrs. Nasa-verve (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nom says "one link", but there were no transclusions of this template when I checked. The content is just an external link to an edit counter tool (which didn't work when I tried to use it), so it has virtually no value as a template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User experiment? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:06, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

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:ABS-CBN Franchised 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ABS-CBN Franchised (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template contains liscruft information. Some of the shows listed here have not aired their local version yet. -danngarcia (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If it bothers you, then just edit the template and remove the shows. It's not that big of a deal at all. --Dudejerome (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't what I would call a must-have template, but I'm not seeing anything particular that warrants deletion. There seem to be enough valid articles to make a navbox useful. As Dudejerome says, if there are a few inappropriate articles linked among the appropriate ones, then the template should just be edited to remove them. --RL0919 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What RL0919 said.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:07, September 18, 2009 (UTC) 17:07, 18 September 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:International Cricket Tours of India 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) 22:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:International Cricket Tours of India (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Delete – Listing every international cricket event participated in by the Indian national team in any particular year is, quite frankly, ridiculous. No particular reason has been provided for why this template only goes back to 2003; ideally, it should go back to the start of international cricket in India, but size concerns make that completely infeasible. Cricket events should be organised by year and by nation, but not as an intersection of the two. – Pee Jay 09:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The reason this template dates back only to 2003 is because it has not been expanded. How else would you list every cricket tour of a particular country without sorting them year-wise? Would you rather have separate articles for each cricket year of India? I agree it needs reformatting to make it compact and more effective, but that's not the same as deleting it. - Abhijit Sathe (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. The material and its organization seem fine to me, but I am concerned that this is just too much for a navigation template. It seems like a list article or category would be more appropriate. Especially I wonder what some of the linked articles about multinational competitions would look like if they contained a similar navbox for every country that participated. --RL0919 (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material is good, but having all tournaments/series in one nav bar for 80 odd years is just too much. We can't have a navbar template to serve 80 categories (a good chunk of which already exist). A better option is to create a list of all series/tournaments and link the list instead of including a template in every article. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't even link to Indian tours. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deelete per nom. This would set a terrible precedent and is not what nav templates are for. –Moondyne 16:36, 20 September 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.