Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 16

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 September 16)
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16 edit

Template:Infobox French hamlet 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) 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox French hamlet (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to other French subdivision infobox templates and/or {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 4 instances. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. Not only are these used in a minimal number of articles, many of the available fields aren't filled in. There doesn't appear to be anything in these four instances that couldn't go into the more general template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:14, 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 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:13, 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)
  • Neutral. I don't believe this template in its current state is particularly valuable or useful, but it worries me that something as basic as asking WP:FRANCE as to the purpose of/plans for this template has not been done prior to nominating.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • There is nothing on the template's documentation identifying it with that or any other project; indeed, that project does not even link to the template, such is its members' apparent disinterest. This discussion is open to all interested parties, and advertised on the template page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is never a bad idea to double-check with a relevant WikiProject just in case; it's only polite and often can save a lot of grief and bickering later on.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:28, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
        • This shouldn't be held against anyone. If one side says "Nobody told us", the other inevitably says "nobody asked me to". 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:19, 18 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) 18:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate per nom' -only used in 4 articles. Himalayan 11:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:30, 24 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:Globe 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) 00:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template has five wikilinks in it and is currently only used on one page, the band's article. The template is the band's discography that would be all redlinks if the albums/songs were actually linked. Since the template is only used on the band's article to be a discography when that article already has a discography, this is a pointless template to have.Aspects (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Four articles is not enough to justify a navbox, and a non-linked discography list is just that: a list, which is article content that should not be in a template. --RL0919 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this should be something about the Earth type template, maybe even a redirec to {{Coord}} 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another underpopulated navbox (in terms of links, at least). 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Won't support to re-creation if the template is populated with blue links.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:59, 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.

Moon and Mars 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 and replace with {{coord}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Moon (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 59 transclusions
Template:Coor Mars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) = 24 transclusionsunused in articles

Redundant to the more flexible {{Coord}} (well over 500,000 transclusions), as can be seen here for Moon & seen here for Mars. Current instances should be converted. Note: please can an admin add {{tfd}} to their pages? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like a good case for standardization to me. Also, I fixed the tfdlinks for the "Moon" template based on the diff you provided. If I got it wrong please fix my "fix". --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Someone should merge the icons into the other template before considering deletion. The template documentation doesn't seem to mention the Moon or Mars. Even after the merge, a "coor Moon" and "coor Mars" should exist as shortcut templates. Perhaps, with coding to select the world that it should use. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • False argument: {{Coord}}'s documentation clearly mentions the Moon and Mars. The icons can be added to {{Coord}} at any point, including after deletion is agreed, but before it is carried out. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, to me it would be a bad idea to do so before there is agreement to migrate - another reason why TfD needs to move away from the "D"-word. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That directly contradicts what is listed in the "purpose" statement of the template. It says it is for use on *Earth*, so anyone reading the template documentation will not see the Moon option, since it says it's about the Earth and directs people to use the Sky template. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's easily changed - and the documentation is not protected, so please feel free to do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 06:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It needs a fairly large rewrite. The quick-guide needs to be rewritten as well, since it is definitely Earth-only. Exactly what are the coordinate systems used for the other planets, since it certainly isn't WGS84. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate in favour of {{coord}}. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate. Seems to be a good standardization idea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:01, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  • Deprecate unless there is something very special that only those templates can do that Coord cannot be easily modified to also accomplish. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:32, 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:Heroes cast 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 with no prejudice toward any changes to Template:Heroes. JPG-GR (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Heroes cast (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Inappropriate. We don't connect actors with navboxes because it happened for some years of their careers to appear in the same show. Magioladitis (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we Merge this into Template:Heroes then? I can think of many, many templates that have the cast in them: Template:True Blood, Template:Star Trek TNG, Template:30 Rock, Template:Smallville, Template:Samantha Who?, Template:Murder, She Wrote, Template:The Golden Girls, Template:Friends, Template:Home Improvement, Template:Harpers Island to name a few. I'm not saying put this template on all the actors' pages, I just want to insert them into the template listed above. If not, there a likely hundreds of templates that need to have this information removed, including the above listed ones to start. Ejfetters (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to discuss in Heroes project from adding a list of actors in the template (this is not exactly merging). I think there is an ongoing discussion somewhere (I 'll try to find it) about the presence of actors in these navboxes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ejfetters above. These templates seem a good use of navigational boxes to me. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge main people to the main template. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Just think, for one second, how articles about actors would look like if all notable (or even just all major) shows would have these templates. Add films to the list (Hey, shows get the template, so why not films?) and we end up with navigation template chaos. --Conti|✉ 18:58, 10 September 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) 06:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with {{Heroes}}. My take on the whole "should actors be in show navboxes" is this: if the show has enough articles to warrant a navbox without considering the actor articles, then I'm OK with that navbox also including the major actors from that show (not recurring cast as we've seen in some navboxes nominated recently). So in the list of examples Ejfetters gave above, I'm fine with {{Star Trek TNG}} and {{30 Rock}}, but {{Samantha Who?}} seems a bit thin as a navbox if you don't count the cast. But I can't think of any case where a separate navbox for just the cast is warranted. --RL0919 (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the actors are connected with the show, they don't have much in common with each other. It wouldn't make sense to navigate between cast members of shows, characters of course, but not cast members. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Such templates are becoming simply too proliferate and take away from adding relevant content to actual articles. There's nothing here that can't be found on the Heroes article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as excessive, unnecessary navigation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:34, 24 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:Go 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 withdrawn. JPG-GR (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnecessary duplication of existing templates; was only used in a handful or articles. Cybercobra (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If your intention is to replace all the templates that generate a hatnote with this {{go}} template, then I'm very hesitant to support you. The templates that you intend to replace are each widely used in about an average of over 65,000 or more pages, and thus are all very high-risk and permanently protected. Thus, if you replace all of them for a one-size-fits all, global template, it would be used on a significant majority of articles here. And since it consists of a very large #switch parserFunction, it would be a little more difficult to maintain since there is a greater chance of making a typo that would screw up those millions of articles. And due to the nature of the server load and the job queue, I would expect that changes to this single global template would not become visible in all these millions of pages for several weeks or even months.

Also, I am one who prefers that extremely widely used templates like these comply somewhat with the KISS principle because they are seen most often by new Wikipedians, and thus in a way allows them to learn how to use the basics of templates. By replacing them with this new {{go}} template, you add more parameters and the complex #switch parserFunction for all to deal with. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are either of you Wikimedia developers?   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:20, 13 September 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) 06:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As much as I appreciate standardization, I definitely have doubts about standardizing so many templates that are so visible and so widely used into a single, relatively untested template. I could support a more cautious approach to reducing the number of different hatnote templates. For example, first combine {{catmore}} and {{catmore2}}, then use the experience to combine others, possibly ending up with a single template in the long run, if the experience of lesser combinations shows that it can work. So I don't mind keeping this template around to possibly proceed with such experimentation, but that is not an endorsement of any quick replacement of the other templates with this one. --RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is the wrong venue to have this type of discussion since the template's creator's intention is to essentially make a proposal to modify a Wikipedia policy or guideline, specifically WP:HAT, so that one primary standard template is generally used instead of several ones listed on Template:Otheruses templates. Thus, this TFD should be closed and the creator should post/advertise his proposals elsewhere like WP:CENT and WP:VPR. There, discussions about its use and how it can be tested can take place, especially in light of the recent update yesterday to the software on all Wikimedia sites. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw per comments regarding proper forum, but with the request that the template author bring up their proposed policy change at the proper forum reasonably soon. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you for the suggestion, but there is a procedural impediment: I am not an admin, and if this template were to become widely used, prudence would dictate that it be fully protected, meaning that I could no longer work on it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (A) WP:OWN, and {{editprotected}} exists (B) The whole point of the discussion would be to decide whether to even use the template in the first place! --Cybercobra (talk) 06:03, 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:High traffic 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. JPG-GR (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:High traffic (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template seems to be of questionable usefulness these days. It was created when Wikipedia was mostly unknown, and being linked from a website like Slashdot would cause a sudden spike in the traffic to an article; but these days, Wikipedia is one of the highest-trafficked (and widely linked-to) sites on the internet itself. I'm not sure it has any value to note that one of our articles has been linked by a high-traffic website these days; when it is, we have more specific templates, like {{Press}}, that do the job better. This template should either be deleted or marked as historical. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mark as historical At present, the only pages using it are talk pages, and I can't see a time when it would be likely to be used - the {{Press}} is indeed more useful. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks, davidwr - I have striken the first part of the statement, but the rest still fits in with what I think! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see update below). I looked at a couple of dozen examples of its use and none were any newer than 2008. The supposed purpose of this tag, per the previous discussions about it, was to warn editors of potential vandalism due to an article's temporary high profile. In theory it would be removed when the traffic died down. Instead it has become a pointless historical marker about links from sites that now get significantly less traffic than Wikipedia itself. So Slashdot linked to such-and-such article in 2005. Big whoop. --RL0919 (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that slashdot chose to link to wikipedia and not another site, is indeed a "big whoop."Smallman12q (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and discuss, this in a way that attracts the attention of people using similar templates such as {{press}}, and try to find a consensus as to which if any of those templates should be depricated. Then impliment the change. In the meantime, identify as many related templates as possible and put a banner at the top of each saying something like "consider using one of these similar templates instead." This is one of those templates that deserve more discussion than a not-widely-advertised TfD will provide, and one of those cases where a discussion may show a preference for this template over related ones. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historify In favor of {{press}}. Like Phantomsteve was said above, we get so much traffic that this template is outmoted. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been advertised at Template talk:Press --Cybercobra (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: useful for deciding whether certain !votes may be manipulated by socks and meatpuppets. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and start an RfC for it to decide on what to be done. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as this basically restates what I said above. IMHO it doesn't have to be an RFC, just any mechanism that will solicit ideas from all interested parties then seek a consensus outcome. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but deprecate in favor of {{press}}. -- œ™ 00:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template serves no purpose other then to act as a badge for pages related to topics that have a web presence. In the early days of wikipedia this served as a warning to potential vandalism on a page but now this is not the case. meshach (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding was that this was supposed to be used for short periods to identify potential targets for vandalism. However, we are now more capable in dealing with high-volume vandalism. At the very least, remove from anything more than a month old. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:35, 10 September 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) 06:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical. Although I still think complete deletion is justified, in the spirit of developing a consensus I am willing to shift my position to support designating this template as a historical artifact (so it can stay on existing pages where it is in use), but deprecating any new use in favor of {{Press}}. Regarding the requests that this be discussed elsewhere, this is supposed to be the place where consensus is sought on removing or deprecating a simple template. If there were some larger process involved (for example, as there would be for templates widely used for citations), then I could understand involving a different forum. But this is a single template that is rarely used, so it seems to fall easily into the scope of what TfD is supposed to handle. --RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-{{press}} doesn't do the job for links that aren't used in an article. This template is heavily used and is very useful in identifying traffic spikes in otherwise obsecure articles. Take for example today, September 23, when bing linked to Neptune on its front page from ref. What other template could be used to notify people of a traffic spike? {{press}} is great for notifying when an article has been linked from a newspiece of some sort...but not a general front page link from a site. Well...I'm an anonymous editor...I'm interested to see what the entrenched wikipedian community comes to in the future if they keep this up...65.51.38.194 (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that the presumed traffic spike from Bing hasn't produced any uptick in editing on the article. The whole idea was to warn editors about a possible upsurge in editing, hence the link to the article's revision history that the template produces. If a traffic spike doesn't affect the article, who cares? Also, there's no evidence that the template is "heavily used". It seems to go onto pages occasionally, then linger there indefinitely, longer after its supposed purpose has been served. If you go to the list of transclusions and start clicking randomly, almost every use is from 2008 or earlier. If it were being used the way that was supposedly intended, most uses would be for recent incidents. --RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is all the more reason to remove it from everything over a month old, and add categiories to the template "Articles linked from high traffic websites on X" to strictly enforce this. Older examples can be replaced with {{press}} if they're significant news sources (i.e. not random stories posted on digg, slashdot, reddit, etc.) 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I agree with the position put forth by the anonymous user. Besides notifying editors of the potential traffic and hence editing surge, the template serves as a reminder that a notable site chose to link to wikipedia. If increased traffic doesn't increase editing, it's not a "who cares" situation, but rather why. Why hasn't the increased traffic induced editing; is the article that good, or is it something else. The template serves as a record of why there may have been a spike in traffic and that a notable website linked to wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 12:45, 24 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 of BD districts 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 to support deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox of BD districts (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template such for a several Bangladeshi districts. Should be converted to standard Infobox settlement per the upazila previous nomination. The only good thing is the map showing districts, ideally we need specific maps highlighting the actual district location..

Mmm, what I'll do is create us a full set of district locator maps.... There you go, took me a while but we now have 64 locator maps of all the districts. I've converted Bagerhat District as an example. Himalayan 13:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}}. Merge in any extra parameters. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in favour of {{infobox settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate in favour of {{infobox settlement}} as per 81.110.104.91. Whilst I've objected to the similar nominations from User:Himalayan Explorer on this page, the work done on the locator maps does indeed make the replacement superior to the original. Good work, dude! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A "one size fits all" approach does not necessarily work globally and adds a large overhead without necessarily allowing for vagaries of specific regions around the world. Donama (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Of course Bagerhat District isn't an adequate replacement is it? Himalayan 11:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please identify specifically which aspects of this template are not catered for by the generic parent. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I have no opinion either way on this template, surely the onus is on the proponents for deletion to clearly demonstrate that the proposed replacement does cater for all aspects of the existing template and not vice versa. In addition, Donama seems to me to be making the case that specific templates allow for more flexibility and less unwanted "overhead" than a generic template. Perhaps you may consider addressing this as well. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The onus is on all sides to justify their opinions. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep regionalised templates are more effective, countering WP:BIAS. Gnangarra 06:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You appear to be canvassing, based on a false premise ("globalised templates using terminology and spelling that isnt consistant with the region"). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the problem with your process is the lack of WP:AGF, I havent canvassed I advised people that process is under way, that process is the replacement of localised template in favour of a globalise template which uses US terminology/spelling this process occurred without prior discussion. oh and you seem to be stalking me. Gnangarra 16:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gnangarra, this is one of many deletions proposals that were not discussed on the relevant WikiProject. We should allow various templates to have a regional flavour rather than forcing conformity Pahari Sahib 12:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the maps taken care of as discussed above, the only thing I noticed in this template that I didn't see in {{Infobox settlement}} was the literacy rate. Assuming that can be accommodated, delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with {{infobox settlement}}, given the low number of transclusions, per RL0919. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:41, 13 September 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) 04:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused - the current "keep" arguments are either without substance (e.g. User:Gnangarra's bare statement) or irrelevant (e.g. User:Pahari Sabib's "Nobody told me"). On the other hand, the case for replacement is pretty well made. Why the relist? 81.110.104.91 (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The debate here is whether a particular region could have their own templates or whether a globalized template should be used.--23prootie (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That isn't what the debate is about about at all, if you read the nomination. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who opposed only did so out of sour grapes, because their own templates were threatended previously. Both have failed to acknowledge that by inisting we keep the only template we are retaining inaccurate information about actual district location when they should be replaced with accurate location maps I spent time creating here. This template does not have the capacity to include these maps and is redundant and lcearly inferior to the specific example I gave of the infobox settlement with proper map. Himalayan 12:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse other editors of "sour grapes" or questions their motives just because you have a difference of opinion. Pahari Sahib 07:25, 23 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 14:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid per WP:POINT. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:08, 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. older ≠ wiser 14:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Address the subject of the debate. "I don't like the process" isn't a valid argument. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the process is getting in way of the debate, then that is the subject of the debate. older ≠ wiser 22:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The process doesn't appear to be getting in the way of the debate. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If that is so, then why did you say anything to begin with? older ≠ wiser 14:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that a district 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?); 17:03, 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 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: The template redirect {{Infobox district}} can now be used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After having been solicited for clarifications by the nominator, I hereby acknowledge that this template has map-related issues that desperately need to be fixed. I would not have opposed deletion of this template if it were to be replaced by a Bangladesh district-specific infobox template addressing those issues. I do, however, still oppose deletion of this template if it is to be replaced by {{Infobox Settlement}} for the same reasons explained in my "keep" vote above. I urge the closing administrator to consider this comment a part of my "keep" vote above.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Would this solve Ezhiki's concerns? Himalayan 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:28, 24 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:Everybody Hates Chris 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) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Everybody Hates Chris (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This navbox mainly links to 3 articles that are already well linked to each other. For the second line of the navbox: There is a consensus not to connect actor because they appeared to the same show, specially when the show is over! Magioladitis (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure where the 'consensus' that Magioladitis refers to comes from. We have plenty of navigational templates connecting the actors who appeared in a television show: e.g. {{Friends}}, {{Scrubs}}, {{Firefly}} and others. By those precedents, this template seems acceptable to me. Robofish (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Robofish. Templates for shows that include a list of the main stars or creators are very common, and imo useful to readers, which is he most important thing.YobMod 10:22, 11 September 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) 04:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm going to use the same reasoning here as in my comments for the {{Heroes cast}} TfD above. If you discount the actor articles, then there just aren't enough articles to justify a navbox. Also, the cast are all easily found in the cast and characters article. --RL0919 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The navigation box pretty much only has a list of cast members. Navboxes should be for connect directly related articles. These actors realistically only have this TV show in common which is such a small facet of the person and the article. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary, excessive navigation. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:31, 24 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:Kris Allen &Template:Adam Lambert 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 at this time, with no prejudice toward recreation if said navboxes become appropriate/populate-able. JPG-GR (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Kris Allen (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Adam Lambert (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

It's just simply way too early for this. Let's wait until they actually releases a CD. :) There is barely more here than the AI8 template has. User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 04:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But Kris is gonna release a CD by the end of September so it's early but not that too early. I created the Adam template cause his fans might be jealous of favoritism.--23prootie (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Each singer has only released one single each, so it is too soon to have templates. Aspects (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kris Allen is possibly going to release a new single in at least two weeks (at most in a month) so he does deserve a template plus he had a notable song not released as a single.--23prootie (talk) 10:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - half the entries aren't links. Again, I'm giving serious thought to proposing "underpopulated navbox" as a CSD. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - What are you talking about? Adam has 4 links and 3 non-links, yes but Kris has 5 links and 2 non links with one of them potentially becoming one by Monday.--23prootie (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In summary, the templates have 7 things in them, not all linked, and not all deserving of links, some of the links being tenuous; linking an artist's record label seems a bit far-fetched for me - Jive and RCA are not notable because of these two signings, nor vice versa. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's already a precedent, on record labels. The are usually included in templates but the templates are not usually added in those articles.--23prootie (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In any case, there is serious underpopulation of links that are specifically relevant to the artists, so navboxes seem unnecessary. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This template ([[1]]) was kept despite only having three relevant entries.--23prootie (talk) 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - While I do believe that it may have been premature to have created the templates, I also believe that deleting them now would be pointless. Given that both singers have highly-anticipated albums to be released in November and along with that singles (including one to be released by Kris mere hours from now), it is only a matter of time before their templates would be populated. Deleting them now would be worthless since they would definitely be necessary in the very near future.--23prootie (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    keep possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
    (ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 12:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and userfy if requested. Pointless navigation until more albums are released. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:28, 24 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:Sultanate of Rotonda table 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 speedy delete per corresponding AFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sultanate of Rotonda table (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template is orphaned, the article which it was supposed to be attached was considered and was deleted, Sultanate of Rotonda.JL 09 q?c 00:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unused and unlikely to be useful in the future. --RL0919 (talk) 01:43, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_16&oldid=1136067022"