Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 February 27

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27 edit

Cycling team templates edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cycling team start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cycling team lastrider (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Cycling team manager (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates deprecated by {{Cycling team}} and {{Cycling team manager2}}. SeveroTC 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unused and redundant to widely used templates. --RL0919 (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2010 (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:Puffery 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The difference between this and {{peacock}} is difficult to qualify, it links to an essay, and the phrase "wikipuffery" seems to have been invented for this purpose. Recommend redirecting to {{peacock}} and deleting the category once it's been depopulated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term "puffery" goes back well over 200 years now, and is scarcely a neologism. The use of "peacock" is to discourage unverifiable stuff but says nothing about how the stuff is worded if it is "verifiable", "puffery" may well be "verifiable" but the wording is specifically promotional. Sources which use promotional wording do not incur "peacock" at all! The purpose here is to reduce the promotional language in articles. And there is no shortage of "reliable sources" which can be quoted in a "puffing" manner (see history of movie ads <g>). Collect (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Puffery is very much a real word. {{puffery}} serves a different purpose than {{peacock}}. The WP:PUFF essay has become very popular, and is frequently referred to in AFD discussions. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, closed as speedy/snow keep. THF (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the 1779 play "The Critic" by Richard Brinsley Sheridan to learn the difference between "the puff direct, the puff preliminary, the puff collateral, the puff collusive, and the puff oblique, or puff by implication"...   -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Puffery is not the same as using peacock words. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Pcap ping 05:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe rename to "Larding" to make the distinction clear. I think it's the current wordings that make the templates seem similar; they originated from different guidelines, both related to WP:NPOV, but each has a separate focus. "Puffery" is the stuff that makes people think "Who cares?". "Peacock" is the stuff that makes people think "That's just your own opinion." {{Puffery}} (WP:Wikipuffery, or "larding on") tends to be focused on establishing that the subject included meets WP:Notability or is worth attention; the claims can be claims of fact, and may or may not be verifiable. A general characterization of puffery is that it looks like someone "trying too hard" to prove importance of an unimportant subject. By contrast, {{Peacock}} (WP:Avoid peacock terms) is focused on the reputation of subjects in the article; peacock terms are often assertions of opinion rather than fact, and often vague, but not always. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms#Words and phrases to watch for gives good examples. A general characterization of peacock language is that it looks like opinionated self-compliments. A claim could be a puffery issue, a peacock issue, or both. (Feel free to adapt this explanation to template documentation or guidelines if it will help.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2010 (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:Biased Arabic Wikipedia 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. First off, userboxes are supposed to be discussed at WP:MFD (regardless of namespace) and Lanternix (talk · contribs) has already recreated the box in userspace. So I could close this as delete for just the template-space version and let some other sucker deal with closing the inevitable renomination of the user-space version at MFD. But that would be ducking the real issue, which is whether calling another WP project "completely biased and unfair" and implicitly disparaging the religious views of its editors is within the latitude that we give for userboxes in any namespace. The current discussion is divided on this, but past precedent and my reading of the guidelines cited by some of the "delete" comments says, no, this is not within the latitude we give. There are other ways the editors using this box could frame their opinions of the Arabic Wikipedia that would be less divisively worded and not openly negative towards other editors, so there is plenty of room for them to express themselves on this issue without going over the line. So, just to be clear: I am deleting both the template and user-space versions of this box. RL0919 (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biased Arabic Wikipedia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This contains rather a pointed personal attack, and in any case should probably be in userspace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move as I tend to see more latitude in userspace than some others do. I would suggest that the author consider using different terminology if he wishes to avoid problems with it. Collect (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move don't delete. I think you guys should go and see some arabic articles and judge for yourself. Arthur_B (talk) 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Move to userspace, don't delete. Arthur_B is right actually I do recommend others to read Arabic articles to understand this.There is no personal attack.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to userspace. Editors are allowed to have opinions of other Wikimedia Foundation projects and even to express them, and there's no personal attack here. Nonetheless, since this is not the position of the English Wikipedia in general, it should not be in template space. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not show expertise for article improvement on English wikipedia, so it is an unnecessary UBX. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I also think you guys should go and see some Arabic articles and judge for yourself.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - practically a case of WP:G10 (attack page). Not helpful towards collaboration, and just provokes divisiveness and antagonism towards other projects. Robofish (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Speedy declined. Personal attack against a website? I agree that it divisive and that it should go, but it doesn't meet G10. —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:CSD#G10 includes attacks against organizations (or any "subject" or "entity"): note that {{db-attackorg}} exists as a recommended tag under G10. Flaming the entire Arabic Wikipedia and its leadership qualifies, doesn't it? --Closeapple (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G10 and Delete. Only 3 users using this template voluntarily. The number of policy and guideline violations this 17-word sentence manages to hit is amazing; there are numerous guidelines explicitly proscribing making divisive attacks against Wikipedia editors, people in general, and groups of people. How do we count the ways? Any one should kill this userbox off on its own:
    1. WP:CSD#G10: "Pages that disparage ... their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." (I would hope nobody replies saying that bringing attention to something deserving to be disparaged makes it an "other purpose". The purpose of writing anything publicly is for it to be paid attention to.)
    2. Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions matches this content very closely: the userbox violates WP:CIVIL, especially characterizing an entire Wikipedia language and its editors as "completely biased and unfair"; "inflammatory or divisive" ought to go without saying, but apparently someone missed that part of the lecture; "propaganda, advocacy, ... political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics" pretty much nails it. Also, the creator User:Lanternix shoved this template on a bunch of people's talk pages without their consent to drum up support; that gives the appearance (at the least) that the userbox exists for advocacy.
    3. Wikipedia:Userboxes#Potentially divisive words already addresses this exact situation: "Avoid verbs (often followed by the word 'that') which may be used to suggest negative comparison and would thus be potentially divisive, such as: believe"
    4. BLP problems: "Run by some Islamic fundamentalists" is a specific claim that could be interpreted as applied to specific living people overseeing ar.wikipedia.org, especially considering the use of "completely". Rules against defaming living people doesn't just apply to articles.
    5. Wikipedia:User page: "In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." (Unless someone thinks the Arabic Wikipedia is not the same project.)
    6. Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page? addressed this exact situation: #9 "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons"; #10 "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws."
That ought to be enough to get the point across. --Closeapple (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convicing. changed my stance to Delete. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is some people's opinion, and it has to be respected. This is like saying that a userbox template stating the Armenian Genocide did occur is offensive to some people!!! OR that Kosovo is Serb is offending to some people!!! Yes, we worked on Arabic Wiki and we witnessed the complete bias of those who run it. This is our opinion, and we stand by it. And as you can see above, most people are against the deletion of the template. When exactly will this whole hoopla end so that our user pages can look normal again??? --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 18:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oh wow. Retaining this template helps improve the English Wikipedia how, exactly? Delete, delete, delete (and did I say "delete"?).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 5, 2010; 18:59 (UTC)
Where does it say exactly that userboxes must have something to do with improving English Wikipedia? Does the fact that you are a "moon citizen" per your user page help improve English Wikipedia? HOW?! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Arabic Newspaper AlAkhbar criticizing Arabic Wikipedia, and describing it as the worst of all Wikipedias, because of its biased content. This is many people's opinion and it must be respected! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 20:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the "moon citizen" template is nominated for deletion, I sure ain't going to complain. However, that template is neither inflammatory, nor divisive, nor disparaging anyone. This one is. And it has nothing to do with improving the Wikipedia. There is harmless fun, and there is detrimental nonsense. This template surely falls into the latter category.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 5, 2010; 22:05 (UTC)
I created a similar template in my own userspace per majority consensus above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ[talk] 20:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have enough bias (tending towards) Arabism in the English Wikipedia...

Toothie3 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2010 (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 CA Co 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. RL0919 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox CA Co (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used. Rschen7754 07:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Most subject articles that would use this template have been consolidated into lists, making this infobox unnecessary. It seems to be redundant (and inferior) to {{infobox road}}, anyway. --LJ (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no longer needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. ---Dough4872 17:07, 27 February 2010 (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:California County Route SD 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California County Route SD (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All targets redirect to California County Routes in zone S. Rschen7754 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – No longer needed due to items being consolidated into a list. --LJ (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no longer needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. ---Dough4872 17:07, 27 February 2010 (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:California County Route ORA 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California County Route ORA (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All targets redirect to California County Routes in zone S or California County Routes in zone N. Rschen7754 07:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – No longer needed due to items being consolidated into lists. --LJ (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no longer needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. ---Dough4872 17:07, 27 February 2010 (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:California County Route RIV 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California County Route RIV (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All targets redirect to California County Routes in zone S or California County Routes in zone R. Rschen7754 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – No longer needed due to items being consolidated into lists. --LJ (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no longer needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. ---Dough4872 17:07, 27 February 2010 (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:California County Route SB 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California County Route SB (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All targets redirect to California County Routes in zone S. Rschen7754 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Single item nav template. No longer needed due to item being consolidated into a list. --LJ (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no longer needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. ---Dough4872 17:07, 27 February 2010 (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:California County Route IMP 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. RL0919 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:California County Route IMP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All targets redirect to California County Routes in zone S. Rschen7754 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – No longer needed due to items being consolidated into a list. --LJ (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — no longer needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 10:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. ---Dough4872 17:07, 27 February 2010 (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 PoptropicaStars 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox PoptropicaStars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not useful in any form or fashion, just plain text that could be typed. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The author's account has just been blocked for spamming and this "template" is in fact useless. De728631 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2010 (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:Samson Samsonov 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Samson Samsonov (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because a set of three films is a good start, but more of his other works without articles seem like they should be able to have articles, judging from the search engine results I went through. Erik (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:35, 27 February 2010 (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:Juan Carlos Fresnadillo 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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:35, 27 February 2010 (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:Calculator numeral 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. Will be happy to userfy upon request. RL0919 (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Calculator numeral (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only transcluded on one page: a talk page. Its two listed uses (counters on userpages and coding sums) do not seem frequent enough to justify an entire template with its associated images. (I noticed this from User:TheDJ/badfiletypes, which pointed out that the "Calculator.jpg" this uses is actually an entirely white BMP file). PleaseStand (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Along with having no well-defined use, this template is also completely inaccessible to text-based browsers and screen readers — in links2, for instance, all you get is:
  Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg CalculatorTwo.jpg CalculatorOne.jpg CalculatorSix.jpg CalculatorFive.jpg CalculatorFive.jpg
  Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg     Calculator.jpg
  Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg     Calculator.jpg
  Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg     Calculator.jpg
  Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg    Calculator.jpg     Calculator.jpg
Good luck making any sense of that. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't there a way to insert alt tags? The template could be modded to do that, if it is possible. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment try out Template talk:Calculator numeral/sandbox - this has alt tags attached, and see what links2 outputs. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, for encouraging raster images in place of normally manipulable text. ―AoV² 09:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to user space so the user can keep it as a reference. If used, this template would replace straightforward content with less straightforward (text with pictures, already guided by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics)), using awkward syntax no longer necessary (through requiring intricacy, splitting digits out is established practice on Wikipedia now: see {{Roman}} and {{Duodecimal}} for example), to serve a need that has already been filled by something more flexible (see Help:Math, {{math}}, and {{bigmath}}). (I should note here that I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from experimenting to attempt to make useful templates.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2010 (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:Joseph Cedar 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Joseph Cedar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And what about the good old "See also"? De728631 (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've seen 2 of 3 of these. Some people hold the fellow in high regard. I don't think 3 films warrants a template. Varlaam (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (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:Films directed by Guy Gilles 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 as two more links have been added, no prejudice against renomination Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Films directed by Guy Gilles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral; I think there is potential in the red links, but the age and nationality of these films mean that reliable sources are not so discoverable. Would recommend interlinking blue links via "See also" sections, and no issue with recreating this template if more of his filmography contains blue links. Erik (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Les cafés de Paris (1966) is listed twice. I don't know him, but the film titles are interesting. It makes me want to look into this guy. Varlaam (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note that 17 days after listing, there are still only two movies on this template with actual articles. In contrast, a number of other recent cases had director templates that were nominated and additional links were quickly populated, leading to "keep" results for those templates. This reinforces my belief that this template should be deleted until such time as the articles are there to navigate, because the links may be red for quite a while if there is not interest and/or reliable sources to create them. --RL0919 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2010 (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:Roxy Hunter 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 as redundant to sequence navbox, and there is no parent article Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roxy Hunter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates four articles (title is a dab.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because four articles is sufficient for formalized navigation. It would be too forced to try to fit in the article body the three other films' titles. Erik (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I'm Canadian. Varlaam (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a four-film series, with {{Infobox film}} templates on each article connecting it to the preceding/following films. Plus the titles all start "Roxy Hunter and ...", making them easy to find by search. No need for a navbox unless they make more films or other franchise products that are notable enough for articles. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2010 (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:Goopy-Bagha Franchise 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 as redundant to director template, and preceded/followed by Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Goopy-Bagha Franchise (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This template doesn't track a director, it tracks a pair of characters. There are also templates for the directors associated with each article. --RL0919 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were more articles about these characters and works they appear in, a navigation template would be appropriate. But as it stands this is just a three-film series, already well-connected via director templates and the preceded by/followed by links of {{Infobox film}}. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2010 (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 Russian federal city2 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Russian federal city2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article and apparently redundant of {{Infobox settlement}} (please correct me if I'm mistaken.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be reconciled with {{Infobox Russian federal city}} (the reason there are two infoboxes for the same purpose is because I was discussing options with another user, and the other template was created as a testing grounds), but neither can be replaced with {{Infobox settlement}} too well, as there are several important options specific to Russia which {{Infobox settlement}} does not support. Keep for now (and I promise to bump this up on my to-do list :)).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 27, 2010; 02:41 (UTC)
  • Comment At the risk of sounding preachy, this is a perfect example of why you should userfy experiments rather than trying them in the article namespace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 27 February 2010 (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 Russian federal city 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Russian federal city (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used in one article and apparently redundant of {{Infobox settlement}} (please correct me if I'm mistaken.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:20, 27 February 2010 (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:Filmography of Siddique 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) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filmography of Siddique (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three films. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because three films is a sufficient set for a highlighted arrangement. The director's other works would otherwise not be available in the footer for readers to follow with ease if they want to visit these articles, too. Erik (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article Siddique (director) includes links to other films that could be added to this template, enough to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (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:Bappaditya Bandopadhyay Films 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, but could be recreated if there are more articles about notable films by this director Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bappaditya Bandopadhyay Films (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only navigates three two films, mostly redlinks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because the set of three blue links is sufficient for the navigation template as a formal arrangement of the director's works. I am not sure about the presence of red links in the template, though... initial search engine results do not show any potential. In any case, three is enough for navigation. Erik (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three is not enough for navigation. Delete unless at least two more of those links turn blue. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redlinks are still red, so there are not enough working links to make a useful navbox. Can recreate if/when there are more articles to link. --RL0919 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2010 (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 Maltese town 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Maltese town (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, apparently redundant of {{Infobox settlement}}. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; redundant. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although it is not being used at all it does have some specific local parameters that don't appear in the settlement box, e.g. "Day of festa" or "Motto". And with Malta being a tiny nation with only a handfull of settlements, this box can easily be included into the relevant articles. De728631 (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Delete Actually totally redundant to "infobox settlement", including parameters like festive days and motto. De728631 (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2010 (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:Geobox Settlement 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geobox Settlement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Superseded by {{Geobox}}, only ~20 transclusions in article namespace. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note {{TfD}} cannot be added, as template is protected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now tagged. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:52, 27 February 2010 (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:Human body 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Human body (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template includes a wide range of articles loosely associated with the word "body". I can't identify a common theme here. Gobonobo T C 19:31, 27 February 2010 (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/2010_February_27&oldid=1141876545"