Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 12

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< April 11 April 13 >

April 12 edit

Template:Infobox Saw character 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) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Saw character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

We have {{Infobox character}}. This one is broken and has fields like "age" and "status" that were already removed from Infobox character with strong consensus. Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2011 (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 Sin City character 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) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sin City character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was only being used on about four or five pages, so I replaced with Template:Infobox character, so this is no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2011 (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 Venture Bros group 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) 00:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Venture Bros group (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and not needed Frietjes (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2011 (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 SpongeBob SquarePants character 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) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox SpongeBob SquarePants character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There are very few SpongeBob characters and, more importantly, this has nothing that {{Infobox character}} doesn't have. Harry Blue5 (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: None of the current SpongeBob character articles use this template, and instead use {{Infobox character}}. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2011 (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:Megye 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) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Broken. Unknown purpose. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2011 (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:Mehmood Quaraishy 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) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mehmood Quaraishy (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Broken, unused template. Also delete all subpages. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2011 (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:Menemen Rail Service 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) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Menemen Rail Service (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to table at Menemen railway station#Services. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2011 (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:Comma before year 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) 05:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comma before year (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear. The initial edit summary was "in authorities", which is not especially helpful for determining a purpose. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete until User:Smith609 comments. User:Smith609 created and maintains a range of extremely useful templates; it's possible that this is a sub-template used only in the expansion of another template which is widely used (e.g. {{cite doi}}), so deletion would be fatal. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 12 April 2011 (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:Elections in Argentina 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) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elections in Argentina (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused successionbox-like thing; {{Infobox Election}} has succession links built into it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2011 (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:Rome Metro Line station 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) 05:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rome Metro Line station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Rome Metro Line station 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Conditional Image (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Purpose unclear; unused. The Conditional Image template doesn't seem very useful by itself; it looks like it was copied from itwiki so the Rome Metro one would still work as the editors were used to. Note that, oddly enough, the Rome Metro template never actually calls Conditional Image. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2011 (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:Emacs 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 Redirect to {{EmacsNavbox}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to {{EmacsNavbox}}. Unused. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if it is unused, it should be redirected to the other, as this is a short name that can be usefully used as a redirect. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redirect would probably be best for this particular template. It's a nice, short title, so perfect for a redirect. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that a redirect makes sense here. Waitak (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2011 (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:Clear Creek High School 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) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Clear Creek High School (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that supposedly navuigates, but in fact duplicates a school infobox. Has no practical use. Fram (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2011 (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:Arkansas highways 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) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Arkansas highways (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template; obsoleted by |links=AR in {{infobox state highway system}}. Imzadi 1979 → 04:29, 12 April 2011 (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:Suetonius 12 Caesars 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) 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Suetonius 12 Caesars (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused navbox. We have a navbox to navigate through all Caesars. Magioladitis (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this particular list is a classical famous one, covering the first 12, and a small and easily comprehensible unit. Rather than being deleted, it should be used. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But their connection is that they are mentioned in a book. Why distinguish them by the other Caesars? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subjective and redundant to more complete navigation. Frietjes (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:25, 12 April 2011 (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 protected area of Australia 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 with no prejudice toward a renomination if/when modifications to either template are made to make them compatible. JPG-GR (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox protected area of Australia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is template is redundant to Template:Infobox protected area as it has less features than its parent. The only difference seems to be the wording/spelling. jonkerz♠ 20:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant. I can't see any compelling reason to keep the Australian template although I am happy to reconsider my opinion of a convincing case is made. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly find it useful on my page (added by someone else) as it shows where the protected area is, GPS, closest town, the protected area's webpage etc. It doesn't hurt does it? Although I can add all these things manually if I need. See Angas Downs Indigenous Protected Area JennyKS (talk) 06:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about that, {{Infobox protected area}} can handle all those parameters as well. The only difference between the templates I can find is spelling such as "Governing body" instead of "Managing authorities" etc. jonkerz♠ 06:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. I don't see any issues with "Governing body". Bidgee (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for now. Template:Infobox protected area of Australia is not currently redundant to {{Infobox protected area}} because the latter doesn't handle all of the parameters despite claims that it does. Modification of the template and changes to the 514 articles that use {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} will be required to avoid infoboxes turning from this into this. Call me pessimistic but I'm a little more hesitant about supporting template deletion and merges until all the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s crossed since Infobox skyscraper's TfD. More than nine months after that TfD was closed the two templates have still not been merged. Fix the problems and I'll happily change my vote. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please give examples of unsupported parameters. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you follow the links that I provided in my vote? Here's a comparison of the two side by side to make it easier. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I didn't. Now, can you give examples of unsupported parameters, or not? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you should have. Had you done so you would have seen practical examples of how the infobox doesn't handle the parameters ad if you click "edit" you'll see exactly which parameters it doesn't handle. I provided examples so you didn't have to ask questions. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have provided no such examples. Your latter link contains a misleading corruption of {{Infobox protected area}} which tells us nothing about the relative merits of the templates under discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn I provided three separate links to demonstrate that Template:Infobox protected area of Australia is not currently redundant to {{Infobox protected area}} because the latter doesn't handle all of the parameters despite the misleading claim that "{{Infobox protected area}} can handle all those parameters as well".
Infobox protected area
Coordinates39°0′48″S 146°23′37″E / 39.01333°S 146.39361°E / -39.01333; 146.39361
Area505 km² (50,500 hectares)
Established1898
Visitors1111 (in 2010)
OK then, for those who need to be spoon fed, the parameters that {{Infobox protected area}} doesn't handle are: caption, location_map, lat, long, nearest_town_or_city, coordinates, managing_authorities, official_site, image, locator_x and locator_y. That's 11 of the template's 17 parameters. The infobox at right is fully populated and should show a location map, coordinates, website and nearest town. I've just replaced "{{Infobox_protected_area_of_Australia" with "{{Infobox protected area" and without any modification of articles or the template the infobox doesn't display correctly in articles. The minimum changes for the example I picked at random, Wilsons Promontory National Park, in order for the infobox to display properly, are shown in this diff. "Nearest city" is not really appropriate for Australia. The heading should be "Nearest town or city" since most protected areas in Australia are nearer to a town than a city. "Governing body" is also misleading since these areas are managed, not governed. None of these are insurmountable problems but my initial point remains, Template:Infobox protected area of Australia is not currently redundant to {{Infobox protected area}} because the latter doesn't handle all of the parameters despite claims that it does. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, after adding any necessary parameters to the more generic template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Infobox protected area is to be used it would make more sense for the 514 articles that use Infobox protected area of Australia to be modified to use the existing Infobox protected area parameters, rather than add extra parameters. Only the two changes I've pointed out above ("Nearest city" -> "Nearest town or city" and an option for a different heading than "Governing body") need be added to the template. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Despite the unnecessary verbiage and sarcasm, your comments above and here show that {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} is redundant to {{Infobox protected area}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd certainly agree that most of what I've been forced to say should have been unnecessary, but that's only because you didn't bother to follow the links to the examples that I provided in support of my opinion that Infobox protected area of Australia is not currently redundant to Infobox protected area. Had you done so, we could have avoided all of this. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My personal opinion is that the best solution is make the Australian template redundant to the generic one but Andy, you do not do your case any favours with your tendentious and argumentative manner. Rather than simply stating "redundant" over and over, how about you take the time to respond fully to AussieLegend's concerns so that those of us "sitting on the fence" so to speak at least can judge the relative merits of your arguments. As it stands, I see AL making a good faith attempt to discuss the topic and you trying to avoid discussion and ram through this deletion. That does not fill me with confidence in your case. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Far from "trying to avoid discussion", I've engaged by asking for examples; none have been provided. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've provided several examples and backed them up with lengthy discussion. You just don't seem to want to see them. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As redundant. Maps needing sorting out with Australia relief too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what this comment means "Maps needing sorting out with Australia relief too". Could you perhaps elaborate?
I created Template:Location map Australia relief to be displayed in the infoboxes... Rather than the blank map... Same with mountains...♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aussie Legend mentions a couple of parameters including location_map, lat and long. I have only just added these three a couple of days before and if it had occurred to me that this might be a redundant template, I never would have—certainly I would have made them equivalent to the other template if I had've known that, and they're unlikely to be used on more than the two or three articles I put them on. Concerning "nearest town or city", I think this is pedantic; the difference between towns and cities in Australia is hardly clear-cut—so who would mind if it said "Nearest city: Ouyen"? As I see it, the major concerns are: (a) Is managing vs governing body enough of a difference to require two templates? (b) Who's going to do the work of converting the apalling pixelwise locatormap into lat/long coordinates? (et sim. for coords, captions etc). Re (a), I'm no semanticist, but I don't think "governing" is intended in any sense different than "managing", and perhaps that template would be happy to alter the languge. Re (b), I expect Aussie Legend will disagree based on what he's already said, but my opinion is that we should trust the Wikipedian community: I think enough experienced editors will eventually update all the articles in a largely uncoordinated, series of spontaneous efforts, even if this takes a couple of years. Alternatively, perhaps someone can volunteer to ensure that both templates are kept "in sync", but I doubt that will happen in the long term. —Felix the Cassowary 15:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually there were 11 parameters, which is more than a couple, but that's unimportant for this part of the discussion. While only the articles that you've modified may use location_map, lat and long, there are 512 that use image, locator_x and locator_y. These don't directly translate to coordinates and would require some effort to convert as you've mentioned, except for the fact that 509 of the affected articles include coordinate data so the change will be minimal. However, loss of image, locator_x and locator_y results in the loss of locator maps in 512 articles, which needs to be addressed before the template is deleted, if that's the outcome of this discussion. Regarding "managing vs governing", alternative labels are not difficult to implement. They're used in many infoboxes (eg {{Infobox school}}) If this infobox is so inflexible that such a simple change can't be incorporated then are we really gaining anything by changing to it? Changing "Nearest city" to "Nearest town or city" is an incredibly minor change. There's no reason it can't be incorporated. I disagree with your claim that "the difference between towns and cities in Australia is hardly clear-cut". We actually have List of cities in Australia which lists the cities. Your argument actually supports a change to "Nearest town or city" since the text caters for both so the difference doesn't matter. "Near enough is good enough" really shouldn't apply to an encyclopaedia. My major concern is the conversion of parameter names and creation of location maps from coordinate data in the 514 affected articles. Saying that somebody might fix this up over a couple of years is just not good enough. We shouldn't lose anything in the change. If we do then the template is NOT redundant. I'm reminded again of Infobox skyscraper's TfD but at least nobody has been silly enough to delete {{Infobox skyscraper}} despite the outcome. --AussieLegend (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My "couple" wasn't meant to refer to the whole 11, just the ones I mentioned in that same sentence. My suggestions of "close enough is good enough" were meant to be arguments in the worst case; of course, I have no objections to the notion we fix up the international template (and strongly prefer it). The list of cities in Australia is no refutation of my claim that the distinction is clear cut, because it fails to establish any references or criteria for inclusion outside of NSW. And yes, I said we disagreed about whether deleting it first is a good idea, but I don't see how we'll get people to merge the templates if its not obviously necessary. —Felix the Cassowary 09:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are bits of functionality from {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} that are not yet adequately supported by {{Infobox protected area}}, so {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} is not yet redundant.
  1. Nearest town/city. This description should be implemented in {{Infobox protected area}}. Nearest city is inadequate for Australian protected areas. I am not sure that all uses of Nearest city in {{Infobox protected area}} area are actually cities and the description of the field in the docs doesn't require it to be a city. I am trying to think of an alternate that would meet more needs. Something like nearest populated place or nearest service centre, but they end up being longer than Nearest town/city.
  2. Location mapping. Are the discussions above regarding converting x,y to lat,long map locations red herrings? {{Infobox protected area}} supports x,y mapping. The map parameter name when transcluded just needs changing from image to map or am I missing something? A fully transparent changeover of location mapping would be desirable, though not a showstopper for me. As long as coordinates are available for the article, extensive location mapping resources are already available from the WikiMiniAtlas and GeoHack links. It often strikes me that locator maps are displayed prominently in infoboxen (including protected area ones) in addition to the mapping links as a default because no high-quality, representative image is available for the subject of the article.
  3. Managing authorities. Governing body is just too weird for me. If I recall I looked at using {{Infobox protected area}} for Australian protected area articles several years ago, but no effective replacement for Managing authority was a show-stopper at the time and remains so. Responsible authorities, perhaps, but Managing authorities reflects the usual relationship in Australia. I suspect that many other protected area managing agencies from countries other than Australia could be better described as a Managing authority as well. Needs adding to {{Infobox protected area}}.
  4. Reiterating that coordinates as found in {{Infobox protected area of Australia}} is not supported in {{Infobox protected area}}, but coords is. Needs dealing with.
Looking forward to changing my vote, though. Bleakcomb (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re x,y to lat,long: it seems you're absolutely right! So then they feature-equivalent, but just using different parameter names, plus the governing/managing and town/city thing? —Felix the Cassowary 09:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is it possible to mark it as deprecated, either in the template itself (like the TfD message), or on the edit page of any article which includes it (like on Today's Feature Article's edit page), and invite people to replace it with the international one? Thus, the occasional editor will make a change to an article or two and soon we'll have 500, and later 400, 300, 200... Then, in a few years, we can have this discussion again... The {{Infobox skyscraper}} technique of marking it on an untranscluded bit that no-one ever sees is obviously pointless, because well-meaning passers-by will never know it needs doing. —Felix the Cassowary 09:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:AINT .. particularly where AussieLegend (talk) has clearly demonstrated that changing to Template:Infobox protected area is NOT an improvement. Bruceanthro (talk) 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a mess of a nomination - I am not ideologically opposed to changing this one at some point, but no thought has gone into how the articles using the template will be affected and some fairly basic parameters seem to be either missing from or differently coded in the generic. AussieLegend has raised some very valid points which will need to be accommodated before we can move forward. There is no harm in keeping at this time and making an appropriate decision later once this has been done. Orderinchaos 07:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say keep it. There is a difference between "governing" and "managing". "Governing" is just plain wrong, learn some English. There is a difference between the nearest "town" or "city". What is this information useful for ? If someone is planning on visiting one of these "protected areas", information about the nearest town where food, fuel, medical or camping supplies can be obtained is more useful than knowing there is a city 1500 kilometres away. Wikipedians have invested a lot of time and effort in cataloging all the protected areas in Australia using this template, and you want to demand more time and effort to change to a less functional version for some illusory benefit.Eregli bob (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2011 (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:Jessie James 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) 00:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jessie James (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navigates only four articles. WP:NENAN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mootros (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed, the articles are easy enough to navigate without needing a navbox.--kelapstick(bainuu) 00:05, 17 April 2011 (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/2011_April_12&oldid=1138694713"