Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 3

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion‎ | Log
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3 edit


Template:Geobox 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 merge. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

It makes no sense to have a template for rivers, settlements, protected areas mountains and more; and infoboxes for the same things. It makes no sense, in the long term, to maintain two, parallel sets of templates.

This is the forum where we discuss not only whether or not to do this, but how. My personal view is that we should migrate the best features of Geobox to the relevant infoboxes, then delete it.

I haven't marked this as a TfM, because there isn't a 1:1 relationship between Geobox and the relevant infobox templates:

but I've put notes on their talk and relevant project pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request: Can someone provide some stats on the usage of the various individual Geobox types vs the respective infoboxes, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template Links Transclusions Template Links Transclusions
Geobox 21535 21651 Infobox mountain 12011 12085
Geobox protected area 738 369 Infobox ocean 82 48
Infobox building 7353 7426 Infobox park 1314 1349
Infobox cave 313 196 Infobox protected area 7317 4893
Infobox island (redirect) 22 6 Infobox river 20002 12198
Infobox islands 3209 2693 Infobox settlement 285547 260443
Infobox lake 9280 9312 Infobox valley 65 70
  • Question Is this covering all the sub sets of Geobox eg Geobox|River, Geobox|Protected area etc. I have used them on various articles (including FAs such as River Parrett, Mendip Hills, Exmoor) as, in my opinion, they make data entry and unit conversions easier than the equivalent infoboxes and improve the display. I wouldn't want them deleted until all the extra features both in terms of display and ease of use are incorporated in the relevant infoboxes. (NB {{Infobox river}} should be added to the list above)— Rod talk 08:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added, thank you. and yes, I suggest we delete Geobox in all its forms, completely; though that might be best done in stages - say, rivers first, then mountains, then.... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Geobox has tried to become all things to all topics without mastering any. It has become large and unwieldy, whilst still not meeting the requirements of individual areas. I have not found it easy to use or to get changes made. That said, it would make sense to harmonise parameters across different geographic templates e.g. so that we don't have e.g. "image_Ocean", "image_name" and "image" all for the same type of parameter, and, to incorporate any good geobox features in the individual infoboxes as suggested. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. We will need to create an "Infobox [mountain] range". I'm happy to make a start on that. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree about the need to standardise template parameter names; but that needs to be done across all templates, not just those affected by this proposal. And work on that is in hand, albeit progressing slowly. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion I strongly support deleting Geobox, and migrating useful features to the relevant infoboxes. The current Geobox is poorly designed --- it accepts any parameter for any type. So, editors can enter lowest points for mountains. Conversely, the infoboxes are designed to share a meta-template that defaults to using similar styles. Thus, they all tend to look simiar. Each infobox only accepts sane parameters, which is good. Let's get rid of Geobox! —hike395 (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least until all information that geoboxes are capable of representing can be displayed in a comparable manner by infoboxes without looking very, very, very unattractive. Has anyone considered just how much work would need to be done in order to migrate what - 400,000 geoboxes to infoboxes. furthermore Geobox was originally a series of separate templates, in case anybody has forgotten, somebody had the brilliant idea to delete all those and combine all of them into one multiuse template which led to this TfD here... Shannºn 03:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, check your magnitude there - there are 21,653 geoboxes out there. That's a lot, but it's nothing near 400k, and certainly not something we haven't handled before - even manually - like people stub sorting or BLP unreferenced fixing. A series of bot scripts could facilitate this and make it relatively easy. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subsection 1 edit
  • Oppose I see no need to delete a useful template simply because it duplicates in some ways the Infobox templates. Wikipedia has two separate sets of reference templates (Citation and the Cite series), for example. Perhaps more importantly, the Geobox templates are used in some of our best content. I have only had time to check one category, but there are 20 FAs in Category:FA-Class River articles and every single one of them uses Geobox|River (not one uses the Infobox). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also checked the 23 GAs in Category:GA-Class River articles. Of these, 22 have an infobox (Everglades does not have a box of any sort, just a map) and of these 22, 21 River GAs use the Geobox. Only 1 (River Torrens) uses Infobox River. So of the 42 River FA and GA articles that have a box template, 41 use Geobox|River. Clearly people writing high quality articles on rivers find the Geobox more useful than the Infobox. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked all 29 FAs in Category:FA-Class Protected areas articles too - 28 have a box template and 13 of those use Geobox|Protected Area. I noticed that the newer (more recent) the FA was, the more likely it was to use Geobox. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked Category:FA-Class Bridge articles - 6 of 16 FAs there with a box template use Geobox|Bridge (there are 17 bridge FAs total - one FA does not use a box template at all). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your mention of citation templates is classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And are you suggesting that articles cannot be FAs if they us infoboxes? If so, why not, and where's your evidence? If not, what point are you making? Your assertion that "people writing high quality articles on rivers find the Geobox more useful than the Infobox" confuses correlation with cause. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was questioning your opening statement / rationale: the deletion of Geobox is proposed because it partially duplicates a series of Infoboxes. I was merely giving another example of a series of duplicate templates (and could have added {{harvnb}} to the list too). I guess my basic question would be is there a policy or guidleline that says we can only have one set of templates for certain tasks? To quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and please substitute "template" for "article") "...just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article." If there is no policy or guidleline to remove templates which partially overlap in their functions, then I think Geobox is being proposed for deletion because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is another classic argument to avoid in deletion discussions. ;-)
        • As to your second point, I am not saying the articles could not be FAs without Geobox. I am pointing out that editors (myself included) who write FAs (which WP:FA says "...are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer") choose to use Geobox instead of the various Infoboxes in many cases. When allowed to choose, many choose the Geobox over the various Infobox - why should that choice be removed? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also was using statistics to provide a different perspective - it was pointed out above that Infoboxes are used 14:1 in all articles, so I wanted to also point out that Geobox|River is used 20:0 vs Infobox River in FAs (and 41:1 in FAs and GAs). I think that you would have a better chance of implememting this if there were Infoboxes that had all the features Geobox offers, but as it is you ask those who use Geobox to give it up without a viable alternative in existence. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't "automatic dismissed" your objection; I've already given my reasons. I have no views as to the merits of Geobox per se (so IDONTLIKEIT is not at play); I've simply noted that it is redundant to alternatives which clearly have greater support in the community. There should not be duplicate infoboxes, as has been explained in this arena many times, because of the maintenance overhead, the additional leaning burden on new editors, and the lack of continuity they present to our readers. As I note above, this is the forum for deciding how to replace Geobox; and if that means moving some of its functionality or styling to infoboxes, so be it. And the figures above show that viable alternatives do exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies for putting words in your mouth. My question is why must the Geobox be replaced (which you seem to assume when you say "this is the forum for deciding how to replace Geobox")? I have one other comment, and then will stop (and sorry to be so prolix here). To my mind saying the Geobox is a duplicate of several other templates implies that each can do everything the other does, but that is manifestly not the case. To look at one example White Deer Hole Creek is a river FA which uses the Geobox template. If it were to be switched to {{Infobox river}}, there would be: 1) no way I can see to show the etymology of its unusual name; 2) nor could the Infobox easily show the Country, State, and Counties on separate lines; 3) there is one line for origin, so how could the current location (township), and coordinates be shown; 4) ditto for the mouth; 5) there is only one slot for elevation, not two (so Geobox can show the elevation of the source and mouth, which useful to show the change in elevation;) 5) only one value for the discharge could be shown in the Infobox (not the current three - average, max, and min); and 6) only one of the two maps could be shown. Obviously Geobox and Infobox River are not "duplicates" of each other, and to my mind there is no advantage to losing the greater functionalities of Geobox for the more limited infoboxes. A 7th option missing from the Infoboxes I know is the "free" field in the Geobox, which allows users to add parameters. I use this for adding National Register of Historic Places information to covered bridge articles, avoiding the need for two infoboxes in an article.
            • I will repeat what I said before - if you want to get rid of Geobox, then 1) fix the infoboxes so they can do everything Geobox can, and 2) make sure it is as easy as possible to convert from one to the other, then ask again. There are 120 Pennsylvania state park articles and they all use Geobox - even if converting only takes 10 minutes each, that is 20 hours to convert them all over. Converting all 21535 Geoboxes at 10 minutes each would take one user 149.5 straight days with no breaks. And for what? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • No apology necessary. If you believe that such features are needed in {{Infobox river}}, then they can be added there, if there is consensus to do so. We don't - or shouldn't - have forked templates because some people want some parameters and others do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Shannon and Ruhrfisch. Pfly (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose regarding mountain ranges. Because there is only an infobox for single mountains but no {{Infobox mountain range}} relevant for mountain ranges with the indispensable information on borders (some mountain chains straddle four or more countries), subranges, other peaks (aside from the highest point), geology, period, orogeny, etc. The {{Infobox mountain}} is not useful (and would be a poor substitute for Geobox|Range) in the case of, say the Alps. Xufanc (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bermicourt has already offered, above, to work on an Infobox for mountain ranges. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but then the comment ‹ The template below (Geobox) is being considered for deletion... should be withdrawn from all the pages of Mountain ranges until the mountain range Infobox is ready. Xufanc (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because Geobox is a single template, there's no facility to make the notice only appear on some of the articles on which it is used. And since the template is being considered for deletion, it's right and proper that people should be informed of that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. I understand. It just looked premature to me.Xufanc (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also oppose per Shannon and Ruhrfisch. Malepheasant (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but you have to clearly define what needs to be done. For example, you first want to convert {{geobox|tag}} into {{geobox tag}}, and then write up an exact mapping scheme between each {{geobox tag}} into {{infobox tag}}. Where the latter are missing - create them as redirects (or vice versa). Etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I find this template much more useful and versatile than any of the corresponding dedicated infoboxes (Well, I'd keep {{infobox mountain}}, maybe, but that's it). If anything, we should be migrating from those templates to the geobox. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, if you insist, +1 to many of Ruhrfisch's points. Specific example: it is much more adaptable to different countries' internal subdivision systems than the other infoboxes. Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I also find Geobox easier to use than infoboxes. I find it ridiculous that someone gets verbally slapped for saying that when one of the arguments stated for getting rid of Geobox is that the infoboxes are easier and Geobox is unweildy. Frankly I dont care which is actually "easier" that is irrelevant. Which gets the information across to our readers the best, which looks best to our readers, which looks more professional. I dont care if one is easier for an editor to edit and get information in. If someone is not able to learn to work with Geobox or infobox and take the time to learn correctly then they shouldnt be editing those boxes. We write for our "consumer". In the end, it is my OPINION that Geobox looks better, more professional, and organizes information in a better format.Camelbinky (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can articulate the reasons why you think Geobox "looks better", we can see whether there is consensus to amend the relevant infoboxes, or the parent {{Tl|Infobox{} template accordingly. But simply asserting that it is so does not help us move forward. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we change infoboxes to include all the parameters that geoboxes currently provide then wouldn't we just be re-creating geoboxes that just look like infoboxes? I have a feeling that this is really just an aesthetic thing which people have opposing perspectives on. The infobox looks smoother for small amounts of data and the geobox is more visually attractive if large amounts of data or data types (coordinates, max/min discharge rates for rivers, population density etc.) are included. Shannºn 03:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No - we'd be reducing the confusing choice of templates offered to editors ("Which template should I use on which article? Why?") from two to one; and presenting our readers and reusers with a more unified interface from which to read or extract data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support strongly migrating geobox templates to respective infoboxes. Geobox templates appeared as a competition to Infoboxes but in fact are not much more useful than them. No need to have two similar templates for same stuff. - Darwinek (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a specialist in geology and geography, I would have to say oppose. Geoboxes are better to use than infoboxes for certain topics. Volcanoguy 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't claim something is "better" without saying how so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me but I will if I want to. Volcanoguy 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then don't be surprised if your comments are disregarded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You just want to be deleted you thnk it's redundant to the infobox. Geobox is used more often in geological and geographical articles than infoboxes because it is easier to use and has more fields than the infobox. Volcanoguy 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'd really rather not be deleted; and the table of figures above disproves your assertion about usage. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • In your opinion. By the looks of it your TFD is going down the drain anyway so I am not going to argue about it. To me the Geobox also looks more appealing than all of the infoboxes. Volcanoguy 21:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't have an opinion on which templates should be used when (except that Geobox is inferior to {{Infobox settlement}} in situations where the latter template is appropriate), but these templates are being used in such a large number of articles that deletion would be disruptive. Please note that I'm not saying that the nominator is engaging in disruptive editing! If you (or you and other people) go around replacing Geobox with the various other templates until there are virtually no Geoboxes left, the situation will be quite different; it's simply that a template should not be deleted as redundant if it's heavily used. Nyttend (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sheer numbers are not a reason to keep a template, when there are better alternatives; otherwise we'd never improve. Nor do numbers alone mean that something is not redundant. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wrong. Sheer numbers mean that closing as delete would cause massive problems, and sheer numbers mean that closing as merge would be impossible to implement in a reasonable period of time. You failed to observe that I suggested that you migrate articles from Geobox to Infobox, which is not a matter for TFD, and which would be a reasonable method of reducing said sheer numbers. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please provide a link to the policy or other !rule that says we can't delete templates based solely in the number of their transclusions; or evidence that doing so has caused technical problems; or that transclusions must be reduced to zero before TfD can result n a delete decison. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I support the idea of making things simpler, and as such if an infobox can be eliminated, by all means lets do it. However, I stumbled across this debate from an article on my watchlist, San Rafael Swell. While technically several of the infoboxes Andy suggests as a replacement would probably work, none of them make sense from a logical standpoint. This may indeed be a special case. If we've deleted a generic infobox in favor of specific infoboxes; but have to create 10 new infoboxes to cover the "special cases" in the process (as there will surely be more of these) have we gained anything? Dave (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've used both Geobox and Infobox, and tend to like Geobox better, maybe because I've edited a few "River" articles, and as mentioned above, the template seems to work well with the River articles. Since I haven't had a chance to really compare Geobox and Infobox settlement, side by side, maybe we should make sure that each does what the other does, first, before deleting any templates? Also, I would suggest that working on combining some of the infobox templates might be a better use of time. For example, why does the Infobox Chicagoland municipality template need to exist, when Infobox settlement could be used instead? Or is the idea behind the many infoboxes that exist so that the parameters are set up already? --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is ongoing work - in which I'm heavily involved - to delete such redundant templates such as that one, which I have now nominated for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I use both, and I like having a choice. Finetooth (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per Funandtrvl. This is such a good-looking template with useful parameters. It's used in so many articles and definitely helps readers find facts that they're looking for. What's more, the design is perfect for articles about geography. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's more, WikiProject Rivers has spoken. Most of its participants prefer the geobox template. See here, here and here (template mentioned multiple times in the two earlier discussion archives). Jsayre64 (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Geobox is better looking and has better functionality than infoboxes, the surely we should have one type of template, with those looks and functionality, and not the current redundancy? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal. There's clearly support for keeping both geobox and the specific infoboxes and several comments on the pros and cons of each. Why don't we concentrate on tidying up the infoboxes to address the cons raised (e.g. lack of consistent fieldnames, etc.) and then review the situation downstream. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. If we want to replace a geobox with e.g. {{Infobox river}} but miss a feature present in {{geobox}}, this is clearly easy and correct to oppose on the grounds of losing that feature is worse than not touching anything. Which is why whoever wants to do this transition needs to make sure all the features of geoboxes are implemented in the relevant infoboxes. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, more to the point, I think this TfD needs to be closed because right now we have 20k links from the main article space saying "the template below is going away" which is confusing to readers and unproductive - nobody ever said we are going to remove any content, just morph the template a bit. Readers by and large shouldn't be bothered with this conversion effort. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't need to "make sure all the features of geoboxes are implemented in the relevant infoboxes", because there may be no community consensus to include all those features. We need to determine what the community consensus is. You can help, by identifying such features. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment- I don't agree with the statement that we don't need to make sure to implement all of the features of the geobox into the relevant infoboxes. Isn't that the gist of many of the opposing comments here? This discussion is from the community, and several of us have stated that we like the Geobox because it includes features that the infoboxes do not. Also, I have identified some differences between the Geobox|settlement and infobox settlement templates on the infobox's talk page. Two of the differences are: no commons link in the infobox and no landmark/river link in the infobox, compared to the geobox. Other minor differences include formatting-- (bolding, bullets, etc.) --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The latter is exactly the kind of helpful and constructive response I was hoping for; thank you. I've replied there,. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • The other feature that Geobox has, that infobx settlement doesn't is the Unesco links. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Nyttend. Why do we need to have one set standard when this Geobox is just as useful as the other handful of infobox templates, not to mention it looks more appealing (to me). It's a pretty heavily used template, leave it as it is when it really doesn't do any harm. --dsergienko (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all the above discussions. There are many more important things to do on Wikipedia (example: improve the articles' content and quality) than to delete a template just because it duplicates another. It may make sense to discourage the Geobox's future use (and emphasize using the Infobox instead), but to expend the effort to edit thousands of articles without changing their content ... sorry, not a good idea. Truthanado (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I find the Geobox templates more useful in in deliniating locations than the Info boxes, in most cases. I'd leave both and let the article writers vote with their choices in their articles. Asiaticus (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above. ResMar 14:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per above discussions. When comparing the "Geobox settlement" to "Infobox settlement" templates, I think the layout/style of the Geobox is better than the Infobox, and it provides a lot more useful information than the the Infobox does. I don't see why we can't use both. - Anc516 (talk)(edits) 19:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if template:cave is merged, someone will delete the coordinates from this... 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2012 (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:Uw-test4im 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Uw-test4im (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no reason to have a 4im warning for mere tests. That would be the very definition of WP:BITE. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good-faith tests should be given warnings that work their way up the uw-test 1-4 series. 4im-worthy, bad-faith tests should be presented with {{uw-vandalism4im}}. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I never would have thought of this myself, but the nominator has a very good point about BITE. Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but withdraw from use If we delete this template, all pages where it is in use will be left with a red link. I say it should be kept as a reference to what users have been warned for in the past. I think we should mark the page as historical and withdraw it from use. Oddbodz (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, no, since this template should (as every warning template) be substituted and that#s also the reason why it has only one transclusion. mabdul 12:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and This and That (XD) mabdul 12:21, 9 January 2012 (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:Osmania University edit

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Osmania University (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

not really a navigation template, but a list of departments. all the content is now in Osmania University#Departments, so this is redundant. Frietjes (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, totally useless. mabdul 12:22, 9 January 2012 (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:Hyderabad universities 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hyderabad universities (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no parent article and superseded by template:Universities in Andhra Pradesh. Frietjes (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the Template:Universities in Andhra Pradesh should get sections, but that is another problem. mabdul 12:24, 9 January 2012 (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:CanElect11 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CanElect11 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2012 (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:CanElect12 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CanElect12 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2012 (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:Aggregate income distribution in the United States 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Aggregate income distribution in the United States (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, purpose unclear Bulwersator (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked to see if it's something that's typically subst-ed? The template's specific numbers, especially its date, make me wonder if it's meant only for transclusion. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2012 (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:64TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-NoSeeds 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:64TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis5-NoSeeds (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

YA unused bracket template without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (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:6Team3Round 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:6Team3Round (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

YA unused bracket template Bulwersator (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (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:8TeamBracket-Tennis3-Byes-with 3rd 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3-Byes-with 3rd (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

YA unused bracket template without documentation Bulwersator (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2012 (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:Football squad2 start 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Football squad2 start (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Few transclusions, deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:15, 3 January 2012 (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:Combi 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. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Combi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:End combi (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused, deprecated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 3 January 2012 (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/2012_January_3&oldid=1138696076"