Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Closing instructions

Deletion discussionsDeletion policy

On this page, deletion of templates (except as noted below) is discussed.

[edit] How to use this page

[edit] What not to propose for deletion here

The majority of pages in the Template: namespace should be listed on this page. However, there are a few exceptions:

[edit] Reasons to delete a template

  • The template violates some part of the template namespace guidelines, and can't be altered to be in compliance
  • The template is redundant to another better-designed template
  • The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used
  • The template violates some other key policy such as NPOV or CIVIL
Templates for which none of these apply may be (and often are) deleted by consensus here. If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion. Initiate a discussion on the template talk page if the correct use itself is under debate.

[edit] Listing a template

To list a template for deletion, follow this three-step process (replace TemplateName, not including the namespace identifier "Template:", with the name of the template to be deleted unless otherwise noted):
Tag the template
Add one of the following two codes to the top of the template page (the first for most templates, the second only for inline templates):{{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}} {{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
  • Neither of the two templates should be substituted.
  • If the template to be nominated for deletion is protected, either put the notice on its /doc (template documentation) sub-page inside <includeonly>...</includeonly> markup; or put the notice on its talk page (without such markup) if it does not have a /doc page.; or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask an admin to add the notice to the template.
  • If placed directly into the nominated template, use <noinclude>...</noinclude> around the TFD notice if it is likely to be disruptive to articles that transclude that template.
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor.
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase
    TfD: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#TemplateName]]
If the template has been nominated before, use "TemplateName (2nd nomination)", "TemplateName (3rd nomination)", etc.
If you are nominating multiple related templates, replace TemplateName in the edit summary with an informative discussion title, and use {{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|TemplateName}} or {{tfd-inline|{{subst:PAGENAME}}|TemplateName}} instead of the versions given above, using the same discussion title for TemplateName (but not for {{subst:PAGENAME}}, which must remain the name of the template being TFD tagged). If you were nominating a lot of navboxes about American films, you might use "American films by decade", for instance, as the TemplateName.
If a template is intended to be substituted, wrap the {{tfd}} or {{tfd-inline}} template in <noinclude> tags: <noinclude>{{tfd|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}</noinclude>
The TFD template, in the form {{tfd-inline|literal name of template|TemplateName}}<br />, should be added to the top of any categories that would be deleted as a result of the TFD, using the same TemplateName value and edit summary as the template(s), and the actual name of the template (minus the "Template:" prefix). Note that it is {{tfd-inline}} followed by a line-break; the wording of {{tfd}} is not suitable for category use.
List the template at TfD
Follow THIS LINK to edit the section of TfD for today's entries.
Add this text to the section, at the top:{{subst:tfd2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~}} If this is a multi-template and multi-category nomination, see {{catfd3}} instead (please read its documentation; the parameters it uses are not the same as those of {{tfd2}}).
  • Make sure to replace TemplateName with the the same value as used in step 1, above (usually the template's name, excluding the "Template:" prefix).
  • Please use an edit summary such as
    Creating deletion discussion entry for [[Template:TemplateName]]
    replacing TemplateName as above.
Notify users.
Consider adding{{subst:tfdnotice|TemplateName}} ~~~~ on relevant talk pages to inform editors of the deletion discussion. This is especially important if the TFD notice was put on the template's talk page.
It is generally considered civil to notify the creator and any main contributors of the template that you are nominating the template. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the template.
Also consider adding to your watchlist any templates you nominate for TfD. This will help ensure that the TfD tag is not removed.

[edit] Discussion

Anyone can join the discussion, but please give a reason when saying what you think should be done with the template. Please explain how, in your opinion, the template does not meet the criteria above. Comments such as "I like it," while potentially true, generally do not fulfill this requirement. It also helps if you Bold your actual action (for example, Keep or Delete).
People will sometimes also recommend subst or Subst and delete and similar. This can be roughly "translated" into merge, and means the template text should be merged into the articles that use it (done by adding the subst: prefix to the template call, hence the name) before the template page is deleted.
Keep in mind that only very rarely are templates here orphaned (made to not be in use) before nomination. It is unhelpful to term a proposed action: "keep until orphaned" or anything similar as administrators will generally orphan any template before deletion. Please instead phrase it simply as "delete".



[edit] Current discussions

[edit] September 30

[edit] Template:CurrentNFLKickers [edit] Template:DRVU note Template:DRVU note (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Unused DRV editor notification template specifically for Userboxes. Created in 2006, Template:DRVNote has since been revised to work with Userboxes. Template:DRVU note no longer is needed and should be deleted. -- Suntag 15:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Cricketer (Career) Template:Infobox Cricketer (Career) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Deprecated to {{Infobox cricketer biography}}; I've just finished replacing all mainspace transclusions with said template, so now orphaned (in the mainspace). (FWIW, the sandbox use is from several years ago and the article it was a base for also has the new template, so no harm done their either.) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Football Manager squad Template:Football Manager squad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) This navigation box created over a year and is not used. The creator of the template also has not been active on Wikipedia since that time. Zyxw (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:PJK Template:PJK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template for musician/band who fails WP:BAND and WP:N. PJK is WP:SPEEDY candidate and albums have been PRODed. JD554 (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Third watch character Template:Third watch character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Orphan template. Redundant to {{Infobox character}} Magioladitis (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:CityRail regional terminus Template:CityRail regional terminus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Superseded template, now orphanned. MrHarper (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:CityRail regional line Template:CityRail regional line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Superseded template, now orphanned. MrHarper (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:CityRail intercity line Template:CityRail intercity line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Superseded template, now orphanned. MrHarper (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Start CityRail box Template:Start CityRail box (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Superseded template, now orphanned. MrHarper (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:CityRail terminus Template:CityRail terminus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Superseded template, now orphanned. MrHarper (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:CityRail line Template:CityRail line (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Superseded template, now orphanned. MrHarper (talk) 06:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Asian Collections Template:Asian Collections (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Ancient Near East Museum Collections Template:Ancient Near East Museum Collections (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Coins, Medals and Paper Notes Template:Coins, Medals and Paper Notes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas Template:Department of Africa, Oceania and the Americas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Egyptian museum collections Template:Egyptian museum collections (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Greek and Roman Collection Template:Greek and Roman Collection (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Islamic Art Collections Template:Islamic Art Collections (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment thanks for the notification, Kevlar. To be honest, this is the only template I've come across and when I found it, I didn't understand it in the slightest. As a museum article writer, I don't find it useful but I'd like to hear from someone with more familiarity about what it was meant to achieve. TravellingCari 01:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Prints and Drawings Template:Prints and Drawings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete and listify. Too complex and contentious for a navbox. Per previous discussion on Western Art. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 29

[edit] Template:Sydney Locator Map Template:Sydney Locator Map (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}} et al. Used three times only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Japanese city short info Template:Japanese city short info (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used twice only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Where in Bangladesh Template:Where in Bangladesh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Your Used once. Should be subst:d? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but move this section of the portal seems to be intended to change regularly and I can see why, given the complicated formatting syntax employed by the portal, they might want to simplify the task of changing it by providing the content in an easy to edit page but it really should be a subpage of the portal, that is how all the other portals I have seen have worked. - Icewedge (talk) 23:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Locality of Murcia Template:Locality of Murcia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used four times only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Trondheim tramway station Template:Infobox Trondheim tramway station (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Used seven times only. Redundant ? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)If it is used seven times, and you don't know if it is redundant - why nominate it for deletion? If there is a generic template that can be used instead of this one, go ahead and replace it. Otherwise I don't see the point in nominating this template. --Kildor (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template:Infobox Chubut Template:Infobox Chubut (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used ~15 times only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Voblasts Template:Infobox Voblasts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used six times only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:WikiProject El Cor de la Ciutat Template:WikiProject El Cor de la Ciutat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) I redirected this unused template, but now feel it should be deleted in conjunction with my MfD nom here for the pseudo "Project" it was related to. — TAnthonyTalk 03:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pretty much the only reason you would have a redirect template would be if that template was already used anyways, which this one is not; redirecting is easier than going around and changing all instances of transclusion of the template, but there really is not reason to create a redirect to a template otherwise, kind of like categories. - Icewedge (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Uni Template:Uni (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) The concept behind this template appears to be sound, but this is a highly non-standard disambiguation template, and seems a highly inappropriate way to disambiguate these articles. It seems that this idea would more properly be executed as a disambiguation page of some sort with hatnotes on the affected articles. I would create the disambiguation page first, but I have no idea what one would call such a disambiguation page. However, this template seems fit to be deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 28

Number one singles in the United Kingdom templates Template:1988 UK number one singles (edit talk links history) and
Category:Number one singles in the United Kingdom templates (edit talk links history) per WP:CDP
nominated for deletion: There is no reason or use for all of these (so far beginning with the year 1988 onwards)... all are filled with duplicate information. The lists of UK number-one songs already have articles (such as List of number-one singles from the 2000s (UK), etc.) and in addition all individual number-one song articles are categorized under "Number-one singles in the United Kingdom". Aside from this template being placed on all UK number-one song articles, it is only a matter of time before a huge mess ensues — no doubt following these will be templates for the U.S., Ireland, Germany, Australia, etc. etc. etc. The templates are obviously still under construction, so I propose deleting all of these now, including the one for 2009 (!!!). The parent category for the templates would not be needed either, if these are done away with. eo (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Delete for the same reasons I nominated the U.S. ones yesterday. These templates fail one of the basic premises of navigational templates: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. These songs are not related to one another. Aspects (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template:Infobox Croatian Town Template:Infobox Croatian Town (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used once only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Once again: Be bold and convert the infobox to the article to Infobox Settlement and then this template can be speedy deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Govindpura Template:Infobox Govindpura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used once twice. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Update: Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
[edit] Template:Infobox Philmont camps Template:Infobox Philmont camps (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Only used twice. Redundant? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox ROC county-controlled city Template:Infobox ROC county-controlled city (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used once only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Novi Sad municipalities Template:Novi Sad municipalities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used once twice. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Comune Template:Comune (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used once only. Not in English. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox AU rail accident Template:Infobox AU rail accident (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox rail accident}}. Only used three times. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge - as long as all the parameters are still available in {{Infobox rail accident}} I don't mind. Wongm (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • What properties, if any, are in the AU version and not the generic one? I see only "location-dist", "location-dir" and "location-city". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I added those variables while improving the template. They allow you to specify 1) the distance and 2) direction from a 3) notable location/city to give the reader an idea as to where the incident occurred (I took inspiration from {{Infobox Australian Place}} when doing this). This uses {{km to mi}} which may not merge well where miles is the traditional/'native' measurement (as kilometers are in Australia). SEO75 [talk] 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • If there is consensus, those properties (with suitable adjustment for measurement types) should be added to the generic template. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep before Merge but not Delete – Have added the Infobox to many more Australian rail accident articles (now 15), and I believe that this Infobox is superior to {{Infobox rail accident}}. SEO75 [talk] 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Why do you think it's "superior"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • In appearance and features (hence my preference to merge before delete, if it would translate, as per above). SEO75 [talk] 10:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Aesthetic appearance is not, AIUI, a reason to have redundant templates. See above for comments on the features. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)`
[edit] Template:Infobox Alevik Template:Infobox Alevik (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used once only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Bhopal Template:Infobox Bhopal (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Single-use only. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Italian comune Template:Infobox Italian comune (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Macedonian village Template:Infobox Macedonian village (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used only once. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Metro Cebu Template:Infobox Metro Cebu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used only once. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Municipality of Mexico Template:Infobox Municipality of Mexico (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used only twice. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Russian federal city Template:Infobox Russian federal city (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used only twice. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. It is only used twice because there are only two federal cities in Russia. {{Infobox Settlement}} is not a good replacement, as it does not allow to group pertinent data in a way that makes sense for a federal city.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Please can you describe these differences in more detail, say why they are so important, and indicate why this matters for these two cities, but not others? Why will {{{Infobox Russian city}} not suffice? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Slovakian municipality Template:Infobox Slovakian municipality (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Unused. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Town DK Template:Infobox Town DK (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used only once. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Japan dam Template:Japan dam (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Dam}}. Only three instances. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and replace the inofbox in all three articles with {{Infobox Dam}}. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Infobox Ancient Egyptian monument Template:Infobox Ancient Egyptian monument (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant; only one instance. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you must convert it first and if everything is ok, this template can be speedy deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Convert it to what? (and please note: this is a wiki; anyone can do so, not just me, and including you!). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template:Infobox STP-districts Template:Infobox STP-districts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Used only once. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This is another case that the template in the article can be converted to {{Infobox Settlement}} and then speedy delete the template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Censored Template:Censored (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Wikipedia is not censored. Template used for censorship. ░▒▓Frogger3140▓▒░ (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Delete Not necessarily for censorship, but pointless nonetheless. Delete or move to talk/userspace. Which is the only places this is currently used (or should be). — jdorje (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not censored. Therefore this template has no good use. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Move-I created {{{text}}}{{{apology}}} (if this is deleted already, CENSORED) for my own puposes, a while ago, when I didn't realise transclusion could be done in other places. I will move it to User:Gnorthup/Tempspace/Transclusions, if this is acceptable. Graham (talk, contrib, SIGN HERE!!!) 21:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC) PS: Quote from Template:Censored/doc: " doesn't HAVE to be CENSORED. For example, it could just as easily be HIDDEN, NOT AVAILABLE, etc. ."
  • Propose Speedy close as userfy. I would do this myself, but I no longer have the tools to clean up the redirects. Physchim62 (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think there are any redirects. This is rather low-use, and I can't see how anyone would put up a redirect. Hence, if no one objects, I support SPEEDY USERFY and will probably do it tomorrow. (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC) (Oh, sorry, User:Gnorthup)
    • I meant the redirect that I would create when moving it to userspace, which is normally deleted immediately afterwards, no? Physchim62 (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:SI base units Template:SI base units (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) This template (which produces a large table) is only used on SI base unit and Category:SI base units: it should be substed into those pages for ease of editing and then deleted Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)I should add that the justification given for it being in template space is so that it could be used on multiple pages: however, the very size of the table makes it unlikely that it would fit well onto pages other than those where it is already used. Physchim62 (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template:Infobox Holby City character Template:Infobox Holby City character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox character}}. Used by 4 articles, in which I converted the infobox to Infobox character. The list of minor characters of the series was already using the Infobox character. Right now it's orphan as well.-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. — jdorje (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Hurricane main Template:Hurricane main (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) This template was created solely for the purpose of duplicating the {{main}} template for one set of articles (Hurricanes) and putting the article text in bold, which breaches WP:MOSBOLD, creating a bolded main subarticle against the manual of style. It provides no functionality beyond what the {{main}} template does, and exists solely to create a bolding on hurricane articles at variance with WP:MOS. Recently, an IP has been edit warring to reinstate the bolding, so it's time to remove the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to main template. Delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment/Question: Why not just redirect this to template:main instead of deleting it and save the work of having to manually change a bunch of sections in a lot of articles? Doing this is a lot would be a lot less work (although a bot could do the fixes). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 03:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • We did that, it didn't seem to work (unclear, I don't speak templates), but the IP removed it, twice, which prompted me to come to TfD for a decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why redirecting doesn't work (AFAIK it should, as other templates seem to work fine with redirects [maybe the linked parameter is causing the problem? I'll have to ask someone good with templates for assistance]; Maybe the VP?). Redirecting to main remains my first choice. If this somehow is impossible, then delete is my second choice. The best bot for changing the template links from hurricane main to main (if there isn't already a bot that removes/changes template links for deleted/replaced templates) is the one that changes the links to renamed categories from the old, newly redlinked name, to the new proper one (Don't remember the name at the time). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to main works for me if someone can be sure it's working, and we need a clear decision since others were reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)so it Keep because if we don't it would lead to problems to the revision history.
Keep Plesse
Redirect to main.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 04:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Yellow Evan Home (who restored the bolding twice before the IP did) has entered duplicate declarations here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect it. The template has outlived its usefulness, but a redirect would be less disruptive. If the IP reverts, revert it, and request protection if that reversion trend continues. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Considering the edit-warring that has been going on, redirect and protect would be a better option at this point. Failing that, delete. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep it. It is not a duplicate of {{main}} because it is far simpler. Do away with the bolding, but keep this one because it will always work with the unique format of the project's articles. Since the other one is widely used, it will always need to be tested to see if it encroaches on WTCP templates if someone decides to make changes. The simpler one is far more desirable.Potapych (talk) 06:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Guys.... can we remove that stupid template saying its about to be deleted as it looks bads. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to {{main}}, as the template violates WP:MOSBOLD, and just looks plain messy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The MOS issue should be a separate issue. {{main}} has been significantly revised many times since its creation, so I think it would be better for the stability of WTCP articles to have a separate one. Since this template is usually placed right next to the other templates, it really shouldn't force any formatting on the rest of the section. The other features of {{main}} are rarely used by this project.Potapych (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC) How? MOS applies to everything, not just one template. Also, {{main}} is protected, so it can't be that unstable. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC) You can easily remove bolding, so MOS isn't an issue. Since it is protected,you have to find someone who is familiar with the templates and has access to fix it.Potapych (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC) I still don't understand. We have removed the bolding, but it's been re-added several times. There is nothing to fix at {{main}}, so again, I'm at a loss here. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC) KeeepI love are template, but I do not konw how it would look like.--Leave Message orYellow Evan home 14:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/redirect. Yeah, that's why it was created - before I made it, people were ignoring {{main}} and just writing in the text in order to get the bold effect they wanted. — jdorje (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll add, once the bolding is removed this is a dup of {{main}}. Yes it's simpler as {{main}} is more flexible; that's not a reason to prefer the less useful template. In fact I'd rather just delete the whole thing and get editors to start using the right template, though a redirect would indeed be less disruptive as it's surely used many thousands of times. — jdorje (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC) I was talking about the templates that conflict with the small infoboxes, which there are several. Even the deletion one was either going through the boxes or pushing them down earlier today, depending on the order the templates are placed on the pages. I think it is better to keep the same one, knowing that no one will try to upgrade it to something fancier sometime in the future, which could ruin the format on every season page.Potapych (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC) That would argue for a redirect. But if a global template conflicts with other templates, we should fix them, not just foist the problem off by using our own templates. — jdorje (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC) As far as I can tell, no one's consulted anyone at WTCP before they made changes to some of the other global templates. I removed them from some of the articles because they overlapped the small infoboxes. I don't want to see this {{main}} adding linebreaks or overlapping the other templates because someone changed something. It's acceptable in most articles, but the simpler version serves a purpose in others.Potapych (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect; there's no reason to have a separate template. --NE2 20:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no reason to have the redirect. However, that means all of the links would have to be removed, but I'm sure we have bots that can do that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
My bot can do all of the replacements if we need, but a redirect solves the problem with only one edit. Plasticup T/C 00:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template:Infobox Korean Metropolitan cities Template:Infobox Korean Metropolitan cities (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) DELETE. This template is only used on a few pages and doesn't offer anything that Infoobx Settlement doesn't already. In fact, the infobox settlement template gives the ability to add much more information. See the diffs here & here. Sorry we need less niche templates like this and more standardisation of current infoboxes. Roxi2 (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 01:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 27

[edit] Template:Automobile hubs of the World Template:Automobile hubs of the World (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) What, in this context, is an "automobile hub", exactly? This template seems to merely provide unsourced indiscriminate information. Furthermore, its entire purpose seems to be to provide an extremely tenuous link between the places named in it. RFBailey (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:2004 USA number one singles Template:2004 USA number one singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete This template fails one of the basic premises of navigational templates: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. These songs are not related to one another. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates: "Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" My answer would be no. We already have succession boxes that list the song before and after the song became number one with exact dates it was at number one and a link to the list of number one hits from that year. This template has no dates and uses numbers behind the wikilink which I presume to mean the number of weeks it was at number one. Aspects (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a very useful template, songs aren't related besides being Number One hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also delete the UK templates, nominated on 28 September. - eo (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:2005 USA number one singles Template:2005 USA number one singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete This template fails one of the basic premises of navigational templates: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. These songs are not related to one another. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates: "Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" My answer would be no. We already have succession boxes that list the song before and after the song became number one with exact dates it was at number one and a link to the list of number one hits from that year. This template has no dates and uses numbers behind the wikilink which I presume to mean the number of weeks it was at number one. Aspects (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a very useful template, songs aren't related besides being Number One hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also delete the UK templates, nominated on 28 September. - eo (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:2006 USA number one singles Template:2006 USA number one singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete This template fails one of the basic premises of navigational templates: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. These songs are not related to one another. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates: "Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" My answer would be no. We already have succession boxes that list the song before and after the song became number one with exact dates it was at number one and a link to the list of number one hits from that year. This template has no dates and uses numbers behind the wikilink which I presume to mean the number of weeks it was at number one. Aspects (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a very useful template, songs aren't related besides being Number One hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also delete the UK templates, nominated on 28 September. - eo (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:2007 USA number one singles Template:2007 USA number one singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete This template fails one of the basic premises of navigational templates: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. These songs are not related to one another. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates: "Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" My answer would be no. We already have succession boxes that list the song before and after the song became number one with exact dates it was at number one and a link to the list of number one hits from that year. This template has no dates and uses numbers behind the wikilink which I presume to mean the number of weeks it was at number one. Aspects (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a very useful template, songs aren't related besides being Number One hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also delete the UK templates, nominated on 28 September. - eo (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:2008 USA number one singles Template:2008 USA number one singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Delete This template fails one of the basic premises of navigational templates: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. These songs are not related to one another. Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates: "Would a reader really want to go from A to B?" My answer would be no. We already have succession boxes that list the song before and after the song became number one with exact dates it was at number one and a link to the list of number one hits from that year. This template has no dates and uses numbers behind the wikilink which I presume to mean the number of weeks it was at number one. Aspects (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a very useful template, songs aren't related besides being Number One hits. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 20:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, also delete the UK templates, nominated on 28 September. - eo (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Village in Ukraine Template:Village in Ukraine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}; only used twice. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Little House character Template:Little House character (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Orphan infobox template. All characters, in which this template could apply, can be covered by {{Infobox character}} or {{Infobox soap character}} with no problems at all. Magioladitis (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Small gay child

[edit] September 26

[edit] Template:KeptDRV [edit] Template:Pink singles Template:Pink singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) There is no reason for this to exist. There is already a Pink template and this is all duplicate information. eo (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Duplicate template used in only one page. Eklipse (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Ligat ha'Al 2009/10 table Template:Ligat ha'Al 2009/10 table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Violation of WP:CRYSTAL; the season will begin in a year. Further, no articles link to this template. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the template is currently not used and will not be used for another year. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Allie Jean Dimeco Template:Allie Jean Dimeco (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) A template created by a new user apparently duplicating the article Allie DiMeco. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete (and fix the instructions for the TfD page, which are impossible to follow, even for an experienced user). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, speedily if possible. Clearly this was never supposed to be a template and was placed in templatespace erroneously. I'm not sure what the problems with the TfD instructions are; if you can revise them while keeping the meaning the same, please be bold and do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I figured them out now. The instructions say not to subst, but show a subst, and they have a whole lot of extra brackets. They don't say you only need to put {{tfd|Articlename}}. If that is correct, I hope someone will fix, because I fiddled forever to try to make this nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:24CleanupFlag Template:24CleanupFlag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) I don't see why this WikiProject should have its own cleanup tags, and I don't think it's a good precedent. delldot ∇. 01:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. Maybe it is a way for the project to control its progress. But I think a list in the project page is much better than having different templates, difficult for people not participating in the project to add or handle. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 25

[edit] Template:D.Gray Man Template:D.Gray Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) After multiple merges and redirects, the template is only used on four pages. It has been said that strongly linking the articles would be more effective. Itzjustdrama? 21:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the person who most recently resuggested this deletion (the nom originally suggested it earlier this month). —Dinoguy1000 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ——Dinoguy1000 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Each of those three supporting pages should have their own section in the series page, so the proper template to use is therefore {{main}}. Toss in the category for the four of them and you have the necessary navigation covered. Speaking of which, someone should speedy that empty "characters" category. --erachima talk 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — unnecessary with only three lists past the main article. sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: the template has been updated since its deletion nom with two additional lists (for individual episode season lists). Because of this, I make my vote a weak delete, and I really wouldn't be against keeping the template [for] now. —Dinoguy1000 20:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not-needed template. abf /talk to me/ 16:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Information about Spain and sub-templates Template:Information about Spain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template:Spanish language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template:Spanish History (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template:Geography of Spain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template:Spanish Government and Politics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template:Traditions of Spain (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template:Spanish art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Template:Spanish Language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Design test, unused, outdated, superseded by {{Spain topics}}. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Malaysian infoboxes All Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}:
Also worth considering:
Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Keep in mind the articles which the templates are trancluded in are on states, and districts and divisions of the states; as I recall, China, Japan and Pakistan seem to be doing fine with their own infoboxes. However, three of said articles are on Federal Territories that happen to double as cities AND state-like divisions in the country, which is probably why this TfD was initiated. Even so, I would preferably keep {{Subdivisions of Malaysia}} and {{Infobox districts of Malaysian states}}, and delete the rest. {{Infobox Federal Territory of Malaysia}} is clearly redundant to {{Subdivisions of Malaysia}}, as {{Infobox divisions of Sarawak}} and {{Infobox districts of Selangor}} are to {{Infobox districts of Malaysian states}}. - Two hundred percent (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC){{Infobox Settlement}}'s lack of support for certain fields in the nominated templates is also a factor for my reluctance to endorse a deletion, unless the fields are included into {{Infobox Settlement}} or a standardise template for states or districts. - Two hundred percent (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks, Can you list those unsupported fields, easily (if not, I'll put together a list). Then we can see whether they can be included, or whether a suitable alternative exists. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC) OK. - Two hundred percent (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks, please see Template talk:Infobox Settlement#Merging properties from Subdivisions of Malaysia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC) There are six "blank" properties in {{Infobox Settlement}}, which can be labelled as needed; will these not suffice? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Malacca SultanatePortuguese control Dutch control British control - Yang di-Pertua Negeri - Ketua Menteri - Total - Total - Density - Estimated rank National postal codeArea code(s)Licence plate prefixState anthem
Melaka Darul Azim
State of Malaysia


Coat of arms
Motto: Bersatu Teguh
15th century
24 August 1511
14 January 1641
17 March 1824
Mohd Khalil Yaakob (UMNO)
Mohd Ali Mohd Rustam
1,650 km² (637.1 sq mi)
Population (2007)
432.1/km² (1,119.1/sq mi)
75xxx to 78xxx
Melaka Maju Jaya
Wasn't aware of that. But as demonstrated, the template is far from perfect in migration if {{Infobox Settlement}} is maintained in its current form, and I haven't compared it with the districts template yet. I would like to resolve this on {{Infobox Settlement}}'s talk page before making a conclusive decision here. - Two hundred percent (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC) OK, see you there ;-) Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template:Consentblock Template:Consentblock (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Inactive blocking template, no reason to retain for historic value. MBisanz talk 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A simple example that one doesn't really need to see to understand (for anyone reading the past discussions relating to the idea of block requests). -- Ned Scott 04:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:RadioByFrequency Template:RadioByFrequency (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) I removed the speedy from this page, as it was not a valid CSD -- however the concern raised by User:ESanchez013 was "it is a template that is ridden with redlinks and does not seem to serve a purpose other than to create a large amount of lists". I do agree with this and think it should be deletedSee comment below. Kesac (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure about the templae, but all the "placeholder" articles should be deleted as no content. --NE2 11:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure the proper place for this debate. IMHO the fate of the template should be linked to the fate of the bulk of the frequency pages, 90% of which are currently placeholders. They've flooded the Short Pages reports on the Tools Server, and I've been working to bump them off of it. But the key question to me is not whether the template should or should not be deleted, or whether the placeholders should be deleted, but rather it's whether this whole mass of lists is a benefit to the project if/when completed. I can see it's usefullness, but really only marginally. And this is not the right place for a debate over the whole scheme. But I'm not really sure where the correct place *is* for that discussion. Village Pump somewhere? WP:AN? A mass AFD? - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I can see at least two uses: disambiguation, if you know the frequency but not the call latters, and as a resource for DXing. --NE2 13:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Both those purposes do look useful. I personally am willing to grant the user a degree of latitude at this point, assuming that we continue to see progress on this. This is a massive effort that the user has put in front of himself, and if it tapers off 10% done, then this whole thing will be AFD bait. But if he continues to make progress, then I at least am willing to overlook a few placeholders and red links on the way to a useful set of lists. I do know that, even as a Wikignome myself, this is an effort on a scale well above what I would be willing to attempt. If he does complete it, I may hit him with a Barnstar or two. Anyway, for now then I would say Keep on the template. If, in a week or two there has been little progress on the whole thing, then my opinion would likely be different. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I have gotten rid of the red links --FMBlogger (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Disambiguation is great, but based on pages that have actually been filled in thus far, they're creating more disambiguation problems than they're solving. The stations have been listed using only the base of the call sign, without regard to whether there's a '-FM' attached to the actual call sign or a '(AM)' or '(FM)' has been attached to the article here. My Wikipedia Cleaner watch list is blowing up with new incoming links to disambiguation pages that I've just spent the last month cleaning. This is the exact same problem as happened several weeks ago when a different user created a bunch of radio stations by format by state templates. Urgh ... Mlaffs (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I went through all the templates and made them point specifically to FM or AM so that they don't go to a disambiguation page. I will continue to go through and repoint -FM or (AM) links back if the article exists in the other direction. Let me know if this suffices. Thanks. --FMBlogger (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, all that noise in my Cleaner is gone now, which is fantastic. You've probably ended up with the opposite problem, though, which is that you now have a lot of redlinks where there isn't a tag on the actual article. It's going to be a hassle going through to get them pointing to the right place, but it's doable. You might want to attach a {{Template:Underconstruction}} to each page until you're done. Mlaffs (talk) 03:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • When I originally nominated this for deletion, the template mostly consisted of redlinks and articles with no content. However a lot of progress has been made since then. I now think this should be kept, and see where things go from here. Kesac (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, for what it's worth. The articles linked from this template are all set up as disambiguation pages. There shouldn't be a need for a template to aid in navigating amongst disambiguation pages, given their intended purpose. If these were set up as lists instead, then that would be another story, and the template could be useful. This is not in any way a statement on the underlying articles, with which I'm fine. Mlaffs (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This debate would be better elsewhere; but surely categories are the way to collect lists of stations on the same frequency; with parent categories for ranges, e.g. "100.0-100.9"? I'm also concerned that these pages need to be "globalised". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You can't disambiguate with categories, though, which is how these pages are set up. Agree, though, they're clearly a work in progress. Mlaffs (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are some frequencies that are not known in the U.S. For example, 87.8.
--FMBlogger (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Fail to see the use for a template of disambiguation tables. JPG-GR (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete' - no value per above --Spencer1151 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I fail to see any value to disambiguate the disambiguation. I agree with Mlaffs above. --DavidTheLion (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Template has TOO many links on it. Agree with JPG-GR that it has no value. --1110khz (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Not useful. --BoyBomber (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No need for such a template. --TruthSaid0 (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Template too bulky and user did not discuss with WPRS project prior to implementing such sweeping changes. User should be blocked too. --RoomDownUnitStage (talk) 00:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC) - Blocked sock of FMBlogger. fish&karate 12:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not needed. --Emarsee (TalkContribs) 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I think a category would be better. However, I would ask the closing admin to look into the number of editors for which voting here is the only activity they have done in months. There's a very interesting coincidence going on. (User:Thatcher is the rescue yet again) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Striking my above Keep, and switching to Delete given the recent developments. Given the creator has just melted down via massive sock-puppetry, I see little chance now of this whole thing getting completed. And a partially completed effort in this is worse than nothing. I wonder what should be the next step for all the individual frequency pages. A mass AFD? That'll take a good bit of work for whoever has to tag them all. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've added a thought in this regard over at the AN/I page. Mlaffs (talk) 13:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Honest thoughts: Despite the shenanigans going on around the content, the content organization itself is valuable. The potential breath and depth of the world wide consumer radio bands are defined and the content is well organized. This one template takes care of the almost the entire AM/FM spectrum and allows one to drill down to specific stations. spryde | talk 16:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:St. Louis Rams seasons Template:St. Louis Rams seasons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) I placed this up for deletion before n 2008-09-04, but an admin decided to keep it even though a debate didn't take place. The person thought it should be kept because "there are lots of templates like this" and "the idea is to not take up as much space." The reason I am nominating this template for deletion is because {{St. Louis Rams}} already contains this information and is a redundent template. First off, just because there are other templates like this one is not a reason to keep an article and/or template. Secondly, the point of navigation templates is for the reader to read other articles related to the one they are currently reading. It would be better to merge this into {{St. Louis Rams}} so that they can navigate to more articles. If the idea is to not take up as much space then the seasons section of the team template (along with all the other NFL teams) should be removed, since it is taking up space. Yet, I don't believe that to be the case. Once again, I suggest this template merged to the St. Louis Rams template. Pinkkeith (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Relisting. Just so everyone knows, I'm the one who closed this debate originally. The debate is here. Just as a comment here, if this one is deleted I think we need to take in consideration everything in because all of the templates there are also incorporated into the team's templates (i.e. Template:Green Bay Packers seasons is incorporated in Template:Green Bay Packers). I have no problem with that since I do see the nominator's point. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom and precedent. matt91486 (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom and precedent. However, before you start merging them all, I would suggest a mention at the project page page or somewhere people will know what's going on. Let one complete and then go after the rest. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 24

[edit] Template:Host Cities of the Francophonie Summits Template:Host Cities of the Francophonie Summits (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) While "host cities of the Francophonie summits" is a natural grouping, it is still not suitable for a navbox. It is not really significant to the history of these cities (the list includes several national capitals) that they at one time hosted a summit of La Francophonie. For example, while the fact that the 1991 summit took place in Paris is important in the context of the article La Francophonie, it is not especially significant in the context of the article Paris (at most, it might merit a few words). In addition, if such templates were created for other international organisations, this would quickly lead to template clutter on articles about most major cities. A list already exists at Francophonie#Summits. (See also the related CFD.)
  • Delete as nominator. –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • As a template of purely links to cities, I agree that it isn't especially significant. However, the template design could be worthwhile if converted to be of links to the individual summits. matt91486 (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Convert from list of cities to list of summits per Matt91486. --Kevlar (talkcontribs) 00:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Nth Template:Nth (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Unsed tempate, questionable utility, does not actually do what it says. --Salix alba 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Who would need to use this? Richard Pinch (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template which takes 1 to "st", 2 to "nd", etc., might be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:CoS-IRS Template:CoS-IRS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) I thought only Works of US Government Employees were public domain. Last time I checked, the government doesn't write our taxes for us. ViperSnake151 21:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Records that are part of the application process for tax exemption for U.S. charities (tax code 501 (c)) become public record, after the tax exemption has been granted. If you would only follow the link within the template to the website of the IRS and read the official text, you would find that out too. Keep. Martin Ottmann (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, together with all files using this template. Read en:WP:PD#Public records. Public records are not automatically in the public domain. "Right to access" ≠ "Right to copy and republish", and inclusion in the public records does not make a work PD-USGov. Lupo 07:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, and PUI all the files using this template. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I'm speedying several of the files using this template under CSD:I10 as they are not images, audio, or video files and have no encyclopedic use. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC) ...and the CoS is known to be rather litigious about use of its materials. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: I've closed the discussion of the Commons version as delete; please see my closing comments there; they are, of course, applicable here. Эlcobbola talk 20:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Godheim (band) Template:Godheim (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) This template was created December 2007, but still only contains red links. Seems like these articles won't be created (at leats for some time) and therefore this template is unnecessary. Spiby 13:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:unaccredited Template:Unaccredited (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Disclaimer template. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • As was said last time this was nominated for exactly the same reason, it's not a disclaimer template, it's a standard form of words that was hashed out after much debate to cover, in a neutrally worded way, the what lack of accreditation actually means, in the numerous articles on unaccredited institutions which range from fundamentalist Bible colleges to outright diploma mills. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a disclaimer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a disclaimer. Property categorization of diploma mills unaccredited institutions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] September 23

[edit] Template:U.S. State Senate Majority Leaders This template should be deleted because several articles included in the template are not those of U.S. State Senate Majority Leaders, and the template is essentially a duplicate of Template:U.S. State Treasurers. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Comment: I admit it is a duplicate, but at the same time it's a work in progress so please I can't always get around to everything--Jack Cox (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC) Speedy delete. Please Jack Cox add db-author in the template since you agree it's a duplicate. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Keep. It's not a duplicate anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Strong Keep: I've fixed up the list and it's no longer a duplicate so I'd like to ask TommyBoy if he could please drop the TFD request?--Jack Cox (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Strong Keep, now that the redundancy issue has been solved, I no longer support deletion of the template. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] User:Patar knight/Template Sandbox [edit] Template:Infobox Gunfighter Template:Infobox Gunfighter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Only six instances. Redundant to {{Infobox Person}} or {{Infobox Criminal}}. The "notable opponents" parameter can be [has been] added to the former. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Update: All instances now replaced. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as orphan infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Meth lab [edit] Template:Maharashtra Barnstar Template:Maharashtra Barnstar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) The text uses other languages than English, which I think, is not acceptable. Shyam (T/C) 08:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep If it was a template for the article space, then it would be pretty weird to have a template message in a language other than English, but this isn't an issue for barnstars. -- Ned Scott 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP It was created in July and out of sudden what the problem with it?? Its related to Maharashtra and Marathi language justifies it. and its not to put on Article page but on User page. It clearly says Awarded for excellent contribution for Project Maharashtra.--Suyogaerospacetalk to me! 08:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This is used by WP:MAHA as an award for people who do good work for the project. --gppande «talk» 10:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Encourage translation No Wikiproject should give the appearance of being solely for a limited nationality. Taemyr (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] September 22

[edit] Template:Coordinate [edit] Template:Cyndi Lauper singles Template:Cyndi Lauper singles (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Merged with Template:Cyndi Lauper, no need for two templates covering the same sets of materials. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:KeptDRV

[edit] September 21

[edit] Template:Hat1 [edit] Template:Mpdb movie Template:Mpdb movie (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) Inappropriate template for unnotable self-published site with a questionable copyright status on the images it has users upload. Template appears to have been created by someone related to the site, as their only other edits were to then spam it over various movie articles. As a note, this template was nominated for deletion on February 6, 2008, but the discussion was never closed and the template removed from the article in June saying it never reached the discussion page? The article for this film was deleted on the same day this template was first TfD, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Procedurally, the previous TfD is still open, so this one should be closed as inappropriate, and comments directed there, where the !votes were three deletes and four keeps. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I would disagree. I think procedurally the other should be closed as no consensus, as it was obviously skipped when the rest on the page were closed and revisiting comments from 8 months ago is pointless now. I nominated this one and only after did I discover that the comment removing the old one was not quite correct. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Why? There's nothing particularly topical about the template, so the comments there are as pertinent now as they were then. That opens up another possibility, which is to move the comments there forward into this discussion so that the closing admin can consider the entire range of comments from both discussions, and folks now can respond, pro or con, to points made then. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Because they are outdated. It seems inappropriate to me to presume the people who commented then feel the same way now. I think it would be better to close that one as non-consensus, then invite those who commented then to comment now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I don't understand in what way they can be considered "outdated", since the template is not topical in any way. What conditions have changed to make those comments any less relevant than any comment made now? I just don't see it. Let me alos point out that since the template was first made, the creator of it has not tried to disseminate it once he/she was discouraged from doing so, and so of the over 400 articles it's currently in use on, only a handful were put there by that creator. Whatever their motivation was, it's not why the template is in use now. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Because people's points of view can change in 8 months, and on Wikipedia often do. People who said keep before may have changed their minds, and visa versa, after seeing how its used and do to later discussions at WP:EL as to whether these are even appropriate links (which per WP:EL would seem to be a big no). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC) OK, that's a good point, so why not this: close the previous as no consensus, and put notices on the talk pages of all the previous participants, pointing them to this discussion, so they have the opportunity to either repeat their previous views or report their new ones. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Wait, sorry, it just sunk in what the last part of your previous comment was. If you think there's an issue about the site being eligible under EL, shouldn't *that* discussion go first, because the template's only a tool for posting the link. If the site passes muster at EL, then the template should be gold, right, and if the site is deep sixed at EL, then there's no need for the template at all. So... why not close *both* of these discussion as basically irrelevant at the moment, and deal with the underlying issue, which is whether the website is appropriate? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I don't think a separate discussion isn't needed. The article for the same site was deleted as spam and as a non-notable website. It clearly fails all guidelines for WP:EL, and the site's lack of a valid license for the images uploaded clearly violates WP:COPYRIGHT, again making it something that should not be linked and for which a template to encourage these links should not be available. Other templates to similar copyvio sites have been deleted for the same reason, without requiring discussions on two or three other pages first. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Excuse me, but I'm not quite understanding the problem here. if you're so absolutely certain that the website will fail to get consensus at a discussion at EL, then what's the problem with taking the discussion there in the first place? If the website it not eligible to be a external link, then this template is irrelevant and useless and can hit the garbage can, and people can't add the link manually either. But if the website is eligible, then even if you delete the template, the site can be added manually, so what have you gained? To stop peoeple from adding it manually, you're still going to have to go to WP:EL and have that discussion anyway!! If your point is to wipe out the links that exist (obviously, I don't quite see why you want to, to me the site seems quite harmless and actually useful, as I expressed in the previous discussion) then get a ruling from the community that the link is spam -- so far you don't had that. We've had a ruling that the site isn't notable enough for its own article, which I think is true, but that really isn't relevant to the discussion of whether it's eligible to be an external link, since the standards are different. If you don't get that consensus, then the votes here to delete the template on the basis that the website is spam aren't really appropriate.
Can you please explain what the harm is in having one discussion which decides the issue once and for all? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)I've asked for some help at WP:AN. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I've left a message at WP:EL's talk page about the issue. I see no reason to have multiple discussions when one will do. I also fail to see what encyclopedic value it adds to anything. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Well, there's a procedural question about the two TfDs open at the same time, and a priority question about where the discussion should be, so I think some more admin input would be good. Please note that I'm not asking for multiple discussions, I think that both TfDs should be closed without prejudice, and the issue should be decided at WP:EL. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(out)Here is the previous discussion in a collapse box, so that people can decide for themselves if these comments are "outdated". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
[show]Discussion from currently unclosed TfD
  • Delete. Another COI junk spam template that could not be used by anyone following WP:EL. 2005 (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete From their site... In late 2004 I (jayef) decided to start a movieposter database. My friend (Roman) helped me to code the whole site and it went online in december 2004! While the site was growing really fast, the site got overloaded and we had to get another server. I'd say that they are not an EL as they clearly don't own all these posters and their images. We can't link to mass copyvios, regardless of how cool or useful the site is. rootology (C)(T) 13:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this spam and copyvio automation tool. It is a useless template as WP:C forbids us from using it anyway, due to the posters being copyright of someone other than the site itself. Maybe they will get a takedown notice and save us the trouble. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
These !votes are really about the nature of the site, and not about the template itself, which I why I feel this discussion should be taking place at WP:EL and not here. The template is simply a tool. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with that. Its basically the same issue. Do the links belong? No, then the template doesn't belong. Almost all the links are from the template. I haven't seen separate discussions be required on other such templates where they encouraged the creation of inappropriate links that violate WP:COPYRIGHT and/or WP:EL. By its very nature, a discussion on the appropriateness or validity of the template will include a discussion on its nature and the appropriateness of what it does. This is a template that creates external links, as such the discussion will, by nature, include whether the links are valid. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Sure, it's the same issue, but it's talking place here and not there, where the focus is on external links and (presumably) the people there are interested and knowledgeable about that subject. Still, it's rather a moot point since you posted a note on WP:EL about this discussion, and admins don't seem interested in the procedural and priority questions I've raised. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I have posted notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films and on the talk pages of all editors who participated in the previous TfD discussion, with the exception of one whose talk page was protected, and the creator of the template, who had previously been notified. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Instead of recommending to delete outright, I just wanted to put my thoughts forward and consider any responses to them. First of all, I don't mind the Movie Poster Database as a source for uploading some poster images (usually when IMP Awards does not have it). This template is meant to link to a film's respective poster page on the website, and the page can show the different sheets used to promote the film. My perspective of external links in film articles is that there should be as few "staple" links as possible. To date, we've limited links to cast and crew information (IMdb), box office performance (Box Office Mojo), and reviews (Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic). We use templates for these links since they are pretty standard. We also add links that are substantial to the topic and cannot be implemented in the article body. I am not sure if showing the different posters of a film is considered substantial. We've never really pursued links to image galleries containing screen shots of films, which seems more relevant to the topic than the visuals of marketing campaigns. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a link farm, and I do not feel that there is a need for this template. If someone is interested in film posters, I am OK with MPDB being under "External links". Feel free to address the points I've raised. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Erik: I have never seen this template used except in the "External links" section of film articles. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I am not sure what you are trying to address. I understand that such a template like this would be used in the "External links" sections of film articles, but my argument was that the website does not strike me as a "staple" link and does not quite belong in these sections. My impression is that having a template standardizes a website, so I do not think that there needs to be one for this article based on my argument that it does not fulfill the substance criteria. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I think what confuses me is this sentence: I am OK with MPDB being under "External links". I don't get what you mean in the context of what I think you're saying. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I was not clear about that. I meant the actual article film poster, where MPDB is linked in "External links", since that seems the right fit for the website's substance. (Seems like IMP Awards should be linked there, too.) I don't think that MPDB has a place in an individual film article (barring any exceptional circumstances of praise or controversy about a set of posters). Hope that clarifies my arguments. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 21:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) AH! OK, I understand, thanks for the explanation – it seems that my reading comprehension skills fluctuate wildly during the day! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Possible COI issues, and almost certainly copyvio issues. Sorry, but I regard this as a spam link, it offers no real encyclopedic value as opposed to other websites such as IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc. I'm fine using MPDB as a resource for adding film posters to articles, but as an external link in film articles, no way. PC78 (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Why was I awakened from my grave? Really. I don't appreciate getting messages about XfDs as I view them as Canvassing. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought "canvassing" was when you tried to get people to come who you assume will vote the same way you do, so as to sway the discussion. What I did was notify everyone, yeah and nay, who participated in the previous conversation. Since that discussion was 3 "keep" and 3 "delete", (subtracting my own "keep", since I was already here), there was no attempt to canvas, just an attempt to make sure that everyone who expressed an interest last time, in a TfD that was not closed until a few days ago, got an opportunity to have their say this time around. Sorry to have bothered you. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 01:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comment above; I wanted to see if there was a response to the points I made, but time's up, I suppose. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 12:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:Giles Thornton

[edit] September 16

[edit] em and en dash templates

[edit] Template:MinorPlanets Navigator [edit] Template:Cats needed [edit] Template:Abandonia [edit] Template:Standard numismatics external links Template:Standard numismatics external links (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) External links template primarily serving to redirect traffic to eBay affiliates. (This may not have been the case when the template was created, but perhaps due to domain hijacking or some other events, it is effectively the situation today.) See brief discussion here. Note: I have blanked this template, as I feel it is likely it will be deleted and I think eBay can do without the traffic in the meantime. I am still only nominating it for deletion, rather than tagging it as speedy, as its creator is an administrator, and I'd like for them to have time to respond or to correct the template should they wish to do so. user:j (aka justen) 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree – Agree that maybe it was fine when created, but now it's very bad. These pages are really loaded up with affiliate links. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 02:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I believe only Don's and Ron's sites (the first two sites linked) are in question. When I created the template, the two sites did not have as many ads as they do today. Even with the current state, they are still they provide the most complete collection of coins and banknote photos, relatively speaking. Many numismatic editors and I very often use these sites to find clues about a currency's history. Without the vast number of pictures they provide, such task would be impossible w/o buying a catalog. Unless somebody finds an satisfactory alternative, I would oppose the deletion. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 14:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I think this is opening up a very bad can of worms. This invites anyone that has a "good" link on Wikipedia to load up the pages with affiliates links and exploit the free traffic. I still think it's an incredibly bad idea and they should either have to clean the pages up or the links should be removed. It's seems fairly obvious to me that these sites saw thew traffic after the links were placed on Wikipedia and took advantage by loading up the aff links. It's just not right. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 21:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC) [edit] Template:Chess image [edit] Template:Biota Template:Biota (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|delete) This template was created in order to provide invisible semantic information by wrapping taxon names in a microformat. From what I can tell, consensus is that this will massively complicate page code for no particular benefit. e.g. [1], [2]. For an example of its usage, check this out. Hesperian 00:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Remark – I can see no point in adding this to articles such as Lassie or Animals (album) (complicates page code for no benefit whatever). It might have some use where names are used in a taxon context. Occuli (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This template offers massive benefits, in that it emits a species microformat for the name of the organism (as emitted for over a year by {{Taxobox}}), where the names are not in the taxobox, such mentions subspecies (as on Peregrine Falcon), prey/predator/pest species, symbiotic species, etc, examples of species on genera and higher-rank pages, lists of, say, families like that on Neogastropoda; or where using a Taxobox would be inappropriate or impossible,, such as in prose ("The hospital was shut by an outbreak of Escherichia coli").
More typical examples of usage than that given above would be [3] or [4]. The only other way to apply a microformat in these cases would be by using in-line HTML spans (or other suitable elements) and classes; understandably some editors consider that approach unacceptable. There is consensus for and very widespread use of microformats on Wikipedia already, including hCard for people, organisations and venues; hCalendar for events and Geo for coordinates. There is also precedence on Wikipedia for in-line templates which emit microformats, for example nearly a quarter of a million instances of {{coord}} (with a similar number again as the recently deprecated coordinates templates are converted). Taxonomic names are based on, but are not, Latin. When the taxonomic and IETF-languages communities agree a language code for scientific names (I'm involved in discussion of the issue in both communities), the template will allow that language code to be applied, also. Though ready for use in limited number of cases (chiefly, vernacular, bi- and trinominal names using the Zoological code), it's still under development, and I have undertaken to include requirements and fix issues raised by more taxonomically-knowledgeable editors than I. Another user has already approached me via my talk page, to request a merger of this template with his new creation for displaying multiple common names. Finally, it seems odd that this template has been nominated for deletion when a longer version of the above explanation has been posted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#New template for in-line display of vernacular & scientific_names; where I have also said that I am happy to answer further questions. There is no consensus against the template at either of the cited pages. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC) There is no consensus against the template at either of the cited pages. In total four people have expressed their opinions ofresponded to your invitation to make comments on the template on those two pages, and in all four cases the opinion expressed was that the template is pointless. Hesperian 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC) That's not what I see at either of those pages; no doubt other editors will read them for themselves. BTW, I posted there; where do you think I expressed that opinion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Very droll, Andy. Refactored. Hesperian 14:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Now that you've removed one misrepresentation, what about removing the false claim that remains? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support deletion with reservations. I oppose its use for vernacular names. It will create more problems than it solves, since vernacular names are associated with specific species only in some groups, so that subsequent parsing will likely separate the same species (chamise and greasewood--I don't know why it forced a line break evidently fixed) and combine different ones (hemlock the herb and hemlock the tree). One can even imagine clueless editors creating cases of "dog rose" , "cow parsnip", and "cat-o'-nine-tails" (I've heard that there are one or two clueless editors at Wikipedia). In contrast, I see its usefulness for scientific names, since they are much more often used in a biological context, and I see the species microformat as a credible way to mark up scientific names in text.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • If you "see its usefulness for scientific names", and "see the species microformat as a credible way to mark up scientific names in text", why are you supporting deletion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
      • In its present form I believe it has potential to harm the encyclopedia. If you were to offer to remove the "vernacular" portion, I would probably be neutral—I don't see a pressing need, neither do I see harm.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
        • If there is consensus to remove that property, then of course I would (or anyone else could) remove it; but I feel that you have made no case that harm would be done by the optional "vernacular" property (I don't see any argument for removing the same property from {{taxobox}}), and I would argue against such a move. BTW, hypothetical bad edits by clueless users shouldn't be seen as evidence for requiring a deletion; the same could be said of anything, including plain-text edits. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't think a consensus is likely, since there are a lot of unreserved "delete"s. As far as removing the property from taxobox, I wouldn't ever advocate that, in that taxoboxes are used in an explicit manner (far more explicitly than common names are used in groups other than birds and a few others). My objection is to species microformat in running text: it involves adding an additional layer of data (e.g., "This is a species"), which won't always be supported by the text on the page. Because binomials and other scientific names are most often used explicitly, the chances of improperly overspecifying with the template are low, so that I think the advantages cancel the disadvantages, and I am neutral. In the case of common names standing alone, I see zero value outside of groups such as birds, where there is a 1:1 correspondence between "common" names and scientific names, and numerous disadvantages, some of which I've spelled out above. The flaw lies with common names, not with the species microformat or with the template, but the template serves to exacerbate the problem, by permitting editors to "call out" common names that may have already been imprecise. I've talked about the problems with common names in other contexts, most recently here.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
            • I for one am not an unreserved delete. If this was constrained to scientific names and to names with article links (on the logic that it should not be used for every instance on a page, and the decision on which instances to wrap is essentially the same as the decision on which instances to link), then I would be ambivalent. Hesperian 23:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Support deletion.
    • 1. For screen scraping purposes it's only useful if consistently used. It won't be.
    • 2. There isn't a serious problem with formatting of taxon names, and the cases where there is a problem are mostly due to people who wouldn't have used the template anyway.
    • 3. It's an obstacle to editing, particularly to casual editors. (Who, reportedly, have a higher ratio of content to format edits than the average.)
    • 4. It diverts effort into editing instances of the template into the article, where this effort would be more productive if directed elsewhere.
      • Lavateraguy (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • 1 Your "only useful" comment is not correct; even a single instance will be useful to someone browsing with a tool which detects microformats.
      • 2 This template has not been created to address any supposed "serious problem with formatting of taxon name"; so that point is a straw-man.
      • 3 There is consensus for in-line templates; such as {{convert}}, {{lang}} and family, {{coord}} and the various templates it has deprecated, {{birth date}} and family, {{ISSN}}, {{cite book}} and family, and more. All are very widely used, without apparent problems.
      • 4 No-one will be coerced into adding the template; they can still add and edit plain text if they wish.
  • Delete. Overuse of templates make the raw wiki text less understandable, especially for new users. The benefits of this template are too small to justify that cost. Microformats do not have to be added at each mention of a species; each species should be linked to the wikipedia page of the species, and that is the proper place for a microformat. This can be handled in {{Taxobox}}. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 09:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you proposing that we link each mention of a sub-species on Peregrine Falcon to a separate page? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, I would think so. Every taxon is notable. I've written plenty of articles on subspecies. Hesperian 14:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know. Perhaps the ideal place for some subspecies is on the article of the species. But that does not mean that there has to be a special template to format the name of the subspecies. It may be desirable to add a microformat for a subspecies whose page is merged into that of the parent species. But that should in my opinion be inserted sperately from the running text; for example, in a mini-taxobox. Templates should be kept outside of the article text as much as possible. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 14:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or somehow mark as experimental (userify? document it as such?). TfD is a lousy place to debate the merits of microformats in this particular context, but if anyone is trying to run a search engine against wikipedia, looking for names of organisms in text, they'll be better off using heuristics than anything which is going to be as inconsistently applied as this sort of template. Taxoboxes (and chemical infoboxes, place infoboxes, team infoboxes, etc) are a different matter as they already are structured data, for which microformats (and/or other ways of dumping structured data) have a chance. Oh, and as for the arguing by analogy, {{lang}} is controversial, ISSN is little used in text, and I could go down the list but I suspect it would take us pretty far afield. Kingdon (talk) 12:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I wasn't aware of the discussion of {{lang}} and I don't think I would go so far as to call that debate a "controversy" (is there anything on Wikipedia which hasn't at some time been questioned on a talk page?). How else would you propose to comply with WCAG requirements and mark-up in-line changes of language? Never has one of my uses of that template or addition of it to relevant project pages (e.g. WP:France) been contested; and I note that there are over 155,000 instances of it. There are over 133,000 instances of {{Birth date and age}}, let alone the other templates in that family. The purpose of a microformat is not simply to serve search engines (though that is one benefit). How would you propose to mark the template as "experimental", and what effect do you think that would have? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Question: I disagree with the opposition to the inclusion of common/ vernacular names, for a number of reasons, and note that such names are not only part of our language, but by consensus are already used widely, matched to taxonomic names, on Wikipedia (not only or birds, but for fish, reptiles, mammals, plants, fungi and more. I also note that such names are already used in Taxoboxes and in article content; and for part of the 'Species' microformat specification. However, this is not the place to debate that. It seems that some people oppose this template only or chiefly for that reason. If I agree to remove the "vernacular" property from this template, in order that it can be established and its uptake measured without it, would that satisfy those currently calling for its deletion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Your statement about the wide match of common names to scientific names is incorrect for plants, except perhaps trivially in the UK, where I understand that there is a certain degree of standardization. I confirm that I will be neutral on the AfD if common names are removed from the template.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • On reflection, I'm still opposed; in fact, more strongly than ever. Even if we all agreed that microformats are fantastic, this particular microformat is a draft proposal, which apparently merely means that Andy wrote a proposal for it at the Microformats wiki, and a few people kinda liked the idea. I have installed the Operator extension in order to investigate this further, and I can confirm that that extension does not support the species microformat, at least not "out of the box"; and so far I have been unable to find clear documentation on how to add support. I have been unable to find any other site that has taken this microformat up, and it is my onsidered view that our current usage of the species microformat caters to an audience of maybe four or five people in the whole world. This is an encyclopedia, not a microformat advocacy site. Hesperian 01:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
        • I guess it had not registered on me that it was still a draft. That makes me wonder about the value even of having it in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
          • Most microformats are labelled as "draft" (including the "Geo" microformat which Wikipedia uses around a quarter-of-a-million times); it's a quirk of the process by which they are created. Even as a draft, its benefits are available to our users. Operator's support for 'Species' is clearly documented; it's also supported by Cognition. Thank you, Hesperian, for your "considered" view; can you substantiate your assertion? Among the microformat's early adopters were the very reputable Amateur Entomologists' Society. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
            • A Unicode draft standard, for example, comes with a warning for implementers that the final specification may change. I suppose the advantage of a Wikipedia template is that when/if the standard does change, it's easy to fix globally. But it still makes me uneasy. I clearly see the benefit of specialized markup for scientific names (I was suggesting something similar in the last century), but widespread adoption is contingent on widespread acceptance, and a flawed (in practice, not in theory) Wikipedia implementation has the potential to turn a lot of people off of the idea irrespective of its merits. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this template if we were discussing how to leverage its merits and remediate its deficits prior to pushing it out, rather than arguing over it in a TfD.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
              • "I'd feel a lot more comfortable with this template if...". Me too. I made a point of inviting comments as soon as I completed the template, and have already undertaken in to include several requested changes (in some cases, I will have to ask for a assistance from a more experienced template coder). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
            • Wrong documentation is not clear documentation; the one sentence instruction failed to mention that after you've added the user script, you need to manually add it to your data formats. I've got it working now, on Wikipedia at least. But I've clicked all over the Amateur Entomologists' Society website and haven't encountered a single species microformat. Why is that? Hesperian 13:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
              • Is there any chance I might get an answer to this question? Hesperian 03:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
                • Apologies; I missed your question in the flurry of editing, last week. The AES announced their use of the microformat, giving the URL I cited as evidence. There is indeed a species microformat at that address. As to why you didn't see that, I cannot say. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • Thanks, it's working now. I'm not sure why it periodically fails; today I couldn't see any taxobox Microformats for a while. Hesperian 11:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Removal of the vernacular parameter would make the instances of this template lighter and more acceptable, but personally, I would still have to be convinced of the benefits of this template. What exactly are those benefits? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 08:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I believe I answered that in my first post in this section, alongside my "strong keep" comment. Is there any point which you feel requires clarification? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Your answer, as I understand it, was "It emits a microformat." What benefits does this have? The only one I can think of (provides links to more information about the named species in a microformat-aware browser) duplicates the function of the wikilink; we already link to the article of the species. I believe it's a guideline to prefer internal links to information; external links on a topic (such as a species) should be confined to the page about that species -- and that's why microformats have been built into {{taxobox}}. So that is what I would like to see: concrete benefits of the emitted microformat. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
          • I've dumped a quick explanation at Microformats/Species. If you bear with me, I'll polish and re-factor it over the next day or two. No additional information is added to a page when the template is used; all that happens is that the existing information is identified as being about a living thing. No new internal or external links are added to the article. As I've said before, Wikipedia already makes widespread use of microformats whcih do these things for other types of data. My answer also referred to the inclusion of an appropriate language tag, when ready. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like all templates created for microformat purposes only, this template unnecessarily obfuscates article wikitext and makes editing Wikipedia more difficult with no benefit to most readers. Keeping articles editable for anyone is more important than semantic markup experiments. A project utilising Semantic MediaWiki or similar would be more appropriate for this than Wikipedia. --Para (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
    • There is now widespread consensus for emitting microformats on Wikipedia, both here and on other-language variants, with literally hundreds of thousands of examples, and including the use of inline templates. This is not a "markup experiment". As I have already identified above, a whole range of in-line templates have not prevented Wikipedia from being edited. If you wish to pursue a case against the use of microformats per se, then please do so in the appropriate forum, but don't try to have useful tools destroyed to prevent microformats from being used in specific circumstances. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
      • When microformats are used on Wikipedia, they are only as a side effect of templates created for other purposes, such as consolidating layout and structure. This template isn't one of them, and there are no wide spread templates used in article space that exist for the sole purpose of emitting microformats. --Para (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Perhaps that's because you've deleted, marked-as-deprecated, or reused them? And you're wrong, because the widely-used {{Start date}} and {{End date}} exist for that very purpose. It so happens that in a large number of "low hanging fruit" cases, adding microformats to existing templates has been the easy, sensible "quick win" way to do. That doesn't mean that doing so is the only, or only acceptable, way to do so. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
          • The stated purpose of {{Start date}} is to "return a date, or date-time... which degrades gracefully when CSS is not available." Hesperian 23:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
            • You over-abbreviate your quote. It is "These templates ... return a date, or date-time, duplicated in a hidden ISO date format, which degrades gracefully when CSS is not available." And the only reason for having the ISO date is that that is used by microformats. Please read past that first paragraph, for more on the subject. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
              • I am aware that microformats are mentioned further down the page. The fact remains that the {{Start date}} documentation presents the template as primarily serving some other purpose; viz, to return a date or date-time that degrades gracefully when CSS is not available; microformat support is presented as an added bonus. If this is not the case, if microformats are the raison d'etre of the template, then the documentation is rather dreadfully written, wouldn't you say? I wonder why you wrote the documentation that way, Andy? Hesperian 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
                • You're still miss-reading, It presents "a hidden ISO date which degrades gracefully"; for no other purpose than to allow dates in microformats. Why else would it do that? And no, I don't think I wrote the documentation dreadfully (but some might consider that an attempt at a slur). Of course, this being a wiki, you're welcome to improve it if you disagree. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • Oh ho, you've omitted a critical comma, you tricky thing. I think we had better get the full quote out on the table: "These templates ({{Start date}} and {{End date}}) return a date, or date-time, duplicated in a hidden ISO date format, which degrades gracefully when CSS is not available."
                  I assert that this sentence unambiguously states that the primary purpose of these templates is to present a date or date-time that degrades gracefully when CSS is not available. I assert that this sentence makes no mention of microformats. I assert that if the primary purpose of these templates is, as you now claim, to provide a microformat, then the documentation is dreadfully written. I suspect that the dreadfully written documentation has obfuscated the true purpose of the template, thereby playing an important part in its adoption/acceptance, and that Para's point is therefore not refuted. Hesperian 00:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
                  • Assert away; you're wrong. The hidden ISO date "degrades gracefully when CSS is not available"; the date in plain view does bot "degrade" at all, because it is not styled. Do we really need to debate this, and does it help other editors' understanding of the issues relating to {{Biota}}? I created {{Start date}}'; I think I know better than you what it is for. Or do you doubt my good faith in saying so? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • Why not change the documentation to say "These templates ({{Start date}} and {{End date}})) return a date, or date-time, duplicated in a hidden ISO date format. The hidden date degrades gracefully when CSS is not available." Then we can move on.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
                    • Will do; and will mention the microformat also. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Holding cell (edit) If process guidelines are met, move templates to the appropriate subsection here to prepare to delete. Before deleting a template, ensure that it is not in use on any pages (other than talk pages where eliminating the link would change the meaning of a prior discussion), by checking Special:Whatlinkshere for '(transclusion)'.

[edit] Closing discussions

Closing procedures:
Closing in progress:
  • None Currently

[edit] To convert

Templates for which the consensus is that they ought to be converted to categories, lists or portals get put here until the conversion is completed. Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.
  • None currently

[edit] To Substitute

Templates for which the consensus is that all instances should be substituted (i.e. the template should be merged with the article) get put here until the substitutions are completed, then the template is deleted from template space. Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

[edit] To orphan

These templates are to be deleted, but may still be in use on some pages. Somebody (it doesn't need to be an administrator, anyone can do it) should fix and/or remove significant usages from pages so that they can be deleted. Note that simple references to them from Talk: pages need not (and in fact should not) be removed. Add on bottom and remove from top of list (oldest is on top). GargoyleBot is a replacement for ^demonBot2, and is available for many large-scale orphaning or replacement projects. Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

[edit] Ready for deletion

Templates for which consensus to delete has been reached and have been orphaned can be listed here for an administrator to delete. Remove from this list when link indicates the page no longer exists. If these are to be candidates for speedy deletion, please give a specific reason. Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.
  • None currently

[edit] Archive and Indices