Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 January 30

< January 29	January 31 >

January 30

Template:Infobox Scotland (European Parliament constituency)

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted G7 by User:MZMcBride. Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Template:European Parliament constituency infobox. Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 19:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There has been some discussion at User talk:Anameofmyveryown/Archive 4 about this and the equivalent templates for all other Euroconstituencies. The templates seem to complicate matters for all editors, by removing information from the constituency article into a template - which editors won't have on their watchlist, and will find more difficult to edit. I know the editor who created these templates has put a large amount of work into them, but I don't think they are beneficial. PamD (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Subst and deleteHappy‑melon 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC). The quantity of code removed from the article by this template is not sufficient to put off editors, and this is not a combination of parameters which is used regularly, which are the only real justifications for template nesting. Happy‑melon 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the editor responsible for the creation of this template and the ~100's of other templates like it (I hold the bizarre distinction of having created ~90% of all the Euroconstituency articles). Damn, this couldn't have happened at a worse time...real-life events constrain my on-wiki time so apologies if this comment is stream-of-consciousness, as I don't have time to edit it properly. There are good reasons for deleting those templates. There are also bad reasons for deleting them, good reasons for keeping them, and bad reasons for keeping them. They can be presented as follows:

Good reasons for deleting them:

"Templates-of-templates" are routinely TfD'd: a quick search reveals that Infobox:Russia and Infobox:Portugese ethnicity suffered a similar fate.

Bad reasons for deleting them:

Makes watchlists more complex (creation/deletion should not be driven by watchlist complexity - indeed, it should be the other way round),
Makes editing more complex (the templates have a v.d.e on them which makes it easier, not harder, to edit),
they're single-use-templates (no they're not: indeed they were specifically designed to be multiple use and would fit in beautifully with the proposed article series "Electoral procedures in Poland for European elections", "Electoral procedures in Greece for European elections", and so on - see User_talk:Anameofmyveryown/Archive_4#Example_2:_Section_on_the_Polish_constituencies for how this series would develop).
Against Wikipedia:Infobox_templates#Why_dynamic_templates.3F (no it isn't, that styleguide was meant to prevent overspecialized infoboxes - at which it has manifestly failed, BTW - not multiple instantiations of an infobox)

Good reasons for keeping them:

Existence of precedent: the existence of election results templates (see Category:European_election_results_templates) shows that the community is willing to tolerate instantiated, low-usage templates (most of those template have <10 uses, many have <5, and some have only 1): is the community proposing the deletion of all those templates as well on the same grounds, and if not, why not?
The infobox mentioned above as a pre-existing alternative (Template:European Parliament constituency infobox) is problematic, insofar that it presumes that all constituencies can be depicted within the usual member-state boundaries. This presumption is difficult to uphold in the case of Greenland, which was part of Denmark for European elections and is off the eastern coast of Canada, and the French Overseas Territories, which is part of France for European elections and includes the Caribbean, South Pacific and French Antarctica. Depicting those within their usually-held member-state boundaries would require us to travel to a non-Euclidean universe. If proposals to make the whole EU a single constituency for 10% of the seats come to fruition, then we'll have to move to that universe and open a shoe shop.

Bad reasons for keeping them:

I'm trying to get the EP election articles (constituencies, European Parliament groups, European political parties) into a fit state before the 2009 elections. It is a truckful of work: the concepts are poorly understood (one well-meaning editor has just added useful content to Political groups of the European Parliament, and I have to find out a way to gently point out that no, it should have gone in to European political party, since they're not the same thing) and errors abound (en.wikipedia said for many years that there were European Parliament elections in Austria and Finland in 1995. Which would be nice if it were true. But it wasn't: they were in 1996. I mean, how often does wikipedia get the year of an election wrong? It was in the papers and everything). You will forgive my frustration at being asked to go over work that has been finished and redo it, whilst neglecting work that badly needs to be done. And since there are hundreds of those templates, it will take me days. (Think I'm joking? See Category:European_Parliament_constituency_infoboxes).

So there you have it: good reasons, bad reasons. If you decide to delete them (and a vote to delete one would imply deleting them all), then please move them into a sandbox in my userspace first (dont create 200 sandboxes!), since losing the information would be the very definition of vandalism. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly would not want to either disparage or obstruct any efforts to improve what is a very weak area of Wikipedia, and rest assured we do do our best to clear up any mess we make here. I am still going to argue that this template, and indeed all the others that are single-use, be substituted and deleted, but I would not oppose the recreation of any of the deleted templates if they would have a legitimate use on more than one article. If you want I can compile for you a complete list of the templates, with their code and pages they are currently transcluded onto. Happy‑melon 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I realise that arguing for the preservation of the templates is a lost cause: my concern now devolves to reducing the amount of work required to replace the call to template x (which calls template z) in article y with a call to template z in article y (I think this is the procedure you refer to above as "subst-and-delete"). If there is some kind of bot that can do this automatically, then all well and good. If not, then the complete list of the templates with their code you mention above will suffice: the templates-of-a-template can then be replaced manually in the articles in the normal fashion (although this is the slower process), and the templates-of-a-template can then be speedy deleted using db-author. I think I'm right in saying that everybody would be satisfied with this. Comments? Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to relevant articles and delete - I was willing to wait a while but as the issue has been brought here, I think they should be deleted for the same reasons I outlined at User talk:Anameofmyveryown/Archive 4. Green Giant (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they've all been moved to the respective articles (except for Scotland, ironically, which had already been moved). About 50 have been deleted via db-author, and User:MZMcBride has kindly volunteered to delete the rest en-masse, then delete the category. You can keep a watch via Category:European_Parliament_constituency_infoboxes: when they're gone, you can archive this discussion. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Toulouse infobox

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of deleted material. Non admin closure. Happy‑melon 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single-use superseded infobox that has been listed for deletion earlier. Toulouse uses {{French commune}}. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one file links to it and it can be replaced by the generic French commune template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#T3 - yay my first T3 nom!! Perversely, the template is not eligible for speedy deletion until after this TfD closes... but it's the thought that counts! Happy‑melon 22:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:DisambigProject

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

The result of the debate was keep. нмŵוτн τ 20:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly useless template: disambig pages are extremely easily findable using the disambig categories. — `'Míkka >t 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was previously nominated with an outcome of a pretty resounding keep. --kingboyk (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per previous consensus. I don't think such templates are needed, but deletion would be counterproductive. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Noah¢s (Talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous consensus. WikiProjects are entitled to place templates such as these to simplify their organisation. Happy‑melon 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems the point of this WikiProject tag is to gather participants, rather than to track the pages themselves. A valid and reasonable use for such templates. -- Ned Scott 10:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, the template is indeed utterly useless and spammish when inserted point-blank. At least let's mandate the Disambig Project participants to never insert this template without rating or other useful parameters as well as without an edit summary. Having hundreds of edits like this one pop up in people's watchlists is indeed rather annoying on the verge of disruptive.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor inconvenience, and something that happens when other WikiProjects add their tags as well. A bot could be used that has a botflag, so the edits are easily filtered out. -- Ned Scott 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As useful as any other project tag. Cleanup and other flags used in the article should be merged into the project tag. —Viriditas | Talk 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is not just for finding DAB pages but for encouraging people to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Pages related to almost every project are easy to find. As others have stated, this template is to encourage others to participate. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or neutral I rarely add it to dab pages because of its redundance to {{disambig}}, but it is sometimes useful when projects claim dab pages as theirs in ignorance of MOS:DAB, e.g. once Harry Potter (disambiguation), or popular dab pages that get editted a lot. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous consensus. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The presence of this type of template is very helpful in the process of sorting out talk page redirects when articles are moved around while making way for disambig pages. Gwguffey (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Is it the intention to put this template on every dab talk page? I must confess I don't yet see the point of it. Abtract (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. The idea is to enlist people in Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, whereas they otherwise might not realize it exists. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is obviously going to be kept, but of the various wikiprojects, this one is unlikely to attract casual newbies - who seem drawn to areas of interest rather than wiki-maintenance projects, so the advertising is probably not that effective. But since WP has basically given free rein to wikiprojects to use talk pages, I don't see why this is any different. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but encourage revision: I have not looked at discussion around this template in a long time, so this might be under discussion currently ... a year ago, I would have had the opinion "Delete" on the basis of the template being "utterly useless" as has been the opinion of some here. However, a banner is more than an advertisement; properly developed through parameterization, a banner can significantly further the aims of a WikiProject, particularly through enabling automation of certain things based on the state of a parameter. I would strongly encourage members of the WikiProject to take this under advisement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the prinicipal rationale for this template currently is to recruit participant to this WikiProject. And that's a valid and commendable reason. If the project in its future development finds even more uses for this template, all the better that is. __meco (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Creating, fixing and maintaining disambig pages is largely thankless work and having anyone devoted to these tasks gets my full support. Did this template commit some crime I'm unaware of? Can't hurt, might help = leave it alone. Benji boi 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Vice Presidents Serving The Remanding of the President's Term

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

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, misspelled template; a perfect place for a category. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is template creep. I think a category is justified, but a navbox may be going a little too far with what I consider to be trivia. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not even worthy for a category. Please don't create a category with this name. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no utility as a navigational template for trivial details like this. Happy‑melon 22:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. JPG-GR (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and delete - I think a category might be viable as it would link several notable people. At the same time I want to nominate for deletion a second almost exact-duplicate template by the same author Template:VicePresidentServingTheRemandingofthePresidentsTerm which has the same bad spelling. Green Giant (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Omnidex

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

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Pokemon entries on a fansite, pkmnomnidex.com. This violates WP:RS, and WP:EL. This template is also no longer in use. It's use is supposedly for Pokemon that have their own Wikipedia page, but with the merging of every Pokemon article (except Bulbasaur, Pikachu and perhaps others) into a list, it's use has become obsolete. — Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obsolete and orphaned. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this being planned to be in any articles soon. --AMRDeuce (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it was actually implemented into the Pokemon Lists earlier today by the creator, but I removed it almost straight after on the basis of WP:RS and WP:EL; the template was nominated for deletion some time later by Sesshomaru. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 22:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom; does not appear to link to a specific page on the website, just the main page itself. That also qualifies this as a violation of WP:FANSITE, I believe. MelicansMatkin (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, I believe this site is not in violation with the Wikipedia External Linking policies. Yes, I'm the creater of this template, but I want to make a point. As you can read on WP:RS (What should be linked). I've pasted the relevants part below.

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. "

The content of this webiste is clear: It's a Pokedex. It's content is a Pokedex only. There is a very large amount of data which is certainly not available in the Wikipedia. The way the data is presented, is unique. There are websites with sorting table's, however, this website is able to do it in an very advanced way (i.g. select only fulle evolved Pokemon, sorting on basestats, typing). It's about the Pokemon, so it's relevant. I placed this template (and it's links) not for advertising the Omnidex. I placed it because I thought it was an extension for the Pokemonpages. TheUnknownCylon (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A fansite is a fansite. And you claim to be its "main webmaster". It fails WP:SPS, regardless. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. →Wordbuilder (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Since this template's creation was so recent, I can understand people wanting to delete it, since others haven't had the time to evaluate and assess the site and the usefulness of the links. I'd like people here to continue to discuss that regardless of the outcome of this TfD. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Serebiidex

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

The result of the debate was delete Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 23:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Pokemon entries on a fansite, Serebii.net. This violates WP:RS, and WP:EL. This template is also no longer in use. It was formerly used when each Pokemon had their own Wikipedia page, but with the merging of every Pokemon article (except Pikachu) into a list, it's use has become obsolete. — MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template isn't even used anymore. Thanks for informing me, you have my support. I will watch this discussion til end. (though I won't reply much as I'll be watching DVDs, and only come to Wikipedia once a day.) TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, unwatched it, I forgot that template discussions don't have their own pages. And it's always a pain looking at all those nominations. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all reasons said above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obsolete, orphaned, and tended towards trouble, especially in the days right before D&P came out. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 18:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Horrible violation of WP:EL and possibly WP:SPAM as well. Happy‑melon 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments of my allies above 'buku! -Sukecchi (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see the points of: 1. why this external link is a "horrible violation of WP:EL". Our EL policy definitely accommodates linking to fansites, like in the case of mugglenet.com and The Harry Potter Lexicon, two fan-created sites that are linked in most of HP articles, whose reliability is recognized by J.K.Rowling and hold the recognition of two of the most sufficient and informative HP-dedicated websites. Fan-site, in spite of not often being identified as reliable sources, is well-deserved for an external link as long as it "contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". Taking Serebii.net into consideration, I think it belongs to the same league of "reliable fansite". Serebii.net is constructed not at all as a single forum. It carries the reputation of one of the most prolific sources dedicating to Pokemon information; a long-standing site that is broadly regarded among Pokemon fan community. Searching the site you can see it being updated daily regarding every feature of Pokemon franchise, ranging from Manga news to Game news, all information is credited to Nitendo, meaning that the website has licensed its work properly, so fitting WP:EL criteria. It ranks 1,561th among the most visited website according to Alexa report. Remember EL is not necessary to be a reliable source, taking TV.com and Imdb.com for example. Thus claiming that this site violates WP:EL and WP:RS just because it is a fansite is invalid. 2. The template is orphaned as a result of User:TTN's outrageous redirection campaign and a lack of consensus in Wikiproject:Pokemon. Many of Pokemon articles are being considered for restoration, and redirections are now carefully checked for reasonability. More information could be obtained from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. Cheers. @pple complain 06:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just any fansite, it seems from a quick investigation, but a very popular one that has been around since 1999. Like Apple says above, seems to be well within WP:EL. Even if Pokemon don't have individual pages, this could still be useful. -- Ned Scott 10:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a fair case. Time of existence should not be the reason of keeping something. It's better to look at the content. Since Serebii has a great content, it's ok. But if you allow this link, other sites with a good content should be considered allowed as well.TheUnknownCylon (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"other sites with a good content should be considered allowed as well." How is that a bad thing? Links that pass WP:EL can be added to an article. -- Ned Scott 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nothing bad with that. @pple complain 02:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, Serebii.net still fails WP:SPS MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, don't forget this is an external link. It seems that a lot of users here, including the nominator, severely confuse the two concepts external link and reliable sources used for citation. Every cited source in article must satisfy WP:RS, WP:SPS, etc. An EL, if meets WP:RS, can be used as an citation, but not necessarily strictly considered like citation. WP:EL clearly states that "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations of article sources." Please reread the whole policy about external link, please. @pple complain 02:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? WP:SPS is not about WP:RS or WP:EL. It seems that you're the one who needs to re-read the policies. MelicansMatkin (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not about WP:EL then why did you bring it up? This is a template for a link used in the EL section of articles. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because Serebii.net is a self-published source, and verifiability is also important to consider. MelicansMatkin (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Serebii dex is not renewing or progressive with regard to serious 'pokemon facts'. It is static information. However, it satisfies to the policies as mentioned under 'fansites' and it IS functional. We must be tolerant: by tolerating this link, you tolerate other highly functional 'pokedex sites' as well, such as the unique (and superior) omnidex(http:/pkmnomnidex.com). Equilium (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC) NOTE: This editor has made few or no contributions outside this discussion. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

http:/pkmnomnidex.com can be used as EL, as long as it lies within the scope of WP:EL. @pple complain 02:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:User DGAF2

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

The result of the debate was userfy Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Divisive and antagonistic. Mayalld (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Good granny. Do people ever read the history of these things? The whole DGAF page and all its accoutrments has been nommed for deletion repeatedly; failed repeatedly. It's called humor that has a message. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it's been up for TfD only once before, and it wasn't a lively discussion. Indeed the main argument then was that the discussion should be closed because the nom had been banned by arbcom Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer a !vote, but in all honesty, I DGAF... :D -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userify both per WP:GUS.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I find it personally obscene, but users are entitled to display something like this if they so choose. Happy‑melon 22:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per established precedent. JPG-GR (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hereby grant anyone permission to move the DGAF and DGAF2 templates (both listed here) into my userspace whenever this... exercise... has been terminated. I'm unwatching this, not to be passive/agressive, but because if I had a dime for every time I said I should be doing my work in RL, I could by a VCR. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or userfy -- Ned Scott 10:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:User DGAF

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

The result of the debate was userfy Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as divisive and antagonistic. Mayalld (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep See rationale immediately above. Ling.Nut (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see above Mayalld (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd offer a !vote, but in all honesty, I DGAF... :D -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userify both per WP:GUS. This is one of the many userboxes which tells me something about the user that I want to know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I find it personally obscene, but users are entitled to display something like this if they so choose. Happy‑melon 22:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per established precedent. JPG-GR (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hereby grant anyone permission to move the DGAF and DGAF2 templates (both listed here) into my userspace whenever this... exercise... has been terminated. I'm unwatching this, not to be passive/agressive, but because if I had a dime for every time I said I should be doing my work in RL, I could by a VCR. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 01:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and/or userfy -- Ned Scott 10:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - much better userboxes have been kicked out of template namespace. I thought about saying "delete" since after all the people displaying it really don't ...... but since someone here volunteered to host it he can have it. Wnt (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BIRTH-DEATH-SORT

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

The result of the debate was to keep. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that this template makes no difference function from {{lifetime}}. Many users expressed their concern for this template since it tries to substitute DEFAULTSORT in many cases. We have to decide soon because some people are using it a lot by replacing birth/death categories ds template with this one. I counted more than 2,500 articles using it. The nomination is not complete since the template is locked. (I requested editprotected some hours ago though). — Magioladitis (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this appears to be an excellent template, as opposed to the quirky and incredibly old-fashioned {{lifetime}}, which uses {{Ifndef}}, of all things (now there's something I haven't seen for a while :D). I can see no means by which the current template code can possibly substitute {{DEFAULTSORT}}, and there are no particular side effects of trying to do so anyway - it still works just as it's supposed to. All in all, a very nice template. Happy‑melon 22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you of the opinion that we have to delete {{lifetime}} instead or keep both? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deprecating {{lifetime}} to this template, but can't see any particular reason to insist on the immediate conversion from one to another. Happy‑melon 14:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both templates are expanding fast. Why not act now that it's easier to correct things? I see no reason to keep two templates for doing the same thing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excellent template. Deprecate the older, quirkier {{lifetime}}.-- Barliner talk 11:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks a good idea. The latter has about 500 articles using it. Should I add a tag there then? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would add the tag there and keep BIRTH-DEATH-SORT as is -- Barliner talk 12:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:GR

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 01:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates from 2004. Contains only a link to Wikipedia:Geographic references and is intended for use in articles. Contravenes Wikipedia:Avoid_self_references#In_the_Template_and_Category_namespaces. Is also causing many articles to contravene that guideline. kingboyk (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, with the caveat that the references must be suitably replaced. Presumably it would be straightforward (but perhaps not necessarily easy) for someone more technically minded than me to write a bot that could replace all of the GRs with the correct external references. Soobrickay (talk) 15:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for now. This is used throughout US place articles, and deleting it would render geography and demographics sections unreferenced in virtually all US municipality articles. It would be good to get a bot to go through this and replace them (it's not the most precise, aside from the self-reference thing), but it's essential for the time being. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Alternate solution: since each version of the template links to a separate section of the page, we could just alter the template so that it contained a reference link. For example, GR1 links to a section reading "The United States Census Bureau's 2000 Census gazetteer. This was the primary source for the latitude and longitude values for about 23,500 U.S. cities. The data are indexed by state, county, and place FIPS codes." that is referenced by http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/gazette.html Since the entire statement is referenced by the single link, just convert the template to display that link in the references section. I would do it (I'm an administrator), but I don't know how. Let's just leave it until we get an administrator with more technical ability. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Obviously a bot would have to be sent out to remove the template calls. That ought to go without saying, as I wouldn't be advocating leaving lots of red links behind. So, there's no reason at all why a bot couldn't replace the template call with something else at the same time if need be. It's easily arranged. Another option is indeed to alter the template as you suggest. What I can't accept is saying "we'll keep this despite it being broken because it will take some work to fix" :) Let's decide here whether to alter the template, or to send out a bot to migrate to something else and then delete it. I'll let you folks who know more about the issue debate which is best. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem is that your nomination only offers deletion as a "solution" to the issues you've raised. I would suggest coming up with a proposed means to deal with the issues you've raised, including the construction of the required bot, which would allow participants to make a meaningful choice as to how it should be addressed. As the nomination is worded, a successful delete would leave nothing behind as a source. Alansohn (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't write US articles; I don't know what solution you would want. You tell me. Can't the template just add the direct reference to the source? If not, it's not a case of "constructing" a bot; the technology is already there (e.g. WP:AWB) and bot runs easily solicited (WP:Bot requests). Oh I know: let's all just vote keep instead. I don't know why I bother sometimes. --kingboyk (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        All in all, these templates are essential enough and easy enough to convert to non-self-references that we shouldn't delete them. I understand that it's a problem that they are self-references, so I agree that they should be changed — and I believe my suggestion is the best. As you say, we won't need a bot, since the problem can easily be fixed by modifying the template itself. Nyttend (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would totally accept Nyttend's solution though, or similar.Zab (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would also support the alternate solution presented by Nyttend. -Jahnx (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improve the template so that it addresses the issue. Even the TfD nomination is causing disruption as it appears on virtually every article for every place in the United States. Nor is "Dates from 2004" a reason for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you stopped reading there did you? It dates from 2004 when they didn't much care about these things. Nowadays we are very careful not to self reference. Why should this self reference be kept? Anybody?

I'm not responsible for the design of the TfD template nor the notion that these deletion debates should be widely advertised, but if it's causing a problem I would suggest we just put the TfD inside a noinclude tag. --kingboyk (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would also support fixing the template or the alternate solution presented by Nyttend. PreciousRoi (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reword. It is untenable for this template to include a link to the project space on every article it is transcluded into. But there is no reason why it can't be easily altered to a reference template. If someone who knows what the sources are supposed to be can write me a full {{cite}} template for each of the six options, I will code the new template. Happy‑melon 22:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cure is worse than the disease. Treat the sickness, without killing the patient. Dhaluza (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have the technology, we can rebuild it, we can make it better, more accurate, more pleasing... DodgerOfZion (talk)
Can someone familiar with these sources double check that these are correct citations for the relevant numbers? Happy‑melon 11:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is correct for GR1, GR2, GR3, GR5, and GR6. GR4 is different — however, the page to which GR4 links has been superseded by the GNIS page linked on point 4 of the sandbox, so there's every reason to change the link as it is in the sandbox. Now all we'll need to do is to send a bot through all these place articles, adding a references section everywhere there isn't already one. Nyttend (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any real reason to delete it. It's rather useful. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's better to modify the template for a better use than to have a bot run and make the servers cry to change every article using it, several tenthousands of articles I guess. --Matthiasb-DE (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Used by many articles. It will be a nightmare to rectify. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 19:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, use a bot to add a References section to every U.S. geographical article (if none exists), and turn the template into a <ref> tag containing the full citation. Deleting this template would lead to the removal of countless verifiable facts. (I see this often: someone accidentally or maliciously removes the {{GR}} tag, and someone else comes along and tags it {{cite needed}} or removes the fact right away.) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it possible to add a banner at the top of the pages where this is used saying it is up for deletion (unless it is used everywhere) because it is kinda annoying having those "The template GR is being considered for deletion" tags some 8 and 9 times on one page. - Flatsky (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix: While it may be desirable to improve the coding, right now anyone can 1) make a copy of WP:Geographic references to Template:Geographic references and anyone with admin privileges can 2) remove "Wikipedia:" from Template:GR. Unless I missed something that should work the same way without the self-reference (note that the template would simply be linked and used like a page in article namespace for the moment), and we can get the tags off all the city pages. Later, someone can tinker with the new Template:Geographic references, putting the WP: text in noinclude tags and putting new code between includeonly tags that is meant to create proper formatted references on the target pages; then change Template:GR to include from the template rather than just linking it. I don't think there is any need for a special bot to create references sections only for this set of pages - if you want one, set it to put a reflist on every page that has reference tags, regardless of provenance. Wnt (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing about using the bot is that there are thousands of pages that have no references section but have this template. We need a references header if we have a reflist, and (as far as I know) the software that Wikipedia uses wouldn't be able to put a references header in simply because of the presence of <ref></ref> tags. Anyway, it's helpful to have the references header and reflist, since this way we won't have to put it in when other referenced statements are added. Nyttend (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's very useful, I use it quite frequently and deleting it would tear a large hole in many articles.

Vala M (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's not mess with all the U.S. place articles that use the template. Sf46 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but with Nyttend's fix. The guideline advises to avoid self-references. It does not command us to destroy self-references wherever found without regard for how many articles could be affected or how obstructive such a change would be. This guideline further advises us to use common sense and to allow for the occasional exception. Fortunately, though, Nyttend's fix would both conform to the guideline and be minimal in its effect upon articles. It really is the ideal solution. -- JeffBillman (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Nyttend (talk) and Dhaluza (talk). GreenGourd (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per JeffBillman; Nyttend's solution, definitely seems like the best solution. Without that solution, I would be a strong keep, as the prevention of such an innocuous self-reference would be far worse than the "cure". — OwenBlacker (Talk) 21:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:24 season 5 episodes

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

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles in this template were deleted or merged.. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wholy agree and wikipedia in not an indiscriminate colection of information. The template belongs on 24 wikia--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What's the point? _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well this is quite obvious. I don't see a single reason to keep the template. '''Tylerrrr''' (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:24 season 6 episodes

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

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 20:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in it was redirected already. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wholy agree and wikipedia in not an indiscriminate colection of information. The template belongs on 24 wikia--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 21:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:BSAEagleBadges

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

The result of the debate was delete. нмŵוτн τ 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; original use replaced by an image. — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 04:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JPG-GR (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy‑melon 12:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SkierRMH (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:UAV

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

The result of the debate was keep Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template is rarely used, and Template:Infobox Aircraft does the same thing much better. — Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually as far as I can tell, neither {{infobox Aircraft}} nor {{Aircraft specification}} can be easily implemented as alternatives to this template. Happy‑melon 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphan and Delete - all the significant data is covered in {{Infobox Aircraft}} and {{Aerospecs}}. There's nothing that sets UAVs and drones apart from other aircraft that requires us to fork the way that we cover them. --Rlandmann (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too rarely used. It may be redundant with Infobox Aircraft, but it will be bothersome to make changes. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - There are dozens of pages using the template and it's a large, intricate effort producing a visually appealing result. How the heck did it end up here? If you really think Infobox Aircraft works better than change all the target pages to use it, orphan the template, then come back... Wnt (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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