Closing instructions

Contents 1 How to use this page 1.1 What not to propose for discussion here 1.2 Reasons to delete a template 1.3 Listing a template 2 Discussion 3 Current discussions 3.1 November 8 3.2 November 7 3.2.1 Template:ESCA 3.2.2 Template:DBpedia Class 3.2.3 Template:DBpedia Template 3.2.4 Template:AMA Superbike champions 3.2.5 Template:ATX 3.2.6 Template:Asakaze class destoyer 3.2.7 Template:Asian British residence map 3.2.8 Template:Wiki-uc 3.2.9 Template:Vasilievsky Island Labelled Map 3.2.10 Template:En connect 3.2.11 Template:Municipalities of Andaman and Nicobar Islands 3.2.12 Template:Municipalities of Chandigarh 3.2.13 Template:Municipalities of Dadra and Nagar Haveli 3.2.14 Template:Municipalities of Lakshadweep 3.2.15 Template:Municipalities of Puducherry 3.2.16 Template:NA 3.3 November 6 3.3.1 Template:Badminton in Europe (category) 3.3.2 Template:Associated namespace 3.3.3 Template:AutoSubpageHeader 3.3.4 Template:AngleBracket 3.3.5 Template:Outdent 3.3.6 Template:OtherusesAlias 3.3.7 Template:Suppression 3.3.8 Template:St Kilda FC 1997 MPT 3.3.9 Template:Military ranks by country 3.3.10 Template:Diamonds squad 3.3.11 Template:Infobox Ballet Dancer 3.3.12 Idw 3.4 November 5 3.4.1 Template:Chess position 3.4.2 Template:Printable 3.4.3 Template:ScrollbarTOC 3.4.4 Template:Inline need translation 3.4.5 Template:Filipino food 3.4.6 Template:R.E.M. singles 3.4.7 World Series championship roster templates 3.4.8 Template:Hasidic dynasty characteristics 3.4.9 Template:Human body diagrams 3.5 November 4 3.5.1 Template:Spectrobes 3.5.2 Template:Eutechnyx games 3.5.3 Template:Infobox Province Thailand 3.5.4 Template:Dead Rising 3.6 November 3 3.6.1 Template:Diana Vickers 3.6.2 Template:ROI 3.6.3 Template:Infobox AMA Superbike rider 3.7 November 2 3.7.1 Template:Attraction Marketing 3.7.2 Template:Infobox City Russia 3.7.3 Template:Infobox Spanish city 3.7.4 September, 2008 template family 3.7.5 Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni 3.7.6 Template:Aquadeias 3.7.7 Template:Bloom County 3.7.8 Template:Archer class fast patrol boat 3.7.9 Template:Airport Express colour 3.7.10 Template:3TeamRR 3.7.11 Template:Atsinanana Region 3.7.12 Template:African COTW nom 3.7.13 Template:1ColPollTable 3.7.14 Template:Afro Samurai 3.8 November 1 3.8.1 Template:Junction 3.8.2 Template:Laura White 3.8.3 Template:Radiochange 3.8.4 Template:Sockpuppeteerproven 4 Old discussions 4.1 October 31 4.1.1 Template:Spanish comarca 4.1.2 Template:Lien web 4.1.3 Template:Main page banner 4.1.4 Template:Geobox River 4.1.5 Template:Locate me 4.1.6 Template:Taxobox regnum entry 4.1.7 Template:Arizona delegation to the 110th Congress 4.1.8 Template:1984 NL Standings 4.1.9 Template:2007 NL Wild Card standings 4.1.10 Template:Egyptian Second Division 4.1.11 Template:Brewer 4.1.12 Template:OriginalHornets 4.2 October 30 4.2.1 Template:Container-cat 4.2.2 Template:UK Docks 4.2.3 Template:Preacher 4.2.4 Template:Pasig City 5 Completed discussions 5.1 Closing discussions 5.2 To review 5.3 To convert 5.4 To Substitute 5.5 To orphan 5.6 Ready for deletion 6 Archive and Indices

[edit] Current discussions

[edit] November 8

[edit] November 7

[edit] Template:ESCA

Template:ESCA (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

No consensus to use this template on any talk pages. This is an attempt by one editor to include an essay (i.e. failed policy proposal) and has already been used by its creator to facilitate edit warring. Tim Shuba (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete template's soul purpose is to promote a single user's personal essay and push it as a guideline that must be followed. Not a valid nor appropriate use for a template at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Inappropriately used template to push a personal essay. As much as I hate this essay, it's the only (ironically only an essay) way I can describe this...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – the essay can be mentioned on the relevant talk pages without this odd, ugly, and important-looking tag on top. Dicklyon (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - inappropriate promotion of an essay that is controversial and has no consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no need to privilege one editor's (or one small group of editors') opinions on how to edit particular articles with a top-of-talk-page hatnote. If an editor wishes to share his essay with the community, there are accepted and appropriate ways to do so. A brief announcement at the Village Pump or mentions on the relevant article talk pages – as normal comments – are suitable methods. This isn't. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per my input in the AN/I discussion here. Also to say that there is "no consensus" on the respecitve talk pages is nonsensical, as the editors have not had a chance to say what they think. I've only added it to a few pages an hour or so ago and it has already been removed.

• I also request that this TFD remaiins open for a week at least as the editors who could be in favor of keeping are busy scientist who do not edit Wikipedia very frequently. Everyone involved must have their say here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Request noted – It is standard practice to keep a TFD open for at least a week. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete An essay is followed because people think the advice makes sense. This template gives the impression that it carries some sort of authority. I also think that notes to other editors should be on the talk page, not the article itself. Chillum 19:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  The template says that following the advice of the essay is "requested" not "required". I only added it to those articles where ignoring what the essay says would likely cause trouble. The regulars on the policy pages are unfortunately only concerned with what is good for the politics pages, not the technical science pages, so there is zero chance of this ever becomingofficial policy. The next best thing to do would be t start to make local polcies based on local consensus. But it seems that even that will be overruled by uninvolved editors on the grounds of blasphemy :( Count Iblis (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Ugly and scary. Looks like it was partly written by a contributor who was very recently banned from editing science articles. DVdm (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Looks like it was partly written by a contributor who was very recently banned from editing science articles". Not true at all! And sticking to the suggestions would have led to more fruitful discussion on the speed of light page. Count Iblis (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. When this template was first used, it used the term "guideline". It now uses the term "essay" which is acceptable, although I do not think this template should be used on many pages. I support also the Count's suggestion that this TfD be left open for the full time period to allow as many users as possible to participate. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Serves only to push one editor's point of view on how these articles should be edited. The long list of opposition to a proposal on the talk page of the essay to make it into a stronger requirement should serve as an indication of how the rest of the editors in these areas feel about it, and the proponent's history of backing cranks is also worrisome. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I have never backed any cranks on Wikipedia. Perhaps you mean by "backing" simply that I opposed a topic ban on all physics pages for an engineering professor with whom I did strongly disagreed on the relevant physics point. So, I never backed any crancs as far as physics is concerned. Count Iblis (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Gives the incorrect impression that the essay's recommendations have the force of policy on the talk pages to which the template is applied. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It seems to present a misleading position of authority. TNXMan 21:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I can see no valid or acceptable use for this template. The essay has little support and should not be spammed at the top of any talk pages. Quale (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Per dozens of reasons: promotion of essays, inappropriate and just awkward language ("are requested to observe the suggestions" - hugh), etc. (too much already said above). Materialscientist (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It is unhelpful to post an ugly box on many talk pages, particularly when the box is an attempt to avoid the fundamental procedures of Wikipedia, and to promote a point of view that does not have consensus. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The Nay-sayers here are shooting in their own feet. If the template were not rejected in the knee jerk way as it looks like it has been, other editors could have some constructive input too. E.g., Dicklyon did make a modification to it. But if this is rejected, then by local consensus, a different text for some article could be agreed to and added directly (instead of via a template). If you are not editing that article, you wouldn't have any influence over the text at all. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:DBpedia Class

Template:DBpedia Class (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template, unedited for months. TNXMan 16:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - only use appears to be related to the DBpedia templates below, and it is only used in two of those templates, but not anywhere else. Wikipedia is not the place programming should be taking place to make it easier for folks to scrape data, that's their job as consumers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:DBpedia Template

Template:DBpedia Template (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:DBpedia Attribute (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:DBpedia Property (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Inappropriate template created by DBpedia itself to spam Wikipedia with its tools for "extracting data from Wikipedia" and spamming itself throughout the encyclopedia. Also including in this nom the docs and related templates. If DBPedia wants to "extract" data, they can do it the same way any other mirror site does, by downloading and running filters on the data dumps, not by spamming their stuff here to make their programming easier. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete:: We don't tag our GDFL information for where it is used. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: It appears that this may have been discussed at a very high level with the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think we can come to an informed decision before the discussion at ANI has been given some time. Hans Adler 16:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not. From the ANI discussion, it was talked about with one or two people related to the German Wikipedia, and not by permission of the Foundation. Wikipedia's community should be the one to decide if this is appropriate, not informal email discussions primarily between DBpedia's contributers. Indeed, from their own links, they were also requested to stop similar behavior at Meta[1] and the only permission they were given was for the onthology pages at Meta, not for spamming any Wikipedia pages with these templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AMA Superbike champions

Template:AMA Superbike champions (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused navigation for AMA Superbike champions. Articles for superbike champions are currently using succession boxes instead. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ATX

Template:ATX (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old, orphan template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Asakaze class destoyer

Template:Asakaze class destoyer (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old orphan template with many red links. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Asian British residence map

Template:Asian British residence map (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wiki-uc

Template:Wiki-uc (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Unused and a copy of {{wikify}}. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vasilievsky Island Labelled Map

Template:Vasilievsky Island Labelled Map (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Unused. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:En connect

Template:En connect (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Abandoned, unused template -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Municipalities of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

Template:Municipalities of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Municipalities of Chandigarh

Template:Municipalities of Chandigarh (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Municipalities of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Template:Municipalities of Dadra and Nagar Haveli (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Municipalities of Lakshadweep

Template:Municipalities of Lakshadweep (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Municipalities of Puducherry

Template:Municipalities of Puducherry (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Abandoned and no content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NA

Template:NA (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

• Delete. Not really a template and has been abandoned. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 6

[edit] Template:Badminton in Europe (category)

Template:Badminton in Europe (category) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Associated namespace

Template:Associated namespace (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AutoSubpageHeader

[edit] Template:AngleBracket

Template:AngleBracket (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Outdent

Template:Outdent (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This is the most intrusive template imaginable, and it performs a function that ought to be done subtly (if at all, which I personally doubt). ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 13:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as simply disliking something is insufficient grounds for deletion. --ElKevbo (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an effective idea that commmunicates the point well, better than its textual equivalent. However, it doesn't have to be blue. Suggest making it the same colour as text to reduce intrusiveness. PL290 (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per ElKevbo. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I think it's one of the most effective ways of keeping a discussion flowing that I've seen, and I too think it works better than the undent template. GedUK  14:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  What would be wrong with a small note similar to that in {{ec}} then? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 15:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• If the styling annoys you then surely the best solution would be to come up with alternative forms of styling? I actually think this is pretty elegant; I believe that there's an eventual plan to make things like this obsolete (LiquidThreads?) but for now it serves its purpose well enough. Happy to discuss changing the output to be less intrusive if there's consensus to do that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  If outdents need to be explicitly labelled and identified (and I'm not clear why they do), then how about something like: (outdent) (and yes, I know that that already exists in the form of the undent-template, and I don't see what's wrong with it. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  That's a very valid question. However, it belongs in a talk page discussion, not on TfD. FWIW {{ud}} seems to have been repurposed without actually fixing any of the transclusions (it used to be a Nissan Motors navbox), so that should be undone and existing uses of it as an unindent marker should be modified to point to this template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  As an update, I've now undone the repurposing of {{ud}} (there were still plenty of mainspace articles using it in its old form, while only a handful of pages used it for outdenting). If you want to argue that this template should look like that one did then be my guest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep An excellent way to make long discussions easy to follow. Crum375 (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There are better -- and much more complex -- ways of doing this, but this is much better than no mark at all. (I'd prefer that six or eight tabs were collapsed to a vertical bar (recursively) but most people seem to find those hard to follow; it does allow the eye to scan down past a conversation and find the next more accurately.) htom (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - And suggest early (SNOW?) close of this tfd as the notice of this discussion is appearing on many discussions and is somewhat distracting. The template is useful and elegant. --StaniStani  16:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as ElKevbo says, not liking something isn't a reason to delete it. If it's thought to be to attention-gathering and intrusive (I personally have no issues with it), changes can be discussed. In any event, there appears to be enough support for keeping this that a snow close might be useful. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Makes outdenting in discussions much easier to follow than any other methods; much more obvious which statement is being replied to. I don't find it obtrusive at all. I also think it's a rather ingenious use of special characters, on an unrelated note. Equazcion (talk) 18:58, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I took PL290's suggestion above and styled it black rather than the blue link color it had, which might help make it less obtrusive. Equazcion (talk) 19:04, 6 Nov 2009 (UTC)
• Comment For those who find this intrusive, why not use the alternative Template:Undent? BlazerKnight (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Why are two templates needed for this? Templates should not be forked for mere aesthetics. That template (which was just recreated) should be redirected here again until this is properly discussed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  If we were talking about a maintenance tag I'd agree, but these templates are visual aids to be used within discussions. Aesthetics are a concern, because the wrong kind of visual could go unnoticed or disrupt the flow of discussion. As it stands, which one of these best accomplishes the goal is a matter of preference. I think each one has its uses, depending on the situation. Equazcion (talk) 09:17, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, but why is a template needed for the second one? The vast majority of instances of this kind of outdenting are manually typed - even with the existence of a template for it there were only a handful of transclusions in two years. ([[WP:INDENT|outdent]]) is pretty trivial to have a template for, no? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  As I said it's a matter of preference. Whether or not a template is needed is something we probably won't be able to settle in a discussion. My opinion is that depending on the situation a visual aid can be of help (as I think that's the main purpose, rather than merely to provide a link to WP:INDENT). Equazcion (talk) 09:47, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm being dense here. You're saying one of the templates could just as easily be typed out manually? Which one? Equazcion (talk) 09:53, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  I'm saying that in practice, editors who use the "discrete" style almost all do it by simply typing out "(undent)" rather than using the {{undent}} template (which adds a fairly pointless link at the expense of being two characters longer). In the two years that {{undent}} existed, it had less than ten transclusions. This suggests that there is no need for it to recreated as a template, as it has little value over simply typing out the text and it appears that basically nobody used it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  That seems like a fair point, I'm just not sure it has anything to do with this particular deletion discussion. Equazcion (talk) 11:24, 7 Nov 2009 (UTC)

  Well, it shows that as people seem to have no problem typing out "(undent)" themselves all the time, and yet there was a template for that function which nobody used, it indicates that there is generally widespread approval for the formatting of this one. But yeah, mostly off-topic: I would just rather we had only one template for this purpose, rather than having people forking it because they don't like the styling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Great for long discussions with newer editors. The self-explanatory, minimalistic 'graphic' that links to Wikipedia:Indentation#Outdenting is just ideal. Congrats to whoever created it. CWC 18:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Very useful for keeping track of a discussion. Parrot of Doom 18:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OtherusesAlias

Template:OtherusesAlias (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This hatnote doesn't do what other hatnotes do - it basically says that "there is an entirely unrelated subject which doesn't share a title with this article, but it could theoretically share a title with this article". We don't need a hatnote for such situations per WP:NAMB, because there is no ambiguity related to the page the user is actually on. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Suppression

Template:Suppression (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Consists of "Empty Transferred to another page". Used on a talk page in 2004 and created by an IP in 2005. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:St Kilda FC 1997 MPT

Template:St Kilda FC 1997 MPT (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Overtemplatisation. 1. It's actually just a Minor Premiership squad, not a team - it's a listing of all players who played at least one game in the 1997 season for St Kilda. 2. Minor Premierships are not considered that important in Australian Football - it's the league leader before the playoffs - the team that wins the Grand Final (and this one didn't win that) is the season champion and is the one that people remember. 3. It's one of many new templates created by this user, and despite discussions here and here, he has persisted with implementing these navboxes against the general consensus.The-Pope (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, Template isn't needed and is not useful to the reader. You won't see a player cite a minor premiership as a career highlight nor is it likely to be listed in a biography as one of their achievements. In the AFL it's premierships (season champion) that matter, not minor premierships. Jevansen (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete; unnecessary template. Does not assist readers to navigate through related articles - it's unlikely they'll be interested in other players in that minor premiership, because no one cares about minor premierships. Somno (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep There a three major trophies that are available for all teams in the AFL to win. The Premiership is the most important. The pre-premiership-season cup most people are aware of. The Minor Premiership is the other. There has been a trophy awarded for the Minor Premiership (qualifying for the finals series in first position) since 1991 called the McClelland Trophy. A template is appropriate for a trophy like that that can be seen in the trophy cabinet at the footy club. BrianBeahr (talk) 03:48, 7 November 2009

There is one major trophy, the AFL Premiership Cup. It's called a minor premiership for a reason. Jevansen (talk) 07:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Military ranks by country

Template:Military ranks by country (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Very wide topic. I think it can be compressed into a single navbox. Redundant with List of comparative military ranks. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Certainly, a wide theme, but I do not represent, as it to narrow. The only thing that it would be desirable to offer, use navbox with collapsed blocks. So the countries will be listed within continent.--Andrey! 11:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Diamonds squad

Template:Diamonds squad (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

There shouldn't be navboxes with "current squads"... Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Ballet Dancer

Template:Infobox Ballet Dancer (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's put in article when it will be ready. I will make it. Article to apply - Galina Ulanova.--Andrey! 09:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)--Andrey! 09:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason the existing {{Infobox dancer}} wouldn't work for ballet dancers? It appears to be used for some ballet dancer articles already (e.g., Pierre Vladimiroff, Jock Soto). --RL0919 (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I did make this with a view to using it in articles about ballet dancers, so that it had more relevant information than the regular dancer infobox. Unfortunately, I realised I didn't know how to make it into a proper template, so abandoned it. If someone could help me make it into a proper template, I have a huge list of articles that I could insert it into. Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what you've done so far, I think you should work with someone to expand {{Infobox dancer}} rather than creating a separate template. Most of the ideas you have for fields (nationality, training, etc.) could be applied to other types of dancers. If there are any fields that are entirely ballet-specific, they can be described as such in the documentation. That way we aren't multiplying the number of infoboxes unnecessarily, and articles on other types of dancers can use the improvements also. --RL0919 (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as we already have a dancer infobox. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Crazy-dancing, please list that you wish to add in the template. I do only small editings in templates, but can be, together we will write DOC, on каторому someone can realise our ideas.--Andrey! 11:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, eat a huge field for application if it will be possible to prove features.--Andrey! 11:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• I agree that it would be better to modify {{Infobox dancer}} to cover ballet dancers than start a brand new template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• I have no objections to modifying the existing dancer infobox, however I do think that mine is more relevant to the majority of dancers than the other one, despite it being focussed specifically on ballet. Oh and the other one looks ugly on a page too, but that's just my liking pretty visual styling ;-) and even if we do modify the existing dancer template, I would like to be able to set the box colour to match the blue of the ballet portal. Crazy-dancing (talk) 16:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  A considerable amount of effort has gone into ridding infoboxspace of the random use of colour: I'd prefer for that trend not to be reversed lightly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

  I understand, in that case I have no objections to the ballet box simply being deleted, with an agreement that we pursue the redevelopment of Template:Infobox dancer. It's a shame that we can't incorporate different colours for different dance genres, but I can grudgingly admit that making Wikipedia look pretty is not the number 1 priority hehe. Crazy-dancing (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Idw

Propose merging Template:Idw-commons with Template:Fdw-iw.

Propose merging Template:Idwc with Template:Fdw-iw.

Template:Idw-commons (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Idwc (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Fdw-iw (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

I found these nominations in the form of a merge template. My completing the nomination in the correct way is to be seen as no more than an admission that the idea looks reasonable to me on first glance. This proposal was explained on Template_talk:Idw-commons. Debresser (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 5

[edit] Template:Chess position

Template:Chess position (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template was replaced in 2005 with Template:Chess diagram. There is no reference to it in main space, only old talk pages and user pages. Time to delete it. SunCreator (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete – change all {{chess position}} to {{chess diagram}}, then delete. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, Chess Position is not used. If not it can be deleted. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 04:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and redirect to Template:Chess diagram. There is no reason to destroy the revision history. — Reinyday, 02:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (or at least delay deletion). Template:Chess position is currently being used on almost a hundred pages, including the Chess Portal. I tried to quickly switch a page over from the {{chess position}} to {{chess diagram}}, and it seems I was not able to easily do it yet. I will have study the matter more to figure out how to do it. Also, I like the larger size squares/pieces and colors. They are better for playing a chess game with, in my opinion. If I think so, somebody else on some Wikimedia page may share my opinion. It would be a good idea to retain this template somewhere. H Padleckas (talk) 12:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's easier to play a game with, because of the larger square pieces. It's harder to fall for stupid traps. Also, consider the historical interest! I'd rather keep the old Chess championship on Wikipedia in the diagrams they were originally played in. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Printable

Template:Printable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template is redundant with the link in the left sidebar, which itself is only needed for non-CSS browsers or for troubleshooting. See Help:Printable for more information. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - seems redundant, agree with nom. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ScrollbarTOC

Template:ScrollbarTOC (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template places the table of contents in a scrolling box. This violates the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and Wikipedia:Accessibility#Scrolling and collapsible sections. Similar templates that placed the references in a scroll box have previously been deleted; see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref . -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Placing the TOC in a scrolling box will break it for quite a lot of uses. Since the TOC is the most important navigational tool in any article, breaking it will break navigation in those cases. Even where it doesn't break things, it still adds an ugly scrollbar. For pages with formatting issues in the first section, there are other fixes available that don't cause such problems. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – The MOS actually says: "Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show are acceptable in infoboxes and navigation boxes" (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists). Because the TOC would be considered a navigation box, it would be accepted, and so, I keep. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - A TOC is not a navbox (understanding that a navbox is a box with link to other articles, generally). Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Inline need translation

Template:Inline need translation (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

No reason to have this template, its not in use and {{notenglish}} does the job fine Jac16888^Talk 20:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Filipino food

Template:Filipino food (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Like many other dishes in different cuisine, Filipino cuisine has many foods included under it. It is impossible to list all of them into a single navigational template since the list of food is complex and growing almost everyday. It is also redundant to categorizing each article, concerned article into "Filipino dishes" category. Perhaps categorizing these articles would be better, than to find them into a template that seems to be not useful. What is the point of integrating them into a single template if there are so many food in Filipino cuisine? JL 09 _^q?c 17:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete - we shouldn't generalize about country-lists of food. Anyway, Filipino food is quite extensive, so delete. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am the creator of the template. I have been doing extensive rewriting on the entire topic of Filipino cuisine. The template is based on Template:Thai cuisine. The template is a very useful navigational tool that allows readers to quickly navigate the topic. Interest in different cuisine I would argue is largely exploratory in nature. The template is not meant to be exhaustive, but people interested in exploring a different cuisine often do so by sampling, and the template by allowing people to do exactly that, with their eyes if not with their taste buds, it is likely to be judged a very positive and appreciated aid in learning about the subject. In any event how comprehensive the template becomes is something up to the people and editors interested in the topic. One of the tasks of an article editor is to wikify and create hyperlinks. This template is very useful, logical, and germane for cuisine topics. I have noticed an immediate increase in traffic of various otherwise isolated articles. The template helps to unify and give context to all the articles related to the topic. It boggles my mind what topics should use this kind of navigational template if it is inappropriate for cuisine. If it is necessary to be any clearer and the degree of my support for the template as its creator still needs to be gauged then it is Strong Keep. Lambanog (talk) 14:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I note further the reason JL 09 gives for deletion is dubious. Many such templates do not exhaustively itemize all items that can fit into the domain. Lambanog (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as long as similar templates such as Template:Thai cuisine exist. Perhaps rename it though. — Reinyday, 02:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep & Move - Per Reinyday. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 23:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:R.E.M. singles

Template:R.E.M. singles (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Completely unnecessary template redundant to the main R.E.M. template. Space is not an issue on the main R.E.M. template, and by creating a separate template for singles results in several R.E.M. articles requiring two templates when one would suffice. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a merge? If so TFD is not the place to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to {{R.E.M.}}. Contrary to Djsasso's comment above, it is entirely acceptable to suggest a merge here, although it would be desirable to discuss it on the affected template talk pages first. However, there doesn't seem to be anything to merge because the singles are already listed on {{R.E.M.}}. --RL0919 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since the singles are already on the other template. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - redundant. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World Series championship roster templates

Template:2009 New York Yankees (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Everything other template in Category:World Series championship templates

These types of navboxes, listing the rosters of championship teams, have been frequently debated here on TFD. Among those that have been deleted within the past two years are the ice hockey ones and the Association football ones. Other discussions on this topic include: 18 April 2007, 12 October 2007, 23 November 2007, 4 December 2007, 12 May 2009.

Yes, I think all those that are deleted in those two catagories should be reinstated and made to this current consensus, which is to keep these and all championship template navboxes! You should not have deleted these in the first place at all!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, a specific discussion on the World Series templates have never been posted here on TFD before, so in good faith, I would like an official one on record – especially since the 2009 World Series just concluded, with more users actively editing the article, and therefore the issue can be opened to a wider audience.

So what are some of the problems with these templates? First, in a way they can be considered embedded lists masquerading as navboxes. Secondly, under WP:CLN, such information might be better suited on a central list page or a particular category, not a navbox; This content, listing teammates that played toegther in a specific season, tends to be tangentially related since "Player X played with Player Y to win the 20YY championship" is not a defining aspect of a player's career. And it seems highly unlikely that users would want to navigate through the players of the 1903 World championship team, for example. Thirdly, they can create clutter on player articles, especially for those players who have won numerous championships, and therefore have numerous navboxes on their pages. Other objections to these types of templates can be found in the TFD discussions I mentioned above, but I believe I covered the main three disadvantages. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete all These templates only tell you two things: That they won a championship, which should be said in the infobox anyway, and who they won it with, and really who cares about that? This should really be expanded to all championship roster templates in all sports. BUC (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all You should've discussed this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball before listing. As per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because other sport groups have decided against these templates doesn't mean these should be deleted. As for clutter, stick them in a condensed navbox and they make no clutter. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the category argument doesn't work, as some pages are already overloaded with categories, so that navigating those is much tougher than navigating templates, of which many pages have fewer. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OWN is not a good reason to keep either. The baseball project was notified, that is all that is really necessary. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Baseball project was notified by me after I stumbled upon the TFD by monitoring Hideki's page. I stand by my comment that the nominator should have started a discussion at WP:BASEBALL before listing. Noone is claiming ownership, but WP:BASEBALL has it's own standards, which differ from the ice hockey project and others. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Right but the baseball project has no more right to their standards than does any other non-baseball editor. Wikiprojects are just groups of editors who like to edit the same subject, and have no more right than anyone else to apply a standard to any given article. To claim otherwise is Ownership. -DJSasso (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep allper Muboshgu. Also to the above comment "And it seems highly unlikely that users would want to navigate through the players of the 1903 World championship team": this is simply not true. Readers who have a specific interest in one team or another may want to read articles on each member, and there's no reason that they should have to go back to the team season article to do so. It's a hindrance to navigation. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Something perhaps you don't realize is that it actually takes more clicks to expand the navbox you want than to go back to the season page. ie. One click to expand the navbox container, and one click to open the specific navbox. Whereas just clicking straight to the championship season takes one click. It's actually more of a hinderance to use the navboxes. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete Violates WP:EMBED in that all the players in the infobox would not be linked from each others pages if those pages were at their perfect version. Also violates WP:NAVBOX in that navboxes should not be used for winning a championship or for gaining a position. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this fails WP:EMBED or WP:NAVBOX --Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all per Muboshgu and KV5. Provides useful navigation tool for someone interested in the championship teams. Spanneraol (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep all Nominator fails to note that NBA, NFL, and US college basketball and football use these templates. The hockey and association football projects' decision not to use them does not prove the existence of a rule or a widely-held consensus amongst various sports projects. WP:CLN also does not state that information must be exclusively limited to one of those formats. It seems like these debates center on nominator's second point and whether or not these navboxes demonstrate a "defining aspect" of a player's career. At this point, I think the two camps on this issue just need to agree to disagree, but it's just hard for me to see how winning a championship is not defining aspect, since that's pretty much the point of playing in the first plce. What is the basis for saying it's unlikely for users to navigate to different members of a championship team? Any argument on those grounds is subjective based upon personal preferences, likes/dislikes. Also, I don't know why the clutter argument keeps coming up. As Muboshgu stated above, collapsible/condensed navboxes make this a non-issue. - Masonpatriot (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Winning the championship is defining, what we are saying isn't defining is that they won it with Joe Blow so and so who they only played on the field with a few minutes. You take care of the defining aspect of the championship by adding him to a world series winners cat and by mentioning it in the prose/infobox. However the fact that he played with a certain person is not defining of the individual, its defining of the team. As for clutter, collapsing does not remove the clutter, the issue with clutter is that the more and more nav links you put on the bottom of the page about only tagentally related stuff the more the important links get swamped causing navigation to be hindered. -DJSasso (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because other projects use them does not make it right or within WP policy. blackngold29 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all: While Other Stuff exists doesn't apply, each World Series champion team meets and exceeds the notability guidelines for inclusion. As such, there is no grounds for deletion. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Notability doesn't really apply in this situation, as everything on a navbox is going to be notable by default since the pages they link to are notable. The question is, does it follow the other guidelines such as WP:EMBED which says navboxes should only contain links which would already be found the page that they are placed on. In otherwords for these navbox to be valid you would have to expect that every player they played with on that team would be linked from that page if the page were complete. -DJSasso (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" does apply in the sense that it's one of the arguments used for deletion by the nominator and some who concur with the nominator, and it is faulty logic. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say other stuff exists. I said notability. Neither did the nom btw. He was just posting related discussions.-DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out related discussions is "other stuff exists", or in this case "other stuff doesn't exist". I do agree that notability isn't relevant here. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out related discussions is showing prescedence. Prescedence is valid on wikipedia. It can show that the wider community has a specific opinion. It differs from otherstuffexists in that the otherstuffexists arguments generally are just a case of "Hey but this article is still here/not here" which can just be a case of no one has noticed those articles yet. Showing specific discussions is completely different. It shows consensus to have or not have certain types of templates. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the 2009 template. It is trivial clutter of almost no value. A player's teammates at any given time is neither notable nor defining of that player. Procedural keep on the rest, as they have not been properly tagged for deletion. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all per Djsasso. blackngold29 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per KV5. Also note that WP:NAVBOX is an essay, not policy or even a guideline, it can't be violated. GlassCobra 15:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It still can be. It does not have to be aheared to, but it can be violoated (ie not followed). WP:CLN however is a guideline which suggests the same thing as navbox. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Violating an essay is inconsequential and has no bearing on a legitimate XfD. You (and the nominator) also have yet to prove how exactly these sports navboxes are against WP:CLN or WP:EMBED. GlassCobra 18:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:EMBED links in these sections should have been featured in the article. Are you saying that every player that another player played with would be featured in each others articles? That's how its violating EMBED. None of these players could be expected to be on each others pages. Navboxes are intended to be a collection of links already found on the page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All All you people saying who cares about the templates know your role because I care, I absolutely love the templates and I feel as though all should be kept.Beast from da East (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep ALL You all because this is a uniform thing done on all sports championships like golf i.e. masters champs, usopen champs, openchamps, pgachamps, tennis i.e. AusOpen champsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, FrenchChampsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, WimbledonChampsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, USOpenChampsMensWomensMixedSinglesDoubles, NBA championship teams, NFL championship teams, and MLB championship teams! Category:Golf major championships navbox templates, Category:Grand Slam tennis tournaments navbox templates, Category:NBA Championship templates, Category:Super Bowl championship templates, Category:NFL championship templates, Category:American Football League championship templates, and Category:World Series championship templates . Now do you all think this has not reached consensus in each project and wikipedia as a whole criteria of Wikipedia:Navigation templates and if this is done to these, I think ALL navboxes should be made illegal on wikipedia and subjected to deletion!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The consensus is 8-5 to keep!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not determined by vote counting, but by strength of arguments. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is it is consider voting and can be used similar to a poll, bingo HERE.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean the part that specifically says the opposite? polls are regarded as structured discussions rather than votes. -DJSasso (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on my read, considering the worthwhile arguments on both sides, I would say there is no consensus to delete. There needs to be a consensus to delete, rather than a consensus to keep. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep all - per WP:IAR - because deleting these templates hinders navigation within Wikipedia, which is detrimental to the project.—Chris!_c/t 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IAR only applies if you can show that template clutter actually aids navigation in the first place. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 20:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's an unfair comment, Resolute. You're characterizing the templates negatively by calling them "clutter" without even considering the validity of their navigational help. Of course, no one is going to say that "clutter" is good. However, the navigational functionality of these templates is helpful and does facilitate moving between articles. A good point was made at WT:MLB on this same issue: WP:EMBED says, "Ask yourself where would a reader likely want to go after reading the article. Ideally, links in these sections should have been featured in the article. Typically this will include three types of links: Links to related topics - topics similar to that discussed in the article." WP:CLN also says that "all the articles in a template should substantially deal with the subject of the box". The specific World Series is the subject of the box, and the players are all related to it. Per WP:EMBED, they could also be considered "lower order" articles: components of said topic. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • There are TWENTY such templates on Derek Jeter's article. they have been provided as an example, and you have to view full to appreciate just how ridiculous this is. There is no way you can convince me that this is an improvement on navigation. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • They help with navigation when used properly. As in, when they aren't all expanded the way you present them. They autocollapse. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Except you miss the point, someone who is looking for a specific link will have to expand all those to find it. That is the whole problem, also remember we are supposed to write for people who know nothing about the topic. As such they won't know what which box to find said link in so they will in the end have to search through endless lists of links to find the important ones. This is the exact reason why navboxes are only supposed to include links that would already be found on the page. So as not to drown out the important links. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't agree. If you're looking for other ROY's, you expand that template. You don't expand the USA 2009 roster looking for ROY's. The article explains all of these things in the text, as it's supposed to. The navigation templates exist at the bottom to allow for navigation after the person who knows nothing about the topic has read about the topic. That said, I do think that the navboxes may be further condensed. Instead of all 20 in one collapsable box, maybe there should be one collapsable box for awards, one for championship rosters, one for international play, etc.--Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
              • Navboxes are also supposed to only include articles that the reader is most likely going to want to go to next. So if there are 20 templates and for arguments sake 10 links on each. Thats 200 links. A reader is most likely going to want to go to 200 different articles right after reading this one? That doesn't compute. Navboxes are to help show a user who only knows what they have just read on this page to identify the most important topics to go to next, but including every player they played one game with hides that and hinders the user being able to find the next most important subject on the topic.-DJSasso (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
                • Who ever said that a reader has to go to 200 links? Your line of argument makes it seem like there is a complustion on the part of a reader to look at them all, whether there are 10, 20, 50 or 200. All that leads to is an artificial "link cap" governed by subjective personal preference. - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • I am not saying they have to go to all 200. They are supposed to be able to at a glance see the next most important topics on the subject so they can go to those pages. By adding the 190 very slimly related links to the 10 important links it makes it hard for a user to know which article to go to next. -DJSasso (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • How do we know if a reader of the article on Derek Jeter is most interested in reading about the WBC, or other ROY's, Gold Glove winners, Silver Sluggers, or the Yankee championship teams? If they're interested in the Yankees, why wouldn't they want to click on other members of the Yankees World Series championship teams? You assume they would have no use for this, but I disagree. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Also, just saying there are twenty doesn't in any way address the argument KV5 just made. - Masonpatriot (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Actually, it does. He's challenging my argument that this is just clutter. 20 templates to minimally related articles is clutter. Even with them minimized, it becomes difficult to find what one is looking for. When you get down to it, using the search box to find the Rookie of the Year article is far more useful to navigation than hunting through 20 templates on Derek Jeter's article to find some odd player. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 22:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with KV5 that resolute is being spiteful. I have had a battle with resoulte before.BLUE_DOG^TN 21:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I have? That would be news to me, as I had never heard of you before this debate. Care to link that discussion? I'd be curious to know. That being said, failing to assume good faith is no better a defence of your position than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Agree that the "cluster" problem only arises if readers don't use these templates properly. No one will look for a particular link by uncollapsing all 20 unrelated navboxs at once. And if a reader thinks search box is more useful, they don't even need to uncollapse the templates.—Chris!_c/t 23:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But it does cut to the heart of the value of these templates. If I am reading Jeter's article, and my thought is "Gee, I wonder who won the AL ROY in 1973?" am I really going to go hunting through that mess of navboxes to try and find the needle in the haystack? The claim that these add navigational value is almost as laughable as the idea that these should be WP:IAR kept. We all know however that these templates will be kept - this is is a classic no consensus XfD. I'm simply trying to show just how poor a tool these are for navigation. The Yankees template itself might just be the worst template on all of Wikipedia for this reason. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It's easy to "show just how poor a tool these are" when you are propping up straw men like "If I am reading Jeter's article, and my thought is 'Gee, I wonder who won the AL ROY in 1973?' am I really going to go hunting through that mess of navboxes to try and find the needle in the haystack?" Really? A needle in a haystack? A clearly marked "Rookie of the Year" navbox is a needle in the haystack? Why are we making the assumption that users only navigate through WP in a prescribed way? - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Assume you are a reader, not an editor. You likely won't be expecting that such a template would exist hidden amongst two dozen other templates within a collapsed box. This is a classic example of editors making decisions for editors rather than readers. Certainly some reader might, probably by accident, find what they are looking for in that mess, but that does not prove the overuse of navigational templates to be of any real value. This is the heart of the opposition to these templates: They become so oversaturated with low value links that it becomes more difficult for the reader to find what they are looking for. They are an exceedingly poor navigational tool that become even worse with each template added. Most readers will have already found what they were looking for a different way long before they found their target article in that mess. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 01:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • We are all readers as well as editors. I don't understand why you assume that people are unable to navigate navigational templates. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • That is because you are making assumptions up and trying to attribute them to me. My argument is that the clutter reduces navigational ability to the point that it is the least effective way to search for articles, not that people are unable. I'm sure one or two people might wish to navigate through that mess, but the fact that the odd reader might does not justify the clutter it creates, imo. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 03:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Again, you're making assumptions about how people use these pages. Who says it's only "one or two people" who use those templates? --Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
              • I'm using logic, which you are willfully ignoring. I never thought this template had a prayer of being deleted, but I was hoping the discussion might encourage some positive change in the absolute mess that the overuse of these navigational templates has become. Seems that is to be unsuccessful. C'est la vie. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                • I don't see you using logic, I see you setting up strawmen and knocking them down. Nowhere in here has anyone said the templates clutter articles and impair navigation. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, but it isn't backed up by anyone. In my opinion, the reduction in the hockey templates has made those articles less navigable. You and I have gone through this before (especially at Template:Calgary Flames). Neither of us are changing our minds, and in the baseball project, consensus remains on my side. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                  • How is it making them less navigable? You have yet to show this. You keep claiming it but show no proof. There are many more efficient ways currently to find the links hidden in that mess of navboxes than the navboxes themselves. Things like categories, or the season page for the championship team or even the search box will find the link someone is looking or alot faster and easier than this mess. There are actually more clicks to expand the navboxes (Two. One to open the single box, and one to open the specific box) than there is to click to the championship season page which is a single click and will have the roster on it. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
                    • • We are really getting away from the topic of this debate now. It may be better to move this string to one of our talk pages, if we choose to continue it. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You know, there is a big problem with all of you that want to delete templates.. you simply fail to understand and appreciate how great sports are.. probably because you haven't played them. (being a former high school athlete, i should know)... but i think all of you who want these templates to be deleted are BIASED against sports. You should all have your eyes opened. they are collapsible, for crying out loud. I've had the same problem when I edit the Mexican soccer pages here on wikipedia. STRONGLY KEEP all the world series templates. they already took away the MLS cup and Stanley Cup ones. They can't take away this one. Nore100 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • lol! You should actually look at people's contribution histories before commenting. Might save you from making a complete fool of yourself. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 14:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note to closing Admin - as of this writing, none of the "Everything other template in Category:World Series championship templates" (sic) has been tagged alerting editors that said templates are up for deletion. JPG-GR (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all - Pretty established that some sports are notable enough to have templates such as this. And yes, if we ditched these, then we'd need to ditch them all. Just not practical. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all - I don't understand why hockey does not use navbox templates. I like having an assortment of navboxes at the bottom of articles to navigate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all as vital guides to navigation among a strongly defining characteristic in a baseball player's career. As a reader, I actually have read from article to article on the members of several World Series championship teams. Are there a handful of super-accomplished players who have been on several WS champs? Sure, but the outliers shouldn't ruin it for all the other articles, especially as there are existing ways to deal with multiple templates. - Dravecky (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep all Your so called disadvantages are extremely miniscule and are in no way detrimental to the articles as well as the fact that these are put at the bottom of articles when they are done reading. You also have to consider in team sports, the team personnal are of great importance especially dealing with championships.Transaction Go (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Also I guess we should delete those awards and achievements navboxes since they take up so much space yet link to very few articles.

Awards and achievements
Preceded by Marty Cordova	American League Rookie of the Year 1996	Succeeded by Nomar Garciaparra
Preceded by Marty Cordova	Players Choice AL Most Outstanding Rookie 1996	Succeeded by Nomar Garciaparra
Preceded by Orlando Miller	Topps Rookie All-Star Shortstop 1996	Succeeded by Nomar Garciaparra
Preceded by Albert Belle	American League Player of the Month August 1998	Succeeded by Albert Belle
Preceded by Pedro Martínez	Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player 2000	Succeeded by Cal Ripken, Jr.
Preceded by Mariano Rivera	World Series MVP 2000	Succeeded by Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling
Preceded by Mariano Rivera	Babe Ruth Award 2000	Succeeded by Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling
Preceded by Alex Rodriguez	American League Gold Glove Award 2004–2006	Succeeded by Orlando Cabrera
Preceded by David Ortiz	American League Hank Aaron Award 2006	Succeeded by Alex Rodriguez
Preceded by Miguel Tejada	American League Silver Slugger Award 2006–present	Incumbent
Sporting positions
Preceded by Don Mattingly	New York Yankees team captain 2003–present	Succeeded by Incumbent

Transaction Go (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually no. Those aren't navboxes those are succession boxes and would be perfectly fine. Because you would expect to find the person who won an award the year before or after they did on their biography. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is ready to be closed because enough has spoken to keep these, because it helps in navigation and reading on teams of champion players on wikipedia. That is what navboxes are suppose to be for and don't give me this clutter crude at all, which is a cover for your hatred of the Yankees winning another WS. How come the User:Bucs is advocating these be deleted, when he is not from the States and would not understand the significants of the WS is simmilar to the World Cup is to the International non-US countries and WS is to the US look at Pele should his World cup ones be delete, too! I think NOT!!!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pelé — International tournaments v • d • e Brazil squad – 1958 FIFA World Cup Winners (1st Title) 1 Castilho • 2 Bellini • 3 Gilmar • 4 Djalma Santos • 5 Dino Sani • 6 Didi • 7 Zagallo • 8 Oreco • 9 Zózimo • 10 Pelé • 11 Garrincha • 12 Nílton Santos • 13 Moacir • 14 De Sordi • 15 Orlando • 16 Mauro • 17 Joel • 18 Mazola • 19 Zito • 20 Vavá • 21 Dida • 22 Pepe • Coach: Feola v • d • e Brazil squad – 1962 FIFA World Cup Winners (2nd Title) 1 Gilmar • 2 Djalma Santos • 3 Mauro • 4 Zito • 5 Zózimo • 6 Nílton Santos • 7 Garrincha • 8 Didi • 9 Coutinho • 10 Pelé • 11 Pepe • 12 Jair Marinho • 13 Bellini • 14 Jurandir • 15 Altair • 16 Zequinha • 17 Mengálvio • 18 Jair • 19 Vavá • 20 Amarildo • 21 Zagallo • 22 Castilho • Coach: Moreira v • d • e Brazil squad – 1966 FIFA World Cup 1 Gilmar • 2 Djalma Santos • 3 Fidélis • 4 Bellini • 5 Brito • 6 Altair • 7 Orlando • 8 Paulo Henrique • 9 Rildo • 10 Pelé • 11 Gérson • 12 Manga • 13 Denílson • 14 Lima • 15 Zito • 16 Garrincha • 17 Jairzinho • 18 Alcindo • 19 Silva • 20 Tostão • 21 Paraná • 22 Edu • Coach: Feola v • d • e Brazil squad – 1970 FIFA World Cup Winners (3rd Title) 1 Félix • 2 Brito • 3 Piazza • 4 Carlos Alberto • 5 Clodoaldo • 6 Marco Antônio • 7 Jairzinho • 8 Gérson • 9 Tostão • 10 Pelé • 11 Rivelino • 12 Ado • 13 Roberto • 14 Baldocchi • 15 Fontana • 16 Everaldo • 17 Joel • 18 Paulo César • 19 Edu • 20 Dario • 21 Zé Maria • 22 Leão • Coach: Zagallo

Actually every team is nominated not just the yankees. So you can be sure its not because people hate the yankees. And yes Pele's world cup ones should be deleted as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

You are actually on the wrong side of this debate to reach consensus, because look how many want to keep them! Get over your deletionist ways, ASAP!BLUE_DOG^TN 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am actually an inclusionist if I am anything. You might want to stop attacking users or you will be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not an attack if it is a fact!BLUE_DOG^TN 20:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is only a fact if you can support your statement. I suggest that you take a very thorough look at WP:AGF and start to apply it. Incidentally, XfD debates typically run seven days. While it does seem extremely unlikely that deletion will occur here, there is no harm in allowing discussion to continue. Resolute ^{Lest We Forget} 21:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete all. What's next? a Template for AL & NL champions; division champions, etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand the "slippery slope" argument, but saying you don't support navboxes that don't exist doesn't reflect on the vailidity or utility of the ones up for deletion. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Can you image how the Yogi Berra article would look (he's got 10 World Series titles)? GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ahhh, I just seen it. Thanks goodness for collapsables. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all per similar discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21#Template:1915 Vancouver Millionaires, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 13#NBA Championship Templates, and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 6#Template:2007 Houston Dynamo (just one example of longstanding WP:FOOTY consensus) all of which resulted in delete consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • To be fair, in the second example you cited (Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 13#NBA Championship Templates), the closing admin says, in pertinent part, "There is insufficient policy evidence to close this debate in either direction." Those navbxes were not deleted. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • It is worth the time to read the discussion, and the closing admin's statement. I believe the right decision was made, despite the lack of effort by anyone (yet?) to tackle the large task of replacing the navboxes with more appropriate article content and infobox links in hundreds of player bio articles. Nobody was going to simply delete and remove the NBA navboxes and do nothing else. The same principle applies here; if we have even a slim consensus to delete (once all the ILIKEIT arguments are discounted), then a no-thought deletion spree would not be productive. Proper links from each player article to the respective World Series articles—and complete rosters on each of those articles—would need to be in place first. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 10:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly remove all from player/coach/person-related articles per Yogi Berra and other heavily overlinked appendices containing multiple levels of trivia. A list of all teammates and coaches at a particular time is not sufficiently relevant with regard to any one player. Retain in team articles, in collapsed form, because that's a somewhat reasonable place to include a team roster for a notable period in the team's existence. Retain in event articles (e.g. 2009 World Series). In this case, full-sized is fine when there are few teams so represented (e.g. the final round of a tournament, but maybe not an article about an entire playoff ladder). TheFeds 02:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Hasidic dynasty characteristics

Template:Hasidic dynasty characteristics (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

(OR) Definition of HD transcluded to many HD articles. They just need the link to HD, we don't transclude defns to all members of categories. Rich Farmbrough, 04:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

• Delete. Assuming it is not original research (I assume that is the implication of the "OR" at the beginning of the nomination statement), this information belongs in List of Hasidic dynasties and Category:Hasidic dynasties. It does not need to be transcluded as a template into the articles about every individual dynasty. This is something to be handled via wikilinking to the pages that have the relevant information, not through a template. (If the material is original research, then it should not be in the encyclopedia at all.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Human body diagrams

Template:Human body diagrams (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Häggström diagrams (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Banner template is for a project on Wikimedia Commons, not a local WikiProject, and is being used to tag files which are uploaded on Commons. This isn't relevant to the English Wikipedia. PC78 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant for the English Wikipedia, because the diagrams are found there. Rather than deleting the template, what could be done is to move that project page in Commons to a WikiProject page in English Wikipedia instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

commons:Human body diagrams exists only on Commons; it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. If you want to start something similar here then you're certainly welcome to do so, but if you just want to direct users on Wikipedia to commons:Human body diagrams I would suggest placing a banner on the file pages on Commons, as this would be visible here also (if you see what I mean; if you don't then let me know and I'll try and explain it better). PC78 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - can't see how this is useful for enwiki. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - it seems the main problem is that it is a link to Wikimedia Commons, while the page itself could very well be moved to Wikipedia, and I think a suitable place would be a task force page in WikiProject Medicine. The template is important on individual diagrams, because many of the discussions that have ended up in individual diagrams have actually concerned issues that are common for multiple images in the project. I may find those comments myself by watching the image pages, but they'll be difficult to track afterward, or for anybody else who may have an opinion. Also, absence of the template would make more comments end up in individual Wikipedia article talk pages, and it's impossible to watch for all changes in all those articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Its proposed as a task force at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Human_body_diagrams.Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 4

[edit] Template:Spectrobes

Template:Spectrobes (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only navigates five articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Eutechnyx games

Template:Eutechnyx games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only really navigates two articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. The current version does not have enough links for a useful navbox, but the list of games at Eutechnyx shows over a dozen with articles. It should be possible to expand the navbox with these. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Province Thailand

Template:Infobox Province Thailand (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Convert to Template:Infobox province/settlement. No need for a seperate template. Himalayan 14:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Dead Rising

Template:Dead Rising (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only navigates four articles —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Is there a necessary minimum? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There is no defined requirement, but in my experience if the number of links is five or less, the consensus is usually to delete them, or occasionally to merge them with a related template. As the number of links (to distinct, existing articles, not redirects or redlinks) rises, so do the chances of the template's survival. (Up to a point. Very large templates also draw deletion !votes.) --RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 3

[edit] Template:Diana Vickers

Template:Diana Vickers (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

There are insufficient related articles to warrant a template, and the Diana Vickers article, on which this is placed, already has templates which include these links. (Note: as created, also included an "album" but this was a link back to the artist title, and a link to a single - but that article was deleted at AfD). I42 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC) I42 (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as not having enough relevant links, but with no prejudice against recreating later when there are more links to include. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and above. GlassCobra 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:ROI

Template:ROI (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This flag template was recently created as an alternate to the standard Template:IRL. Both render the flag of Ireland in icon size plus a wikilink to the article at Republic of Ireland, but difference is that {{IRL}} produces a wikilink equivalent to [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]], whereas {{ROI}} produces the equivalent of just [[Republic of Ireland]]. The problem is that we currently have consensus for using "Ireland" to refer to the nation, even if the article is currently named Republic of Ireland. The consensus is to use "Republic of Ireland" only where there is a need to disambiguate the sovereign state from the island. Therefore, the [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]] construct is wholly appropriate, and {{IRL}} should remain the standard flag template for rendering this. The only instance where "Republic of Ireland" is intended to always be used with the national flag is with respect to the national team in football, since FIFA use the "Republic of Ireland" appellation. Therefore, {{fb|IRL}} already produces  Republic of Ireland (note the wikilink to the Republic of Ireland national football team article), and this construct is currently used on hundreds of articles. The use of "Republic of Ireland" to refer to the nation even in football-related articles is not appropriate and does not reflect consensus. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration for more naming discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Whatever you think about the wikipolitical situation, whatever you think about the real-world political situation, to keep the peace there needs to be at most one such template. I have no opinion whatsoever on what that template should contain, only an opinion that forking is harmful. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete If the consensus does indeed currently dictate the standards described by the nominator, this should be deleted. GlassCobra 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It's confusing enough for most people as it is without another template which appears unnecessary as the current templates cover the situations where a flag is required. --HighKing (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox AMA Superbike rider

Template:Infobox AMA Superbike rider (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Only 1 transclusion. I think it can be covered by {{Infobox Sidecarcross world championship rider}} or something else. Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 2

[edit] Template:Attraction Marketing

Template:Attraction Marketing (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Probably a mistake by user who also created article Attraction Marketing. Johnuniq (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a template. Already exists in article space, so nothing of value stands to be lost here. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not used, and it would be a misuse of templates if it were used. --RL0919 (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox City Russia

Template:Infobox City Russia (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old infobox that is redundant to {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}} and has been deprecated since February 2007. Currently used on just two articles. RL0919 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Deprecated it is, and as for those two articles, I'll personally make sure they use the proper infobox, but there is absolutely nothing to gain by deleting this template. It is not in the way of anything, and leaving it in place allows to properly show the infoboxes when viewing old histories of articles that used it in the past. A redirect will not achieve the same effect as the parameter set of this template is incompatible with the parameter set of the modern template.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:17, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand the concern, but if preserving the format of articles in history were a significant barrier to template deletion, then very few templates would actually be deleted. For that matter, changes to existing templates also change their appearance in historical versions. Seems like this is something that needs a technical solution, rather than a good reason to oppose deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I also understand your position. When an obsolete template stands in a way of a newer version, had never been used on a large scale, or is detrimental in some other way, I'd favor its deletion myself. In this case, however, we have a template occupying space no one claims (and is not likely to claim); it was used fairly extensively in the past, and it does not interfere with anything at all (except for being an eyesore). Since we have no technical solution (which, I agree, would be a great thing to have), I find the deletion totally unnecessary. There is absolutely nothing to gain by deleting it, but there are things to lose, however minor. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Spanish city

Template:Infobox Spanish city (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to infobox settlement used in articles like Madrid etc. Box looks bloated and is clearly redundant, there is absolutely no need why this should exist.. Himalayan 17:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Have notified WP:SPAIN of delete discussion. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As per nominator, except for the bit about bloatiness. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• A merge would be uncontroversial. I don't see a need to bring this to TfD while the work is still to be done on that front. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. Soon Plastikspork is going to standardise the Spanish municipality articles so he will convert this template first before replacing it, so nothing will be lost. Himalayan 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}. A city is a straightforward example of a settlement, and there does not appear to be anything in this template that can't be handled by the more common one. --RL0919 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete and merge to Infobox Settlement. - Darwinek (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] September, 2008 template family

Template:11 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:12 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:13 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:15 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:16 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:17 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:18 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:19 September, 2008 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template contents has no special relevance to title, template not used on mainspace. Rjwilmsi 16:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete entire list above. The only use of these appears to be at Portal:Karachi/Daily Economic Indicators/Archive, which doesn't require templates and which treads into WP:NOT territory. --RL0919 (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete all. Looks like part of a project that was abandoned after a week or so, and which has been untouched for well over a year since. Retaining this sort of data isn't really in scope for Wikipedia -- we don't even have data for even the Dow Jones, so a relatively obscure Pakistani stock index definitely doesn't fit. Zetawoof_(ζ) 16:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/1 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/2 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/3 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/4 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/5 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/6 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/7 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/8 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/9 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/10 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/11 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/12 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/13 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:St. Xavier's College, Mumbai/Alumni/14 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

New user has created a string of 14 templates, the only content being in each case a photograph of a person, presumably a past student of the college. It is difficult to conceive of a good use for such templates. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 14 templates have been created using the {{Random subpage}} template. It is used in the St. Xavier's College, Mumbai#Alumni and popular culture section to display random images of Alumni. It is of encyclopedic use. I know I am the first person to use {{Random subpage}} templates in articles as per [2]. This doesn't deserve deletion at all. Xavier449 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Go on Purging the page for random Images. Xavier449 (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Random images on articles is a bad idea. Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This seems like Garion96's personal opinion. Which Wikipolicy prevents articles from random images. Xavier449 (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Randomly displaying one of several applicable photos on an article is an interesting idea and I don't know of any previous consensus against it. Xavier449 is correct that this is the only article using {{Random subpage}}, but novelty doesn't make something bad. If someone has a good argument for why the idea is bad, I'd be happy to consider that. But at least in this particular case I don't see anything obviously harmful about it. The images being used all seem to be equally applicable as illustrations within the article, all fit in the allotted space, and I don't see any licensing problems for the images. --RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Aquadeias

Template:Aquadeias (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A template named after the user who created it (User:Aquadeias). A template which such a name is not likely to be of any use on Wikipedia and therefore does not belong in mainspace. ^IIIV_IX (Talk) 10:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Userfy. The only use of this is on a sandbox page in Aquadeias' own user space. If that's all it is to be used for, then I don't have a problem with it, but it does not belong in template space. --RL0919 (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Update to delete. Upon further inspection of the page this is used on, I realized that the template is redundant to {{Inuse}}, so there is no need for it even in user space. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated. Am concerned that this user may be attempting to set up his own fantasy wiki and is disguising it from deletion by hiding it behind User:. --Falcadore (talk) 19:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that this discussion is only for deletion of the template. If you think this user is creating inappropriate pages in user space, you should take that up with the user or at WP:MFD. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per RL0919. GlassCobra 14:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bloom County

Template:Bloom County (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as made redundant by {{Bloomcounty}}. - Dravecky (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as unused and redundant to {{Bloomcounty}}. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to {{Bloomcounty}}. It's redundant, but the title is reasonably useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Archer class fast patrol boat

Template:Archer class fast patrol boat (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphan Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not an orphan (at least not at this time), but it is entirely redundant to {{Royal Navy ships}}. Correction: It is an orphan, but there is another template {{Archer class patrol vessel}}, that is virtually identical and is in use. So this is doubly redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Airport Express colour

Template:Airport Express colour (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Tsuen Wan Line colour (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old and unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:3TeamRR

Template:3TeamRR (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused template. Appears to be related to {{3TeamRR-TennisWide}}, which is in use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Atsinanana Region

Template:Atsinanana Region (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A sea of red links and unused in any articles Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough working links for navbox. Has been around since May 2008, so there has been plenty of time to create new articles from the redlinks if that was the intention. --RL0919 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:African COTW nom

Template:African COTW nom (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old and unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Template is for a WikiProject collaboration effort that has been inactive since January 2007. --RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:1ColPollTable

Template:1ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:2ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:3ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:4ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:5ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:6ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:7ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:9ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:10ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:12ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:14ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:15ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:19ColPollTable (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old and unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment what is it? And you left a whole bunch of related templates off this deletion list. See {{ColPollTable Navbar}} – 76.66.203.102 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  I believe that ones that I left off have (or had) at least one transclusion. They appear to be used to format historical college sports polls. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  For example, 20ColPollTable is being used here. Another interesting point is that the template actually longer than the code that it generates. If someone wants to join the others to the list, that would be fine with me. However, I decided to start with the unused ones. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Correct. They are used for various college sports ratings articles, such as 2009 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings. Certain polls encompass the whole season while others start later in the season. While I don't think all the above are necessary, it is possible they could be used in the future should the polls change when they begin or the season lengthens (as it did for college football around 2004).—NMajdan•talk 13:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

They seem to be unused, and unlikely to be used. Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All. I am the template creator. While some of these are not used, they could be used temporarily during a season for a short period, and then discarded. The documentation describes this method: Instead of just putting in the 16-week expected length version, someone could start with the 1-week (col) version and then walk-up to the 16-week (col) version. While they may not be currently used, there may be an instance that these are needed in the future. Keeping them, and the entire template system is no harm and seems illogical to delete "random" ones that aren't just currently used, because it would break up the system. It is entirely possible, as well, that all weeks/cols that are plus or minus 1 than currently used templates could be used in the future with calendar weeks getting shuffled and expanding or contracting seasons by a date. MECU≈talk 14:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

  Comment Then why not merge them all into one template and make using the complete number of weeks optional? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Merge all from the navtemplate together into one, and actually have some documentation to explain this thing. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into one template as suggested above. The content appears to be relevant, but having a separate template for each week isn't necessary and makes them seem unused, which is apparently what led to the nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Afro Samurai

Template:Afro Samurai (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A template is unneeded for such a short series with not very much media. Comments? – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 03:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)}

• Weak delete. Five articles is not quite enough links to justify a navbox. New material is still being produced, so it could be recreated in the future if/when there are more links. --RL0919 (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 1

[edit] Template:Junction

Template:Junction (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This includes all subpages of this page. This template created within the last 24 hours duplicates the function of {{jct}}; jct is way more developed and follows the WP:ELG guideline, which all exit lists worldwide have to conform to. Rschen7754 (T C) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as redundant to {{jct}}. --NE2 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose The use of this template is to simplify the creation of images and text used through several articles. Jct uses abbreviations, which I will not adhere to as they are unprofessional and a matter of personal style preferences. Also, I use this template outside of exit lists. In short, this template serves to make a repetitive task simpler for me. The deletion of it will impede the creation of articles that I am writing, and is not beneficial to the encyclopedia for the politics of a few stragglers that are stuck in the ways of the past. Articles do not have to conform to WP:ELG, hence it being a guideline and not a law.

I'd like to start a new guideline. I fail to see the necessity of sticking to guidelines created years ago primarily with American road articles in mind. I've already had to modify several templates in order to allow kilometer in place of mile. Not only this, but these are style guidlines which should be ignored in place of better solutions. I am the only editor that remains for Ontario roads, so I ask why so many editors insist on placing roadblocks? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So basically, keep because I want to do things my way? --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats the same as delete because you want to do things your way. I will do things my way, or I won't write articles. You are lawyering and being a nit picker over a guideline, which isn't mandatory to adhere to (or even well written or in-depth for that matter). So yes, keep, as I will do things my way regardless. I'm writing articles, I'm improving the encyclopedia, you're being a politician, and there are is need for that on wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Basically when a bunch of us want to do things our way, it's called Wikipedia:Consensus. Which is policy. "I will do things my way, or I won't write articles" - well, the door is wide open. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets see how this "consensus" was formed, shall we? WP:ELG starts of by saying (Below the part mentioning that there are exceptions and to use common sense):

Basis for guideline

"Several discussions regarding the designing of exit lists have occurred in the past, and can be found on this guide's talk page, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Interstate Highways/Archive 2. These discussions have resulted in the standard outlined below." Right, so American, plus American, equals world wide. Good job, another example of America thinking it runs the planet :) Next we move on to the text "exit lists", part of the title of the guideline (please go read WP:GUIDELINE as well, thanks). First off, I am using this for uses besides an exit list; secondly, the jct template is for junctions and not exits, interchanges, or other items that are common to freeways. I am not writing freeway articles, I'm writing arterial road articles; thirdly, the opinions of one or two editors is not the consensus, its the opinion of those one or two members, both of who are dedicated to American roads; fourthly, that guideline isn't the end-all-be-all-must-adhere-to-or-leave guideline for road articles, hence it being titled exit list guideline. Its the guideline written by the US Roads wikiproject for US roads. I am not writing US road articles, and you are not writing Canadian road articles. All I ask is that you stay in your corner and I'll stay in mine.

And you're right, the door is open. Now I'm walking through it and leaving behind the room of the past. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_3#worldwide_applicability? Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(exit_lists)/Archive_4#globalizing? Wikipedia_talk:CRWP#Important_poll_at_WT:ELG? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways/Archive_1#Proposed_changes_to_the_exit_list_guide? etc. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It was posted to the Canadian roads wikiproject about 2 weeks before I came in. Nobody from Canada participated, and nobody from Canada is active. Looking over many of the comments from those links, a great deal of editors agree with it being Americanized, not globalized. If this was indeed a globalized template, then kilometer would be the default option for the Jcttop template, not mile. But no, I had to get kilometre added to the template. There is no globalization of these guidelines, just a bunch of Americans thinking they are making the global consensus. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, is the problem that the jct template is geared toward the way that the US roads are set up, and not the way that Canadian roads are set up? stmrlbs|talk 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't wish to label everything with abbreviations (Which if you look through the hundreds of US roads that use them, they never explain what they mean, instead leaving it to the reader to decide). The full text fits in nicely, and looks much better overall. The users here insist that an abbreviation MUST be used because thats what the guideline they wrote says. I disagree, and feel that a new guideline, or difference from their guideline, produces better looking articles that are free of mysterious abbreviations. It's honestly laughable, as the individual editor should be able to make style based decisions like that. Fair enough, they do not wish to use abbreviations. My solution - create a template that is identical to Jct (though not making use of the infobox_road template), which uses fully spelt out words. Abbreviations are an editors convenience, but shouldn't come at the sacrifice of information to readers.

The editors fighting me may wish to go put some opinions in at Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_numbered_roads_in_Kawartha_Lakes,_Ontario/archive2, because I don't use abbreviations, and that list is on its way to becoming a Featured List. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No; there's no significant difference between the way roads are set up and marked in the two countries. --NE2 23:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, thats dealing with exit lists, which has nothing to do with this template. I use this template for creating icons with a link. It is my choice to not use abbreviations. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since icons with a link should not be used in text, what use do they have outside exit/junction lists and infoboxes? --NE2 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything about infoboxes at WP:ELG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's silly to make a whole new template just for infoboxes, which are supposed to be small so there's room for relevant images below. --NE2 00:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of infoboxes make use of the Jct template for the starting and ending termini, as well as major intersections. I can also make use of the noshield parameter and get rid of the image. The point is, its a simple way of doing a repetitive task, and it looks much cleaner when you go to edit the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

{{jct|state=ON|Hwy|8|noshield1=yes}} is cleaner than [[Highway 8 (Ontario)|]]? --NE2 03:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean [[Highway 8 (Ontario)|Highway 8]]? In some cases its slightly less cleaner than the manual method, but its a simple code that I can copy and pasted when I need it, and only have to change a single number. The convenience is the second half of the argument - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You only have to change a single number if you use the pipe trick, and you don't leave messy code behind. --NE2 03:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a POV fork for {{jct}}. If you disagree with a guideline, then argue about it at the talk page for that guideline, or on an appropriate WikiProject, or at the Village Pump. Don't create a template that ignores the guideline, especially when it duplicates the functionality of an existing template. --RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not a POV fork to make a template that doesn't use abbreviations. Yes its ignoring a guideline, but that IS permissible, especially when it has a greater net benefit. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as duplicate of {{jct}}. --Polaron | Talk 22:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As far as I can tell, the only purpose this template would serve is to generate a link to an article with a pipe allowing other text to be displayed. I fail to see why raw wiki markup doesn't suffice for this purpose, as NE2 commented above. – TMF 21:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, I should've gone with my gut instinct, which was that it's just a fork of {{jct}}. The only purpose of this is that it uses different sub-templates, which skirts the real issue. It's not necessary to duplicate {{jct}} over a dispute with one sub-template of {{jct}}. Still !voting delete. – TMF 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — It's a fork of {{jct}} and not needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to {{jct}}. Irrelevant and redundant to the aforementioned template. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Redundant. --- Dough4872 16:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - POV fork of {{Jct}}. --Fredddie™ 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

From WT:USRD#TFD: "Ideally I'd like to fork all of Canada out of jct." is an admission by Floydian that {{Junction}} is already a fork of {{Jct}}. --Fredddie™ 01:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The trend on Wikipedia (at least from my viewpoint) seems to be to consolidate or delete redundant templates that achieve the same basic thing. If {{junction}} achieves the same exact effect of using {{jct}}, then there's really no need for it to exist. Now if the former presented differently from {{jct}} or needed some parameter that it cannot accommodate, then I could see the need for having a separate template. I do not know the intricacies of template coding, so I cannot tell what the differences are between these templates. Seeing the differences is especially difficult given that {{junction}} has absolutely no template documentation or usage instructions (as of this writing). An absence of template documentation means that other editors would not be able to use the template effectively, and it seems really unnecessary to have a template that only one editor knows how to use. --LJ (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Jcon will have documentation. I'm in the process of writing it. Its rather redundant to do so for junction. They produce the same output (which is the intention), but one uses FAR simpler coding.

  {{jct|state=ON|county1=KL|RR|6|name1=Kirkfield Road|noshield1=y}}

  {{jcon|KL|6|Kirkfield Road|nosh=y}}

  Both produce the same: Kawartha Lakes Road 6 (Kirkfield Road) (Although if these guys have it their way, jct would produce: CKL 6 (Kirkfield Road))

  compare. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  I have a query. If you're not going to call up the shield graphic, as in your examples, why not just write up the wikilink directly? Half of the utility for the template for me is not remembering how the various shield graphics are named, remembering that 3-digit shields need to be coded wider (except the Michigan shields) and all that jazz.

  As for the abbreviation/unabbreviated version for Kawartha Lakes, there's no reason that {{jct}} can't be coded not to abbreviate it at all. I guess where I'm at a loss is that at least in Michigan, the full official name of the highway through my hometown is M-28. There's nothing to abbreviate, except that on WP there's the (Michigan highway) disambiguation in the article title. I have no problem if jct doesn't use abbreviations. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Here's the problem with your code: What if you have two routes multiplexed together that are both listed from the highway signs? Try doing that with jcon. There's a reason we have the name= parameter. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Most concurrencies in Canada are very short lived. Its not as in the states where it is not uncommon to find an interstate, state highway, and even a county road running on the same route for many many miles. I have the name tag in mine, except you don't need to type in name1=, you just type the name.

  I also didn't use shields in the example above because I was showing the difference in typing to achieve the same result.

  But you're ignoring the possibility of that situation ever occuring. Which is bad practice. If that happens (and it has to in Canada at some point - take for example TCH (BC 1) and BC 99 in Vancouver) then the user cannot use your template and has to either use {{jct}}, which would handle this properly, or manually type out the link. Oops. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - conditional - most people find complete words easier to read and comprehend than abbreviations and acronyms. Citizens of Canada are probably not familiar with all the abbreviations used in the US and vice versa, and this is probably true for people from any country reading information about another country (or for that matter, another state with which they are unfamiliar). So, I think that even though the "standard" might be an abbreviation, spelling out the full word (if it can be accommodated in the layout) should be an option. As for the road sign icons, I've looked at the icons for the signs that Floydian is trying to use. The shape is such that they are very hard to see. They really do need to be a little larger to be easily seen. The size of the road sign should be an option, too. I think sometimes that people that have worked on Wikipedia for a while forget the project is supposed to be geared toward the audience - the readers - not the editors. Guidelines should be flexible enough to accommodate changes that make an article easier to read and understand. If Floydian has found a way to meet these small variations with another template, I don't see what the big deal is if he documents his changes and specifies for what area the template should be used. As for saying that templates are not to be duplicated for a change in purpose, I beg to differ. Look at all the template for archives.. to list them, to search them. One for searching just the archives, one for searching the talk page and the archives. Duplication with slight modifications is quite prevalent, and for much simpler templates than the junction and infobox road templates. So.. with the condition that Floydian adequately documents the purpose of his template and what the differences are, so that other people in his area can use it, I say it should stay, just like the other templates with slight variations that are in abundance on wikipedia. stmrlbs|talk 06:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  One comment, if I may. It has been long-standing practice that on first usage, the full name be spelled out with the abbreviation in parentheses. In other words, you'd read a sentence like "Interstate 75 (I-75) meets U.S. Highway 23 (US 23) near Flint, Michigan." Then another sentence later would be "I-75 splits from US 23 at Standish, Michigan." Since the abbreviations are introduced elsewhere in the text, using them in the table at the end of the article should be perfectly acceptable. Of course, that doesn't mean that the table has to have abbreviations though. Imzadi1979 (talk) 06:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Ah, but here is a difference. It is common practise to pronounce Interstate 75 (I-75) as "eye seventy-five." It also makes perfect sense to pronounce US 23 as "you-ess twenty-three." Canadian roads do not have a similar pronunciation scheme.

  In response to stmrlbs, that documentation is on the way, but only for the template that isn't up for deletion since this one has a pretty clear consensus behind it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  ... what? --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but it is also common to abbreviate County Road 480 as CR 480, or in my home county, County Road MM as Co. Rd. MM (and yes both methods are used). The first usage would be spelled out, even though you'd be very hard pressed to hear someone pronounce it "see are four eighty". Depending on the usage, the first mention would probably be Marquette County Road 480 (CR 480) and just the abbreviations thereafter, like in the M-28 article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  We don't use those up here though. Nobody ever says CR 6, or even county road 6, because you often travel through several counties. Instead, they are referred to by county name and number. Kawartha Lakes 6. Durham 23. York 68. Our maps NEVER use abbreviations, and neither do our signs. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• If the issue is abbreviations or no abbreviations and this is a valid point, why not make it a parameter on the existing template? Clearly this works for {{convert}} so it should work here. No reason to have two templates for this single reason. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  Except the simplicity of reading and adding to my variation of the template. I could do every shielded road in Canada by simply adding entries (each on individual easy-to-read lines) to the switch lists on a single template. How much work could be expected for doing that to {{jct}}? 15... 20 templates? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  But you set it up once and forget about it. In fact, we would be happy to set it up for you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  I can do that for this one too. Except then I don't have to remember a maze when I go to make some adjustments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is exactly the way it should work: If a global-use template is somehow skewed towards a particular national/regional perspective, then it should be fixed. If the editors who work on it resist fixing it, then broaden the discussion by bringing it to a relevant WikiProject or starting an RFC. Creating a redundant template should not be the solution of first resort. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Or it should be de-globalized and put to use where it is almost exclusively used - American roads. I just don't see the advantage of one template when its so huge and maze like. Besides the idea that one template may not conform the same way if they are split into countries, there is little argument against such a thing. If you go look at an article on a British Motorway, it already has its own setup that is different from American roads. However, if each template is cared for by road enthusiasts from those countries, its not hard to keep them the same in terms of presentation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia template language was a full fledged programming language, I would go with the concept of a "global" template, to be called with different variables depending on locality and type of roads. But, it is not. It is a rather crude type of macro language that is extremely limited by the fact that you can't define variables or even put in a basic programming loop. So, you end up with very innovative people resorting to clever ways to use whatever tools they have available to try to make these repetitive tasks easier. The problem is that with these limitations, you end up with many inner templates calling more inner templates in order to try to perform what would be a simple process in a real programming environment. This is why you end up with templates like this: Template:Loop and this: Template:For_loop to do a simple loop! Evidently, this is by design philosophy WP:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_62#Variables_extension - imo, a bad decision because it makes programming templates for any kind of complexity much more convoluted than necessary. To get to the point, with Wikipedia's template language being what it is, I think there is a benefit to duplicating a template and simplifying it for a limited set of circumstances, versus adding even more parameters to a complex and hard to understand template (for people trying to set it up) in order to keep the "global use" concept. Until Wikipedia allows some better basic programming capabilities in templates, I think there is a benefit to "duplicating" and simplifying a template for a more limited purpose, as long as the documentation is clear about the connection to the original template and why the new template was created. stmrlbs|talk 21:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

... look at the TFD at the bottom of this page. It's of several templates being consolidated into one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

well, I would, except it the duplicate has already been deleted. So, I can't see what the change was. But, I think you are missing my point. I'm saying there is a "sweet spot" where adding more and more parameters to an already complex template for a limited case is just not worth it for wikipedia because of the limitations of the wikipedia templating language. this would apply in some cases and not in others, depending on how easy the extra functionality was to add. stmrlbs|talk 21:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm told that jct is already set up for Canada. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

it's fine if you have a magnifying glass to read the road icons. stmrlbs|talk 22:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There aren't supposed to even be any Canada road icons in jct - due to fair use. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter for this point. The image of those road shield is the same, whether it is fair use or not, and because of the shape of the image, it is very hard to see with the size defined by the infobox road template. stmrlbs|talk 22:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is no image in jct, how can the image size matter? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: Someone informed me off wiki that there are a few provinces that can still use shields. But if you have a problem with sizing, you discuss it at Template talk:Jct - you say there's a problem and you work with people to fix it. You don't just go "{{jct}} sucks" and create your own thing. --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Laura White

Template:Laura White (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Navigational template with barely any links. Singer has one single that hasn't been released yet. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as not having enough relevant links, but with no prejudice against recreating later when there are more links to include. --RL0919 (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as the single has now currently been released, furthermore, a template shouldn't be deleted so it can be re-added in 2 weeks time when she releases a new single, and she is expected to release her debut album imminently. If no new singles etc. materialises within a few weeks then delete, but for the present moment it should be kept. --Patyo1994 (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Radiochange

Template:Radiochange (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This templates is currently used on three articles, two from February 2008 and 1 from March 2008. While it is supposed to designate recently changed radio stations. Clearly not in use. In addition, this template's creator, who was the one to use it the first two times, hasn't been on Wikipdia for over half a year. Also simply redundant to the general {{Update}} template. Debresser (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Avi (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment the template's creator is now known as User:RadioFan and his most recent edit to Wikipedia took place yesterday. - Dravecky (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Sockpuppeteerproven

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] October 31

[edit] Template:Spanish comarca

Template:Spanish comarca (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Redundant to Template:Infobox comarca feeding off the standard template. Himalayan 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: the comarca template is currently being used on close to 200 pages. You need to realize that most of the comarca pages on the english wiki are actually translated from the Spanish wiki, and the comarca template is very similar to the spanish wiki's comarca template, making the transition extremely simple. Additionally it contains just the field needed for a comarca, as opposed to settlement. Frankly I started writing my first comarca page on the english wiki, I took one look at the settlement template and was so daunted by the sheer complexity of the thing that I gave up on the idea and delayed writing for six months until I stumbled upon the comarca template. So on the one hand, it may be redundant, but are we really trying for a swiss army template?? And besides, Template:infobox settlement has no color whatsoever and is ugly; comarca is prettier. ^_^ --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note Mukkakukaku is a significant contributor to the template.

Comment I would say the excessive use of color is actually a reason to delete it, considering the WP:MOS for color. This isn't Skittlepedia. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Skittlepedia it may not be, but the color adds emphasis. Look at infoboxes for other topics, like the {{Taxobox}}. Infobox settlement is plain old, butt-ugly. Not that any of this is important, since I just meant the color comment as an aside. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: complete mis-understanding by the nominator. A comarca is somewhat analogous to an English county. It is a unit of administration in Spain and this template as stated above matches the equivalent in the Spanish wiki precisely. A comarca is not a settlement and this template should be kept for use on artciles on Spain in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. I know exactly what a comarca is, We replace this with {{Infobox Administrative division}} or even {{Infobox comarca}}, now find an answer to that one.. Himalayan 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment, then it's redundant to {{Infobox county}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Actually it's more of an administrative division than a county. The exact meaning of the division depends on which region of Spain you're in. For example, in Catalonia it's a local government area governed by a council, whereas in Valencia it's a historical regional representation that has no meaning in today's government. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 04:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Then it's redundant to {{Infobox Administrative division}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindented) Infobox Administrative division is a redirect to Infobox settlement, which is what the original discussion was about. So is Infobox comarca, which is the current "candidate" for redundancy. IIRC, there are about 500 comarcas in Spain alone, which are different from comarcas in Portugal, Panama, etc -- and none of them are settlements. I'm sure it would be possible to create a swiss army template to encompass all forms of human-defined geographical divisions, but really I'm not sure it's necessary. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this template could be moved to {{Infobox comarca}} and expanded so that it is not specific to Spain? I could see that as a reasonable compromise. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say, tentatively -- yes that would be a fine solution. Frankly I don't know enough about Comacas in countries other than Spain to really be able to say that. In Brazil they're part of the judicial structure, and I have no idea what sort of information might be included in that case, and I know next to nothing about their use in France and Italy. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Lien web

[edit] Template:Main page banner

[edit] Template:Geobox River

Template:Geobox River (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Geobox Mountain Range (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

These templates are no longer used in any articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Although it has just recently been deprecated, I think that is no problem, since {{Geobox}} can fulfill all of its functions. BTW, I am surprised the nominator didn't also nominate {{Geobox Mountain Range}}, which was deprecated along with {{Geobox River}}. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as unused and redundant. --RL0919 (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Locate me

Template:Locate me (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Locate me long (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

These template are deprecated and are no longer used in any articles. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I deprecated them (or had a big hand in it, don't remember the details), and it is time for their deletion. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Taxobox regnum entry

Template:Taxobox regnum entry (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This template has been deprecated; it is currently not used in any article. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as unused outside of a few user sandbox pages, and redundant to {{Taxobox}}. --RL0919 (talk) 15:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Arizona delegation to the 110th Congress

Template:Arizona delegation to the 110th Congress (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Alaska delegation to the 110th Congress (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Alabama delegation to the 110th Congress (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old, unused templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as outdated and unused. The list at a previous discussion suggests that there are a bunch more like these that also ought to be deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:1984 NL Standings

Template:1984 NL Standings (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old, unused template. It could be substituted if there is an article where this information could be of some use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Oddly enough, the NL standings weren't in 1984 Major League Baseball season, I've just added them there. No other uses for this template that I can think of. BryanG (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2007 NL Wild Card standings

Template:2007 NL Wild Card standings (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old, unused template. Could be substituted if there is an article that could use this information? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Egyptian Second Division

Template:Egyptian Second Division (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template is for a non-national level football league, in which most of the teams listed fail WP:FOOTYN... Half of the links used on the template are redlinked (non-notable teams), and most of the rest of the teams have been prodded... With only a handful of the teams listed passing WP:FOOTYN, the template is doomed to forever be full of 99% redlinks... Adolphus79 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Prod deletion has been contested for those teams which were prodded, so, unless and until these get deleted at AfD they are not doomed to be redlinks. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Brewer

Template:Brewer (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Old, unused template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 15:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The edit summary at it's creation ("may as well have this") suggests that it was created speculatively, in case it might be useful. The lack of use in the years since suggests that speculation was wrong. --RL0919 (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:OriginalHornets

Template:OriginalHornets (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

I fail to see why this particular roster is notable. They weren't members of a championship team —Chris!_c/t 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] October 30

[edit] Template:Container-cat

Propose merging Template:Container-cat with Template:Parent category.

Template:Container-cat (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Parent category (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

These two templates, and their respective categories, accomplish the same thing. There is no need to have two separate templates for this purpose. See related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_30#Category:Wikipedia_categories_that_should_contain_only_sub-categories. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. I agree that these essentially duplicate the same function, and should be merged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete As I said in that discussion, I see no justification for this idea, and even if a justification were to be found, I see no need for this template and the category that goes with it. Debresser (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the template is very useful, moreso than the category. I do use this to perform clean-up of categories, so I would want at least one of the templates kept. The corresponding category is not necessary to perform the clean-up, but the template is crucial to it. I know this won't be convincing to someone who won't consider a justification, but some of us have used this and continue to do so ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UK Docks

Template:UK Docks (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Unused/abandoned template. Only two edits back in August. Only linked from one article. Simple Bob (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, just needs work, could be very handy when finished. AJUK ^Talk!! 20:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As the author you would say that! --Simple Bob (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. On this surface this seems to be a reasonable navigation box. Is it not used on more articles because there have been attempts to place it that were rejected, or has there simply not been much effort to use it? --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Preacher

Template:Preacher (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not enough relevant links for a template. Marcus Brute (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete Has potential, but many articles on the topic area are yet to be written. For now, a navigational template seems redundant to the infobox and thus premature.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. A couple of the links are dubious (God?), but subtracting those it just barely has enough links to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• This isn't a valuable navigational aid. Pages which feature it are likely to link inline to every relevant subject anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 05:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep - The Preacher is notable, and I realize that a link to GOD looks strange, but he IS a character in "Preacher" _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Pasig City

Template:Pasig City (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The links are not exclusive to Pasig City and is misleading. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 01:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Only used on one page. Not useful as a template. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Completed discussions

The contents of this section are transcluded from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/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:

• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Administrator instructions

Closing in progress:

• None Currently

[edit] To review

Templates for which each transclusion requires individual attention and analysis before the template is deleted.

Please link to the per-day page that has the discussion on it.

• Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_23#Template:Film_screenshot_fur

  • Template:Film screenshot fur (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - for all transclusions, an acceptable fair use rationale must be provided or the image should be tagged with {{Dfu}} or nominated at WP:FFD. JPG-GR (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

[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.

• None Currently

[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