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 December 24 3.1.1 Template:North American School Bus Manufacturers 3.1.2 Template:Tianjin 3.1.3 Template:Arthur C. Clarke 3.1.4 Template:The Beach Girl5 3.1.5 Template:Beach Girl5 3.1.6 Template:Footer Movies Silambarasan 3.1.7 Template:Infobox Imaplestory 3.2 December 23 3.2.1 Template:Suicide response 3.2.2 Template:Infobox CD Information 2 3.2.3 Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T) 3.2.4 Template:XD5 3.3 December 22 3.3.1 Template:Valenzuela City evolution of area 3.3.2 Template:India-squash-bio-stub 3.3.3 Template:TPATF 3.3.4 Template:@ 3.3.5 Template:Greater Sydney Regions 3.3.6 Template:UAAP 72 men's badminton 3.3.7 Template:Major cities of Greater China 3.4 December 21 3.4.1 Template:In Plain Sight 3.4.2 Template:Nname 3.4.3 Template:Northwestern Wildcats Football 3.4.4 Template:AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs 3.5 December 20 3.5.1 Template:Similar Games 3.5.2 Template:Leu 3.5.3 Template:Greater Fresno 3.5.4 Forks of {{electromagnetism}} 3.5.5 Template:State Roads in Indiana 3.5.6 Template:User Carthage 3.6 December 19 3.6.1 Template:Cal State Northridge bowl games 3.6.2 Template:Cabinet Dufaure I 3.6.3 Template:CWSL taxobox 3.6.4 Interstate navboxes with three links 3.6.5 Template:CWL 3.6.6 Template:Oceanic gyres 3.6.7 Template:British Latin American 3.6.8 Template:Beta Sigma Psi Presidents 3.6.9 Template:2007–08 Philadelphia 76ers season game log 3.6.10 Template:NYX (comics) 3.6.11 Template:Megatokyo 3.6.12 Template:Rolling Stones' The 100 Greatest Guitarist Of All Time/ 3.7 December 18 3.7.1 Template:WPbox 3.7.2 Template:Simi Valley, California 3.7.3 Template:Hidden infoboxes 3.7.4 Template:John Most 3.7.5 Template:Container category 3.7.6 Template:Baptist footer 3.7.7 Template:Economy of Sri Lanka table 3.7.8 Template:Ram Truck Timeline 3.7.9 Template:Tina Fey 3.7.10 Template:Control cities 3.8 December 17 3.8.1 Template:My bloody valentine film 3.8.2 Template:Film Music 3.8.3 Template:Reaper (TV series) 3.8.4 Template:The Riches 3.8.5 Template:Three Rivers 3.8.6 Template:Uncategorized template 3.8.7 Template:Unreferenced WP 3.8.8 Template:Wikia 3.8.9 Template:Tnmoccol-begin 3.8.10 Template:Rz 3.8.11 Template:Missing Persons (TV series) 3.8.12 Template:Crossroads 3.8.13 Template:Amigas y Rivales 3.8.14 Template:Two Pints 3.8.15 Template:Bewitched 4 Old discussions 4.1 December 16 4.1.1 Template:Always Sunny 4.1.2 Template:Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior 4.1.3 Template:The Latest Buzz 4.1.4 Template:The Buzz on Maggie 4.1.5 Template:Doc Martin 4.1.6 Template:Post disco-footer 4.1.7 Template:Beautiful People 4.1.8 Template:CB Girona 4.1.9 Template:Blackfamilytree 4.1.10 Template:Bagginsfamily 4.1.11 Template:Slammy Award Winners 4.1.12 Template:Infobox CD Information 2 4.1.13 Template:Arborwiki 4.1.14 Template:Wings 4.1.15 Template:Wisdom 4.1.16 Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T) 4.1.17 Template:Wswiki 4.1.18 Template:XD5 4.1.19 Template:Xavier bowl games 4.1.20 Template:Y-DNA Phylogenetic Tree 4.1.21 Template:Yesterday date 4.2 December 15 4.2.1 Template:Cleanup-remainder 4.2.2 Template:Climate chart/column 4.2.3 Template:Sofia Rotaru songs 4.2.4 Template:Family Guy writers 4.2.5 Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous 4.2.6 Template:White Album Characters 4.3 December 13 4.3.1 Template:Lancaster Barnstormers roster 4.3.2 Template:Manchurian history 4.3.3 Template:Iftrue 4.3.4 Template:TestTemplates 4.3.5 Template:Unnecessary attribution? 4.3.6 Template:I-66 aux 4.3.7 Template:Brisdaytimeschedule 4.3.8 Template:Greater Fresno 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] December 24

[edit] Template:North American School Bus Manufacturers

Template:North American School Bus Manufacturers (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:North American school bus manufacturers (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:North American School Bus Manufacturers with Template:North American school bus manufacturers.
I found this nomination incomplete. I propose merging into Template:North American School Bus Manufacturers, which has more details, but would remove the yellow bands, and include chassis suppliers. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tianjin

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

Template:Landmarks in Tianjin (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Tianjin with Template:Landmarks in Tianjin.
I found this nomination incomplete. At Template_talk:Tianjin it said "Like the Beijing, Shanghai, and chongqing Templates, We should merge Tianjin Template with Template:Landmarks in Tianjin". Debresser (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Arthur C. Clarke

Template:Arthur C. Clarke (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Footer The Novels of Arthur C. Clarke (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Propose merging Template:Arthur C. Clarke with Template:Footer The Novels of Arthur C. Clarke.
The footer is completely included in the general Clarke template, which is related enough to replace it. The only thing the general template deoesn't indicate is the authors with which some works were written as a collaboration, which I think is anyway out of place in a template. Debresser (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Beach Girl5

Template:The Beach Girl5 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Not sure what's going on here. The title suggests it's about one non-notable group, but the content is about another. Either way... Bobyllib (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Beach Girl5

Template:Beach Girl5 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template for non-notable band - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beach Girl5 Bobyllib (talk) 19:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Footer Movies Silambarasan

Template:Footer Movies Silambarasan (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The work of an ardent fan, promoting his favourite actor. Unencyclopedic and irrelevent as the actor is not too famous and has not done anything of worth value Universal Hero (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Imaplestory

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

Template only meant for a single (deleted) page, Imaplestory. Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused, broken, and intended for use in a spam article that has been repeatedly deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 23

[edit] Template:Suicide response

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

This template came to my attention at this discussion. It's use would go against the suicide essay, and using a templated message is not a substitute for a personalized message. Using a templated message in such a delicate situation as suicide threats has far more potential to do harm than to help resolve the situation. As one of the original instigators of the UW template system, this template goes against the original goals of the user warnings project which was to help with repetitive situations i.e. vandal control etc, suicide threats are far and away from a repetitive situation. Though this template is not currently part of the UW plethora, the fact it's in template space means it certainly would be misused in the same vein and must have a personalized approach and not a template. ^Khukri 19:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Suicide threats, whether serious or not, must always be taken seriously. We should not reply to suicide threats with canned templates. Samboy (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I though it was a good idea when it was created (in response to this ANI thread (as did at least three other admins who responded to its creation there)), and I still do. It is designed to provide useful information, and it does. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: We don't want potentially suicidal users to feel "processed" by the "Wikipedia bureaucracy". Suicide is a serious issue, and using an impersonal, bot-like template to deal with it may agitate disturbed users even more. While I agree that the information provided within the template is valuable, it should be provided in a custom-made message addressing the unique issues within every case as much as appropriate, i.e., by a real person. A templated message would be counterproductive in this instance, possibly with ramifications much more serious than the usual "user blocked", "article protected", "page deleted". The purpose of templated messages is to make it quicker for a response to be delivered, and whilst this is all well and good with basic vandalism, responses to suicide threats must be thought out individually for each situation. Intelligentsium 20:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with a basic premise that a custom-made note is necessarily superior or a conclusion that it "would be counterproductive". Sometimes templated messages are created to help ensure that people don't say the wrong thing and unintentionally exacerbate the situation. This one was created for precisely that reason. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• and it was with this premise that we created the original UW templates, to create a standardised approach to warnings so that new editors wouldn't do the wrong thing and could have confidence the message they were giving had some form of concensus. But in my opinion this template is different, it is for a realm that the editor should be well informed and tread delicately. Though WP:SUICIDE is only an essay, I do believe the prominence of take it to ANI to be telling. This would then put it into the realm of those who should know how to approach such a delicate subject, those who know the correct procedures and actions to be taken. Having this template accessible to all, could put the editor who had all the best intentions into issuing a template and creating a greater situation when a more introspective approach by those who are familiar, such as yourself, with the guidelines would be advisable. Regards ^Khukri 20:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• When suicidal threats are taken to ANI, response is non-standard and depends entirely on who is watching ANI at a given moment. The primary argument for deletion I see is that the response is automated and that a personal response is merited. The difference between a template and a personal response is minimal to the recipient; what matters is what the template says. A standard response there is very helpful, as Wikipedians are in no better position to practice psychology than we are to practice medicine. We should routinely and immediately refer individuals who express suicidal ideation to people who are in position to help them. We are not. Several people have mentioned their beliefs that this template is dangerous; it is my opinion that armchair psychology is dangerous. Text is a blunt medium of communication, particularly when dealing with a stranger. A trained responder on a suicidal hotline can pick up nonverbal cues that can help him or her in his approach to the individual. They know better than to provide superficial reassurances or to give advice or fall into any of the other common errors in addressing such individuals. The best approach to such a delicate situation is to recognize our limitations and help these people find real help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I would say that suicide threats are one area where we should have a standardized response. As mentioned in the original ANI thread (referenced by Moonriddengirl), we, as editors, are not mental-health professionals, and we are not trained to respond to this sort of situation. While it may seem heartless to some, I see this template as a way for an editor to respond easily to a situation which is outside his expertise. Trying to administer an "individually thought out" response to each threat is more likely to cause problems, in my opinion. The best thing for us as encyclopedia editors to do is to divert the person making the threat to an outlet which could actually help them. As currently written, that is exactly what this template does. If there is a more effective method, then the template should be improved, not deleted. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Forcefully strong delete Even if we are not a reliable place to turn for self-help, when an editor uses Wikipedia as an outlet to express suicidal thoughts it is our moral imperative to reach out to him as best as we can. Suicide threats need personalised response, not a fire-and-forget template. Suicide is not an issue for bureaucracy, but human response from real life people. This template is more than heartless, it is dangerous to the well-being of the editors who are on the receiving end. Coming from someone who has been to the edge, this template is a danger to those it is aimed at and the option to use it shouldn't even be on the table. ThemFromSpace 21:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment It's dangerous to direct people to suicide hotlines? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support the idea, but not the implementation - A standardised response template serves at least four purposes: (1) it reduces the likelihood that an editor responding to a suicide threat will say the wrong things and exacerbate the situation; (2) it increases the likelihood that an editor will respond to a suicide threat instead of doing nothing or wasting time due to hesitation about the correct course of action; (3) it increases the likelihood that a person contemplating suicide will receive the resource (the external link) contained in the template; and (4) it protects (even if only partially) the editor responding to a suicide threat from excess emotional distress in the event that the attempt to encourage seeking professional help is unsuccessful.
  However, I would like to propose two changes: (1) alter the wording of the template to be less of a notice and to focus more on providing resources for the person contemplating suicide instead of describing Wikipedia; and (2) since these types of situations can form the basis of legal issues, I believe that the text of any template of this kind should be determined by the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer(s) rather than by editors. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm with Black Flacon on this one - I think we need the template, but the wording needs to be amended as per BF's suggestion - and I think the input of WMF's lawyer would be a very good idea, so that future use of this can be legally covered. As I agree with there being such a template, but not this particular one, I can neither oppose or support, hence my neutral. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox CD Information 2

Template:Infobox CD Information 2 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The template is incomplete. Mayuresh 09:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T)

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (Val di Noto) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Appears to be redundant to {{World Heritage Sites in Italy}} Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:XD5

Template:XD5 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:XD4 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

This appears to be left over from some experiment? It doesn't appear to be needed anymore? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it looks like a forerunner of WP:PROD. Note Wikipedia:Experimental Deletion is marked historical and failed. ... I say that WP:XD needs cleanup, what with left over categories and templates lying about. 76.66.201.33 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 22

[edit] Template:Valenzuela City evolution of area

[edit] Template:India-squash-bio-stub

[edit] Template:TPATF

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

There's only 4 entries, and an upcoming video game. There's no sequels planned. I don't believe this justifies the film having its own navbox. Mike Allen 06:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, there aren't enough links to justify a useful navigation box. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, as the template actually links only 3 articles directly related to its main subject: the film, the soundtrack and the title character. The other is a redirect to the soundtrack article and Disney Princess is a completely independent franchise. --LoЯd ۞pεth 07:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:@

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

This template is being used on less than 100 pages (mostly user and user talk pages) to transclude Image:At sign.svg in email addresses even though one could just as easily (in fact, more easily) use the "@" sign on the keyboard. Replace with "@" and delete. (Template creator notified using Template:Tfdnotice) –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 02:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is a protective measure against scraping spiders that collect for spam mail. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • If that's the case, then would substing work? Would a bot recognise email addresses with an image inserted in the middle? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• • • Well... the code generated for

 username{{@|12}}domain.name 

looks like

 username<a href="/File:At_sign.svg" class="image" title="@"><img alt="@" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/At_sign.svg/12px-At_sign.svg.png" width="12" height="12" /></a>domain.name 

I'd bet a bot would have a hard time with that

• • • As for subst-ing ...

 username[[Image:At_sign.svg|12px|@]]domain.name 

Which would generate the aforementioned lump of code, also being hard to parse.

• • • But that wouldn't solve future concerns with such bots... if people still don't wish to be spambotted after the template is deleted... 70.29.211.163 (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a potential arms race here, and {{@}} (without subst:) allows us to deploy any new weaponry against the axis of spam with a single edit. However, {{NoSpam|username|domain.name}}, which includes File:Nospam at.svg, does the job even better. Perhaps we should upgrade users of Template:@ to Template:NoSpam. Certes (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Greater Sydney Regions

Template:Greater Sydney Regions (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

An editor has very recently unilaterally and completely unnecessarily replaced {{Sydney image with region labels}} with this template. It is visually unappealing, oversized and the labels are placed quite strangely (Eastern Suburbs, for instance). —what a crazy random happenstance 05:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ——what a crazy random happenstance 05:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

i created it to cover the greater sydney region over the original template which only covered out to the blacktown area. it can be resized as it is a template, and cna be recoloured if neccessary to make it more visually appealing, still less confusing than the aerial photograph that is there and only covers a partial area of sydney--Hatgreg (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply extend the aerial map (ie. replace it with a visually similar but broader map) in the original template? There was no need for a new one, and you didn't even replace the aerial photograph consistently, meaning some articles used the old and some the new templates. —what a crazy random happenstance 13:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Extending the aerial map would lack consistancy because of the way that aerial photographs are taken, and layered, one would also need to take a broader view of it, as extending westward would also mean, for consistency to extend north and south somewhat. also, if it where a different colour variation this image may be more visually appealing as it is less busy and landmarks would be more visiually distinguishable than that of an aerial photograph. also i don't understand what you mean by the strange placing of eastern suburbs, the people of maroubra certainly do not identify with the people of rose bay--Hatgreg (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

People of Maroubra (myself included) most certainly do, do you even live in Sydney? I say that not as an attack, but because you don't seem to be very familiar with the regions. For the record, the entirety of Waverley, Woollahra and Randwick councils are universally and without fail considered Eastern Suburbs, and the CBD is sometimes added to create a "City & East". From Watson's Bay to La Perouse people think of themselves as Easterners (as opposed to Westies and the strange furry creatures which inhabit the North). Like I said, by extending the map I mean replacing it with a visually similar but different map. If you want to replace it with a schematic map, that's great, but I'm afraid it's going to have to be better than this JPEG monstrosity. —what a crazy random happenstance 02:47, 15 December 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) 01:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:UAAP 72 men's badminton

Template:UAAP 72 men's badminton (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Templates these as this are created iff the ladder/team standings table has to be replicated across to or more articles. Since these are located at only one article, there's no need for these to be templated.

Also included:

• Template:UAAP 72 women's badminton
• Template:UAAP 72 men's judo
• Template:UAAP 72 women's judo
• Template:UAAP 72 junior's judo

–Howard the Duck 18:20, 13 December 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) 01:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Major cities of Greater China

Template:Major cities of Greater China (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

I'm moving this here from MfD, where it was originally nominated by Dave1185. His rationale was: "This article is a random list of "Major cities of Greater China". There are many cities of substantial Chinese population but they do not necessarily all speak Chinese or other Chinese dialects and even a complete list of them would serve no purpose as this categorization is without meaning. It would be similar to creating a "List of cities by the river" or "List of cities by the sea", in other words it is an inherently non-encyclopedic list." As the procedural nominator here, I am neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• DELETE: this template has been hijacked by several POV pusher to include cities like Singapore (and especially Singapore), Vancouver, Georgetown and Kuala Lumpur because of their substantial population of ethnic Chinese. IMO, there should be clear line drawn between greater China and those outside of it (and that includes Taiwan, which is considered as a "renegade province") but clearly somebody don't get it and kept insisting on getting a consensus to to do the above whilst discussing at the article's talk page. Lastly, I'm still of the view that this template is not really encyclopedic, at all, and serves no meaningful purpose. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 04:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Rename to Template:cities with large ethnic Chinese populations and qualify it in the template documentation with Chinese populations exceeding whatever cutoff is determined to be. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Greater China here refers to mainland China and Taiwan. The template is so named because calling it anything else would provoke disputes related to the status of Taiwan. It is not intended to include every city in the world with a substantial Chinese population. As a template that lists major cities in both mainland China and Taiwan, it serves its intended purpose.--Danaman5 (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that's "One China" , not "Greater China" 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The nomination seems to be be based on a misunderstanding of what the template is supposed to contain. Based on what it does contain, it appears to be a useful navbox. It might be helpful if some documentation was added explaining the inclusion criteria, to avoid future misunderstandings. --RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- I don't see any problem with this template, it doesn't include any cities besides the ones in "Greater" china region and i vote for Keep--LLTimes (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete because we don't have a neutral way to distinguish between what is inside and outside of "Greater China". The Greater China article does not draw firm boundaries. The term sometimes includes only Taiwan and China, and at other times includes other places with large Chinese speaking populations such as those in Singapore and Malaysia. The terms seems to have originated as a business term which allowed for focusing on marketing commonalities and working with people who could communicate with each other and had similar culture. Instead, this template is being used as a way to push a POV that Taiwan is part of China. If we decide to keep it, we need to do as 76.66.192.35 and give it a less politically loaded name and have clearer guidelines for its use. I had proposed using a simple measure of 50% Chinese speaking population and setting a minimum population (500,000 was proposed by someone). But attempting to use this standard generated a fierce emotional response from people who did not want to have Singapore included - again showing how politically charged the term "Greater China" is and the difficulty in using it as a template. Delete it. Readin (talk) 21:42, 15 December 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) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 21

[edit] Template:In Plain Sight

Template:In Plain Sight (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Basically, this is a template for only two articles. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, completely unnecessary. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 23:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough links for a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Nname

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

Unused template that is unnecessary. It states "This template can be used for the subject of a lead in biographical articles." We do not need a template to properly embolden names and position nicknames. It is more complicated to use than placing style formatting. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a template for formatting, not just outputting plain content, so I don't think the passage Black Falcon quotes is applicable. Nonetheless, I don't see this template as being useful. The users who don't know where to place a nickname, or who don't know that the first appearance of the subject's name should be bolded (the two things this template does), are not likely to know how to use a template correctly either. Better to stick with basic wiki-formatting as suggested in the nom. --RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It is ultimately a template for displaying article text, even if its raison d'être is to order that text in a certain way. In any case, I agree that simply correcting the location of a misplaced nickname or adding a hidden comment to articles for which this is a recurring problem are better approaches. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Northwestern Wildcats Football

Template:Northwestern Wildcats Football (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

There is already Template:NorthwesternWildcatsFootball, which includes more seasons than this template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: If there already is one, then this is redundant and unnecessary. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Redundant--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs

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

Can't see how this would ever be used in a constructive way. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Really unhelpful, and the joke is also totally unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete extremely unhelpful. -SpacemanSpiff 09:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No use at all. Could even by a copyright violation to use the full text in this manner (With no critical commentary, I don't see how this can be fair use. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy Only use is as humour, and so userfication is proper. No reason for deletion from userspace at that point. Many user templates contain humour, as a point of reference. And humour is a matter of taste - humourlessness is not. Collect (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - While I do support the idea that humour should be often be preserved in userspace, this principle applies only in limited circumstances. Allowing editors to preserve Wikipedia-related humour for which Wikipedia editors are responsible in no way suggests that Wikipedia should become a repository for humour in general. The text of this template is available on various other websites, is unrelated to Wikipedia, and was not created by one of our editors; so, even putting aside potential non-free use issues (highlighted above by Bradjamesbrown), a userfied version of this template would fail Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not constructive, and potential copyright issues. --RL0919 (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails NFCC, not really useful. Gigs (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Userfy - I couldn't exactly put it in my user namespace. I'm kinda a new user and I would like it if every template I created was userfied instead of deleted. You see, I need those templates for a page in my namespace and if they're deleted, I'd have to delete an entire section! TheGreenMartian (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Serves no purpose other than humor, though I do not get the joke. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • See All your base are belong to us. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh I get it now. It's still not worthy of being a template though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 20

[edit] Template:Similar Games

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

Beyond the fact that it's called such a generic name, it's quite obvious, based on the contrib history, that the author is trying to get broader viewings for Zatikon. In addition, there's MANY games that are much more similar to FFT than some of the entries. But beyond all that, there's no real benefit to a mav template in this case, as any actual neutral list would be fully covered by a catagory or list ariticle in the first place. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• It certainly needs to be renamed if not deleted; that kind of generic name is unacceptable. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Leu

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

The template contains four currencies, one of which is unrelated to the others. Maintaining a template for the remaining three currencies is not necessary, fortunately they are all part of the Template:Currencies of Europe. Timur lenk (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Greater Fresno

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

Unused template. The counties/cities/towns/subregions it lists all use either Template:Fresno County, California or Template:Madera County, California instead. The main article it links to, Metropolitan Fresno, is in the process of being reworked into Fresno-Madera, CA CSA. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Forks of {{electromagnetism}}

Template:Electromagnetism2 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Electromagnetism3 (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

These are merely forks of {{electromagnetism}} created in the hope of providing a tidier version. {{Electromagnetism2}} was the first attempt but it cut a lot of links. A better solution came with {{electromagnetism3}} where show/hide boxes were used. The improvements have since been implimented in the original template and now we're left with two unused forks. JIMp _talk·cont 08:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:State Roads in Indiana

Template:State Roads in Indiana (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

There is a precedent against these; see WP:USRD/P#State highway system templates. Lists and categories make these redundant, the template takes too much space, and the divisions are arbitrary. Rschen7754 (T C) 07:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete- Per precedent and the fact List of State Roads in Indiana handles this need. ---Dough4872 16:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as there have been so many similar templates, and every one of them were deleted. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 19

[edit] Template:Cal State Northridge bowl games

Template:Cal State Northridge bowl games (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template with a single redlink Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused and abandoned, with no edits since it was created in February, and it is a navbox with only one link, which doesn't even exist. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Cabinet Dufaure I

Template:Cabinet Dufaure I (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure II (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure III (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure IV (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Cabinet Dufaure V (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Cabinet Broglie I (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Cabinet Broglie II (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Cabinet Broglie III (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template, with no parent articles (Dufaure I Cabinet, ...)? Note that all the cabinet members are listed on Jules Armand Dufaure and Albert, 4th duc de Broglie, so no information would be lost. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CWSL taxobox

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

Old, orphaned template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Interstate navboxes with three links

Template:I-69 aux (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:I-71 aux (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:I-74 aux (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:I-77 aux (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:I-89 aux (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:I-93 aux (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

These templates serve to directly link three articles each, and in each case the primary routes have links to the auxiliary routes, and vice versa. Delete as underpopulated navboxes. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep for consistency purposes, and because with three articles, they still are useful. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that "consistency" is a suitable reason to keep underused and underpopulated templates hanging around. I'm also not convinced of the utility of navigating between auxiliary routes that aren't even connected. With the detailed descriptions and exit lists, those that are are already well-linked. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that you're not convinced. Having the same template provides the user a consistent location where the links are always located. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - In this case, there are enough links within the template to justify its existence. ---Dough4872 04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Boxes with only four or five relevant links are routinely deleted. Why should these three-link boxes be different? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 11:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Becuase they provide a listing of all the Interstate's auxiliary routes, allowing one to navigate between the articles easily. The only Interstate auxiliary route templates that should be deleted are for Interstates with only one auxiliary route, as a navbox with one article is useless and can easily be served by one wikilink. ---Dough4872 17:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
      • This doesn't explain why these two-item navboxes are technically different from the other two-item navboxes we've been deleting lately. Remember that TfD is primarily a technical venue. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
        • To explain my position, if the template includes more than one article other than the main article, then it has vaild reason to exist as it provides navigation. For example, in the I-71 template, I-71 is the main article and I-271 and I-471 are the auxiliary routes in the navbox. This template is useful for navigation as one reading the I-271 article can easily navigate to the main I-71 article or to the I-471 article. However, with the I-83 template, it was useless as the only other interstate than the main article is I-283. A link between one article and the other seemed more appropriate than a large navbox for I-83's auxiliary routes with only one listed. ---Dough4872 01:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
          • What's the imagined use case of navigating between I-471 and I-271, being as they are not remotely connected? You also haven't answered the question I posed - what makes these templates different from other three-item navboxes, bearing in mind they are invariably deleted? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
            • There are some readers who may want to flip between the various auxiliary routes of an interstate. Also, give me examples of other three-item navboxes that have been deleted. ---Dough4872 01:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:CWL

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

Redundant to [[ceb:{{PAGENAME}}]] Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Oceanic gyres

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

This template is no longer used, details. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 12:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

{{Ocean Currents}} has been deleted. The replacement for this in fact is the confusingly named {{OG&C}}. A redirect seems reasonable to me unless the replacement is renamed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete: I've named it that way for the fact that this template will be used in a large number of articles, thus a short name will slightly ease editing. I chose this type of name based on the similar titled, TBSW template. Regards. Rehman⁽⁺⁾ 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:British Latin American

Template:British Latin American (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template. Redundant to {{British Latin-Americans}}? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't the navbox style what we should prefer? Or, actually... shouldn't both be included in appropriate articles? I'm leaning towards keep with the understanding that this will be added to (at least) the articles that are currently using {{British Latin-Americans}}.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:30, 9 December 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) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge together, and put a switch in to select footer or sidebar style. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Beta Sigma Psi Presidents

Template:Beta Sigma Psi Presidents (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Navigation template with no navigation. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• eh... fix it (change the names to links) and Keep
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  You could, but unfortunately, the result would be nothing but red links. So, you would have to create all the articles as well. Sounds like putting the cart before the horse. Wouldn't it be better to create a list in the Beta Sigma Psi article, and build up from there? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  well, yea, but... I ain't gonna cry if it ends up being deleted or anything, but even if it remains in it's current state, it's not as though it couldn't be fixed. If you see what I mean.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless several of the articles are created before this closes. There's no use for a navigation box with no articles to navigate to. --RL0919 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 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) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:2007–08 Philadelphia 76ers season game log

Template:2007–08 Philadelphia 76ers season game log (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template, not much content. See {{Game log info}} for rationale about these being deprecated in other sports. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• subst, then Delete
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 13:10, 9 December 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) 02:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:NYX (comics)

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

Navigational template linking 5 articles - Publisher, a single publication, and 3 characters. J Greb (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Megatokyo

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

Navigation box linking 5 pages - main article, the wrtier/artist, and 3 lists. J Greb (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rolling Stones' The 100 Greatest Guitarist Of All Time/

[edit] December 18

[edit] Template:WPbox

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

Template which is being used to create Self-references to wikipedia, specifically wikiprojects. While this box might have some utility in non-article space, (Wikipedia, User, maintenance categories), it is currently being used in article space, and it and any derivative templates should be deleted and removed from article space. Optigan13 (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: This template may be used for WikiProject reference in an article, however it confines the link to a floating linkbox at the right side of See also section to denote that it is not a part of the article. This template is currently used in 346 articles. This template provides a link to a catagorized WikiProject in some of these articles, but links to other WikiProjects in many other articles. See Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals and Africa for examples. This template is compatible with Template:Portal which is used throughout Wikipedia. The presence of this template may provide access to additional article resources while encouraging participation in the WikiProject. I believe this avoids the distraction of WikiProject self-references. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 23:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete We don't link to project pages from articles. Portals are encyclopedia content, so the "compatibility" with {{portal}} is irrelevant. These boxes—and similar noticeboard templates like {{Ireland NB}}—were added to a large number of articles without any consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Talk pages are for wikiproject ads, not articles. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Why delete? To delete a template because it may be used inappropriately is rather like prohibiting all water because someone could drown. Buaidh (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears that this is more than a matter of how it "may" be used. The documentation says it is for use in articles, and it is in fact used predominantly in articles and in other templates that are used in articles. --RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Alter: Then change the documentation! I will happily change the documentation of this template and all templates that invoke this template. I don't think this template violates the spirit of Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, but if there is a consensus to the contrary, I will remove these templates from any article that is in the same WikiProject category. Buaidh (talk) 03:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep In general the template is used in good faith....i would also bet that its use helps in promoting editing threw WikiProject (which for most new users is there first introduction to the HOW TO'S of WIKI). Having a link to a page with people all interested in a topic ..i would think is one of the foundations that Wikipedia depends on. I can only speak from my experience, but links of this nature brings like minded people together. Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and change the documentation to reflect the fact that it cannot be used in NS:0 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Andrwsc summed up my thoughts quite well: portals are reader-oriented and part of the encyclopedia, whereas WikiProjects are editor-oriented project pages. I am also concerned about the possibility that effectively "stamping" articles with WikiProject boxes could give the wrong impression about the extent to which a WikiProject has 'authority' over the content of an article. If a valid and general use outside of the main namespace can be suggested, then I would be fine with keeping the template and restricting its use to non-mainspace pages. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not sure they'd be all that useful on non-mainspace pages, because of their size and location. Traditional WikiProject banner notices serve the purpose well enough without having to invent another alternative. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

  I suppose that's true. The current non-mainspace uses of the template do not seem to justify its existence. The template is used in Talk:New Zealand, where it duplicates Template:WPNZ, and in Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado, where it merely illustrates the template's use. Perhaps the only place where it is used well is Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals, but it's not worth keeping 50+ templates (e.g., {{Pennsylvania WPbox}}) for just one projectspace list. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: A simple modification to this template will inhibit its display in NS:0. This will permit the template and its descendents to continue operating at Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals but preclude its use in articles. Buaidh (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I am fine with this suggestion. We could do that, so the template may not be used in articles, but it may be used in the list of portals. That sounds good. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I think it would improve participation in wikiprojects to have this minor link in directly associated articles. Just have a stringent rule that it must be placed in "See also" and any other location is prohibited. Wikiprojects are key to the success of this encyclopedia, and we shouldn't hide them. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: the sole purpose of this template is to create self-references, which are clearly deprecated. I was tempted to say "keep" provided its use in article space is disabled, but on reflection that's pointless because projects already have their own banners to apply to to talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Change: I have updated the documentation for this template to exclude its use in the main namespace. I have begun removing all invocations in the main namespace. Nevertheless, the intrusion of a single WikiProject linkbox into the See also section of an article seems rather insignificant compared with the mega-billboard advertisements for donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. This seems exceedingly incongruous. We should reexamine the rigidity of our policy at some time in the future. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with your position. But I don't understand why you are implementing a solution before a decision is made in this case. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • The object of this discussion is not to win, but to reach a working consensus. If knowledgeable editors disagree in this matter, then a compromise should be sought. Buaidh (talk) 20:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Changes made: The 80 descendant templates of Template:WPbox have been excluded from the main namespace, and all invocations of WPbox have been removed from the main namespace. All documentation has been updated to reflect the exclusion. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Why are the descendant templates necessary in the first place given that the documentation of Template:WPbox indicates that the template can handle parameters for individual WikiProjects? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
    • A few comments
      1. I think the individual project templates are there to standardize the usage, so if the image or other component needed to be adjusted, it could be done from the template without several edits. This came up at Portal talk:California#Portal link images where there were multiple different images in use. I think the portal templates are a good thing for standardization, but as was previously noted portals are reader facing.
      2. Why add the namespace logic to the individual templates? This looks like a meta-template, and I don't see where you wouldn't want an implementation without the namespace detection feature.
      3. I still don't see the utility of this and related templates. Looking at Talk:Guam (oldid), the {{Guam WGbox}} is redundant to {{WikiProject Micronesia|Guam=yes}}. Although the banner template doesn't show the Guam workgroup when collapsed, that is an adjustment to be made to the banner, not a new template. Additionally, the WPBox doesn't add any assessment categories for WP:1.0 purposes. Continued use of these kind of templates in places where the WP:SELFREF guideline don't apply is redundant to talk page banners, and would eventually lead to the same issues we currently have with banners. I still don't see the utility of these boxes over existing banners. Even with the removal from article namespace, I don't see anything that doesn't make these redundant. -Optigan13 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Rationale: My original intent for these templates was to create a special inobtrusive WikiProject promotion for the See also section of relevant main namespace articles. Since several knowledgeable editors find these templates objectionable, I excluded these templates from the main article namespace. This leaves them available for special uses such as the Wikipedia:List of U.S. state portals, or as links to WikiProjects and work groups on User pages. If, at some time in the future, we decide that a special linkbox to the WikiProject is permissible in the See also section of relevant articles, these templates can be easily permitted back in the main article namespace. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Simi Valley, California

[edit] Template:Hidden infoboxes

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

Unused in article space, nor should it be. Despite the name this is actually being used on a handfull of talk pages to nest WikiProject banners, but should be replaced with the now standard {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. PC78 (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete/replace per nom. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep/rebuild Something like this would be nice for nesting things other than WPP banners, noticeboxes that are not WPP banners can be extensive (like multiple Article History templates for something with a lot of history), this would beat using {{tmbox}} combined with {{hidden}}. The WPBS template is distinctly for WPP banners since they have text that explain that they are for WPP banners. A generic version of that would be good. Replace existing usages for WPP banners with {{WPBS}} though. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yea, I tend to agree with the above... if it's not being used in mainspace (which, it isn't), then I don't see what the real problem is. If a specific use bothers someone then they could simply replace it with WPBS. I guess that I just don't see a compelling reason that this needs to be deleted.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

  Because infoboxes aren't something that should be hidden, because it thankfully isn't being used for that purpose, and because it's redundant for what it is being used for. This isn't a template for doing what the IP suggests, nor would it be the best way of doing that (something based on WPBS would be better, though I don't think it's something we should be necessarily be doing in the first place). It's basically an obsolete template for an unsuitable purpose. Why rebuild it into something completely different and unrelated as opposed to just creating a new template? PC78 (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

  Comment actually, infoboxes are hidden, several of the ones that exist on Wikipedia have a "hidden" parameter to hide sections of infoboxes. As for what I was suggesting to do with the current one, that's why I said rebuild (ie, rebuild it with a genericized version of the code for WPBS) 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 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) 18:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:John Most

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

all articles have been deleted as non-n Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as all the links in it are deleted or red-linked. Killiondude (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Navbox with no valid links. Even the categories it is placed in are redlinks. --RL0919 (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Container category

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

This is a WP maintenance template and it shows up in article namespace categories. readers need not see this particular maintenance banner. It would be better to have all of the member categories placed in Category:Parent categories as a hidden category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - even if there is consensus that this template should not be used in article namespace categories (a notion with which I disagree), the template would still be useful for categories for other namespaces. Moreover, as the purpose of this template is to clearly indicate that a category should contain only subcategories and a few directly-related pages, hiding the message in some way (e.g., by using only a hidden category instead) defeats that purpose. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 16:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon, and keep on using it in the relevant article namespace categories, and don't hide it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I find this banner particularly useful to indicate that only subcategories (and a few directly-related pages) should be placed in the relevant category. However, it would be helpful if some sort of automatic warning could be generated to advise a user that he had place an article is a container category. Davshul (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - this banner would be far less useful if hidden. --BelovedFreak 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Baptist footer

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

This seems to meet Reason 2 for deleting templates: The template is redundant to a better-designed template, specifically Template:Baptist. The template is also rather intrusive. Novaseminary (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Template:Baptist footer contains relevant material and is easier to use and understand. This template was made by those behind the Baptist portal and will be maintained and changed in line with the portal and the relevant workgroup. Template:Baptist lacks overall focus and should instead be focused on main topics as with other helpboxes; rather than on "Pivotal figures" and "Baptist Conventions and Unions" etc.--Chromenano (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The Portal:Baptist seems to have been created entirely by Chromenano with only cats and other templates and the like having been added by a couple of other users, and it seems to focus on a rather odd assortment of "theological topics," for example. I am not sure that suffices as consensus. Chromenano is right that the Template:Baptist is no model of perfection either, but that doesn't mean that the new template is worthwhile. I wonder why Chromenano did not just improve the existing template. As for the template itself, this new Template:Baptist footer takes up the majority of the page of a good number of the pages on which it appears. It certainly is not lean and mean. I contnue to think it should be deleted. Novaseminary (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I do plan to change the Template:Baptist helpbox to be focused on doctrinal issues, with the Template:Baptist footer navbox focused on denominational issues. I believe that together they complement each other and add to baptist pages. It should be noted that a helpbox (Template:Baptist) can only be so big and that navboxes (Template:Baptist footer) are collapsible.--Chromenano (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - redundant to {{Baptist}}, with what appears to be a non-neutral POV. How in the world could anyone create a template with only one notable Baptist person in each of the last two centuries? HokieRNB 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Those listed are accepted baptist "pivotal figures". Feel free to recommend more.--Chromenano (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment So far only the template's creator thinks the template should be kept. Chromenano, are you aware of any other editors that might agree with your position? Novaseminary (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There's no inherent reason that a side-bar info-box template and a footer template can't be used together for a single topic. For instance, we have Template:Christianity and Template:Christianityfooter. If you look at the Christianity page, they seem to work reasonably well together. Having said that, I do think this footer could use a good bit of work.EastTN (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I couldn't agree more. Many other pages use the same method.--Chromenano (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - while I agree that there isn't anything inherently wrong with having two different templates covering the same übertopic, these two templates cover the same material. There isn't enough differentiation to warrant a second template, and as has already been stated, the second one is poorly designed. Ἀλήθεια 21:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Economy of Sri Lanka table

[edit] Template:Ram Truck Timeline

Template:Ram Truck Timeline (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

As the Ram division was created just this year, there is no point in having a timeline template for a single year since it provides no information of value. --Sable232 (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep it would be inappropriate to list Ram Division products in any other template. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete fuck this shit. I'm sick of arguing on it, it's ridiculous. You want to remove it - go ahead, remove it. Send my two hours of work in waste. See if I fucking care.Shadiac (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I disagree with the first comment - I think it's perfectly appropriate to list Ram branded trucks with Dodge branded trucks, at least for the first year. Practically nothing has changed other than removing the "Dodge" labels. Not to mention a one-year timeline is rather useless. Shadiac, WP:COOL. --Vossanova ^o< 15:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tina Fey

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

This template makes absolutely no sense, and is entirely redundant. It is clumsy and is entirely inelegant to add this template to all those articles. It also adds nothing to those articles. By this logic, why not create an Angelina Jolie template? Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I won't say that the template makes no sense, but it clearly includes links to a number of articles that are only slightly related to Fey. If the template were cut down to more clearly relevant links, then I would expect five links total (main article, 30 Rock, Mean Girls, her Palin impersonation, and Liz Lemon). That is marginal for a navbox, and Mean Girls is arguable (she wrote the screenplay but didn't produce or direct), so I'm not saying 'Keep' or 'Delete'. However, if the template is kept, it should be on the condition that it be limited to articles where Fey is a major contributor to the subject: shows she wrote/directed/produced, characters she created, etc. If she was just a participant (actor, student, etc.), then the article should not be part of this navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:ACTOR has a long running consensus not to use navboxes for work by persons under its provenance, except for work by film directors. Since the listings do not meet that criteria, the consensus is to delete such templates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as an actor filmography template (precedent: 1, 2). Actor filmographies are not appropriate topics for templates because: (1) due to the fact that many actors star in a single film or television series, adding a template for each one would cause immense clutter on articles about films and television series; and (2) such templates contain information that is significant in the context of the article about the actor or actress (in this case, Tina Fey), but that is trivial in the context of articles about films and TV series. For example, while it is significant in the context of the article Tina Fey that Fey starred in both Baby Mama and The Invention of Lying, that information is far less significant in the context of the article Baby Mama. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Eh, Keep. I hesitate to say this, however. Expand the navbox (with relevant, important information) if possible. If not, then Delete. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Control cities

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

Deprecated per WP:USRD/STDS. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - No practical use anymore. ---Dough4872 00:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Not in use on any article pages. --LJ (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - For those not familiar, control cities have been a source of frustration and contention in road (and similar) articles for years. The WP:USRD project finally reached consensus to just get rid of them, after many rounds of discussion. I support any effort to prevent them from coming back. Dave (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] December 17

[edit] Template:My bloody valentine film

Template:My bloody valentine film (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 22:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Useless. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I agree it is completely uselesss.--Yankees10 17:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It might be worth asking User talk:Silvermen why it was created, maybe there was a plan to add more related articles. That said, speaking as a horror fan myself, it's difficult to conceive that there would be for these particular films. Bringing it to Silvermen's attention might also decrease the chance that other limited-use templates would be created by that user. Шизомби (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I wonder if this could be a speedy delete as G6. Technical deletions since the two pages in the template are already otherwise linked via the disambig at the top, within the article, and within the infobox. A template might duplicate links from an article, but has the advantage of doing so in an organized way if there are multiple links, and especially when they can be categorized within the template. A statement to the effect that a navigation template with only two links is inappropriate could probably be added without controversy to a guideline. Шизомби (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that there is no consensus for speedy deleting underpopulated (as opposed to entirely unpopulated) navboxes under G6 or any other criterion. But it will most likely be deleted as a result of this discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• The reason I thought SD might apply is not because it is underpopulated (and unlikely to grow), but because it is duplicative and since the linked pages would remain linked after the deletion of the template, might be an uncontroversial technical deletion. But I wasn't sure. Шизомби (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Film Music

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

Template for inactive wikiproject. No use anymore. Used only on a small handful of articles, all of which are already tagged for more relevant (and active) projects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Reaper (TV series)

Template:Reaper (TV series) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Riches

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

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Three Rivers

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

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 19:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles linked to make a useful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Uncategorized template

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

Also nominated for deletion: the corresponding category, Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates, a redirect category Category:Uncategorized Wikipedia Templates and a CNS redirect CAT:UNCAT/T.
Less than 30 uses, most of them old; this template and the corresponding category are scarcely used and there are better, much more efficient, ways to detect and compile uncategorized templates (such as Wikipedia:Database reports). Unlike for articles, marking templates as uncategorized is demonstrably unmaintainable and instead listing them is more appropriate and actually useful. Precedent: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_15#Category:Uncategorized_redirects. Cenarium (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this nomination is procedurally malformed, you can't delete a category at TfD or use a TfD template on a category, similarly redirects should be deleted at RfD. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Category:Wikipedia uncategorized templates appears to be entirely template-populated, so the category and any redirects to it could be speedy deleted under criterion G8 if the template is deleted. You're right that it was not necessary to tag the category (I've removed the tag), but there is no need to separately nominate the category or its redirects. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 06:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I followed the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Listing a template. It's principally to inform the closing admin, and the tag to inform users patrolling the category. Cenarium (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• FYI, there's a database report now at Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates. Cenarium (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This template was created at a time when database reports weren't available, as a way to encourage people to categorize their own templates. It was never fully deployed to all of the templates, though. There are a lot of templates that aren't categorized, making them difficult to find (in particular, I was after all Category:Astronomy templates at the time, and had great difficulties finding them all).

However, time has moved on, and this template hasn't been picked up and used a lot by anyone. I've now lost interest in template categorization. It's also probably been superseded by Template:Uncategorized, or if not it should be. So, do what you like with it. Mike Peel (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This template actually causes problems because it places the templates in a category like "Category:Uncategorized Wikipedia templates" or whatever and actually harms database reports that look for uncategorized templates. It's rather silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - a template to say that another template has no category? REALLY? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 23:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Unreferenced WP

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

Single-purpose template without any clearly defined use case--substantially redundant to "essay" tag. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the above user removed the template from the page it was applied to, then nominated it for deletion. When you look at "uses" and see there are none, know that this will change, and the tag will be reapplied to WP:OUTCOMES if it survives TfD. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I note (as neither support or opposition) that this template was created and briefly applied in relation to a dispute over the content and uses of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes. --RL0919 (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely correct, and those wanting to see the issues that prompted the author to create this template should refer to that talk page. Jclemens (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • "Those wanting to see the issues that prompted the author to create this template" should also refer to the template's talk page. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 19:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs to be developed further to clearly define uses as the nom notes, and could use versions for application only to sections or individual claims. I have fairly substantial comments on the talk page of the template. I don't believe it is "single-purpose" if what is meant by that is that it is for use on a single project page. If that were the case, I don't know that there is a need for it, but I would be surprised if WP:OUTCOMES is the only one for which it would ever be appropriate. It may overlap with essay to a degree, but I see it as distinct in at least two ways: (1) "Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors, for which widespread consensus has not been established" WP:ESSAYS; there are some pages in Wikipedia: namespace that as a whole or in part are put forth as statements of fact without verification and even if the language were tempered by qualification would still not appear to quite fit the essay category either by the nature of the content or the form of the writing, and as such Template:Essay would not be completely appropriate for them. An essay is not something that requires help; people may contribute or not as they like. I don't know, but perhaps WP:OWN may be more lax with essays even when they are in the Wikipedia: namespace and not userspace? There are some Wikipedia: namespace project pages which do in fact require help and handling and noting that and responding to that on the model of how it is handled in article space should come quite naturally to editors. (2) Redundant tags can serve a purpose, if they are in fact not completely redundant. For example, Template:Who is specific variation or subset of Template:Citation needed which indicates not just where a citation is needed but specifically for what purpose it is needed. There is no limit on how many templates there can be. Шизомби (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. 1) WP:OUTCOMES lists "common outcomes" of AfDs. These "Common Outcomes" are presented as facts, while in reality they are the subjective impressions of various editors. In the past, there have been errors (such as this one) and even outright contradiction of existing Wikipedia guidelines. These problems have occurred specifically because the statements made were not supported with evidence or sourced in any way. The template was created to call attention to the fact that although the page appears to be authoritatively descriptive of a facet of Wikipedia, in fact it is not. Please see the template talk page for a more in-depth treatment of this issue. 2) The template may be appropriate for other pages which exist to report on an aspect of the state of the wiki, but in fact do not source their pronouncements/verify their facts, and therefore this template is not single purpose. Further, it can be used for sections (as per the template documentation). 3) I agree that the template would benefit from further development, but I don't think that's a good reason to delete it. That's how Wikipedia works: editors build on each other's contributions. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 20:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To add to my previous statement, this template does not meet any of the "Reasons to delete a template" listed at the top of this article. The nom may assert that it meets reason #2: The template is redundant to a better-designed template, namely, {{essay}} but I assert that the essay tag has a different purpose. For one thing, this template could exist on a guideline page (although one would hope that would never happen), but an essay tag and a guideline tag are mutually exclusive. The nom may assert that it meets reason #3: The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used, but I assert that it was used before the nom removed it from the page, and it has every likelihood of being used on any WP namespace page where unsourced, unreferenced, unverified statements of "fact" are made. The only other reason to delete a template is consensus, and I'm not seeing a consensus to delete it, although that is ultimately up to the admin or editor that closes this TfD. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 13:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This discussion has been up for a week, and has no defenders except those who argue that it should apply to one specific project page. If that's not a compelling argument that it has no general purpose in Wikipedia space, I'm not sure what is. Again, "essay" is already sufficient for any purpose for which this template has been proposed. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an inaccurate characterization of what I wrote; I'm not defending it for one page only. I'm respecting the TfD by not applying the template to other pages or sections that would benefit from it. I could start listing them here, if that would help the discussion. Шизомби (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wikia

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

This template was previously nominated for deletion: 1st nomination, 2nd nomination.

This template encourages links to Wikia.

1. Wikia is a for-profit commercial site.
2. Wikia is not connected to Wikipedia - and it is vital not to give the impression it is
3. Wikia is NOT EVER a reliable source
4. Wikia is fanboy stuff - and not a good source of information for readers to be given in an external links section.

Scott Mac (Doc) _{Flagged Now! 18:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)}

• Keep None of these four reasons, nor all of them together, are sufficient reason to remove links to Wikia. If we're going to move fancruft to Wikia, it's perfectly fine for us to point there for "fanboy" stuff. Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  That doesn't follow. We remove fancruft because it is unencyclopedic. We don't "move it to wikia" since wikia is not a WMF project. If Wiki want to take our trash, that's their affair. There's no need to advertise them.--Scott Mac (Doc) _{Flagged Now! 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)}

• Point number 4 is subjective based on the Wikia article and a point of view. If I wanted to read up on Luke Skywalker, Wikipedia may not have everything I want to know, however the Wikia article provides the extra detail an Star Wars reader may be interested in. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water here. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete It's fine if Wikia editors want to come haul fanish material out of here; I'm all for that. There's no reason, however, to promote that site and and drive traffic there. It's about putting ads in front of eyeballs, putting money in a few pockets, and allowing littluns to have fun with their obsessions. External links are for for citing sources, official sites, &c. They are not about integrating an encyclopaedia and the mother of all fansites. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It should be kept as it's reliable for giving more information on the subject although should only be used to link to wikis which have a good community and not in a mess and sticks to a specific style. --VitasV (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikis are never reliable sources. We don't even recommend wikipedia as a reliable source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. In a similar fashion that we don't allow fansites as external links as they are unofficial and user created, wikias follow the same ideas. Although they seem to be worse about attracting wrong info/fancruft. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

  Keep for now. This is a discussion better for WT:ELNO first. If it is found that wikia shouldn't be linked in Wikipedia, then this TfD could be revisited. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep
  1. Irrelevant, we link to lots of commercial sites. The content of Wikia however is predominantly freely licenced.
  2. While Wikia is also set up by Jimbo, this template does not indicate any such connection.
  3. This template is not used to provide a "source", it is there to point readers to more information.
  4. On the contrary; Wikia allows the "fanboy stuff" that cannot be placed on Wikipedia, which makes for a perfect complement to Wikipedia. I believe this nomination stems from a personal dislike for Wikia. Linking to Wikia wiki's on popular subjects has always been common and accepted practice. Why should it stop now? — Edokter • Talk • 23:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The template doesn't suggest that Wikia is connected to Wikipedia. Remove the template from the articles if it is being used inappropriately. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - External links are for further reading, and don't have to be a source of info for the article. The idea that it draws traffic from Wikipedia is absurd - Wikipedia is the place to get information, only in special niche situations such as major franchises like Star Wars do folks go elsewhere for information that is considered fancruft here anyways. Wikia should be used on a case-by-case basis per WP:ELMAYBE, but serves the reader well when used appropriately. --Teancum (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I agreed that Wikia could be used for EL in some cases (Wikipedia stub < Wikia article), but disagree with the decision to use for it a template. — Al3xil ✉ 14:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why would that make a difference? If it's going to be an external link under WP:ELMAYBE and will be used semi-often, why would getting rid of the template help Wikipedia? --Teancum (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I remember the case, when was created a template for one film critic. Subsequently, it was added to each film, which had his review. Later the template was removed, because kind of these resources should be used in a references section, if they are useful. Wikia articles duplicate information, so they should be used situationally, when objectively have more complete information, than Wikipedia articles. The template is designed for mass insertion in articles by default and could ignore the selectivity criteria. — Al3xil ✉ 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Edokter as the reasons stated per nom are irrelevant for deletion. Likely we got {{YouTube}} to link to the YouTube website, as keeping the template is a suggested option. However the editors should use that with caution which only links to the apporiate wiki sites. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 14:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Edokter. Wikia is a good fancruft sink: my experience shows that novice editors are much less likely to submit "fanboy stuff" here if they have a whole wiki for fancruft on the Wikia. I am sorry if I understood the original incorrectly, but to me, it sounded like an attempt to crusade against all links to Wikia rather than this particular template. Let us not decide what sources other readers should consider reliable or unreliable for them, OK? It's their decision to follow or not follow any of the ELs and to believe or not believe what they read. The issue here is IMO whether or not a template is helpful for the editors, and I say, yes, it is, in two ways. One, the links to Wikia are often very unwieldy, so this template simplifies the editing process. Two, as I mentioned earlier, a well-placed Wikia link sifts off a large portion of the fancruft, increasing the quality of the article considerably. --Koveras ^☭ 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not being corrupt is not good enough. One has to be seen to be not corrupt. GTD 16:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as an easy way to locate Wikia links so they can be removed. Then, once they're all gone, revisit this. --NE2 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Removing the wikia: interwiki link from the table might be a good way to get rid of a lot of links to a lot of fancruft, and there certainly is an appropriate precedent in the removal of the uncyclopedia: interwiki prefix several months ago. External wikis, even if there's anything WP:RS to which to link, should be treated on an equal footing - not on a basis that favours one wiki over another just because it's on an advertisement-infested wiki farm instead of its own paid-for domain and servers. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. None of the reasons listed in the nom are good reasons to delete a template. Commercial sites and non-reliable sources are allowed for external links, and most external links are normally to sites with no connection to Wikipedia. Links to wikis with a substantial history and lots of editors are allowed, so while every Wikia wiki might not qualify, they aren't automatically excluded. One of the ideas of providing external links is to give readers a way to find additional detail that goes beyond what is appropriate for Wikipedia, which includes "fanboy stuff" that we routinely cull out of our own articles. --RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I fail to see how the Wikia template is different to the templates for linking to sites such as IMDB. Esteffect (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Per above. Gage (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – 1) Per Koveras; the "let the readers decide" argument. 2) Per Edokter argument number 3; the "quantitative" argument. 3) Per Jclemens; the "perfectly harmless" argument. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete for the reasons given by the nominator. Wikia is not a reliable source. We need more sources and footnotes, not external links of the general sort which is what these are. This template gives the appearance to some of a Wikipedia endorsement of Wikia. I've cleaned up 10s of 1000s of inappropriate external links^{[1][2][3][4][5]} and I don't see that innocently added Wikia links have much more editorial merit to justify an official template than all those spam links I deleted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. As has been already said, we must be seen not to be entangled with Wikia, so we shouldn't have a special template for linking to Wikia. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Teancum who said it perfectly above. This template is not "encouraging" anything and there's nothing wrong with using it to link to relevant and related external links. This is a template, if there's a problem with users linking inappropriately to Wikia then bring that issue up at WP:ELN, not via TfD taking it out on a harmless template. -- œ^™ 03:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Super-Strong Keep. Not gonna bother commenting on the obvious condescending tone in reason #4. Also, the other reasons you have put forth are not really all that good either. At least maintain links to in-depth coverage on a subject on other sites now that WP has gone all minimalistic. This is one of the most groundless deletion causes I've seen. --Kaizer13 (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I agree that most of the reasons are weak, and without evidence to the contrary.

1. As pointed out, we link to commercial sites anyway.
2. I think we can each discern that Wikia is not connected. I never got the impression that it was, and I believe not many other users have.
3. There is no evidence to support this argument.
4. Many wikias merely expand on what is here on Wikipedia (much of which has been taken down by Wikipedia, not because it's unencyclopedic, but because it seems that one of the goals of Wikipedia regarding articles is to keep articles as short as possible). Ggctuk (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - As far as the template goes, it is doing its job - allowing consistency and easy in including repetitive information. As far as the information goes... as best as I can tell Wikia as a whole, as well as the various wikis housed there, has yet to be black listed as an external link. If that has changed, or changes in the future, then the template does become a bit useless. But this is not the place for that discussion, just like the TfD last year or the year before. - J Greb (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - That Wikia is "yet to be blacklisted" is a rather arbitrary distinction; there are sites with valid info on which I am seeing repeated blacklist problems because of the content having moved from a defunct site to "*.bravehost.com" or some other free server. A case in point would be the "UHF morgue" (radiodxer.bravehost.com, a set of individual histories of failed US UHF TV stations which launched between the band being opened in 1952 and the belated requirement that new TV's actually have the necessary tuners in 1964) which is often the primary or only available history on a defunct TV station. Linking to this wasn't a problem before it moved from its own registered domain to Geocities and from there to Bravehost. The information is the same. Yet somehow Wikia is magically WP:RS while the "UHF morgue" entries are reverted to (dead) Geocities links by obnoxious robots? This makes no sense. A fanboy wiki is less reliable as a source, as anyone can edit and the standards which apply to content here do not apply there. In many cases, these wikis are abandoned projects which Wikia refuses to close even though the original community has moved elsewhere; quite a few are empty or contain mostly vandalism. -- 66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Off the hop - there is a different threshold for external links (where this template set is used) and references. Pouncing on "wikis are not reliable sources" is a non-starter here since it isn't part of the issue. Neither is a situation with a different set of source sites. If the argument is "Wikia is unsuitable for external links" then a consensus needs to be reached related to Wikipedia:External links and that guideline amended accordingly. Without that, using a template is no different than adding the link long-hand - the link is still open to review by editors and removal if it offers nothing beyond what the Wikipedia article offers. - J Greb (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep "#1" - seriously? We link to *alot* of for profit websites, many of them used for references! "#2" - seriously? We link to *alot* of websites with no connection to Wikipedia whatsoever, alot of them used for references! We even have templates for IMDB! That's a non-Wikipedia for-profit website. "#3" - seriously? Since when do external links have to be reliable sources? That's why they're external links and not references. "#4" - why not? If they're going to look for more info, they're likely to be fanboys themselves. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete We should not be favouring one external commercial site over another based solely on overlap in founders or any other such arbitrary criterion, as this smacks of WP:COI. If a wiki were not worthy of having a commercially-promotional link template if it were on edit this or some other non-Wikia host, it does not magically become any more a WP:RS just because this particular company (instead of a competitor) is profiting. Most of what's on Wikia is not encyclopædia-worthy. Sites like IMDB exercise some level of editorial control over content, the average fancruft wikia does not. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - External links are not the same as references. The templates serves as a way to bring further information to the reader, not to verify content in the article. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep - 1) That is why there are regulations about what wikias can and can't be linked to, 2) It's not suggesting that it it - it;s just providing more info, like other external links, 3) no-one is using it as a source, just to give more information, 4) That's why it's useful - it gives people info that they actually want - unlike this wiki which seems to delete everything useful about fictional shows (which is why people create these wikias in the first place) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment If it's not a reliable source, why link there from an encyclopædia? Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • 'Comment - Since you want to keep whacking on it - the is a difference between a reference and an external link. Sources that Wikipedia does not considered reliable as a reference are perfectly fine as an external link. The merits of a site, or a collection of sites, to be used as an external link is something to be hashed out either on the talk pages of individual articles or the talk page for WP:EL not here. - J Greb (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment - You seem to think that an unreliable source is a suitable external link to be placed on an encyclopædia article. May I ask why? I can't imagine linking to The Onion from any article other than the one about that publication, why the double standard here? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Wikias are widely known for having more in-universe details which are more interesting to the reader. Reliable source or not, the point is that it actually adds to the value of Wikipedia readers to have external links to deeper information on a given Wikia subject. Wikias are slowly being brought up to Wikipedia standards with proper references to many major articles - attempting to verify information where possible - a good example is Wookiepedia - whereas The Onion is outright satire. Hardly the same thing. --Teancum (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep 1.) So are most pages we link to. But it's irrelevant as to what kind of page we link to as long as the link itself is okay. 2.) No one does. It does not have a little box like {{Wikiquote}} but only a single sentence link, just like {{imdb}} or {{myspace}}. Please explain why this particular template should give this impression - the text of it certainly does not. 3.) External links don't have to be reliable sources. References have to be. 4.) Many links can be "fanboy" stuff. It's not our job to judge whether people think it's a good source of information or not. I for one trust our readers to be aware that we are not responsible for external sites and that they will have to judge for themselves whether they think it's useful. But "fanboy stuff" != "bad source of information". Many people look for such information and if we cannot add such content here for various reasons, they are often happy to find it at some other place we link to. It's the same as with IMDB for example. Regards SoWhy 13:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Odd that you should mention {{myspace}}; XLinkBot has been known to revert links to that site even in contexts where they may be legit. I'd have expected that the {{myspace}} would have gone the way of {{uncyclopedia}} long ago at this rate. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
    • It's the same as with YouTube links - mostly they are incorrect but they have their place. Same with MySpace links, they got their place and in those cases a template makes sense. It's the same with Wikia links, there are rules which Wikias to link to and which not but in those cases where the rules allow it, a template makes life easier. Regards SoWhy 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, with the suggestion that the template be modified to more clearly highlight that Wikia a) isn't part of Wikipedia and b) is a commercial site. --EEMIV (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Edgepedia (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, exactly the same as nearly every one else who has agreed that it should stay. Alexsau1991 (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Very strong delete, per reasons given by nominator and A.B. Some of the links to Wikia violate the content outlined in WP:ELNO. External links in WP are used primarily to serve as links to a product/person/etc,'s official website or to a website that contains copyrighted images or content that can't be duplicated on WP. The best case Wikia has is under WP:ELMAYBE #4, but topical wikia content is not reliable and is commonly fancruft not worthy of a link from an encyclopedia. External links aren't supposed to be used as if to say "here's some more non-encylopedic reading on the subject." JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The main concerns from WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided would be "4: Links mainly intended to promote a website", "11: Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority" and "12: Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". Most of what is on Wikia appears to be either dead/abandoned projects or fansites, there is also a copyright issue in that fansites dedicated to discussion of various copyrighted and trademarked pop-culture/entertainment franchises tend to use huge amounts of copyrighted material from the series under "fair use" or "fair dealing" provisions. According to WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking, "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work." --66.102.80.212 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While Wikipedia is a great resource for information, it sometimes may lack the more specific details on topics (such as those in television shows or video games) that a Wikia, created for the sole purpose of describing, may include. For example: if someone wanted to know about Rodney Mckay from Stargate Atlantis, the wikia article includes far more info, including a complete biography and several images. If people don't want to go to a wiki because they think the info may be inaccurate, that's their choice. The Wikia template only provides another source for people to visit (people who's only desire is knowledge, which shouldn't be denied.) Anubis 10545 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: this is used in external links so RS doens't come into it. We link to for-profit sites. Yes avoid the impression of connection, not it is not like a sister-site template, more like {{London Gazette}}. Don't prejudge all wikia articles, and WP has nothing against fanboys or girls, simply because we don't want all the fancruft here. In the same way we link to other stuff we don't want, Dmoz, IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, The Times, and indeed sister projects. Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC).
• Keep: I won't repeat the reasons already outlined at length in the previous two nominations this template has had as well as in this TfD. If not for assuming good faith, one might conclude that people intend to keep nominating the template until it's deleted, despite fairly clear consensus to the contrary. Given that Wikipedia has seemingly been taken over by people who do not wish to take advantage of the fact that we are not encumbered by the physical limitations of an encyclopedia, the Wikia link template is particularly useful. Zelse81 (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: It's also an encyclopaedia. --85.139.161.97 (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Wikia is commercial because they, unlike Wikipedia, don't have a donation system, they mostly rely on advertising to cover the costs of servers and databases. Yes, it IS fanboy stuff, but it is a good alternative to Wikipedia. The info is always reliable, because of their popularity, wikis about subjects like The Legend of Zelda and Halo will always have a lot of contributors who improve the contents. --201.173.29.146 (talk) 23:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Tnmoccol-begin

Template:Tnmoccol-begin (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

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

Template:Tnmoccol-beginwide (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Template:Tnmoccol-end (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

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

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

Unused templates, functionality certainly provided by other templates. Cenarium (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just what is the functionality of these supposed to be? And what templates succeeded them? Perhaps we can use {{Tdeprecated}} here.. -- œ^™ 03:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The creator used them in an article [6] but shortly afterwards removed them [7]. It seems to be for creating boxes, but there are plenty of templates for boxes [8] [9]. Since it's never been used besides this, it can hardly be deprecated. Cenarium (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thanks for the extra detail. -- œ^™ 08:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as unused and redundant, with thanks to Cenarium for doing the extra legwork to demonstrate how it was used in the past. --RL0919 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Rz

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

Now blanked and orphaned template which used to transclude category:redirects. Redirects shouldn't actually be added to category:redirects, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_68#Category:Redirects. Cenarium (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Unused and apparently abandoned, with no edits between the moment of creation in August 2008 and this week, and the editor who created it has retired from Wikipedia. Previous content was nothing except the redirect category, which could be added without using a template, if it were even appropriate to do so. --RL0919 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Missing Persons (TV series)

Template:Missing Persons (TV series) (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Navigation box contains only red links. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Navbox with all redlinks since 2008. Likely to remain redlinks forever, because it is doubtful that the characters will ever be considered notable enough to have their own articles, given that the show only ran for one season over 15 years ago. --RL0919 (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Crossroads

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

The navigation box contains exclusively cast members against consensus and production companies. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons I give in the discussion immediately below, and confirmed in the link provided by the nom and in numerous other TFD discussions, some of them in the past month. --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Amigas y Rivales

Template:Amigas y Rivales (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The navigation box contains exclusively cast members against consensus, red links, and links to countries/television stations, which shouldn't be in the navbox in the first place. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. There is a standing consensus against placing this type of navigation template on the pages for actors, because of the number of templates that would be on their articles if the practice went unchecked. For example, the very first actor on this template, Joana Benedek, has been in 13 telenovelas. So we could have 13 navboxes on her brief article. Similarly, we do not want to clutter the articles on television networks with navboxes for every single show they air (which could be many dozens). So essentially this navbox is not usable on any of the articles that it is supposed to help users navigate. --RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Two Pints

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

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles at this time to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bewitched

[edit] Old discussions

[edit] December 16

[edit] Template:Always Sunny

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

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior

Template:Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Linking two articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Latest Buzz

Template:The Latest Buzz (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Linking twoarticles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 02:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:The Buzz on Maggie

Template:The Buzz on Maggie (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Doc Martin

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

Linking three articles is not enough to merit a navigation box; they are already well interlinked in their respective articles. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 21:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Post disco-footer

Template:Post disco-footer (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

A collection of unrelated wikilinks. Appletangerine un (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Poor WP:POV reason. These articles have some references about post-disco relation. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete this whole post-disco concept seems to be synthesis of the sources' offhand use of the term to refer to simply anything that occurred after the disco era. Gigs (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: "simply anything that occurred after the disco era". Grunge, Post-punk, Indie rock, Neue Deutsche Welle and other styles are also from post-Disco era and they're not included - your comment is incorrect about that, it's not a template with random wikilinks. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:47, 18 December 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) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-disco. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Although I have just recommended "Keep" in the AFD, this template is another matter. I believe that there is material to discuss a "post-disco" era in an article, but the articles being connected via this template mostly do not have strong association with that era. Some of them, such as Chicago house and Techno, reflect the end of the post-disco period, while others are styles that spanned through multiple periods, one of which happens to be the post-disco period. So these just aren't sufficiently related to make a meaningful navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Following genres are primarily connected with post-disco (see article about post-disco, see references, etc): Chicago house (80s), Dance-pop (80s), Boogie (80s), Techno (80s), Italo-Disco (80s), Electro (80s), Dance-Rock (80s) - 8 items, navbox is needed. I would recommend we should delete "Alternative dance" (contemporary 00s genre), because this is a generally irrelevant genre to that era. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Beautiful People

[edit] Template:CB Girona

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

Orphaned "current roster" template Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:40, 3 December 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) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Blackfamilytree

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

Orphaned template. Could it be of some use in one of the Harry Potter articles? Black family is a redirect. There is already a different family tree on Harry Potter (character). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:41, 3 December 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) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Not only is it unused, the whole effort smacks of original research and, if I dare say it, fancruft. A fictional family tree focusing on the main character is pushing it, but to construct one for minor characters, including such unnamed distant relations as "Male Crouch" and "Female Longbottom", simply descends into trivial detail. This type of material can happily have a home at Wikia; it does not need to be here. --RL0919 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Bagginsfamily

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

Unused template. Could be substituted if it is of use somewhere? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Subst into List of Hobbits under a new section for the Baggins family at the end of the article. Though, isn't this a copyright violation of the tree found in the Appendices for the Lord of the Rings novels? 76.66.197.2 (talk) 09:39, 24 November 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) 17:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Looking at List of Hobbits, it appears that the substitution recommended by 76.66.197.2 above has already been performed, so there is no need to keep this as a template since it is unlikely to be of use in any other articles. --RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Slammy Award Winners

Template:Slammy Award Winners (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

The subject is too vast in scope to be included in one template as there are numerous awards within the Slammy Awards ceremony (some of them being one-off awards as well), while this template packs in all winners without any distinction.   Θakster   14:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and replace with more appropriate templates. For annual awards, it is typically best to either use succession boxes, or create distinct templates for each major award. The way awards are handled for other entertainers, such as musicians and actors, can serve examples for these awards. --RL0919 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox CD Information 2

[edit] Template:Arborwiki

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

The site ArborWiki does not meet WP:ELNO #1 or #12, because it does not have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." and does not generally "provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." and hence the site is unsuitable for an external link template. Also, many of the instances are being used inappropriately, see Manchester,_Michigan#External_links for example.

(Note: I've removed the category it adds to pages, Category:Entries with pages on Arborwiki, and will cfd that once this nom has closed, for simplicity. Or possibly the closing admin here can speedy it as maintenance, if this closes as "delete". -- Quiddity (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete We shouldn't be encouraging links here, per WP:EL. ThemFromSpace 05:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I added this, and I'd like to keep it around for a while. Here's the rationale.

Arborwiki has a history of stability, with four years worth of contributions and over 4000 articles. Only a fraction of those are notable enough for Wikipedia, and only those articles are cross-linked back here. For those articles that are notable enough to cross-link, the Arborwiki pages provide locally relevant information like details of hours, street listings, telephone numbers, and other references relevant to a city wiki. The site is hosted at the Ann Arbor District Library, and has contributions from news organizations including AnnArbor.com, a local newspaper.

In addition, the cross-linking between the two sites provides an opportunity for Arborwiki editors to surface and verify details that do qualify for Wikipedia standards but which have not yet been incorporated into the Wikipedia pages, thus providing additional useful information to both systems.

There may be edits to the template that make it more suitable for the dozens of other city wiki projects; perhaps folding this in under the standards of Wikipedia:List_of_templates_linking_to_other_free_content_projects would be productive, rather than doing a hasty delete. I've started by asking for the project to be added to the Interwiki map, and once it crosses that threshhold of usefulness and review, we can look at adapting it to better work here.

Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. TfDs run for 7 days usually, so that should be enough time to get some kind of consensus at interwiki map. Some of the uses are still very inappropriate though, and would need to be removed regardless (Iggy Pop, the one I noted above, etc.) I'd recommend going through the 40+ uses and doing some cleanup of those that are not currently providing any additional information. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete A template elevates the link above common scrutiny. Just add a normal link like everyone else, and let each link be justified like every other external link. If a precedent is set to keep this, everyone will want a template to safeguard their external links. Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth does a template, acting as a convenient shorthand, elevate a link above common scrutiny? I don't see this as any more of an issue as with any other Wikipedia:List_of_templates_linking_to_other_free_content_projects efforts, or even things like the IMDB shorthand which make your fingers less tired when you want to type less. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Vast majority of articles plainly fail WP:EL (admitted by the creator above). There is no reason whatsoever to make a template. If some tiny amount of Arborwiki links to meet WP:EL, then they can be normal external links, but a template is totally inappropriate. 2005 (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The vast majority of articles in Arborwiki don't even exist in Wikipedia, 2005, and thus they won't be linked to at all. The template was extremely handy because of the category it created which assisted in quickly identifying how far along things were and what might still need to be worked on. If you have some technical suggestion for making the automatic categorization process less onerous - e.g., perhaps creating a first class Arborwiki page that was not subject to hasty deletionism - where a "pages that link to this" report would provide suitable tracking. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 13:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Templates don't exist to make things handy for editors to write more pages. Use a pendil and paper if you need to. None of the pages I've seen linked to on the Arborwiki are remotely valuable. In fact, it seems like a better idea to spam blacklist it. As for an Arborwiki article itself, that is a whole different issue. If it is notable for an article, fine, if it is not, fine too. That is irrelevant to the issue here, which is an unhelpful template linking to things that should not be linked to. 2005 (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - The links created by the template fail WP:ELNO, both #1 and #12. Not a valuable resource. If a handful of links can be found that are of value, those could easilly be linked without this template. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wings

[edit] Template:Wisdom

[edit] Template:World Heritage Sites in Italy (5T)

[edit] Template:Wswiki

[edit] Template:XD5

[edit] Template:Xavier bowl games

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

Orphaned navbox with only one link, which is a redlink. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• The template is conceptually valid; the real problem is that Xavier stopped fielding a football team in 1973, so there's no article on the former program and no likelihood of expansion within the template. The Salad Bowl itself folded after five seasons. Weak delete for now, but if there's ever an article on the football program it'll need to come back. Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I've written a new article at Xavier Musketeers football, so keep. Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Y-DNA Phylogenetic Tree

Template:Y-DNA Phylogenetic Tree (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Orphaned template with many redlinks. Not sure if it is of any use. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I expect many of them will be filled in gradually--and they're all real enough.~
• Keep My intention is to use this as a readily available phylogenetic tree. The problem is the syntax here is incredibly difficult and ad-hoc. I'm thinking rather of converting it to a {{chart}} template. That's much more flexible and simple. I can also do this for the Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) tree as well. It's a bit tricky, but once it's started it should be rather easy to do ...

• Archæogenetics  ^TALK  08:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Yesterday date

[edit] December 15

[edit] Template:Cleanup-remainder

Template:Cleanup-remainder (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

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

Propose merging Template:Cleanup-remainder with Template:Cleanup.
What difference does it make that the article that needs cleanup is a remainder of something else? Either you clean it up, or you tag it with {{Cleanup}}. Either way this template is not needed. It is in use on 78 articles only, and can easily be replaced by {{Cleanup}}. Both sort into the same categories. Debresser (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete (and replace transclusions) - This template seems to be just a way of indicating that some cleanup has occurred. Without more context, however, this information is not particularly useful, since virtually every positive edit to an article could count as "cleanup". –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Climate chart/column

[edit] Template:Sofia Rotaru songs

[edit] Template:Family Guy writers

[edit] Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous

Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous (edit|talk|history|uses|watch|logs|delete)

Combination of original thought and bad graphics. Eccentric POV selection from Ockeghem (born around 1410/25) to Holst born 1874 (including minor figures like Carissimi). Cut-off date unexplained. Eras simplistic. Vertical axis unexplained (in contrast to horizontal axis which represents time). Mediawiki markup template ingenious, but result crude compared to what could be achieved using Illustrator/Photoshop and jpeg/svg. Kleinzach 05:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• KeepComment: I admit that the graphics could be better. However, this template offers the advantage to link directly to the mentioned composers, which could not be achieved in a jpec/svg file (as far as I know). I have seen that the template is just used in List of classical music composers. However, several others similar figures are used for other time periods in this list. If this template was deleted, all these figures would have to be deleted and the list either also deleted or completely new written. I am not sure whether it really makes sense to do either of these options. Therefore, I suggest keeping the template and and modify if necessary. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There are a number of versions of these timelines, see for example Classical composers time-line. Conventional lists of composers that link directly to articles are plentiful (I've counted 88), see Category:Lists of composers. (There are arguably too many of them.) --Kleinzach 07:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that this topic was so redundantly covered in WP. Since I am not an expert in the field I adjusted my initial vote to a neutral Comment. I still think that this timeline is rather a central part of the mentioned list. However, a deletion may make sense if there is a better replacement (better graphics, more neutral POV, merge with the obviously existing other timelines,...). --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete – What Kleinzach said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I have doubts about the utility of these lists in any form. They mislead the beginner into thinking there is some sort of Official List of Great Composers, which of course is not true at all. Also, the list leaves off Stravinsky, Bartok, Prokofiev, and other great composers of the 20th century, which seems very odd. Maybe the author got the list from a very old source. Opus33 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - These graphics and lists etc are the sort of stuff I used to do when I was 10. They did help me to relate composers chronologically and (eventually, after a fair amount of study in my teens) in terms of their influence on one another. The real problem, though is that every attempt is going to be POV even if sourced because not even the "experts" agree on the names. In his own time, Beethoven was consigned to the second ranks far below Louis Spohr [Who he? -ed]. Mahler and Bruckner used to be laughed out of court for writing over-blown rubbish. JS Bach was hardly known except as a rather fine organist until Mendelssohn came along. If even those composers can be questioned what about Saint-Saens, Chopin, Vivaldi etc etc? --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note that this relates directly to the discussion surrounding Classical composers time-line. The issue is essentially that neither timeline is sourced and therefore entirely OR (based on personal decisions by editors) and POV (the number of editors involved is irrelevent if the stuff isn't sourced - and even then...). Furthermore, they come very close to duplicating one another's basic rationale since most famous composers happen also to be important. We therefore only need need one fully sourced timeline covering "famous" and "important" composers (if we even need that). Note as well that each period has its own timeline, several countries have their own timlines and lists and other lists exist for other things... Women have their own listing and given their small number and relative obscurity this is probably the only genuinely useful list. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The list is not great but why throw it away? If we pruned the lesser names, such as Carissimi, Pachelbel (1 short work only), Salieri (it's not enough to have failed to poison Mozart), Czerny, Gounod, Offenbach, Smetana, Bruch, Faure, Elgar, Delius, Scriabin and Holst, then it would be a lot better. Also, the 1875 birth-date cut-off is arbitrary. Of course, Mahler, Sibelius and Richard Strauss should be added even if the 1875 restriction is kept. Soler97 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Lesser names"? I would dispute the removal of at least half of those you mentioned; others would probably object to the removal of the other half. There is no way that a lasting consensus on the content of a template called "Timeline Classical Composers Famous" will ever be achieved. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that Mahler, Sibelius and Richard Strauss have now been added. I've pruned a few too (but they're commented out to allow easy reinstatement). Like the previous commenter, however, I really can't accept all those you mention are 'lesser names'. --(RT) (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for illustrating why this should be deleted. Wikipedia discourages original thought. List games ('Who were the 50 greatest composers' or whatever) are fun for broadcasters (like the BBC). They don't belong here. --Kleinzach 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No. What it demonstrates is the need for objective criteria and external sources for any selective overview. But if there was no overview at all users would be faced with just an mass of names right down to the most obscure. Not very helpful. --(RT) (