Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 07:58, 6 May 2008 editWoohookitty (talk \| contribs)Administrators611,229 edits →Old discussions: 7th is finally complete. yay← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:00, 7 May 2008 edit undoZorglbot (talk \| contribs)13,933 editsm BOT: Automatic archiving of daily TFD pagesNext edit →
Line 6:		Line 6:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/{{CURRENTYEAR}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}}}
	<!-- 7 days, beginning yesterday -->		<!-- 7 days, beginning yesterday -->
		⚫	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 6}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 5}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 5}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 4}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 4}}
Line 12:		Line 13:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 1}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 May 1}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 30}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 30}}
⚫	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 ~~April~~ 29}}

	== Old discussions ==		== Old discussions ==
	<!-- Before 7 days from yesterday, await closing -->		<!-- Before 7 days from yesterday, await closing -->
			{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 29}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 28}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 28}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 26}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 26}}

Revision as of 00:00, 7 May 2008

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Header

Current discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2025 January 23

May 6

Template:History of British Christianity

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template is inaccurate - each region has unique history of Christianity. See discussion page.. Bardcom (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Three different zones have separate histories for Christianity, and now there is an irreconcilable dispute about omitting one because of modern politics. Nuh uh. Just delete the useless thing, which will eventually be made redundant by separate templates anyways. All it does now is waste the time of contributors. If it is kept for whatever daft reasons it could be, I'd recommend renaming it History of Insular Christianity to avoid the POV anachronistic term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Until someone creates the templates History of Christianity in England, History of Christianity in Scotland, History of Christianity in Wales and History of Christianity in Ireland, this is a useful template that collects all the articles on the history of Christianity in those nations together. I realise some object to the name 'British Isles', although it seems as good to me as any - but even if the name is changed, the template is worth keeping. Terraxos (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Above templates now created. Aatomic1 (talk) 11:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep per Terraxos, but also Move to {{History of Christianity in the British Isles}}. Neddyseagoon - talk 08:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment British Isles is also not accurate as the development of was very different in each region. --Bardcom (talk) 22:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete A square peg in a round hole. Aatomic1 (talk) 08:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It's a useful template that provides links to the subject for all areas of the British Isles in one comprehensive fashion. 86.27.229.204 (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 23:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep, but move to {{History of Christianity in the British Isles}}. It still isn't perfectly accurate, and more accurate, discriminate templates should be developed as soon as possible. Celarnor 17:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Template:Mahabharata character

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan template, unlikely to ever be used. — Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Non-free television sceenshot

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a template or be useful for any purpose as it's content seems to just be a test edit. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Fb team abb Bielefeld

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Created with wrong name (suppose to be without abb) and not used.--ClaudioMB (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox SET

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer used. It was for only one article so I added it directly there which makes it easier to update anyway. →Wordbuilder (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete it should have been deleted a long time ago. Templates for one article only are discouraged.--Crzy cheetah 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Mobility Network Laboratory

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused; made up of only a non-free image.. BJ 10:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete The infobox inside the template does not make sense, at all.--Crzy cheetah 22:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May 5

Template:Nav Couples for Christ

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't make any sense to have a navbox with 85% redlinks. I just edited the template but it used to include an external link to the group's website! I know that's a side issue but all four articles appearing as blue links in this navbox are glorification pieces with as little objectivity as you can afford without getting speedy deleted as spam.. Pichpich (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - True, that's a bit too red for my liking. What's the point of a navigation box that navigates to nowhere? – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - as per nom. Snappy56 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Ah, well now I understand. I guess that's okay, since most of the links there are still nonexistent. So, go ahead. However, Pichpich, since you've pointed out that the articles are "glorification pieces with as little objectivity as you can afford without getting speedy deleted as spam", why don't you do something to make it more objective and less glorifying? The least you could have done is to state your concerns in a constructive manner, because your actions were frightening, and I thought experienced users shouldn't frighten newcomers. :-) Athrun Atreides (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:UAA

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Worse than useless template that inhibits the proper functioning of WP:UAA. Every single response this template produces is inferior to simply removing the report and using an appropriate edit summary. Since a username is either bad enough to block or it's not, these reports need to be simply processed and removed. Mango juice 19:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Totally unnecessary. All it does is add one more layer of editing to the process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete as unnecessary and unattractive, not to mention forcing the universe of comments into a narrow set of templated responses. Much better to just state in plain language what you want to say. I disagree with Mangojuice that the choices are either block or remove; comments definitely have a place in UAA listings, especially third-party opinions. But they don't need to be templated. --MCB (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, third party opinions and limited discussion is appropriate, but that's not what this template is really all about. It does have the {{UAA|q}} option but no one really uses that in my experience. Mango juice 02:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Simply because you've never seen it used doesn't mean it isn't. We had that argument over {{2nd chance}}: you're not stalking UAA 24/7, and other admins could very well find it useful and use it for that purpose. Helping highlight the need for quick discussion is partly what this template is for, and I'm not really sure you understand that. Hersfold 18:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I will simply remove the modes of this that should be replaced by removing the report, but I'll leave the "Question" mode in place. Mango juice 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The way you're interpreting how this template should be used, that would be everything except "question". If you have a suggestion as to how the template can be improved, go ahead, but if you're just going to hack it to bits so it's effectively deleted, don't waste our time. Hersfold 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep This template is based off of {{AIV}}, which serves as a way to leave a quick note for A) other admins to let them know a name is being handled, B) the reporter to show them at a glance why their report was declined or C) highlight a concern regarding a borderline report that should be addressed before it is removed or blocked. With the recent changes to the username policy, we are being encouraged to be a little more lenient with usernames, and it is a waste of time for an admin to check someone's talk page just to find someone else has already put {{uw-username}} on there. We also frequently get reports from new users who do not fully understand the policy - when the page gets backlogged, which happens frequently, it's inefficient and possibly damaging to the project to take time out from reviewing the backlogged reports to leave a detailed note why a username is not a violation. A quick template note can make that obvious and clear to both reporter and admins, and doesn't take much time away from handling things. In the future, the helper bots could be programmed to recognize certain types of this template, and remove old requests after a few minutes, in a manner similar to how the {{RFPP}} archiver bot works. I admit I am slightly biased as the creator of this template, but I do strongly feel that this is far from "worse than useless" and rather makes UAA easier to use and prevents timewasting. Hersfold 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a waste of time is for someone to put a {{uw-username}} warning on a user's talk page and then leave the listing on WP:UAA with a note from this template. These should be removed. Reports that belong elsewhere should be removed. Reports that should not be blocked right away because the user hasn't edited should be removed. WP:RFPP is archived for good reason, but WP:UAA (and WP:AIV) are not and probably never will be archived, because they are too high-volume and specific cases do not come up repeatedly. Mango juice 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say they would be archived - I said the bots could be set to recognize when one of these templates was added and remove it automatically after a set time (5-10 minutes, say) as they do with all the ones that get blocked. Also, discussing things with the user isn't a shield against them getting blocked - if they ignore the request, a block may still be in order. Hersfold 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Check out Category:Wikipedian usernames editors have expressed concern over and see if you can find any people who have actually entered discussion, let alone in the first few minutes. Leaving these reports up would do nothing beneficial but ask all admins patrolling WP:UAA to investigate something that will be empty almost all the time, and in the few cases it's not, will probably not lead to any action. IMO, if you leave the warning, you need to watch for a reply, or you're dropping the ball. And in any case, even if the user ignored the warning and continued editing, the report would not belong at WP:UAA but at WP:RFCN. Mango juice 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that a problem with this template? You're pointing out a completely unrelated problem; we can't force users to communicate, and I am fully aware that many don't, however that doesn't mean that nobody does. If someone is actually looking to edit here, and does choose a questionable name, they will respond, and probably in a timely manner. Leaving the warning does not mean the username is not a violation, it just means the admin who first saw it is willing to assume good faith, and give them a chance before blocking provided they're not ignored. It does not prevent them from being blocked, hence why the report should remain, at least for a time. Hersfold 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Useful for other admins to get second opinions, for non-admins to voice opinions, and is generally a net positive. Why get rid of something that causes no problems? Malinaccier (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It encourages people to misuse WP:UAA. I have frequently had to clean up entries that should have been removed from the list because the responder used this template instead of dealing with things properly. Also, at best this encourages things to be discussed on the noticeboard which is inappropriate. Mango juice 02:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how does telling people what they've done wrong encourage them to do wrong? I'm confused. I would think that failing to explain why a report doesn't belong there would do more harm than replying to it. Hersfold 18:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Most people who report things at WP:UAA do so with Twinkle and don't go back to check on the names they reported. And in any case, they would have to check the edit history to see why those reports are no longer there -- whether they were blocked or whether someone removed it. So edit summaries do this just fine, and don't leave reports up creating a backlog. If a user is really doing things wrong with WP:UAA they need to be told directly about it. Mango juice 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So how is this different than AIV, then? We get a lot of reports there that either aren't vandalism or belong somewhere else - heck, I've even seen protection requests there - but I don't see you raising a stink about how it's run. Is this because the bots remove stale reports when no action is taken after a time? If so, I'd say that's something we need to work with the bot operators on, not deleting things that could be potentially useful. And again, leaving a report up gives other administrators a chance to double-check some of the names. What one person may not consider a blatant violation, another might. Nobody's going to police the history and review every block or decline made - using this template and not clearing things allows for admins to double-check each other and make sure they're making the right decisions. Consensus works for us too - it's not called "Usernames that should be unilaterally reviewed", it's "Usernames for admin attention". Hersfold 19:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep. All the arguments here would apply just as readily to T:AIV. We had discussions there before the template, so it didn't create that problem. As for "reports that belong elsewhere should be removed", the only "elsewhere" appropriate is RFC/UN, and I just can't see us cluttering that page up with discussions over accounts that have never edited and probably never will. What, exactly, do you mean by "dealing with things properly" ... blocking them? We get enough borderline cases that most admins have realized that there needs to be some small consensus before blocking away. I know I've certainly caught enough flack over username blocks, enough that I like having some input from other admins and leaving things up there that I'm not sure about. If there is a case for anything here, it's for changing the way UAA works, not deleting what I've found to be a very useful template for, as Hersfold says, quickly assessing another admin's opinion. Daniel Case (talk) 08:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with them properly means: (1) If you feel a block is appropriate, block. (2) If you feel like a block is not appropriate, remove the report and take whatever alternative action (moving the report, starting a discussion, whatever) you feel is appropriate. (3) If you're not sure, either don't address the report at all, or leave it up with a comment explaining your thoughts. But #3 should be rare -- WP:UAA is after all for usernames that need immediate blocking, not for borderline cases: borderline cases should simply be removed from WP:UAA and dealt with some other way. In any case, none of these procedures involve this template. Mango juice 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is called "usernames for administrator attention", not "usernames for possible blocking". Since I have seen my judgement on this issue questioned more than once, I like having this template to give other admins a better clue as to what I'm thinking and why. Are corporate-matching usernames block-worthy? It depends on whether they've edited promotionally or not. Some admins block those on sight. I don't anymore.

It really seems like the problem you're pointing to goes higher than this template. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your judgment is fine, Daniel. All these cases where you leave the user a warning template, your judgment is just fine and other admins are going to respect it, so you should just remove those reports. In cases where you aren't sure, yes, please either leave it alone or leave a comment, but that's not what you've been doing with this template. Mango juice 14:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but I usually move on to other tasks or actual editing after making an initial review. I think most of us feel we have more important things to do than hang out on UAA all day (and no, I'm not implying you do). Since I fully expect that other admins will review these (and yes, I have removed "discussing with ..."s that have not received any further comment after some time), I want some way for them to know what I was thinking. Misplaced Pages works as much on collaboration between administrators as editors. This helps facilitate it. Daniel Case (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Portsmouth 1939 FA Cup Team

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a reworking of Template:1939 FA Cup Winners already listed for deletion below. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above and below. – Pee Jay 18:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete, too many templates. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Manchester United F.C. 1998-99 Champions League Winners

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Football squad templates should only exist for current club squads and national World Cup squads. — – Pee Jay 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should accept these templates. Soon, we might end up with too many confusing templates and it will not be helpful to anyone. Probably, a separate page on important matches in the game of football could be included. - - User:thebigbee

Delete as pointless. Just imagine the bottom of Real Madrid with all templates like this. MaxSem 15:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete absolutely pointless just go to the relevant final article to see who won NapHit (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 23:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Sportin Templetes for Champions League Winners are useful and interesting. We have keep the templates for NBA champions i can see no difference. My country Greece have competed at World cup in 1994 (Argentina-Greece 4-0, Bulgaria-Greece 4-0, Nigeria-Greece 2-0). If there is a template for that team we must keep the template for a Champions League Winner. I believe that pages for players like Pele and Zidane can have equal templates as Michael Jordan
- Just because something exists somewhere else doesn't mean that this template should be kept. Please try to judge each case on its own merits. – Pee Jay 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep I think this page is really important for football lovers, its not every final that has a result turn-around in the last 3 minutes so this is a mark of respect too. Just keep it.
- To be honest, the 1999 final was one of the worst football matches I've ever seen, and I'm a Man Utd fan! Anyway, what does the stature of the match have to do with whether a template for the winners should exist or not? – Pee Jay 11:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. We will have an unmanageable set of templates at some pages if a similar template is created for every championship team. And I cannot see the need to navigate around the players that once played in the same team. It is a good idea to highlight certain events in the career of a player, but I would prefer an infobox solution or similar, rather than having navigation boxes at the bottom of the page. --Kildor (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Too many templates. Chanheigeorge (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Too many squad templates should be avoided, but I think the Champions League is a special case. Its international element makes it notable, as opposed to domestic cup and titles which might not have worldwide notability.Lord Cornwallis (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Sportin Of course we are talking only for the Champions League Winners from 1956, (51 templates) no 2nd place, semifinalists, participants etc. 11 May 2008

May 4

Template:1939 FA Cup Winners

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It has previously been agreed that there should not be templates for football squads, other than the current first team squad and national teams who have won major trophies . Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, although I believe the stipulation for national teams is that only templates for World Cup squads should exist. – Pee Jay 19:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

*Comment - as this template doesn't "work" because the embedded templates refer to "current squad" rather than "1939 FA Cup Winners", the creator has placed what looks like a template on the page for each player - e.g. Fred Worrall. If the template is deleted, then this work-around template should also be removed from the player articles. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Now struck out - see above --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 23:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comics-trademark-copyright

The result of the debate was no consensus for all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

These templates insert detailed copyright and trademark boilerplates, as dictated by publishers, on image pages, without due diligence as to the accuracy of the publishers' claims. Factors which can be in doubt: ownership, character (rather than whole work) copyrightability, effective dates, and trademark validity (i.e. whether the characters or images as identifiers of the source of a product). These templates are redundant with Template:Non-free comic and Template:Non-free book cover, which, in conjunction with fair use rationales, accurately and completely describe the images' fair use posture. Purported licenses from comic companies for use only on Misplaced Pages or non-commercial fansites, with these boilerplate attributions attached, are non-free licenses, so we should just fall back on fair use.Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments: {{Non-free comic}} and {{Non-free book cover}} are licensing templates that only identify material that Misplaced Pages does not, and cannot claim either rights to or free use of. They in no way identify anything beyond that. As the nom points out, those, as well as the other licensing templates, are part of the foundation of the fair use rationales we use.
The templates that he has nommed though, as well as the others grouped at Category:Comic book (C)/TM templates, are not intended or used as a license. They are used to identify the owner(s) of the material that is under copyright and/or trademark as per the owner(s) statements with the original publications. Additionally, one of the templates not placed here, {{2000AD-trademark-copyright}} stems from the specific request from the current owner of the material.
The nom has also expressed, both obliquely here and explicitly here, that the use of these templates opens Wkidpedia up to legal action. I have to ask if there is something the nom can point to for this, other than the concerns of a lay editor who "interested in law."
- J Greb (talk) 04:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember which case or C&D I read with plaintiffs using a defendant's copyright admissions against them, but I have seen it. The important thing is that the notices don't prevent lawsuits. They're only useful for websites that accept non-free licenses from comic publishers allowing non-commercial use with the detailed notice attached.

Also, I've thought about it for a couple of days. I think it'd be okay to edit and keep these templates to allow editors to specify likely ownership and publication dates, but without the legal conclusions as to copyright or trademark status. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you're suggesting changing it to something along the lines of:

Image originally published in 2007 in a magazine where DC Comics claims ownership of copyright and trademark in indentia of the publication.

Even though that statement from the publisher reads:

Variations of the above being set up for other protected sources - posters, television shows, ad copy, toys, etc. - which either have similar boilerplate (shows and films) or the simplified "TM and (C) year Publisher/Owner. All Rights Reserved" (posters and ads).

Or are you suggesting adding a logical "Verified" operand to the template to flip between the current template text ("Verified=y") and the "We guess" text ("Verified="). - J Greb (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete trademarks and copyright vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and these templates fail to provide a properly global legal perspective. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per J Greb's comments. - jc37 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per J Greb's comments. User:Krator (t c) 11:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Meweapons

The result of the debate was no consensus. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Every article in this template, save the lead article and Grond are redirects, so it is basically empty.. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom (Really no reason to keep if no articles for the links exist) and merge with Middle-earth, or one of its subpages. Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 05:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - this template, like Category:Middle-earth weapons and Category:Middle-earth swords, is effectively an alternative way to access the list entries at List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. Some people prefer to navigate Misplaced Pages using lists, others use categories, and others use templates. This strikes to the heart of when a template should be used, when a category should be used, and when a list should be used. Have a look at Template:HoME navbox - this template could be reorganised along those lines. My view is that restricting the options to just one of the category/list/template options removes choice from the reader, but I can understand that some editors want to avoid confusing readers, and hence would prefer to present only a single navigational option. Looking at the details, the template is used on four pages: List of Middle-earth weapons and armour, Anglachel, Narsil, and Grond. These are listed in the template, and thus the template is not empty, even if the redirects were removed. Please note that the nominator got this wrong in his nomination - saying that only the list and Grond were articles, and this seems to have misled the first person to !vote above. Carcharoth (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per Carcaoth's comments and, in particular, WP:CLN. Nav boxes can indeed coexist with lists and categories. - jc37 08:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

May 3

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 08:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Survtwice

For reasons below on Template:Survnovote; fancruft, unlikely to expand significantly, only linked together based on trivia — Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete, shouldn't be a template, or a list for that matter. Seems like a useless bit of trivia which would be deleted from an article. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Crufty, very crufty. Overtriviaitis. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If the contestant left in a special way, it is already in their article (if notable) or in the season article. Therefore, template not needed. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - This information doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, much less an infobox here. This is trivia; fancruft, just like people above me said. It doesn't belong in articles because it is trivia, and it doesn't belong in an infobox because that's not it's primary purpose. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete incredibly trivial connection between these links; not useful for navigation. Maralia (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Survnovote

The result of the debate was Delete -- lucasbfr 12:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the contestants don't have their own Misplaced Pages pages; unlikely to significantly expand and based entirely on trivia — Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per my above reasoning. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. If the contestant left in a special way, it is already in their article (if notable) or in the season article. Therefore, template not needed. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per above. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Like I said above, this is fancruft material that does not deserve its own infobox. If an infobox is wanted so badly, then the author should create an infobox of all Survivor contestants with little notes saying "Never voted off" or "Appeared twice but voted off once". This is certainly not notable enough to stand in its own infobox. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep - per above because this template has separate articles. -- 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Trivial intersection between these people; navigation aid unnecessary. Maralia (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. It's trivial information and it's not even helpful. "Being voted out once" captures far too many different outcomes in the show to be meaningful. Hydrahead (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Correction: I meant "not being voted out", not "being voted out once". See, this is how confusing this stuff is! Hydrahead (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2

Template:CarlaDelPonte

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 05:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused userbox in template namespace. User who created it was indef blocked as a sockpuppet.. --Snigbrook 23:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Per nom, but if I can't have infoboxes supporting my favorite bands, then what makes this so different? – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Orphan, only one red link. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Bianca Dias

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 05:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Template with only red links, articles were deleted.. --Snigbrook 23:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - The artist is non-notable, and the only links supplied were red. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Brian Este Clyde, Jacob Davis, Gerrish, D'waine Wade, and not Michael "Tina" Tran

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Persian Poet Gal as patent nonsense (G1). — Gavia immer (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Template is unused and does not appear to be useful.. --Snigbrook 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Blac Haze

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 05:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles for the artist and albums were deleted, so this template is not needed.. --Snigbrook 22:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hockey Captain templates

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Essentially a duplicate of the incumbent succession box on the related articles. ThePointblank (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The below XXX Captains templates are being considered under criteria #2? I don't see how they are weaker than the succesion box templates. The bigger concern is the proliferation of these types of templates without discussion. There is clutter happening on pages. Similar templates are in use and accepted. Discussion about the handling of these type of templates is on-going at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#Number_of_templates. Is that where discussion should be going on? Alaney2k (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Not only does it meet criteria #2. The information on it is not directly defining to the particular athlete whose page its on. The fact that some other random player 50 years earlier was also a captain of that team does not define the player whose page the template is on. Secondly to the comment up top, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to your line of arguing. Just because other templates of this sort exist doesn't mean this one should. Heck even those ones are not necessarily accepted. And places like tfd are where concensus on keeping them or not keeping them tends to be forged. As much as pump would like to be the place. -Djsasso (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete We should stick with the Succession boxes, as they concentrate more on the player-in-question (merely showing his immediate predecessor & immediate successor). GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Exactly the succession boxes are more defining as it lays out who he took over from or who he passed it on to. Anyone prior to or after that just simply don't define the player. And nav boxes should only include links to articles that would otherwise already be linked to in the article. -Djsasso (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete and Comment So that is criteria #1 then. I do agree that the templates should be deleted on that point. Mostly because they were developed and added without Project discussion. A proposal should have been made, etc. But I do have concerns about the fact that we have some of this type already, that have been present for a while. How are these different from the Draft picks ones? And, these type of templates represent a category in a different way. Should there be categories created instead? As for the design, the succession boxes are not superior, we probably be replacing them with something Navbox-derived, which supports collapsing. Alaney2k (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I wouldn't mind deleting all Templates from the NHL articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Comment Now I could be wrong, but I am guessing the reason its never happened before s that people are too lazy to link 30 templates to tfds each time they get created. I know I am, which is why I never nominated the first round draft picks one. But I will probably do so once this one is done as I think a fairly large group of people feel the same way you do GoodDay. -Djsasso (talk) 21:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Djsasso. As far as converting to categories goes, I think the same problem would apply: rampant overcategorization. Players are already listed as being members of the team in a category, listing them also as captains is redundant. I think, in this case, going with lists is the best, and since that is currently being incorporated into the lists of each team's players, we are already well down that path. Same with the draft picks articles. Resolute 21:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As you say I could see it being rampant overcategorization. Only way the captains one could work is if you make the captain category a sub-category of the team players category. -Djsasso (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Already listed in succession boxes, non-defining, and on some of them, such as Template:AvalancheCaptains, there is only one name. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete We could only keep the templates if al of them have more captains, which most don't. First I'd like to delete all with few catains but that will cause incompletion so our best resort is just either keeping the captains on the team pages or deleting them all entirly. --Hasek is the best (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have no objection to the Navbox style for draft picks, captains, etc., as long as it is contained on the team page within the container so that it is hidden by default. They become useful shortcuts that way. Alaney2k (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - We should use the Succession boxes --T-rex 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Per above. IrisKawling (talk) 07:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Succession boxes work fine for this purpose. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Succession boxes work fine, these simply clutter articles up. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 12:42, May 11, 2008 (UTC)
Keep and Comment - can some explain to me what is meant be criteria #1 and #2? Also, if the consenus seems to be against nax boxes based on the postition that people hold, how does that jive with political offices such as {{Prime Ministers of Canada}} or {{NYCMayors}}? Isn't that the same phenominon but in another field of human endevor? Either it should apply to both or neither. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If you go to Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion and take a look there are reasons for deletion. When someone says #1 or #2 then they mean the first or second on that list. Now I have nothing to back it up but I would say most people on here would say they would like to see them gone from those people as well. Nav boxes should only contain articles that would already normally be linked on the page. And in most cases, other than the captain that came before and after or in your example the mayor that came before or after, no other captain or mayor would be linked on the page and thus don't belong in a navbox. -Djsasso (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Northern Ireland Assembly

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This template is perfectly executed, but I'm afraid that it's just too big for its purpose. There are 108 members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and with the links to the parties etc, it adds 125 extra links to each article.

This sort of template works fine for smaller groupings, but I think that cross-linking over 100 articles in this way is a step too far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, its fit for purpose and its user friendly. It is big but all MLA's are now under one template. Its perfect for anyone wanting to learn about the Northern Ireland Assembly and its members without getting completely lost on Misplaced Pages. I designed it with school and university students in mind who need something like this to help them on Misplaced Pages. I plan to work on each one of the MLA's wikis to make the template completely worthwhile.--Nanometre (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All the MLA articles are already in the same category: Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2007-, which provides a handy navigational method. There is also a handy sortable list at Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly elected in 2007.

I'm not against templates, it's just that this one is too big. It has just occurred to me that it would be fine if it was split into smaller templates, one per party, which could be cross-linked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. The usefulness us IMO dubious. Links to pages with the full list of members may be in order, but such a template is OTT.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. It's just too big. Split into party groups. Have a look at Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament navigational boxes for other examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snappy56 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 May 2008
Delete - adds nothing which is not present in the article and the category. Warofdreams talk 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep It is big but it is not that big. The template contains all the MLA wikis and their parties wikis and means that other templates can be deleted (Template:Northern Ireland Assembly Parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:NI party leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:Sinn Fein Elected Representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). Splitting and cross linking them is a bit excessive, the current and simplest solution is the best (Occam's razor).--Nanometre (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete/Split. Certainly easy to get lost in this one, and the size is large. Would it not be more useful to have a template for each party, and then tie them all together somehow? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ Template:GW Bush cabinet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanometre (talk • contribs) 22:25, 6 May 2008
- Note: this is Nanometre's second !vote in this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it wasn't delibrate, I didn't relise it was a vote. I'm still learning the ropes--Nanometre (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

- WP:WAX Reso lute 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete: There is a proliferation of these templates, which are essentially adding nothing to the articles. This one is among the least useful. Scolaire (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Template:Catholicism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is also bigger, so that argument is redundant. The template meets what Misplaced Pages asks of templates and it does add to each wiki.--Nanometre (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  - See WP:WAX. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    - I'd like to point out that the subject matter of Catholicism is somewhat greater than the current members of the NI Assembly! Furthermore, its size is largely due to its layout, it still manages to contain less links (~75) than your template. Snappy56 (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

May 1

Template:List of Anime Ep TV

The result of the debate was Pretty much defines no consensus Woohookitty 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Links to previous relevant discussion: Here and here.

Unnecessary duplicate of {{Japanese episode list}} that is not endorsed or supported by the Anime and manga project. Episode lists, especially FLs, use the standardized Japanese episode list, which builds off the original television episode list strongly preferred by the television project. This template does not reflect existing consensus on how an episode list should be formatted, and lacks many of the parameters found in the real template.. Collectonian (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Seems like little more than feature creep. —Dino guy 1000 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I heartily agree that should be deleted as duplicative, with the relevant WikiProject specifically endorses using {{Japanese episode list}}, and ugly to boot. However, there's about a dozen lists that need to be converted to the better template before this can be wiped. I note, btw, that this was up for TfD before. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep No harm in having more than one style, and some have stated a preference for this version. This might be odd coming from me, who started {{Japanese episode list}}, but there's no real reason to limit ourselves to only one choice. There's also no official status to these templates, nothing formal, at least. We have some FLs LOEs that don't even use a template. -- Ned Scott 09:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep it was nominated before. It is another flavor for the task. Users are free to choose many styles. As the author of many of the lists using this template I choose to use this template over others. Wikiproject s are merely a list of pages and has no say whatsoever in my preferred template choice. There are many arbitration ruling on style issues. let's not add another... -- Cat 23:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a project does have say in the preferred template of choice, as they are most often the ones who will support/oppose lists going for FLC. FL anime lists show clearly that the Japanese episode list template is preferred. The only ones which have passed without it are old ones that passed before the format was standardized. Collectonian (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this belief based on? Who determines this standard? Why is it that anime templates I create get nominated for deletion the same day as Jack Merridew is going an unblock discussion? -- Cat 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The project, for the most part, and the consistent formatting found in current FL anime episode lists. I came across this template while cleaning up a long neglected article. The episode list looked bad and one of the first actions was to properly template it as it should be. I have no idea what the last comment is supposed to mean, so I'm going to presume you're venting some frustration from some other part of Misplaced Pages. Collectonian (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That is an understatement. I am very frustrated. (snort) :( What you are doing is unnecessarily adding to my stress level. I wish you would let this one slip but I don't think that will ever happen. -- Cat 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am doing? I haven't done anything but find this template in use in an article, realized it is badly formatted and doesn't work nearly as well as {{Japanese episode list}}, so I nominated it for deletion figuring it was an older template or maybe one person's personal thing in little use. I had no idea it was "yours" (not that it would have mattered), until you left the message on my talk page asking me to remove this nomination. I'm sorry you're stressed over the whole JM thing, but it has nothing to do with me, this template, or anything else, so please keep the frustration and stress there. Collectonian (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - with over twenty featured lists using {{Japanese episode list}}, as well as over 90% of all other anime episode lists, I think it's fairly clear which one is more commonly utilized. Consistency is important and honestly, I can't see why anyone would prefer this template over the other one. Without such consistency, we end up with lame edit wars over which template to use, and if any list came to WP:FLC using {{List of Anime Ep TV}}, then I'm sure it would have problems from the FLC regulars (who are familiar with these lists thanks to yours truly) as well as other people from WP:ANIME. Sephiroth BCR 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No one ever said we had to only choose one. And while it's rare, from time to time you'll even see a fork of Template:Episode list, something that I've even encouraged (it's were some of best new ideas come from). Consistency is good, yes, but it's also not that important. It's one thing when we have something like 30 different character infoboxes, but this really isn't problematic. Like I mentioned above, some FL LOEs, such as List of Dad's Army episodes, don't even use a template, and use a very different format. For me, I feel like we tend to box ourselves in with only one option on a lot of stuff, and that can sometimes work against us. Meh. -- Ned Scott 03:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Most of those forks, however, are done either to do a transclusion system, since we have no generic one for that, or for shows with specialized information. This doesn't provide either, it just really makes a rather unattractive list while removing basic episode data options like writer/directer, etc. Collectonian (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Per Collectonian, those forks are for specialized uses, similar to {{S-Japanese episode list}}. Again, I see a real problem whenever any of these lists go to WP:FLC, and the lame edit wars that I really don't want to see or have. That and this template is not aesthetically pleasing at all compared to {{Japanese episode list}}, which in my opinion, presents it much better. Sephiroth BCR 08:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Do not impose your personal style on others. Arbcom in the past has ruled many times that style based issues should be left in the hands of the person with most edits to the article. This is arbitrary of course. -- Cat 12:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It isn't his personal style, it is what the FL process has shown to be the preferred format, and the Arbcom ruling does not mean the editor with the most articles can just go against consensus of many others who agree that anime episode lists should use a certain format. Collectonian (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is a personal style. Are you saying the two templates are 100% identical? Featured List criteria does not dictate deletion of templates. I am uncertain of your rationale. -- Cat 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not a personal style. It would be if I made the template, but I didn't. Anyhow, a list with this template goes to WP:FLC. Common FLC reviewer asks why you aren't using {{Japanese episode list}}, which they are familiar with due to the twenty-five or so odd lists I've pushed through the aforementioned review process with that template, and since they care about consistency in featured lists. Numerous WP:ANIME people ask why you aren't using the aforementioned template for the same reason. Your FLC fails since you can't garner consensus. Go figure. Sephiroth BCR 01:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Really? Because first anime featured list was using {{List of Anime Ep TV}}. You are saying I should have nominated {{Japanese episode list}} for deletion simply because I did not mass advertise the template I created? What you suggest isn't consensus. Merely your original research. If what you fear is a revert war on Anime/Manga episode lists, you have a very twisted approach. What you are doing is basically provoking multiple revert wars. Seems like unless I revert war my voice is never heard. -- Cat 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You got your FL back when WP:FLC frankly sucked and something like that (hardly any sources, most of which fail WP:RS, crappy lead, poor prose in summaries) or List of Planetes episodes (no sources, practically no lead, poor prose) was able to pass the aforementioned process. Anyhow, no one here ever mass-advertised {{Japanese episode list}}; they're using it because apparently they prefer it over {{List of Anime Ep TV}}, and since nearly every list in Category:Lists of anime television series episodes is using it, that's particularly telling. In any case, I'm referring to revert wars occurring because of two redundant templates existing, and one being widely more accepted than the other. It's not original research, it's common sense. Sephiroth BCR 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It is the definition of original research. You ought to drop your arrogant attitude at once. Keep insulting my work, see what that leads to. -- Cat 04:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you instead stop threats against other editors, much less admins. Your attitude is not helping your case at all. Collectonian (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no threats made here. WP:CIVIL violations have lead to indef blocks in the past. The tone of Sephiroth BCR is not exactly civil. Someone being an admin will not get any special treatment from me. Admins are not gods, they are mere editors just like me. So I do not see your point. -- Cat 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Your remark was written in a threatening way. His tone is civil, if mildly frustrated. You're the one attacking everyone and acting like you're being abused. Collectonian (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant attitude? Hardly. If I wanted to be arrogant and condescending, then you would know it, I assure you. Anyhow, why are you complaining about your former featured lists? Why did they get delisted? Try to get them promoted now, and they won't have a chance in hell of passing WP:FLC as they are now. Sephiroth BCR 21:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete as redundant to the more versatile {{Japanese episode list}}. There is absolutely no reason to have two templates that does the same job. --Farix (Talk) 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Past arbitration cases disagrees with you. We have many templates that does the same task in slightly different flavors including stuff like the maintenance templates. Do not dictate which template I am supposed to use on the article I write. -- Cat 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
~ahem~ I suggest you rethink that after reading WP:OWN. And yes, the project can, and will, come in and fix an article to use an agreed upon format. Happens all the time. That's why we have a MoS, and why one shouldn't go around trying to argue against them. The Anime and manga MoS only endorses the {{Japanese episode list}} template for its episode lists, and when we are doing clean ups of episode lists, one of the first tasks is to clean up the episode list so it uses the {{Japanese episode list}} template. Any that don't are fixed, as it is seen as a flaw in the list format and to be against the MoS. Please point me to the ArbCom cases that declared that an editor's personal preference and tastes can go against consensus? Collectonian (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom case that White Cat has referred to in the past is Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jguk. However, if you actually read over the case, you will see that it was about a dispute over a date format (AD/BC vs CE/BCE) were there was no consensus for either format and both were acceptable according WP:MOSNUM. However, since we are talking about redundant templates and a MOS has a limited role, the ruling on that case doesn't apply here. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah...that was the sort of case I was suspecting it was. Yes, date is fairly up to whoever first used it in an article, so long as the date is compliant and being used according to to WP:MOSNUM, but also agreed that this is certainly not the same thing. Collectonian (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I very seriously doubt that past ArbCom rulings are in disagreement with my reasoning. Especially when redundancy to another better-designed template is one of the four deletion reasons explicitly recognized above. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. It is persuasive that Ned, who created the other template, also sees validity in this template as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete for above stated reasons. To me, it makes no sense to have two different styles competing with each other, when one will entirely (as far as I can tell) do everything the other will. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Again thats a style issue, the two templates have differences. Neither one is "the right version". -- Cat 09:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  - No it isn't. You have two templates that are intended for the same purpose. Only one should be utilized for the sake of consistency and avoiding edit wars. The "right version" is the one endorsed by consensus, which the over twenty-five featured lists using {{Japanese episode list}} clearly indicate. The only reason to have another template is that it fulfills a purpose the other cannot (say {{S-Japanese episode list}}). This one doesn't, and even does less things than {{Japanese episode list}} can; ergo, there's no reason for it to exist. Sephiroth BCR 09:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  - It's not a style issue, but one over redundant templates. {{Japanese episode list}} can actually mimic the style of {{List of Anime Ep TV}} if the editor really wanted to use that particular style. --Farix (Talk) 11:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Really? Were we running out of hard drive space? You have any idea how weak that argument is? Now had the person nominating the template come forward to talk to me (boy that can do wonders) rather than brute force challenge me on a TfD, my approach would be entirely different. TheFarix you yourself have gotten many templates I created deleted probably after stealing elements of my code. I desire to be credited for my contribution. I guess you cannot understand what this is about. -- Cat 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
      - How weak that argument is? Go peruse through WP:TFD and tell me how many templates are up for deletion since they're redundant with another template. And you wanted to be "credited for your contribution"? Go read WP:OWN and figure out that you have no argument. Sephiroth BCR 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
        Per the GNU Free Documentation License you are legally obligated to credit me for my work. This is part of the function of the "history" link. -- Cat 04:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        I really didn't expect to be agreeing with Cat on more than just the basic issue here, but the fact that we lose contribution history in some deleted templates has concerned me too. I made a few proposals about it, at one point, but didn't have the energy at the time to really push the matter. Which is why, at the very least, we should not completely delete these templates. I seriously doubt it would be a realistic legal issue, but it makes things easier to have access to who did what and when (and how they did it at the time). -- Ned Scott 04:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        If that were really a legal issue, or an issue at all, we would never delete articles or anything else, but we do all the time. One is only "legally obligated" to contribute the work that is kept. If its deleted, there is nothing to contribute and any obligation ceases. If it is merged or used somewhere else, then it would change to a redirect, but no one is suggesting to keep anything from this template and it was not used as a basis for any other template that can be find. Also, even if there was a requirement to keep the history that wouldn't obligate keeping the template or allowing its use.Collectonian (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment I haven't hung out at WP:FLC in a while, but in the past lists were nominated and promoted using this template. Originally I really didn't like this template, and debated the use of it in several discussions. IIRC, the general feeling was that the FL status of the list was not because of the template, but because of the content of the lists (and both templates were visually acceptable/pleasing/whatever). I'm really not swayed by the FL argument. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

FLC reviewers treat consistency between lists as a very important item when reviewing. There's been more than twenty-five lists promoted using {{Japanese episode list}} since the last one without it. The issue here is consistency, not whether this template is aesthetically pleasing (which is isn't really), and the consistency has been clear and unbroken for over a year. Those lists you were referring to were promoted since the Japanese episode list template didn't exist or was just getting implemented. That and the FLC process back then is hardly close to the one now IMO. Sephiroth BCR 09:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ironic, since {{Japanese episode list}} is designed to allow for at least 3 distinctly different layouts. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Then we use the most common layout. Same consistency argument. Anyhow, only cements that this template should be deleted since a user could duplicate its format using {{Japanese episode list}} if necessary. Sephiroth BCR 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the page history? -- Cat 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

What about it? Sephiroth BCR 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what Cat had in mind, but I think that even if the template isn't used anymore, the template and talk page should be saved for historical reasons.
And for the FL argument, I know there's been some recent effort to reform the FLC process, but eh, I've never really put a lot of weight on the whole FL thing. If you can make a good argument for the lists that still use this template, and get the editors there to switch over, I think that would do better for the argument of consistency. I know User:Nihonjoe made a convincing argument for it's use on a few lists. Again, I don't prefer it myself, but I don't see the need to force people to use one option when there's been reasonable arguments to have this one. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been involved at WP:FLC for a long time (as you know), and I don't see the argument being made for this template. Whether it's with the FLC regulars (who will have issues with the template itself for being not aesthetically pleasing and not standard) or people from WP:ANIME who will raise the issue since we have twenty-five featured lists that do use it and expect consistency. Why go through that or even before that, useless and unnecessary conflicts over people who still want to use this template over {{Japanese episode list}}? I don't see why you're treating consistency as a bad thing, and if anything, we're making it clear for anyone who wants to make a featured episode list to go ahead and do it. Having two templates doesn't make it any easier for them. Sephiroth BCR 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This template format is completely different, is not formatted badly (just differently), and is used in a large number of episode list articles (unless someone has gone through changing it out to support their arguments, as happened the last time it was brought up for discussion here). Yes, similar information is presented, but this template makes it much more clear what each bit of information is, which is important. I think the most important thing is to present the information in an understandable format. This template does that, and it's used in a decent number of articles, so I see no valid reason for deleting it. ···日本穣 03:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Amount of articles using {{List of Anime Ep TV}}: roughly 30. Amount of articles using {{Japanese episode list}}: over 500. There's no reason to have two templates that are intended for the same function and present the exact same information (the latter even presents more information). We have one or we have the other. And we're not going to change every single episode article that uses {{List of Anime Ep TV}} to {{Japanese episode list}} right now because that's a gross violation of WP:POINT and it's placing a fait accompli on this discussion that is definitely not civil. Sephiroth BCR 05:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It was merely stating the fact that it happened last time. If no one is (or has done that this time, then that's great. As for the template usage, it's used because it presents the information in a format liked by the creators of those lists. Those of us using it could just go through and subst every instance of it, but then that defeats the purpose of using a template in the first place. You seem hell-bent on wiping it out, though. ···日本穣 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's simply no point to keeping two templates that do the same thing. Again, I don't see why consistency is viewed as a bad thing. By your logic, someone could make a new template simply because they like the design and regardless of consensus on the issue, continue to use it. There's no reason to, especially when {{Japanese episode list}} is so widely utilized and part of the accepted format of our 25 featured episode lists. Sephiroth BCR 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:List of Anime Ep TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was created on 12:16, 5 December 2005 by White Cat (me)
{{Japanese episode list}} was created on 03:33, 7 June 2006 by Ned Scott - a participant on this discussion.

There is no consensus on the issue. Consensus does not mean the number of transclusions. Thats statistics. There is no single accepted format for this. We can have a diverse number of styles. Diverse styles are not banned.

-- Cat 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a diverse number of styles. Why even have a MoS for anything? Because we want consistency. When the templates were created are irrelevant. And statistics do matter when there's an overwhelming disparity between the number of transclusions. This is a redundant template for heaven's sake. We aren't supposed to have redundant templates. Sephiroth BCR 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

When did Misplaced Pages start keeping redundant templates because of a very minor difference in presentation? Usually, redundant templates are either merged or one is deleted in favor of the other. Are we now going to go back and undelete all fifty-something character infoboxes that {{Infobox animanga character}} made redundant because someone may like the style and presentation of the old infoboxes better? --Farix (Talk) 03:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the wiki has been created we have had different styles. I have looked the other way on that incident since I agreed with the general change since measures were taken to keep the general style. However interpreting that as if I have revoked my right to object or oppose is simply ridiculous. -- Cat 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages has been created, we have moved towards more standardization if anything. And no one is removing your right to oppose, we're simply contesting your argument, which so far is complaining that you're going to lose all the credit for the template that you made. Sephiroth BCR 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(To Farix) Technically, that's what Template:Japanese episode list is when compared to Template:Episode list. It's too much of a pain in the ass to try to merge them both. We're tolerant of redundancy when there is a reasonable argument for it.

This is also a bit different from the character infobox situation, since there we were dealing with a lot of templates, and because their existence encouraged inexperienced (and even some experienced) editors to make forks for each and every show. It was a situation where leaving them alone would mean the number of templates would continue grow. That was a problem. This template, on the other hand, is just a quite little option that's not really causing much of a problem for anyone. If it were to become an issue in the future then I would probably think differently about it. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Redundant templates cause edit wars somewhere down the road because they are well, redundant. This certainly isn't a problem on the scale of the character infobox situation, which was simply chaotic and did need to be stopped, but there's no reason to hold on to redundant templates to cause the problems you're noting may occur in the future. Sephiroth BCR 06:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"We have one or we have the other." If that was really true then templates like Japanese episode list would have never had a chance to take off. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You introduce a new template. Project debates on it. Consensus determines whether they like it better than the current one or not. If yes, we use the new template. That and since {{Japanese episode list}} is already so widely utilized, it's a bit of a moot point to try to argue in that direction. Again, I still don't get why people are treating consistency as a bad thing and redundancy as something to be desired. Sephiroth BCR 23:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It is because we aren't robots and because[REDACTED] is not a bureaucracy. -- Cat 04:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I should go ahead and ignore the MoS for everything because I don't want to follow what all those people said I need to do in order to get a WP:FA and because all of it is instruction creep limiting my ability to contribute right? Obviously not. 25 FLs with {{Japanese episode list}} disagree with you as well. Sephiroth BCR 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)No one debated on it at first. Japanese episode list was nothing more than a copy of Template:Digimon episode, which a few editors saw and liked, and made a copy at Template:Episode list. I came in after that and helped to make it more universal. The use of the template was spread like fire. Myself and others would go to active episode lists of in-progress shows, where the template would get lots of exposure, and just started converting things. The template's mention in WP:MOS-ANIME is a recent addition, I believe. There's no real formality to this. I literally did just decide to make a template one day, without consulting anyone, and started to put it into use.

If this was an issue, like if we had several episode list templates, I might be more included to see your point of view. But that's not the situation here. There was a time when I would have loved to see this template deleted, due to the arguments I got in over it, but now I see those arguments were so painfully lame. Is this really an issue? It's one thing to not prefer an option, and another to oppose it. I see a lot of preference, not opposition.

Not to mention there are still one or two things that this template does that {{Japanese episode list}} doesn't currently do. One of those is sectional editing for each episode entry. -- Ned Scott 04:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My example was to illustrate what could happen if someone suddenly developed a better template. Anyhow, you refer to arguments as to utilizing this template as "painfully lame." Then why keep it at all? If there's no point in using it, why have it? This is an issue because the template is redundant and frankly, not aesthetically pleasing. That and due to what I see occurring at WP:FLC if an episode list was ever brought up to par with this template. Sephiroth BCR 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, the arguments about which template to use were lame, not the arguments for one template or another (as in, the debate itself was lame). It was lame because it really didn't matter which template was being used (at least after Cat converted the template to use named parameters). If the line separator was thinner then this would make the template look a lot better. -- Ned Scott 04:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wicca portal

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Created for unknown reason to replace the basic Portal template. All instances have been rolled back to previous format, and if the specific symbol used in this template is desired elsewhere, it can be included with that basic Portal template. Basically, unnecessary templating.. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 12:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - This is essentially a hardcoded instance of {{Portal}}, and there is no need to have a separate template for each portal. Black Falcon 19:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:NZR member

The result of the debate was rename Woohookitty 07:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused user template for nonexistent project "NZR Project". Also delete enclosing category Category:NZR Project, whose only member is this template. — DH85868993 (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete unused userbox. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
comment -- The template may be unused, but Misplaced Pages:WikiProject NZR is by no means a nonexistent project. I took a quick look through the user pages of editors that are listed as project members and didn't see this userbox displayed. I've left a note about this discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject NZR. Slambo (Speak) 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: as one of the main participants in the NZR WikiProject, I didn't even know this existed! I personally would not have an interest in using it, but other members may have been similarly unaware of its existence and would like to use it, so I'm not going to cast a vote for deletion. I suppose I'm fairly neutral on its fate. - Axver (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment (from nominator). Given that the project actually exists, I'm quite happy for the template to remain, provided the link to the WikiProject and category are corrected. But I'll leave the nom, to save the Project having to renominate it if they decide they don't want it. DH85868993 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty 06:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty 06:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep as a userbox for an active WikiProject. However, after this TfD is closed, the template should be renamed to Template:User NZR member or Template:User WikiProject NZR per Misplaced Pages:Userboxes (all userboxes in the template namespace should be start with "Template:User"). Black Falcon 20:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the category and project links in the template and have also speedy deleted Category:NZR Project under the general housekeeping criterion, as being redundant to Category:WikiProject New Zealand Railways. Black Falcon 20:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in renamed form per BF - and bring back the Southerner! Grutness...wha? 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep/Rename as it does have a parent project. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Galveston Radio

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio navigation templates are generally created by Arbitron market area in the United States. Galveston, Texas is already covered by Template:Houston Radio in the Houston-Galveston Market (Arbitron Market #6). Rtphokie (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Given that these templates are typically based around the Arbitron markets, and no reason has been given for a split (either here or on the template discussion page), such a replication of information seems unnecessary. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

April 30

Template:IdolWinners

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned template and already covered by Template:American Idol. — Aspects (talk) 21:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete as orphaned and redundant.--Lenticel 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - per nom --T-rex 23:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete as Template:American Idol already covers this Irk _{Come in for a drink!} 05:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Disneyland

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned and no longer used.. Tiggerjay (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete if orphaned, it looks like this solely had to do with the 50th anniversary celebrations. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Surnames of the first German families in Puerto Rico

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This pretty much defines single use template. We generally don't have articles on specific surnames unless they are famous in some way or very common. So this template will probably only be used on this particular article. Also, there is no sourcing attributed to it. I attempted to subst the template but it was reverted with the edit summary to the effect that this is a must so that the list can't be edited. As far as I know, that's not a legitimate use of a template. We're a wiki and nothing is set in stone. The only exceptions are for high use templates and this isn't high use. Subst and delete. See below for the proposal on another similar template. Woohookitty 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - The reason behind the creation of both templates is that it has helped to curtail the vandalism (which is so rampant in Misplaced Pages) of the sections in which they are posted. The verifiable sources to the names are provided and posted within the contents of the articles themselves. I will not object to the decision taken, however the nomination for deletion with the excuse that said templates occupy space seems to me more like "If I can't have things my way then I'll have it another way." I will comply with whatever decision is taken. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I've been here way too long to feel like I need to use "excuses". I subst the template in anticipation of putting it here. It's a single use template and vandalism is not a reason to keep it in template space. Besides, I don't see that much vandalism to that section anyway. --Woohookitty 06:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Subst and delete per nom (single-use template). While I can sympathise with the reason for this template's creation, a template can be vandalised just as easily as an article. It's easier to watchlist, monitor, and edit just the article than to try to do the same for the article and the template. Black Falcon 20:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
delete - no need for a template if it's only going to be used on one page --T-rex 23:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Surnames of the first Irish families in Puerto Rico

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar to above. This is a single use template which probably just be subst and deleted. There is really no hope of it ever being spread in which case it is simply taking up space. No sourcing attributed to it either. Subst and delete — Woohookitty 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Per above, see "Surnames of the first German families in Puerto Rico" Tony the Marine (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Subst and delete per my rationale above. Black Falcon 20:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Userindef

The result of the debate was delete. Will replace. Woohookitty 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Functionally redundant to about ten other specialized username block templates.. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete We have far too many redundant indef block templates. Mr.Z-man 17:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:WJFK daily schedule

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Unused template, schedule for a single radio station. — BlueAzure (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete This doesn't seem necessary if it only applies to a single radio station. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Old discussions

April 29

Template:Romance-speaking states of Europe

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This template is oversimplified. Just another template at the bottom of a country page. This information may all be viewed at the page for Romance languages. Please Delete. Also, more discussion of this nature may be viewed at Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion#Template:Germanic-speaking regions of Europe. --DerRichter (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)—

Comment - The footer navigtation template is used on these pages. I don't think its use as a footer template in France and Italy meets the requirements for the other footer navigtation templates. (1) What are the requirements for footer navigtation templates (provide link please) and (2) why does this template not meet them? Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - I think adding another series nav footer to country articles that already have a lot of information to get across is poor style, and not in the spirit of WP:SERIES. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Hardly adds information and only adds to the growing block of NAV templates in the country pages. Arnoutf (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Serves no purpose. The Ogre (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per Arnoutf, even if (as seems to be the case) this template is intended to include only those countries where a Romance language is a/the national or official language. (I note this because, technically, one or more of the Romance languages is spoken in all European countries.) Black Falcon 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Janneman (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete per norm and Arnoutf. Note to closing admin, please see and close the discussion about Template:Finno-Ugric-speaking_nations too - Nabla (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:AL_postcode_area

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 08:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Templates not used. Info already include in AL_postcode_area, AB_postcode_area and BA_postcode_area. — WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. These templates had a single-article use and now are useless. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete. MRSC • Talk 05:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirect or History merge and delete . We should preserve the authorship information of these tables, per GFDL, as they have been copied into the articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If you inspect the history for these templates, you will see that all the content was added in the initial creation of the template (and was just copied from the main article at that time) and all the further edits where just minor style changes, so the history doesn't really record anything useful. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Northern Ireland ministers templates

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: the following two templates should have been part of the nomination, as their creator kindly pointed out below

Template:Deminister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Dfpminister (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Since the creator has supported deletion, I hope it's OK to add these templates now. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

These templates relate to the ministers and govt departments of the Northern Ireland Executive, and I propose deletion of all them because they serve no useful purpose, and create unnecessary clutter on the articles in which they are placed, as well as misleading the reader.

The visual effect of these templates is similar to what might be done for an infobox on the article of each of departments - name of minister, and photo etc - and that use might be sensible, though I suggest that even in such a case they give far too much prominence to the senior minster. A more appropriate infobox for such a department would show the departmental logo and other details of the govt department (employee count, budget, address etc), and if photos of the ministers are to be include, they should be in the body of the article. All these departments also have junior ministers, whose role in running the dept can be significant, and if we add their photos too the box gets overloaded; if we don't, the dept's structure is misrepresented.

I don't see any useful purpose for these templates, but the thing which first prompted me to nominate them for deletion is that they are also being applied to articles related to that department. One example is Invest Northern Ireland, a non-departmental public body where ministerial involvement is limited to appointing the board. That body operates at arms length from govt, and it's quite misleading to stamp it with the face of the minister in that way. Invest Northern Ireland is just one example, but I cannot see any other 0case of an article where these templates would be useful.

It probably would be useful to have a bottom-of-the-page navigation template listing govts depts and the public bodies which the sponsor, but that's an entirely different proposition to these place-the-minister's-photo-everywhere templates. Their creator has just left a note on my talkpage saying the departmental logo will be added to them, but that doesn't resolve the fundamental flaw that these templates are misconceived, and serve no useful purpose. I don't think that they can be redeemed; they should all be deleted, because they appear to be based on a misunderstanding of the structure of the public service. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Another example of the inappropriateness of these boxes can be seen at Northern Ireland Ambulance Service. The NIAS's own website explains that it is structured as a trust, and so far I haven't found any mention on that site of the name of the minister, let alone a photo. (There may be one somewhere, but it's nowhere prominent). Yet the[REDACTED] article is now designed place the name and picture of the minister prominently on the page, as if it was his own fiefdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Yeah it's clutter. I'd say give it 10 years :) Just not enough information to justify it. --Woohookitty 04:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

~~Merge~~ Delete each to most relevant article page and then delete. Then the layout and content, and use of a generic template, can be discussed on the Talk page of that article. Using individual templates for transcluding information across 2 or 3 articles (the bio summary of the incumbent minister in this case) is almost always a mistake and makes the encyclopedia harder to maintain, as has been established in several recent TFD discussions. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Reply I don't think that merger is appropriate or useful. The article on the departments may usefully have an infobox on the department, but not on the minister (that should be an entry in the infobox, not the subject of it, and in any case there are junior minsters as well). The articles on the minsters already have an appropriate infobox relevant to their careers: e.g. Margaret Ritchie (politician), the subject of Template:Dsdminister has an {{Infobox Politician}}, which is the normal practice for such articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  - That is convincing. There is no value in merging after all. I changed my response to delete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My boldness has created quite a fuss! I think I should explain: My intention was to create user friendly interfaces about each department which would link to relevant departments, NDPB's, agencies and have information about minister information, civil servant and small Northern Ireland Executive logo, departmental logo and small ministers photo on each. I have been on Misplaced Pages for 5 days and I'm not sure whats right and whats wrong yet but it was worth a try. I except your views and think they should be deleted. I'll consider this part of the learning curve!--Nanometre (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You were quite right to be bold, and even more right to respond so openly to the criticism which has followed. Particularly when new to wikipedia, it can be very frustrating (and upsetting) to find one's hard work being challenged, and it's great to see a new editor so open to the rollercoaster ride of collaborative editing. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nanometre, if you think your efforts might be useful in the future,(perhaps in a modified form) you could copy them to your userpage, to preserve them for your own reference. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Hroðulf I will. I'll try again soon and hopefully get it right.--Nanometre (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete all. The idea is good, but usually this is done with horizontal templates at the bottom of the page, not vertical templates that go along the side. What you've created is essentially a userbox. Try looking at some of the ones on George W. Bush at the bottom of the page. Celarnor 02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHLPlayoffs/Game

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally for use with main NHLPlayoffs template, but now those functions have been combined directly into that template, thus leaving this template completely unused. Additionally, a better, more complete ice hockey summary that is more functional is also already available as the Ice Hockey Game. Additionally, I am the only author, so other objections are fairly unlikely. Sukh17 17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:NHLPlayoffs/Single

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Already summarized by main NHLPlayoffs template, which can display single games and up to seven games, so this template is unnecessary.. Sukh17 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television station

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's orphan. Seems like a dupe of a broadcasting infobox. Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Television Network

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It's orphan. Seems like a dupe of a broadcasting template.. Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Military-Insignia

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Long-deprecated license template that has been removed/replaced in all usages. Can also delete the redirects {{Military Insignia}} and {{Military-insignia}}, and the associated maintenance category Category:Military Insignia images needing copyright status check. Kelly 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Per nom. MBisanz 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:current motor sport

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 08:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Duplicates the functionality of {{current sport}}. Transcluded on about 30 or so articles. Another example of proliferation of {{current}}. Yellowdesk (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Motor sports is significantly different from athletics. Misplaced Pages is not paper. Alaney2k (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Motor sports is still a sport though. Hence the word sport in Motor Sports. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete and Suggest Improvement. Some more misplaced enthusiasm. I think people are really into the graphics end of things, and not the content of articles. If this template is proliferating, maybe some more options are needed on the current sport template to customize for the particular sport and maybe that would stop the proliferation. Alaney2k (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Let me count the other ways some sport might be "different:" sports in which the particpant relies upon more than her own body. "Athletic" does not encompass all sports. The list: Equestrian; Sailing; hang-gliding, ballooning, with some opportunity for quibbling about various other sports with tools provided by the partipant: archery, markmanship, pole-vaulting, and so on; then the varieties of motorized: automobile, motorcycle, water-skiing, airplane. I don't think it is desirable for a template of for each of these varieties of sporting activities. -- Yellowdesk (talk)

Keep How is[REDACTED] any better off with this template removed and all instances generecized? -Drdisque (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

One is reduction in needless template proliferation. Actually, this template is superfluous, as it does not add content to an article. An article's prose is capable of indicating the contingency of the information. It is unremarkable that any Misplaced Pages article may be subject to change.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete and suggestion. Template links to the same Current sports events and adds the articles in the same category as {{current sport}}. if the importance of the template is having the helmet instead of the ball then {{current sport}} can be made to cover both. I made a version of how this could work in my sandbox, what do you think? Chris Ssk _talk 02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. The template brings two messages to the reader. 1: The article contains information on some current activity. 2: The information in the article may change. Both these messages could be applied to any country article, or any article about a living person. Should a similar template be added to George W. Bush and Sweden? The first message adds absolutely nothing. The fact that the topic is an current event is in almost every case perfectly clear from the very first sentence of the article. And the second message is a disclaimer. Every article on Wikipiedia is subject to change, and we should not point that out for only a small subset of articles. In any case, the template is redundant to {{current sport}} or {{current}}. --Kildor (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I like Chris's solution. Reason why i created this template was because there was another similar template in place. Can't really remember which is it now. - oahiyeel 14:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I do not see the point of removing this template if only to replace it with {{current sport}} or {{current}}. I would rather see NO banner at the top of the page, however I think leaving it as it is is the second best option. Replacing it with a generic template is a ridiculous suggestion. - ARC Gritt 08:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree on that the banners should be removed. But if some people really have to tag articles, I would rather prefer that there is a limited set of such templates, instead of having hundreds of similar templates, one for every kind of event or sport there is. --Kildor (talk) 13:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Misplaced Pages is not paper, both {{current sport}} & {{current}} are transcluded to >250 pages & should be split down into more specialist templates with associated categories which would be more managable by the various project teams such as the motor sport team. MGSpiller (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a newspaper either. And in fact, the {{current}} template is only used in 2 articles for the moment (). The template was never intended to be used on every article with some recent news or update (see Template:Current#Guidelines). As said before, this template does not add to the article, and it is merely a disclaimer. If "current templates" were to be used on every article with some recent information about the topic, I could see the point of having more specialist templates. And we would probably need to have something like {{living person}} on articles about George W. Bush and Madonna. But I don't think that Misplaced Pages would benefit from such development. The lead of the 2008 Formula One season article clearly indicates that it is about an ongoing event. The {{current motor sport}} template is not needed in order to provide that kind of information. --Kildor (talk) 23:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I expected {{living person}} to appear as a red link above. But it has already been created - although not yet used in any article. --Kildor (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

{{living person}} is part of a dead-end conversation about Category:Living people. See Category_talk:Living_people/Archive_2#Template. That category, by the way has more than 270,000 members, and no sub-categories have been accepted for it either. That template is ripe for deletion, it's not going to be implemented. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete and Suggestion I'll support the idea to delete the "lesser sports" templates, but Keep the Template:Current sport template...and...someone with graphics savy change the logo icon from a soccer ball to a collage of selected sports-related icons...say, a soccer ball, a football, a baseball, and a steering wheel (or a tire, or a car, or a checkered flag) to show it represents a wide range of sports, and not just "athletic" sports. Doctorindy (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty 05:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete and use Chris' idea The fact is the the {{Current Sport}} featuring a football has nothing to do with motor racing, I suggest we use Chris' idea and expand it to other specialist sports.--Phill _{Review this GA review!} 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Five similar templates have recently been deleted ( ), and I see little reason to keep this one. If {{current sport}} needs to be changed to have a sport neutral icon, I suggest the very simple solution to use Image:Gnome globe current event.svg (the one used for {{current}}). And I have yet not seen any arguments for using this template at all. Why do we need to inform readers that the "information may change", if the message is not required for more frequently updated articles about countries and important living persons? The message that "many articles contain errors" and "all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever" is already available through the Misplaced Pages:General disclaimer and Misplaced Pages:Content disclaimer, accessible at the bottom of every page.

I also recommend reading the following two essays related to this discussion (although not directly about this specific template):

User:Unschool/The "Recent Death" Tag

User:Shanes/Why tags are evil

--Kildor (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete and use current sport. --Magioladitis (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

April 28

Template:Westfield centres australia

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This template is covered by alternate template Template:WestfieldAustralia and it does not link to any other article, in addition all links on the template link back to the same place. 79.67.123.94 (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Disneyhotelinfo

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No longer used, replaced by alternate template. Requested by template author.. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're the author, you can request for speedy deletion by placing {{Db-g7}} on the template page. eDenE 21:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

National team templates

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC) It's been awhile since I've been here, but a couple of the team templates in discussions below reminded me to check on how many new templates have popped up, that violate the WP:FOOTY project's consensus against team templates for all but world cup participants. That consensus holds for the confederations top-level tournaments, such as the Euro, and Asia Cup. Suprisingly, I could only find three new templates; which either means that I've missed some discussions in the past few months, or that the project has successfully throttled most of the unnecessary template creation. Anyway, without further ado:

Links to all the previous discussions that I'm aware of can be found here.

Delete all per project consensus and prior discussions. Neier (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 14:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete all per everything. Punkmorten (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:WA State Roads

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

A navigational template... for disambiguation pages and redirects. What's the point? — NE2 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Convert to category. A category would better serve the purpose. --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Everything's already in Category:Pre-1970 state highways in Washington. --NE2 03:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete It was my accident. I will fix it. — ComputerGuy890100_{What I've done to help Misplaced Pages} 22:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. It should be removed from the disambiguation pages it's currently on. Beyond that, the only pages it would belong on already have {{WA PSH}} serving the same purpose. (Also, per above, it might now be speedyible under {{db-author}}.) -- Kéiryn 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:VfD-Jandarma Istihbarat ve Terorle Mucadete

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 07:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic and used only for a talk page post at Talk:Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele . Not really a template except by namespace, but rather an editorial remark. Given the history of usage stretches back to 2004 and the template shows a 2006 creation, it might be a recreation of a previously deleted template. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jandarma Istihbarat ve Terorle Mucadete may also be relevant to its origin. Suggest Delete, possibly with replacement of text, if feasible and desirable. — Michael Devore (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This appears to be someone's recommendation from a long-ago Votes for deletion (now Articles for deletion) discussion, but due to the discrepancy between the edit history and the usage history, I don't know if we can tell whose recommendation it represents. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

April 26

Template:JJFRS character

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 05:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template used by only one article and only once. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Artemis Fowl Family

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep. Nominator withdrawn --Magioladitis (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template used in one article and only once. Contains trivial information easily found in the main article. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - only reason it's only used once is because of the slow expansion of Artemis Fowl family articles. Can be easily expanded to have more information. Calvin 1998 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - now used twice and discussion is going on at WT:FOWL about creating another article (Paradizo family (Artemis Fowl)). Calvin 1998 21:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment This is reasonable enough. I withdraw this nomination. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Once Were Warriors character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template used by only one article and once. The template there can be replaced with a generic one. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:NOES Series Character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template used only by one article and can be replaced by a genereal infobox. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:WCRR Character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it.. Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Happy Tree Friends character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Scream character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Irish songs

The result of the debate was no consensus Woohookitty 05:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussed here, outcome of discussion was inhertianly WP:NPOV with no way to fix it— Gnevin (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A template such as thus can never be complete, and the various attempts to define it more precisely have been POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's impossible to define it explicitly and no reason to have this big and ugly template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I cannot understand why this is even being discussed. Magioladitis and BrownHairedGirl, I can't comprehend where you are coming from. If this 'Template' gets deleted, it's only right that the 'United Kingdom' version gets deleted also. --MaxPride (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment Can you link to the uk template? Gnevin (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep this template. Patriotic music in Ireland is a very important aspect of Irish life and culture. It makes utter sense to have such a template. It will act as a useful tool in order to research other patriotic songs.--CatBrea (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Here, Template:British songs.--MaxPride (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep, per CatBrea and MaxPride. -- The Great Gavini 15:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment the British songs has the same issues as the Irish one , inherently POV lade. How and who defines what is patriotic music and what is not ? In fact I've major issue's with List of patriotic songs which seems to be WP:OR and WP:NPOV but that's other issue Gnevin (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete as inherently requiring original interpretation: one cannot both objectively and non-arbitrarily judge whether a song is "patriotic", since the term itself is highly ambiguous in meaning. The existence of a similar template for British songs does not justify the existence of this one; if this is deleted, the British template can also be nominated and deleted. Black Falcon 21:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep I found this template useful in finding Irish nationalist songs. Don't confuse the choice of which songs to include (which seems an NPOV decision) with fact that the songs themselves are very much POV. Instead of adding The Sash etc to this template, surely it would be more constructive to have another template of unionist/loyalist songs/music. Dare I say it would be even more constructive to have links between the nationalist and unionist song templates... OldSpot61 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Jedi

The result of the debate was delete Woohookitty 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphan infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - if this isn't being used, it's probably for a good reason. We have generic fictional character infoboxes that can be used instead. Terraxos (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:SRMTHFG Character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template used only by ~~1 article of a character of Super Robot Monkey Team Hyperforce Go!~~ no articles. I suggest we delete it. The article is using only 3-4 options of the template. Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC) (updated:12 May 2008)

Delete. It seems unlikely that there will one way be a need for such a specific template; a general infobox should be used for now. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:The District Character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned infobox template. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:DTNG character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template created two years and remains orphan till today. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It's orphaned, so I suppose there's no reason for it to be around anymore. Cliff smith (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Shield character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template created last year and remains orphan till today. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Mihighcharacter

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

An infobox template created in January and remains orphan till today. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:NYPD Blue Character

The result of the debate was delete - Nabla (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned infobox template. Never used. I suggest we delete it. Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete. This seems to be a template which was used on individual character articles, which then were deleted based on lack of notability. Happens all the time. --5millionaccountswow (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Chicago Cubs roster

The result of the debate was keep Woohookitty 05:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We have Template:Cubs already. Buc (talk) 07:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They are for different things. Template:Cubs is for player articles. Template:Chicago Cubs roster is for articles like Chicago Cubs. I've removed the nomination from the template.►Chris Nelson 07:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep, as noted above, seems to be used for a different reason (plus it looks better). -- Ned Scott 07:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment None should remove the nomination until discussion finishes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

They should if the discussion is only occurring because of a misunderstanding.►Chris Nelson 15:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait if the nominator withdraws. I think you should vote speedy keep then. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Nominator didn't understand their purposes.►Chris Nelson 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep. I agree. :) (I just like[REDACTED] rules!) -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Chrisjnelson. Basketball 110 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Seconds From Disaster

The result of the debate was Subst on main article, remove from other articles, and then delete. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Listcruft and this is not a episode article links. — Dust1235 (talk) 07:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)— Dust1235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Delete~~ I guess, since these events and links are already listed in the article on the episode table. I'd be interested in hearing the thinking behind the template, though. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

From a style perspective, I think the episode table is a far better place for these links, and placing them as a "nav template" could be a bit confusing to some. However, I don't feel strongly about it, and since others have stated an interest in it, I'll retract my support for deletion. -- Ned Scott 03:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep (creator). The reason is as for any other template, information and navigation. And it is not a list, so how is it listcruft? I don't understand what "this is not a episode article links" is supposed to mean. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Change to speedy keep, nominator appears to be a single purpose account MickMacNee (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Speedy keep. The episodes aren't notable, but the insidents are. The template itself isn't about the episodes, but what they are about. Basketball 110 21:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - This is actually one of the more useful templates I've come across. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I doubt this nomination was made in good faith. Reasons for wanting deletion are unintelligible and from an SPA. – jaksmata 14:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It's helpful, unless you can show a WP rule stating otherwise I'm voting keep. --Obamaspam (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete Navigation templates like this should only be on the articles about their topic. In this case that would be articles about Seconds From Disaster. As it stands, this is just a big template put on articles about disasters that there were episodes about. If you were to take out the "National Geographic Seconds From Disaster episodes" heading, it would be a list of links to random disaster articles with no discernible connection. As it should only be on Seconds From Disaster articles it is basically redundant to the episode guide on the main article. Mr.Z-man 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong delete per Mr.Z-man. As noted, "the template itself isn't about the episodes, but what they are about". There is no need for a template to connect one article about a real-world disaster with another article about a completely unrelated disaster. That the Chernobyl disaster, for instance, was profiled for the Seconds From Disaster series is ultimately an extremely minor detail in the context of the Chernobyl disaster. At most, this template ought to appear only in Seconds From Disaster, where it is redundant to the episode list. Black Falcon 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Essays such as Navigation templates, which are not policy or guidelines, are freely ignored on Misplaced Pages by those who don't agree with them, and as you see above, a few people do think it's a worthy relation to make. And I think you and Z-Man are highly over-stating the significance this template implies to an article, an auto-collapsed one line template at the bottom of an article hardly suggests anything like being a 'major detail' of the article, not any more than including a one line link to Sfd to the See Also section, but you cannot deny the relation is notable by the fact these incidents were all considered complex enough to be profiled on Sfd as to what happened and what caused them. Get the navbox essay turned into a guideline and I might be persuaded, otherwise, it looks like the template's use in this situation is not overly detested by too many people. MickMacNee (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  - While I agree with most of what's written in the essay, the essay is not the basis for my "delete" recommendation. Rather, it is the fact that there is no substantive connection between Chernobyl and the 1974 Super Outbreak, or between the Oklahoma City bombing and the Galtür Avalanche, to pick just two examples. That the disasters were profiled on SFD is merely an indication that they are noteworthy disasters; it does not imply any deeper relationship. Thus, any grouping of these disasters outside of the context of the Seconds From Disaster series is inherently arbitrary or trivial. Black Falcon 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Well, I can only repeat what I said above, I haven't and it doesn't imply any strong relationship, but it documents the one that exists. I can't put it any better than by saying the one line template takes up as much article real estate as a single line addition of Seconds from Disaster into an article's See Also section, and I'm sure you wouldn't be opposing that if that edit were made to any of these articles, or would you? That would seem an extreme minimalist approach to me. MickMacNee (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      - I would support a "See also" link to a specific SFD episode (e.g. a link to Galtür Avalanche (Seconds From Disaster episode) at Galtür Avalanche#See also) if individual episodes were notable and had their own articles. However, I really see no value in a link to the general SFD article: the relationship between these disasters and SFD is significant in the context of the TV series, but is (generally) trivial in the context of the disasters. Thus, while the disasters should be linked from the SFD article, I think that including a link to Seconds From Disaster in the articles about the disasters only worsens the signal-to-noise ratio for readers. Major disasters like Chernobyl, the 1995 Oklahoma bombing, the eruption of Mount St. Helens, or the sinking of the Titanic have been profiled, reconstructed, or imitated in hundreds of books, magazines, articles, television programmes, and the like, and I see no reason to link to any of them (except perhaps as a source). While it's true that a link would "document the that exists", I don't think that the relationship is worth documenting. Black Falcon 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        Well, trivial is a subjective term that is over-used all over wikipedia, and seriously depends on your perspective and purpose for reading, and yours looks to be very conservative if you wouldn't even put a documentary of such exposure as Sfd in the See Also section. I still think with the phrases above, you're still over-stating your case, especially in light of the above keep votes. But we're going circles now, so I'm done if you are. MickMacNee (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
        I suppose my approach could be construed as being somewhat conservative, though I wish to note again that I only oppose a "see also" link to the general Seconds From Disaster article, not to a more directly relevant article. Of course, I didn't and don't expect that everyone will agree, but I also don't think that most of "keep" suggestions above touch on this issue. One focuses on the identity of the nominator (a single-purpose account so far, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything yet) and another seems to touch on the notability of the articles themselves. Granted, two other editors mention that the template is "useful" or "helpful", which does directly counter my comments, but no details are offered as to how or why it is useful or helpful to them. Anyway, I agree that we've mostly covered what there is to cover. Cheers, Black Falcon 00:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Note:Due to the backlog at Tfd, this was the point at which this Tfd had been listed for 7 days and was moved to 'Old discussions'.

Delete - I agree 100% with Mr.Z-man when he says it is "...a list of links to random disaster articles with no discernible connection." Seth Whales (talk) 08:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Apart from them all having been investigated by Seconds From Disaster. MickMacNee (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  - I've never heard of "Seconds From Disaster". Maybe someone should start a new template on world events covered by Panorama, a BBC television programme in the UK? Seth Whales (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Or maybe we delete everything from Misplaced Pages you've never heard of. It is understandable though if you have no clue what the series was about, that you might make an ultimately spurious comparison to Panorama MickMacNee (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Put it on the SFD page only. I feel the pages pointed should have a link to the SFD page instead, and that links to other disasters are better handled by categories. Ecb (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See above, the template on article pages is collapsed, and thus takes up as much space as a single See Also link. I don't see the logic in removing the template for that reason, you don't save anything, yet you lose information. In fact I don't see any logic to the delete arguments so far at all. They don't see a useful relation because they are not interested in the topic, it's just a pedantic way of stating WP:IDON'TLIKEIT MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

When I look at it on article pages, it isn't collapsed into one line: it's a big box full of links. I expect that's because I use an old skin (Classic) or something: but I still vote to delete. Ecb (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. I agree with Mr.Z-man. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well he said "redundant to the episode guide on the main article". As such, he clearly didn't look at the template or that page properly, because you cannot just look at that article and see the relations presented in the template. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Agreed, the template should list the episodes not a list of disaters. Morid Rhosard (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note:Users 11th edit
- This makes no sense, there are no episode articles, the disaster link is the episode, the program only covers 1 disaster per episode. MickMacNee (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  - The fact that there are no episode articles is precisely the argument against the template's existence. The articles to which the template links are about individual disasters which have no substantive connection to SFD. Black Falcon 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    - Apart from having been completely analysed and reconstructed in the Sfd episode with that disaster as the episode's subject, that is the whole point. You are really stretching the bounds of the word 'connected'. Most articles have more space given up to popular culture references, yet an actual documentary analysing the disaster is unconnected?. MickMacNee (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Rename and keep to "Disasters covered in National Geographics "Seconds From Disaster". The template seems very useful. CompuHacker (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Many of these disaster have been covered by several TV shows. If this template is not deleted, we'll end up many templates on each disaster page. Will we someday have a "Movies by James Cameron" template attached to the Titanic article? --Jonovision (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- This has never been a valid argument for deletion on Misplaced Pages. Maybe if these other shows are as notable, and referenced as often on[REDACTED] as Sfd is, then who are you to say they don't belong on wikipedia? Have you seen how many templates there are on famous football team articles? And there are plenty of templates around actors films etc, not that the James Cameron example is even vaguely comparable, but that also is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  - Hi Mick, I feel like you have not taken the time to understand my point, so I'm going to spell out my argument in detail, and also respond to each of your points.

Firstly, my argument for deletion of this template is as follows:

There are hundreds of TV shows, movies, and books about the Titanic.
Most of the producers of these works have also produced other works, many of which also discuss other historical events.
It would be possible to create templates for each of these producers and attach them to the Titanic article, and others. (For example: "Coloring Books by Peter F. Copeland")
The Titanic article would end up containing a multitude of templates, the vast majority of which would be completely irrelevant to any individual reader (including the Disasters template)
It would be difficult to argue that any particular one of these templates has any more value than the others.

In conclusion, my point is that if one wishes to defend the existence of the "Seconds from Disaster" template, one also, simultaneously, defends the existence of potentially hundreds of other similarly structured templates. While this hasn't become a problem yet, one piece of litter is still litter, and it should be cleaned up before it turns into a big pile of garbage.

Secondly, you will need to fully explain your counter-points if we are to accept them. Specifically:

This has never been a valid argument for deletion on Misplaced Pages - The deletion policy which you cite only lists common valid reasons for deletion -- it does not list invalid reasons.
Maybe if these other shows are as notable, and referenced as often on[REDACTED] as Sfd is, then who are you to say they don't belong on wikipedia -- WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions warns against making poorly substantiated notability arguments such as this. Also, please keep in mind that everyone here has just as much right to say it doesn't belong as you do that it does.
Have you seen how many templates there are on famous football team articles? And there are plenty of templates around actors films etc, not that the James Cameron example is even vaguely comparable, but that also is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The James Cameron template I speculated about does not exist. On the other hand, the point you just made falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It would be very helpful to all of us if you could re-read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and then clarify why we should be looking to football articles to make a decision about the relevance the Disaster template.

To summarize, I believe (as, it seems, do the majority of those who have responded so far) that the Disasters template is not relevant to most readers of the articles it appears within. While it may not be terribly obtrusive at the moment, its existence invites and justifies the creation of many similar templates.

My questions to you are:

Do you want to see dozens of similar templates on the Titanic article? Or even on every disaster article?
And if not, why is the "Seconds to Disasters" template any more notable than the rest?

--Jonovision (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Feätured article

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per WP:CSD#G3: Vandalism. The creator and only primary contributor of this template designed it as an exactly duplicate of Template:Featured article, then put this on articles that clearly have never been promoted to FA status yet. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The template is simply useless. It's not being used either. — eDenE 00:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 24 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 23 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 22 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 21 Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 20

Completed discussions

Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Holding cell

Archive and Indices

[[Category:Misplaced Pages templates|PAGENAME ]]

Categories: