Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 September 6

< September 5	September 7 >

September 6

Template:Suriname infobox

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

The result of the debate was yeah... delete // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox. Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and this one. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Suriname article now uses Template:Infobox Country in line with current wikiprojects.

Delete per nom MJCdetroit 01:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Idol contestant

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, and sets a really bad example for reality cruft. Delete as unused anyway.The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (irrespective, as JPS notes, of the fact of the template's being unused, it ought to be disfavored as unnecessarily redundant to other biographical infoboxes and thus as reality cruft). Joe 04:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:User Shark

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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep. 1. GUS is not policy. 2.This does no harm in template space. 3.It is already in use on many userpages and transferring it elsewhere is a major hurdle to the users. 4.There is no policy that states it must be utilized elsewhere. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Box in template Namespace Betacommand 19:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

migrate via WP:GUS Charon X/talk 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is mine and it is very useful. Lenny 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, why not keep it in your userspace, as opposed to template space, then? We're not trying to eliminate the code, we're trying to evict it from userspace. Picaroon9288•talk 01:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
migrate/userfy per WP:GUS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
migrate it is the normal process. Lincher 19:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Shark. Kirill Lokshin 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reference, Kirill, could you further explain? That appears to just be removing a duplicate wikiproject. - jc37 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per WP:GUS. Hey Lenny, do us a favor and userfy this quickly. It ain't gonna stay in the Template namespace so you might as well go ahead and userfy it now. --Richard 06:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate/userfy per WP:GUS. Picaroon9288•talk 01:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; invalid reason for deletion. There is no policy regarding userboxes in templatespace. CameoAppearance 02:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. As has been stated inumerable times (including at WP:GUS itself) WP:GUS is not policy. Therefore it can't be used as a reason or rationale for anything. As for Template:User Shark, I don't see anything divisive or inflammatory about it, therefore it's an automatic Keep. Note: To anyone who has been happily editing wikipedia from inside a cave, the use of userboxes has become controversial. See: Wikipedia talk:Userbox policy/Header - jc37 01:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 'Divisive and inflammatory' is the only reason for speedy deletion of a template. Other considerations can apply in TfDs. --ais523 12:15, 14 September 2006 (U T C)

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 page.

Template:User Child

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Issues raised in delete votes are food for thought, but that's for another day. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incompatible with WP:CHILD. Elliskev 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All contributors should be aware that WP:CHILD is a proposed policy that does not yet have common acceptanceA closing admin might easily regard this type of vote as invalid unless it clearly means "I support BOTH the policy proposal AND the proposal to delete this template". The Land 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Semantics. I support the policy proposal. I chose the word incompatible, as opposed to per on purpose. Realizing that the policy proposal does not have common acceptance, I feel that this template should be deleted given that it is not in the spirit of the proposed policy. It's a directional thing Elliskev 21:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I read it WP:CHILD is aimed to protect children by preventing them from disclosing personal information. Self-indentifying AS a child might be discouraged, but is allowed. CharonX/talk 22:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it would be allowed, but we don't need user boxes to assist a child in doing something that we discourage - which makes it, IMO, incompatible with the spirit, if not the letter. Elliskev 13:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under WP:CHILD unless a number of Admins will actively monitor all such user pages. I think it puts Wikipedia in more danger than killing the template. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. The Land 21:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Re-run the debate if WP:CHILD is ratified as policy; but for now, I see no reason to axe this. --EngineerScotty 21:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per EngineerScotty. This is not in violation of any policies, if it becomes so later, nominate it then. Thryduulf 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If WP:CHILD becomes policy, we'll look silly having kept these... --Elliskev 00:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - No we wont. Exactly the oposite in fact, we will look good for having applied our policies consistently and not bowed to a moral panic. We would look very silly for deleting this if WP:CHILD does not become policy (and I've explained there why I feel it is a bad idea). Thryduulf 02:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since identifying as a child, in the absence of other identifying information, would not be a violation of WP:CHILD. In fact, if I were a parent, and my child wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I'd want this tag in their Talk page --Roninbk 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested. Why would you want your hypothetical child to have the tag on his or her talk page? Elliskev 21:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In order that editors - particularly adult editors - might be inclined to be a little more moderate in their behaviour and expression, I should imagine. Cain Mosni 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bingo. And also as a corollary to WP:BITE --Roninbk 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per EngineerScotty. Joe 04:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask why? --Elliskev 22:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course; sorry for being unclear. Per EngineerScotty, Thryduulf, Roninbk, and now Cain Mosni. If WP:CHILD is ratified (and perhaps even if it isn't), this template still might be kept if rephrased, something like "This user claims to be a child", to make it a bit clearer that such self-identification is hardly evidence of anything. The icon is cute, but might be better replaced by something a little less suggestive of extreme youth, both to keep from annoying teenagers (who are mostly children but who won't appreciate their parents insisting on them adding this userbox per Roninbk) and, shudder to think, to reduce the predator attraction factor. (Ugh, I feel soiled just writing that.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Simply identifying oneself as a child is no more personally identifying than identifying oneself as a teenager or adult; even if WP:CHILD becomes policy, this userbox shouldn't be affected. CameoAppearance 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per norm Hmrox 03:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Roninbk, and all subsequent supporting commentary. Entirely compatible with the proposed WP:CHILD policy (which, having just perused it as a result of this discussion, seems admirably responsible). Indeed it would act as one potential touch stone for the policy's invocation which can only be to the good. Cain Mosni 13:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:France infobox

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

The result of the debate was ALL infoboxes below- DELETE to make it easier for me, mass close. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Single use infobox. Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The France article now uses Template:Infobox Country in line with current wikiprojects. --Bob 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I am in favor of a Delete, the France infobox has survived many TfDs. Unless the editors of the France article and its infobox have been fully informed and the new infobox meets all of their requirements (and there were many), I don't see how this will get deleted. MJCdetroit 02:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the updates I made to Template:Infobox Country cover their requests. The final point is the appearance of superscripts within brackets instead of next to the km², which isn't really that big a deal. --Bob 14:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than just superscripts appearing within brackets. Check Talk:France#Infobox. Perhaps the most serious problem now is that some entries appear on two lines (instead of just one). Probably this is because the standard infobox has a fixed width. This creates an ugly format and is also confusing. Also there's the problem of population figures which I tried to explain on the talk page. The date for population figures should appear immediately below the word "Population", in a separate line, and not just to the left of the population figure for the entire French Republic, which is quite confusing. In the infobox proposed for deletion, the word "Total", with footnote, appears to the left of that figure, clearly indicating that this is a figure for the entire French Republic and not just metropolitan France. This may seem like detail to some, but most people are quite likely to assume that this figure is metropolitan France's population figure if we don't clearly indicate that it is for the entire territory of the Republic. Hardouin 17:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

some entries appear on two lines (instead of just one) - I don't see that.

The date for population figures should appear immediately below the word "Population", in a separate line - this has been resolved. --Bob 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Georgia infobox

Delete - Single use infobox. Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Georgia article now uses Template:Infobox Country in line with current wikiprojects. --Bob 18:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Philippines infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Philippines article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Iceland infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Iceland article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Slovenia infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Slovenia article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Indian Ocean Territory infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The British Indian Ocean Territory article uses text. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poland infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Poland article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Angola infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Angola article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Austria infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Austria article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Costa Rica

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Costa Rica article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bolivia infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Bolivia article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Argentina infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Argentina article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Chile infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Chile article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:South Korea infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The South Korea article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnam infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. Template also has a fair use image violation. The Vietnam article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Singapore infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. The Singapore article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Denmark infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. The Denmark article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sweden infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. The Sweden article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Belgium infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. The Belgium article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ukraine infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. The Ukraine article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portugal infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. The Portugal article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Malaysia infobox

Delete - Single use infobox that is no longer used (yes I checked for subst). Should have been picked up for deletion at this discussion and these ones. The Malaysia article uses Template:Infobox Country. Bob 17:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —MJCdetroit 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur. If the same result can be produced by {{Infobox Country}} with correct parameters, then why have a separate templates? --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 07:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cain Mosni 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Order of Succession_(Pretender)

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 page.

The result of the debate was seems to be no consensous, so, keep. // Pilotguy (Have your say) 04:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This template was split from an existing template. The discussion on that other template clearly showed consensus not to split at this time and to consider the split when it got too long for the page, which it is not. The title of this template "pretender" is even offensive and POV pushing, not neutral, and is totally inappropriate. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and also remove pretenders from other template). Here we have a template Template:Order of Succession with orders of successions of Head of States (monarchies and presidencies). To that that template we recently had these assorted heads of defunct monarchies added (or in the case of the Jacobites, alternate claimants to an existing throne). Combining heads of of former ruling families with current Heads of States is not a good use of the original template. This new template solved the problem by removing the non Heads of State to their own template. It was named after the related article, Pretender, if there is a POV naming concern about it, it should be brought up at that article. Nor was there any sort of consensus to permanently include these heads of families as indicated, just random non-commital comments. Perhaps in this review we can come to a consensus. We should seriously think about whether we want a template that is placed on the pages related to the Head of States of many countries to be mixed in with descendants of historical families that have no governmental relevancy today. NoSeptember 12:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - this should not have been done without a word of discussion in favor of it. There was indeed much discussion at Template talk:Order of Succession that you can see, and it is all in favor of keeping the template intact until such time as it gets too long. It is not true to state that the former monarchies were all added after all the current monarchies were already there. A look through the Template history will show the true order they have been added. Pretender is clearly POV pushing as is your opinion above on "governmental relevancy". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual monarchies may be added at any time (someone needs to write an article before they can add it), I referred only to the recent addition of the former monarchy section. I appreciate that you are the creator of Line of succession to the Ethiopian Throne and that until 1975 that throne was active, but today as with the others, there is no governmental recognition of these claimants. While interesting as trivia (and therefore deserving of their own template) we should not equate these claimants with current Heads of State. As for POV pushing, I have no objection with changing the name of the template, even though it was based on the name of the underlying article. NoSeptember 13:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no one on the list of people at Line of succession to the Ethiopian Throne who meets the definition of "pretender", since not one of them is claiming himself to be the Emperor at this time. Please make a modicum of effort on discussion page before unilaterally doing something that has already been discussed against. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicates part of Template:Order of Succession. Noel S McFerran 13:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted to an old version with all the heads of families by the nominator above. The version used in conjunction with the new template is here. One template is transcluded only on pages about heirs of Heads of States, the other only on pages about defunct ruling families. NoSeptember 13:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep two distinct templates, one consists of still existing monarchies, the other of extinct ones. Charon X/talk 22:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the whole point is that it was split against explicit unanimous consensus on the discussion page and given a POV pushing title...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not opposed to splitting the template into one for current monarchies and presidencies, and one for former monarchies, but I dislike the fact that this was not discussed at all beforehand. I think taking this directly to TfD instead of discussing it at some talk page first might be slightly too much, as well, though. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed.. All of the discussion was against the split. That's the whole point. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there are now 11 former monarchies listed, and many obvious ones still missing(the French Royal, and the French Imperial, the Austrian, the Italian, the Russion, etc.). The combined template is becoming unmanagable. Temporarily putting them with the Head of States template was OK when there were just a few, but it will continue to grow - there are a lot more former monarchies than current ones. NoSeptember 16:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - there are even more presidencies than monarchies. If anything should be split off, it is presidents and other elected officials, and keep the other template for monarchies. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When there are enough Presidencies, that could be split off too, making for 3 templates. Right now, however, we have two lists of Heads of States of real countries, combined with historical curiosities of former monarchies, many of countries that no longer exist. We shouldn't be mixing non-countries and non-heads of states with the real thing. Keeping the formers with the real ones would be like listing micronations with real nations in the list of countries of the world. :p NoSeptember 16:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep, but rename to {{Order of Succession (former monarchies)}}. Bastin 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of the last two suggestions have persuaded me. I guess we will eventually have three templates; but at least let's change the reference to "Former". ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK with me, as I stated up near the top of this discussion, the name we use is no big deal for me, "former monarchies" is fine. NoSeptember 16:41, 13 September 2006 (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 page.

Template:Brad Wyman films

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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 22:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a minor Producer who has not even had all his films added to Wikipedia yet, in many cases he is a joint producer and the director is much better known, it would be a bit like having an infobox on the Star Wars page saying "A Gary Kurtz Movie"? ^Jaster 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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