Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 24 September 26 >

September 25

[edit]

Template:User OS

[edit]
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 discussion was relisted at MfD. Non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User OS (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All users on wikipedia use an operating system obviously therefore non needed userbox. Once deleted I would like to request that the people who have this userbox on their userpage be asked to replace the userbox with one stating there os unless they have one but only for this one exclusively. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 22:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to MFD.--3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 23:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to nominate {{User Earth}}, {{User browser}}, User:UBX/Emptybox, User:UBX/redundant, {{User IP}}, {{User IPv6}}, and all other tautological yet supposedly humorous userboxes as well? There's no reason to delete this one that wouldn't apply to a huge number of other userboxes as well. Amalthea 22:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Unused national political party infoboxes

[edit]
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 discussion was delete all per recent similar discussions Magioladitis (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Estonia Political Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Kazakhstan political parties (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Maltese Political Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox PuertoRican Political Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Infobox Thai Political Party (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused. Svick (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. We have a generic infobox for that purpose, should one be needed. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cleanup-gallery-now (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Useless. It only adds a date to {{Cleanup-gallery}}, that's currently useless since that template doesn't auto-categorize by date. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant to {{Cleanup-gallery}}. The date can already be placed on the original template, so a separate template to place the date isn't particularly helpful. I just added more information to the documentation of {{Cleanup-gallery}} to make it more clear to users how they can include the date if they wish. --RL0919 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Bustimetable

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bustimetable (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't understand the usefulness of this. Single use. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox South African province

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox South African province (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is unused, having been replaced by {{Infobox province}}. I know there's been a lot of controversy on TfD related to {{Infobox settlement}}, but this is not quite the same thing. I created this template and added it to the articles on the nine South African provinces; and I have replaced it with {{Infobox province}}, with no loss in quality. It doesn't quite amount to a T3 speedy delete, so I've brought it here. htonl (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/ACTNZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/B&BP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/GPANZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/LIBNZ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/MP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/NZAP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/NZF (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/NZFP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/NZKP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:New Zealand politics/party colours/NZLP (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Templates were used only in Template:Infobox New Zealand political party. With new version of the infobox, they are no loner used. Svick (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Neutralerrors

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Neutralerrors (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, apparently abandoned, can be replaced by a variety of other templates, and just damn ugly. UltraMagnus (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Indebted article

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Indebted article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template that seems fairly pointless. UltraMagnus (talk) 09:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Generic tag

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Generic tag (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Any use of this would be a violation of wp:AGF and wp:point UltraMagnus (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: however, it is particularly entertaining to see the comments above, which break the very rule they quote (assuming bad faith on my part in drafting the tag), and make personal attacks as well. Tag bombers are common (and often juvenile), there are more ways than officious stuffiness available to us to handle them. This tag is an adaptation of another user's idea that I thought rather clever, and his good faith is beyond doubt. But delete, with the support of the creator (though I recommend the comments above that breach AGF be struck by the anonymous users who made them.) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:DontUnderstand

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DontUnderstand (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

orphaned, broken, and abandoned. UltraMagnus (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Multitalk

[edit]
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 discussion was nomination withdrawn Magioladitis (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Multitalk (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I don't see how is this useful and why individual articles should share the same talk page. If they are we should change that. Even if they are subpages of a larger topic they should have their own talk page. Magioladitis (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movie title external links (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only used by seven articles, and an unnecessary combination of multiple existing EL templates that are already better handled by those templates. Could potentially encourage addition of ELs of no value to articles purely because they are included in this template, and already several links in it are not generally appropriate for inclusion on most articles. The few pages using this can easily be updated to properly use the individual templates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge existing templates into this meta-template. No need for many templates that do nearly the same thing when one can handle all possible external links to other sites. LA (T) @ 10:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal, which you tried before, has been repeatedly opposed as inappropriate as this template is badly done and too broad. The "smaller" ones all existed before this "meta-template" which was rejected when you proposed it, but you made it anyway and tried to put it on articles and were reverted. The individual templates better encourage only selectively adding links to articles as is appropriate, not just shoving them all there because you could find an ID for it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:American Football League

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Football League 1960 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1961 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1962 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1963 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1964 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1965 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1966 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1967 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1968 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:American Football League 1969 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of them are not in use at all and redundant to Template:196X AFL season by team, that are in use, and are preferable to the nominated ones, see Template talk:1960 AFL season by team. Debresser (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unused, made irrelevant by new templates. --JaGatalk 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Maakunta

[edit]
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 discussion was delete and replace with {{infobox region}} or whatever is deemed most appropriate. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Maakunta (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} (as shown here) which has additional features; and used on only 17 articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox settlement}}. The example comparison shows that the general template cannot only do the job, but does it better by providing such niceties as a website link, a label for the coat of arms, coordinates, and dual display of measurements in both metric and imperial units. --RL0919 (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate, per above. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that a region is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:58, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  • Deperecate per nom - I don't think the concerns about provinces not being settlements is really valid. Given that the template more than clearly has a blue banner saying "Province" or "District" I don't think many people are going to be confused. If the concerns about this are that great then why have most editors used the template in existing articles about provinces/districts and there is always the option to create a similar templates for province/district articles in the same format but with just a different title. I'd support a {{Infobox Region}} to be used in all articles about regions, provinces and districts. It would be just like infobox settlement but would have a different title to "avoid confusion". Himalayan 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this solve Ezhiki's concerns? Himalayan 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 02:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace. --JaGatalk 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Redundant Himalayan 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Refactor into a wrapper using Infobox Settlement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete without refactoring, there are just three custom fields, and those can be handled by the standard IS by using the "blank_#" fields.--Iwillremembermypassthistime (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Subdivisions of Malaysia

[edit]
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 discussion was delete and replace with {{Infobox subdivision}} or whatever is most appropriate Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Subdivisions of Malaysia (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox settlement}} (as shown here) which has additional features; and used on only 12 articles. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many transclusions are necessary for a template to be kept?--23prootie (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - the plural name should be for a navbox if anything. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that a state/territory is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point. Would support renaming of this template, though.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:57, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
  • Deperecate per nom - I don't think the concerns about provinces not being settlements is really valid. Given that the template more than clearly has a blue banner saying "Province" or "District" I don't think many people are going to be confused. If the concerns about this are that great then why have most editors used the template in existing articles about provinces/districts and there is always the option to create a similar templates for province/district articles in the same format but with just a different title. I'd support a {{Infobox Region}} to be used in all articles about regions, provinces and districts. It would be just like infobox settlement but would have a different title to "avoid confusion". Himalayan 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would this solve Ezhiki's concerns? Himalayan 17:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace. --JaGatalk 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Redundant Himalayan 17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Parishes of Portugal

[edit]
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 discussion was delete as redundant and replace with {{Infobox Parish PT}} Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Parishes of Portugal (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Parish PT}} if not {{Infobox settlement}}. Only 25 instances. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and replace with {{Infobox Parish PT}}. In most similar cases I've been arguing to go with {{Infobox settlement}}. In this case, however, the the Parish PT template is widely used and I think it would be better to keep the various Portugal articles consistent. The Parish PT template can always be nominated for replacement later to achieve even wider consistency. --RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that the multitude of settlement template deletion discussions is being handled in an ass-backwards manner. Put together an RFC and hash out in a centralized discussion forum whether the community in general wants {{Infobox settlement}} to be the single master template for all settlement types. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on principle that a parish is not a "settlement". {{Infobox Settlement}} is already overbloated enough without trying to make it fit every possible division type "below the level of a country" out there. I mean, c'mon, why stop at "the level of a country" at all? Why not just rename "Infobox Settlement" to "Infobox Whatever" and use it for whatever infobox needs folks would have? Standardization only makes sense up to a point.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:56, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
    • Comment: According to its documentation (emphasis added), {{Infobox settlement}}: "should be used to produce an Infobox for human settlements (cities, towns, villages, communities) as well as other administrative districts, counties, provinces, et cetera. - in fact, any subdivision below the level of a country". Can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because a "settlement" and an "administrative division" are two different concepts; hence they should be covered by different infoboxes to avoid confusion, among other things. Also, because {{Infobox Settlement}} is already too overbloated and too vague, which, from what I've seen, frequently leads to its application in ways that do not encourage further high-quality development. However, if any particular WikiProject decided that {{Infobox Settlement}} suits their needs (be it for settlements proper or for higher-level divisions), I would, of course, have no reasons to object.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:37, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
        • {{Infobox settlement and administrative division}} would be too unwieldy a name; nevertheless, that is what the template is currently designed - and widely used - for. If you wish to criticise that, or have the template renamed, this is not the place to do so, the template has its own talk page; or you could raise an RFC or other centralised discussion. You haven't given a specific reason why it cannot do that job; or said who you think is or might be confused; your answer seems to be just a matter of personal preference. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please do not edit my comments without my permission. Back to the subject: if you can't even come up with an appropriate name for a template that tries to cover different (and in many aspects incompatible) concepts, is that not an indication that the core approach itself is at fault? I have no intention of criticizing {{Infobox Settlement}} itself here (it is, as you correctly state, not a proper place), but I do reserve the right to criticize its real-world applications, especially when they go against the rules of logic I hold so dear. Just because one can make a settlement template work for some or even all administrative divisions (not without some preliminary dumbing down, of course) does not mean one should do so. Especially not when no one has even bothered to ask people who would be able to give the most valuable advice first. You may not see the point of asking them, but it at least shows some common courtesy and earns goodwill, which is something you should be shooting for if you are indeed serious about standardization and don't wish to waste everyone's time on pointless bickering.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:39, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
            • You refer to my substitution of {{Tld}} for {{Tl}} in references to {{Infobox Settlement}}. It's my understanding that it's acceptable to disable links in that manner, though I shan't do so again if you don't wish me to. However, you should be aware that, by restoring such unnecessary links, you reduce the accessibility of the page and place an extra burden on, for example people using assistive software which reads each link to them. It also bloats the page's already large file size. Who says I can't come up with an appropriate name for the template? Once again, you make unfounded and unwarranted negative assumptions about me. Kindly desist. Besides, it is obvious that the many people who have contributed to the template's development - and those who have deployed it 165,000 times, often on articles about administrative divisions - are content with its current name; and it doesn't appear that you have bothered to suggest a rename or any other improvements until now. It is not a case of "making" the template work of ADs; it is a case of it being explicitly designed to do so. But I must reiterate: this is not the place to critique its current use. that's not to say that anyone is denying you your right to do so, in a more appropriate place. Any pointless bickering is not down to me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • It hardly helps the cause of avoiding pointless bickering if you are not willing to leave decisions of how to format a comment to the person making that comment and choose to lecture instead. On the rest of the points, if my answers are important to you, you are welcome to move your questions to my (or your) talk page—as you rightfully noted, here is not a place for that kind of interaction. Back to the subject: my comments have not been made on the merits of {{Infobox settlement}} (although I admit I have strong views as to its usefulness and scope); they have been made on the merits of its application in this particular context as well as on how this application has been proposed. You can question my motives to your heart's content (it's your right to do so); it will not change the real reasons for my commenting here; reasons which I have already explained.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:06, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
                • Your protestations that "my comments have not been made on the merits of {{Infobox settlement}}" ring hollow, when they sit below your (albeit fallacious) assertion that "{{Infobox Settlement}} is already too overbloated and too vague, which, from what I've seen, frequently leads to its application in ways that do not encourage further high-quality development". However, since your answer to my question "can you say why you think {{Infobox settlement}} is not currently suited to doing this job? " ends "if any particular WikiProject decided that {{Infobox Settlement}} suits their needs (be it for settlements proper or for higher-level divisions), I would, of course, have no reasons to object", it's plain for all to see that {{Infobox Settlement}} is suited to doing the job in hand, and the templates whose deletion you have opposed are thus redundant; and logic thus dictates that your objections must be made for some other, and inevitably irrelevant to this TfD, reason. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, with so many TfDs to keep track of, I might have lost some focus. Perhaps consolidating a discussion in one place would have been a more prudent approach? Anyway, to clarify: I do believe that {{Infobox Settlement}} is too overbloated and too vague. If you want details, feel free to contact me (as this is the wrong place to discuss it). That overbloat and vagueness (even as applied to settlements proper!) is one reason why I don't believe it's a good idea to use it for something that is not a settlement (like a parish of Portugal), as it only leads to more bloat and vagueness. My second reason is philosophical in nature and also applies to every one of these TfDs which I have so far opposed—two different concepts should not be mixed in one template, even if it is technically possible to do so. It's not unlike having a business that in bookkeeping credits all its expenses to one single account—checking. And the third reason is my believing that no such TfD nomination should be made without an attempt to contact an affected WikiProject (even if on the surface it seems that they are not interested). It's fine if your only desired outcome is to have a template deleted, but if you want to evaluate that template on its merits, you'd better make an effort to solicit opinions, including those which are different from your own. That's the whole point of having a TfD. The third reason is the one which pertains to this TfD in particular. If WikiProject Portugal is contacted and supports this deletion (or even if they ignore the solicitation), I will re-consider my position with regards to this particular template. Same goes for every other template you've nominated. Opinions of others who commented here can, of course, differ from mine, but that's the beauty of consensus-building.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:04, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
Ezhiki Template:Infobox parish would solve your concerns I think. Replace with the standard template and call it parish rather than settlement. Tnen we get some standardisation which is also politically correct terminology using the same template. Makes sense to me. Himalayan 19:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - nothing that can't be handled by {{Infobox settlement}}, so no reason for a separate template to fulfil the same function. I refer User:Ezhiki to Romeo and Juliet, act II, scene ii. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deperecate per nom -Per 81.110.104.91. I don't think the concerns about provinces not being settlements is really valid. Given that the template more than clearly has a blue banner saying "Province" or "District" I don't think many people are going to be confused. If the concerns about this are that great then why have most editors used the template in existing articles about provinces/districts and there is always the option to create a similar templates for province/district articles in the same format but with just a different title. Himalayan 11:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Possibly useful.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ
(ᜑ᜔ᜎᜒᜃ ᜐᜓᜋᜎᜒ ᜃ ᜐ ᜂᜐᜉᜈ) 11:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JPG-GR (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with PT template. --JaGatalk 15:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Redundant Himalayan 17:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox churches and cathedrals (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox church}}, which is a lot more commonly used, and has more features (like images e.g.). This template contained a note to use {{Infobox church}} since March 2008 Debresser (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Infobox Medieval cathedral

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Medieval cathedral (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Has been merged into Template:Infobox church, after many a month of work, see Template_talk:Infobox_church#Merge_proposal. Debresser (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Back to the Future character

[edit]
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 discussion was delete Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Back to the Future character (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Was in use in only one article. Redundant to {{BttFCharacter}} which is being used on all related articles, and looks better also. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would close that as delete but it seems the attempted replacement failed. Can someone help? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:MUHAMMAD FARHAN SALEEM

[edit]
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 discussion was delete. Inappropriate namespace. Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MUHAMMAD FARHAN SALEEM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:MUHAMMAD FRAHAN SALEEM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

WTF? used by Chiefsab to tag some unfree images. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 00:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_25&oldid=1140109552"