Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 6

< July 5	July 7 >

July 6 edit

Template:Infobox Album/HTML 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and unused alternative to {{Infobox Album}}. --PEJL 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2007 (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 Album/temp 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and unused alternative to {{Infobox Album}}. --PEJL 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2007 (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:Triptych Cover album infobox 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 00:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant and unused alternative to {{Infobox Album}}. --PEJL 21:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some album covers need this infobox for proper displays of album cover artwork within album entries. --What about a squirrel? 22:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template is currently unused. Before I nominated it, it was used in only one place, How to Be a...Zillionaire!, which I converted to use the standard album infobox. There are specific instructions for how alternate covers should be displayed using the standard album infobox at WP:ALBUM#Template:Extra album cover 2. If the standard infobox is inadequate for some reason, it would be appropriate to improve it. --PEJL 22:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obsolete as per WP:ALBUM#Template:Extra album cover 2. --linca ^linca 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2007 (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 Maxi single/doc 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. /doc for deleted template. --PEJL 21:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2007 (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 B-side 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. I'd redirect but it's unused. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant (a copy of {{Infobox Single}}) and unused. If deleted, delete /doc as well. --PEJL 21:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to {{Infobox Single}}. The template is redundant, and should redirect to its original template. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Maybe these could have all been lumped together under a single "these are all redundant with {{Infobox music-x}}" nomination; my delete-as-nom finger is getting a crink in it. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, I wasn't familiar enough with TfDs to know if that would have been appropriate. --PEJL 18:23, 13 July 2007 (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:Scottish Building Societies 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created yesterday, this navbox has four transclusions. On all four pages, the template duplicates information from Template:UK Building Societies. Delete as redundant to that template. — mholland (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - It serves a purpose as Scottish building societies operate seperately enough from the rest of the UK and generally are distinct and so deserve a seperate template. Small number of articles listed in a template does not prevent its existence, see the Airlines of the Faroe Islands on the Atlantic Airways page. 193.63.235.73 09:13, 10 July 2007 (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 Towns and Cities in Guinea 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. This is considering the discussion, arguments presented therein, orphaning of the template, and the longstanding consensus for infobox standardization. IronGargoyle 03:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use redundant template. Not needed. —MJCdetroit 20:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC) — MJCdetroit 20:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are dozens of Municipalities in the nation of Guinea. See List of cities in Guinea. If it has not yet been used widely, it will be needed eventually. What, are we short of space? :T L Miles 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: redundant to Template:Infobox City (which is used by, e.g., Conakry and Kissidougou already). — mholland (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, there are dozens of municipalities in the nation of Guinea and they can all use the standard {{Infobox Settlement}} (like Kissidougou). There is no need to create a special template for Guinea Settlements. —MJCdetroit 21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. France, for example, has its own cities infobox, as do other nations. I would suggest that there is no consensus that nation specific infoboxes should be replaced with {{Infobox Settlement}}, which I see you helped design. :T L Miles 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note. YOU changed Kissidougou to the {{Infobox Settlement}} from the Template:Infobox Towns and Cities in Guinea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), then nominated the Infobox for deletion. Looking at your previous nominations for deletion, there seems to be a pattern to this. :T L Miles 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kissidougou was the only page that link to this template, so yes of course I changed it before TfDing it. Yes there are nation specific infoboxes but that doesn't mean that more should be created. France's infobox was created to help import information from the French wikipedia and the German infobox was also created for this reason too. It's best to have a uniformed look though out wikipedia. —

Comment the pattern goes toward achieving a uniform layout throughout wikipedia. MJdetroit has migrated a lot of infoboxes to {{Infobox Settlement}} (which, by the way, is better designed and more flexible than any other city/town infobox I've come across). The said migration lead to the deletion of many redundant templates (including some I contributed to, but I believe it's for the better). --Qyd 04:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psychotic Timeout: Some people are missing the point: removing templates from articles and then posting an AfD claiming the template is unused borders on utterly psychotic, self-serving behavior. This is a VERY dangerous situation and warrants professional help. If any sanity remains, such people should realize they "crossed the line" way back and should voluntarily remove themselves from Wikipedia for several weeks, and seek psychiatric help. The WP environment can be very stressful: the Wiki software is unstable/awkward in many nations; server response has been frustrating to many users, and an accomplishment of revising 10,000 articles is a relatively insignificant task, considering the millions of articles, worldwide. WP is not a place for individual accomplishment: it will bury the loner; the only hope is for a teamwork view of success. Call it "wikipsychosis" but the push for "vanity boxes" (margin navigation boxes) in thousands of articles creates an illusion of major impact for the cult of the individual, while actually forcing a narrow view on hundreds of other WP users. Understand that thousands of WP Infobox articles are in their infancy and remain a joke, worldwide, not due to margin formatting, but because of hollow content, and people, who had significant details to add to many articles, were driven away due to a lack of positive, patient encouragement of their efforts. Infobox standards are not the solution to hollow articles, but moderation in behavior is critical. Beware the age-old trap of people or groups mandating form over substance.
"A word to the wise is a word for the sane." -Wikid77 10:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expand as 3. It is dangerous and tedious to have one customized template, yet have no similar live templates to compare results: expand to 3 obvious variations for "Infobox Guinea city" and "Infobox Guinea town" plus "Infobox Guinea location" (wildlife reserve?). If Infobox_Guinea_city stops working, check to see if **_town and **_location are broken, if so, then the problem is likely outside changes to those Infoboxes (unless all 3 were changed together). Remember how botched/vandalized edits get buried for, perhaps, 2 months by later edits, until the problem is noticed, months later. That hacking can be very frustrating in a unique template, with no sibling templates to compare operation against recent changes. Planned Infobox changes can be edited into all 3 (and tested) versus editing dozens of city/town articles, but botched/vandalized templates are typically rogue edits, totally unaware that unchanged sibling templates could easily reveal the performance difference (and don't tell them!). You might have guessed I have templates used in thousands of articles, and yes, I easily pinpointed problems by comparing related live templates. "Sometimes more is less; sometimes more is (more) better." -Wikid77 07:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the kind words above wikid77, see my reply at the Geobox...TfD below. —MJCdetroit 19:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Template is redundant. Resolute 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Andy Mabbett 20:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Deprecate and keep~~Delete won't anyone think of the historical versions? Nevermind it's only existed a couple weeks --Random832 21:32, 7 July 2007 (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:Geobox_Lousiana... 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all. As above, this is considering the discussion, arguments presented therein, orphaning of the template, and the longstanding consensus for infobox standardization. IronGargoyle 03:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All. These templates are redundant to {{Geobox Settlement}} (which itself is redundant to Infobox Settlement). These goes against the concept of having a standard infobox. If there is a problem with Geobox Settlement, then it should be brought to the attention of those editors. Creating three off-shoot infoboxes for use in one state is a move in the wrong direction. All edits that were converted from Geobox Settlement to one of the infoboxes above should be reverted back to Geobox Settlement. —MJCdetroit 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: There is a major misunderstanding in this AfD. Those 3 templates are not redundant, they are reliant upon current Template Geobox_Settlement and would fail if Geobox_Settlement were deleted. All Louisiana town/city articles still use Geobox_Settlement for the side-box display, and those 3 templates rely on that connection. I have emphasized this issue in detail below. -Wikid77 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. These are all just wrappers for Template:Geobox Settlement. Delete, and replace with Geobox Settlement directly. — mholland (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL. I wrote those 3 templates; ever think of contacting me directly? Why I wrote them: I noticed 200+ WP articles about Louisiana cities/towns with 80-line template structures, no source footnotes, no zipcodes, and blank maps with no towns, roads, hills, lakes or rivers (etc.), yet every article contained a "Geography" section (with no rivers/hills on maps?). Those 3 templates are not non-standard heresy, they are interface-module templates, designed to retro-fit information across all 200+ Louisiana town/city articles, as details become available. The concept from configuration management is one of layering, with Louisiana-statewide details isolated into the common layer for cities, towns and CDPs (those 3 templates). Why 3 templates: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." If one template becomes hacked/vandalized, the other 2 templates are there for safety and diagnosis. If all 3 templates suddenly fail, the cause is probably outside the changes to those templates. I understand the push for standard, one-size-fits-all infoboxes; however, a small collection of similar infoboxes, with layering of details, provides multiple levels of control, customization and testing of new changes. I have been developing configuration management practices for more than 20 years, so I understand it takes a while to see the long-term implications of a collection of similar modules and why a "single point of failure" is not easily forseen. The interface details are isolated to those 3 templates: to invoke "Template:Infobox Settlement" just change those 3 templates, instead of the 200+ Louisiana articles. If a future Infobox parameter needs to be set for "Louisiana" then set it in those 3 interface-templates, and avoid 200+ edits and testing of those edits. Another problem is intercepting data-validation: if someone sets a ZIP Code to "77199" that is obviously not for Louisiana and can be rejected within those 3 interface-templates. I hope those issues help to explain the benefits of using a small number of interface-templates to control several hundred articles. -Wikid77 06:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Specializing standard templates into very specific regional templates because of fears that it might be vandalized sometime in the future is just not a strong enough reason to create these templates. Neither is trying to make it easier to catch typo-graphical errors in a ZIP code. A about a year or so ago, some editors went through and standardized all the various city, town, infoboxes such as TemplateUSA_City_infobox, Template:Infobox_City_NH, New York City infobox, Template:Infobox_Town_MA, Template:US_City_infobox, and Template:New York Town (just to name a few). Many of those infoboxes started with good intentions but fell into disarray because instead of many editors watching, protecting and editing a standard infobox, you have maybe one editor who started the infobox who may not even watch it anymore. Infobox Settlement and Geobox Settlement transclude on over 10,000 pages and have not had any instances of vandalism or hackin or even that many botched edits. With so many people watching those infoboxes and the pages that they transclude on, any botched edits are reverted very quickly; which is rare anyway. If there was an instance of vandalism to occur the template can be fully protected. Small regional infoboxes that are created from the standard infobox WILL change over time to not look or function like the standard. Another example would be from about two years ago when every country had a different infobox with different information from all the other countries. Now, every country like Canada, Mexico, and Japan all use the same infobox. Using your logic, there would 55 different infoboxes for just the cities in the U.S. (and her territories). Then you have to have infoboxes for villages, towns, boroughs, hamlets, CDPs, in the United States. Then you need separate infoboxes for cities, villages, hamlets, districts, municipalities for each Canadian Province and territory. And Then for Mexico...(I'll stop). As you can see it makes sense to have a centralized infobox instead of dozens of de-centralized templates. —MJCdetroit 19:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The subject at hand is about 3 templates to centralize Louisiana-specific changes; but lamenting over "villages, towns, boroughs, hamlets" is a strawman argument, never advocated. Where are all those boroughs to fear? Could it be the 5 in New York City? The above paragraph is full of hyperbole that implies another strawman argument: that diversity away from one standard is horribly frightening and must be avoided ("oh my God, how will we live with diversity!?!!"). I originally was not concerned with "Template:Infobox Settlement" since Louisiana was using Geoboxes, but I verified the usage progress, thus far: 3200 articles use Geoboxes + 8500 use Infobox-Settlement = 11700 articles, with thousands of articles still having no Infobox at all. I would recommend three interface templates per large region, for city/town/place (so New York hamlets & settlements could be coded as "Infobox NY place"), but the 950 towns would share the common data from "Infobox_NY_town" to centralize the format of those town Infoboxes: change the layout of Infobox_NY_town and all 950 New York town articles would be reformatted, without affecting all 11700 current box-layouts. The point is: people would have a choice: but with a monolithic Infobox, there is no choice. If Rhode Island editors want no interface-templates, then fine, reach a concensus; but don't force 150 Louisiana town articles to be laborious individual edits to add common data into all Louisiana towns. I've met several people that loathe file sub-folders: they'll collect 6500 files in the top folder or root directory, and then wonder why file access is slow or how to copy related files, but they had a choice to use subfolders. I could see the USA articles grouped into 53 regions, with the 3 city/town/place templates, for 159 related templates. Change just those 159 templates, and 9500 USA articles could be altered in similar ways, without affecting Canada's information. Similarly, change just 9 templates, and all Pacific-coast communities would be updated (3 templates for each of Calif., Oregon, and Wash. state). That does not prevent changing "Infobox Settlement" to reformat all 11700+ articles. The point is: people would have a choice. No claims of "boroughs" to fear, just honest diversity. -Wikid77 08:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Template is redundant. Resolute 19:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Those 3 templates are not redundant, they are reliant upon Template Geobox_Settlement and would fail if Geobox_Settlement were deleted. AfD is illogical. -Wikid77 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Andy Mabbett 20:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD is illogical and cannot justify deletion; it's a big misunderstanding (see below: "Clarification"). -Wikid77 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read your "clarification". My opinion is unchanged. Andy Mabbett 09:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These templates are redundant to Geobox Settlement. VerruckteDan 20:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Those 3 templates are not redundant, they are reliant upon Template Geobox_Settlement and would fail if Geobox_Settlement were deleted. AfD is illogical. -Wikid77 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They are redundant indeed, the Geoboxes have been designed to be universal, easily editable, easily upgradable in future. There's no reason to create further wrappers when no other upgrades have been made. – Caroig (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Those 3 templates are not redundant, they are reliant upon Template Geobox_Settlement to display the article side-box. The 3 templates are not wrappers, but rather interface-templates that centralize common data. Note that all Louisiana town/city articles still use the common Template Geobox_Settlement to format the side-box display. AfD is illogical (see below: "Clarification"). -Wikid77 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification/Timeout: I realize now that a major misunderstanding has snowballed, and those 3 templates are being perceived as "redundant" side-box templates that bypass Geobox_Settlement (such as the case with the Infobox-Guinea towns/cities template above, or with the templates Template:USA_City_infobox, Template:Infobox_City_NH, New York City infobox, Template:Infobox_Town_MA -- look at those templates to see how they worked). On the contrary, the 3 Louisiana templates are simply interface-templates that "call" or include the code from "Template:Geobox_Settlement" to actually format the side-box (infobox) display in the same format as 3200+ articles using Geobox_Settlement. If Geobox_Settlement were deleted all 3 templates would fail. I should have stopped this misguided line of reasoning earlier, but the multiple comments about "redundant" finally caught my attention. No wonder everyone was confused: those 3 templates are NOT an independent "redundant" off-shoot creating a whole new world of town-infoboxes. No, no, no, please understand that those 3 templates augment or enhance the underlying, required Geobox_Settlement template, in what is termed "downward compatible" (the highest form of code compatibility). Bottomline: all Lousiana town/city articles continue to be "reliant" upon Geobox_Settlement: there is no offshoot effort diverging in a totally new direction. Sorry for the misunderstanding; okay, the AfD was based on false information and should be cancelled. No wonder everyone thought those 3 templates were a rogue departure from the common Geobox/Infobox templates: since I had written the templates I skipped over how, prima facia, few saw the implementation to realize the "reliant" (not redundant) connection. There was nothing "redundant" that tried to replace Geobox_Settlement. What should be done is clearly state in all 3 templates that they are reliant upon Geobox_Settlement, which is a preferred, common side-box template for towns/cities. Sorry for the false alarm and wasted debate; next time, please contact authors directly before posting AfDs without understanding the situation. Again, consider this a strong communication guideline: contact authors and learn details before posting AfDs and creating wasted debates. This issue is not a total waste if that AfD-communication guideline is followed in the future. Thank you for your time and patience. -Wikid77 19:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see anything this box does that Geobox Settlement can't do. Delete all. --Qyd 22:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is anyone actually reading the author's explanations? --Random832 04:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and keep. It's an interesting concept that deserves a chance, if nothing else, and we're all ignoring the elep hant in the room. --Random832 04:05, 13 July 2007 (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 solo 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 03:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deprecated in favor of {{Infobox musical artist}}. No longer used. --PEJL 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: deprecated and unused. For some reason, I thought this one had already been deleted. Oh well, better late than never. :) Xtifr _tälk 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{Infobox musical artist}}. The template should redirect to its predecessor in case a user is interested in using it. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Why? It is currently unused, and deprecated in favor of {{Infobox musical artist}}. Why would anyone be interested in using it, and even if they were, why should we encourage that inconsistency, especially if it redirects to {{Infobox musical artist}} anyway? I honestly don't understand why. --PEJL 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2007 (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 Town Canada 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Once again, I am considering the discussion, arguments presented therein, orphaning of the template (there are no longer any transclusions re: the points made below), and the longstanding consensus for infobox standardization. IronGargoyle 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This infobox was deprecated sometime ago and the remaining pages have slowing been converted to use {{Infobox Settlement}}. Now that all pages have been converted it's time to delete. MJCdetroit 14:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all instances migrated, not used. --Qyd 04:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for history: That relatively mainstream template is an excellent example, with discussions, of how such templates evolved and were replaced. However, if that deprecated "Template:Infobox Town Canada" were deleted, then other WP users would be unable to follow the chain of events that led to the current monolithic approach to town infoboxes. I suspect that changes were railroaded to reach the current status, and this is a "textbook case" for watching how the Wiki community deals with people earnestly trying to add substance to the WP project. If standards are of high importance, I recommend the following standard, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." We should all be careful that such zealous efforts do not further trivialize the WP article contents, which are still hollow in many areas. -Wikid77 10:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and despite Wikid77's passionate, and irrelevant, defense. Resolute 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Resolute. Standardisation is important for many reasons; that's why we have templates in the first place. Andy Mabbett 20:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marked deprecated and protected - This infobox has existed for a year and a half, and, per nom, has been referenced in numerous historical revisions. --Random832 21:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Random, I think that admins can always view deleted pages but in any case we could make the talk page a sub-page of the Canada project and fully protect that. I think that would be good idea in these situations like this. —MJCdetroit 04:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was, this template is still transcluded in countless old revisions of numerous articles, and there's no point in breaking them. Convert it to a wrapper for the current infobox maybe, but don't have it be a redlink. --Random832 03:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' If going this way, the page would be tagged as {{historical}}; but looking at the talk page, there's not a great deal of insightful info there. --Qyd 04:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mark as either {{Deprecated}} or {{Historical}}, and protect. I speak from personal experience that templates marked thusly have saved me the embarrassment of re-inventing the oval-shaped wheel. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2007 (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:Tab muni ca 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 01:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only used on a few pages in Quebec that have since been converted to Infobox Settlement. — MJCdetroit 14:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. --Qyd 04:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Resolute 19:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2007 (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:Wikia 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 00:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Wikias are simply non-notable and do not offer anything more than Wikipedia can offer. There's also the point that Wikia is plagued with copyright violations (of varying degrees -- see WP:COPYRIGHT).

WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.", few do this (an example of one that does would be Memory Alpha).
"# Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms 'factually inaccurate material' or 'unverifiable research'.", this is unfortunately another thing Wikia is plagued by -- but it comes with the territory.
"Links mainly intended to promote a website.", often -- a person gets their new Wikia and rushes to Wikipedia to link to it.
"Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.", unfortunately (for reasons beyond myself) Wikia has gone for a new rich-content design.
"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.", the majority of Wikias would have a history of stability -- but this does not negate the fact that most of them do not have a substantial userbase. I can personally only think of two that would pass this (there may be more), Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia.

Thus, it is my belief a standard Wikia template is not needed. If a Wikia is indeed notable, it will probably have its own template (if it's highly linked, e.g. MA). A catch-all template simply isn't needed, though. Matthew 14:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not true that few wikis on Wikia provide a resource beyond what the Wikipedia article would contain. See Wikia's page of "Big wikis" for a list of wikis that have over 2500 articles. Wikipedia should be encouraging the development of topic-based wikis, which are often more accurate, complete and reliable than a general encyclopedia can be. Muppet Wiki, for example, is far more accurate and better sourced than the corresponding Wikipedia pages, which are often vandalized. It's also not true that Wikia requires Flash or Java. -- Danny (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having a lot of articles doesn't make a wiki more notable, nor does being on Wikia's top-x list. Matthew 15:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your standards for notability are. To use Muppet Wiki as an example, it's a site with over 14,000 pages about the Muppets, it's detailed and comprehensive, and it uses original research by contributors who have accessed the archives at the Jim Henson Company and Children's Television Workshop. It has more information than any other related website, including the official Henson, Disney and Sesame Street sites. In what sense would you say that Muppet Wiki isn't notable, or worth linking to? -- Danny (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppet Wiki is worth linking to (it has an abundance of quality content). Wikia hosts tons of Wikis, though, and the majority do not meet the criteria for a link. There are multiple that do warrant a link from Wikipedia, such as: Memory Alpha, Star Wars Wiki and as you point out the Muppet Wiki (like I said: "there may be more"). However, I really don't believe a template is needed for every Wikia. The special Wikias that do meet Wikipedia's EL guidelines generally a) have their own template (due to multiple links) or b) could be linked without a template. Matthew 16:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the "Links normally to be avoided" section you're quoting is relevant to a deletion discussion. That policy can be applied regardless of whether this template exists.

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource...
- All Wikia sites aim to provide a unique resource beyond what is acceptable in Wikipedia. A few examples are episode guides which are now being deleted from Wikipedia and in-depth information on gaming characters, locations, and guilds.
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material...
- With the exception of Uncyclopedia, no Wikia site deliberately misleads the reader. There is no reason for the content to be less reliable than Wikipedia itself.
Links mainly intended to promote a website.
- If people do that, then those links can be removed. This isn't a reason to delete the entire template, preventing links that are mostly added by Wikipedians, not new Wikia users.
Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java)...
- Wikia does not require, or even use, Flash, Java, or any other external application. All Wikia sites are run on Open Source Software.
Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors...
- The Wikia sites which would be linked in Wikipedia meet the requirements for stability and number of editors. Those that don't won't be linked regardless of the existence of this template.

Your claim that Wikia is "plagued with copyright violations" is blatently false and I'm shocked you would make such an accusation.

The Wikia template is one of hundreds of similar templates, but one of few sites that offers content that is released under a free content license. You haven't offered any valid reason for the deletion of this template. Angela . 21:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My statement of fact is certainly not blatantly false. You seriously cannot say that offering full episodes of a television series is not a copyright violation, I even brought this up with a Wikia staff member once (reply: "Go see x", if only I knew how to find x). Then there's image, take for example this Wikia -- an image which is copyrighted (the intertitle to a show), you could claim fair use (I don't think it'd meet US FU laws)... but that image is not GFDL. More examples: [1], [2] and [3].

"You haven't offered any valid reason for the deletion of this template", it's understandable you think this, you do own the company :-\.

Wikia is a fine concept, I even contribute, but my opinions still stand. Matthew 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to assume wikias in general are worse than other classes of sites. If a particular one does contain substantial amounts on copyright violating content then we shouldnt link to a particular one. Most of them do not. It is possible that this discussion is being affected influenced by valid concerns with one or two particular types of articlesDGG (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments for the template are boiling over into Wikia space. I think that a link to a Wikia allows for a different scope of information, for example, Wookieepedia links for Star Wars articles. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The links that links to a non notable Wikia site or a copyvioed Wikia site should be removed from the page. However that is not the reason to delete the Wikia template. Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 03:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikia isn't really as bad as it sounds. Yes, many of the Wikias are tiny, underdeveloped and have red links everywhere, but many - like the Star Wars Wiki - provide an insight to the topic in more detail than Wikipedia could ever produce. Many people come to Wikipedia looking or info about their favorite subjects, so it would be great if we could provide them with more. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the above arguments for deletion would apply just as well to Wikitravel (to which I also contribute) or Commons. One of the larger Wikia not yet mentioned is Genealogy; with barely a hundred registered contributors, it has more researched detail on some matters than Wikipedia - for example:
- it lists some family history societies that are not on WP
- its List of passengers on the Mayflower is more complete than WP's list
- some of its lists of cemeteries in the U.S. are distinctly longer than the WP versions, e.g. Category:Cemeteries in Michigan has ten articles (two being about the same cemetery under different names!) but the Wikia equivalent has over fifty others, many with comprehensive lists of who's buried where (not a feature of the WP articles).

Robin Patterson 13:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Shinjiman`s well-reasoned response above. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2007 (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:Shipwreck box infobox 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 01:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Single use template. It's essentially redundant to Template:Infobox Ship. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MJCdetroit 14:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Flubeca^Talk 18:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This looks like something that might be relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Shipwrecks. Perhaps we should get their input? --Kralizec! (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2007 (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:Preventionaccount 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 01:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer used template, serves the same purpose as {{Doppelganger}}. Cheers, Mystytopia 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template appears slightly more general than {{Doppelganger}}. Unlike Doppelganger, Preventionaccount appears to apply to accounts created in anticipation of attacks other than impersonation.in addition to the impersonation accounts for which {{Doppelganger}} is used. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused -- Amazins490 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2007 (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.