Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 11

< Wikipedia:Templates for deletion‎ | Log
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2009 January 11)
< January 10 January 12 >

January 11 edit

Template:WP Pixar 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 deleted G8 by User:Stephen. JPG-GR (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WP Pixar (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused banner template for a WikiProject that was proposed about 18 months ago but apparently never got off the ground. PC78 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 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:Community area 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 deletion, conversion requested. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 19:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Community area (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to {{Infobox Settlement}}; only 7 instances in article space. Previous discussion reached no consensus, due to concerns over the latter's lack of demographic data fields. These have now been added. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I appreciate Andy's work on this matter. Mackensen (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am quite sure the seven instances will get screwed up in a conversion and Chicago Loop is a very important article that I don't want to see screwed up.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I switched over the Chicago Loop infobox and all the information is there—neat & orderly. The new box is not as wide and the list of neighborhoods is collapsed thereby making the infobox not as long. With a little tweaking of the image and map sizes, I'm sure that one could make the new box as wide as they desired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJCdetroit (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - This was just nominated for tfd a week ago, so why not give it a little more time. I stick by my judgment before and still say that {{Infobox Settlement}} is not always acceptable for neighborhoods (Community areas). It has improved and I would support it, but there are still many issues that need to be resolved. For instance I am farsighted and the community area map is much harder to read due to its rather tight shape. Under WP:ACCESS how do small diagrams that are harder to see help those with disabilities? Anyway I am not completely opposed but still not very favorable about the changes. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That nomination was withdrawn pending changes to the Infobox (changes which were made). There's a setting in the Infobox to increase the size of the map; the default was simply a little larger in community area. The problem, I think, is that community area images are fairly low-quality GIFs which don't scale well (which has nothing to do with either template). Are there any other issues which would need to be resolved? Mackensen (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the heads up, I didn't know the nomination was withdrawn. I am not sure if this has been discussed yet, but there appears to be more than 7 instances of the infobox showing up in article space. Infact I would say that most neighborhoods in Chicago use this or some variation of it. So far I have gone through most of the south side and only a small number don't use the {{Infobox Settlement}}. In fact now that I look more, practically all the south side and parts of the west side do not use the box up for deletion now. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forget my other comments, I was looking at something else. Things seem to be getting corrected but for now I keep my vote as is and will wait for others comments. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Delete - Would have no problem if it was deleted so long as all the articles that currently use this template are converted first. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:04, 14 January 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 Movie Full Credits 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 deleted G2 by User:Gwen Gale. JPG-GR (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Movie Full Credits (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and probably a test. Seems to be a duplicate/fork of {{Infobox Film}}. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 11 January 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:Userbox-simple 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. Ruslik (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Userbox-simple (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused and redundant. Supposed to be a simplified version of {{Userbox}}, but that template is hardly over complicated. PC78 (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree. Unused, unneeded, and redundant. hmwithτ 21:52, 18 January 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:Foley Shield Seasons 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. Ruslik (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Foley Shield Seasons (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template created over a year ago, for which the articles have never been created. BD2412 T 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Unused template with nothing but redlinks, which defeats the purpose of a navigational template. hmwithτ 21:54, 18 January 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:Chowder 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. hmwithτ 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Currently unnecessary as it only links to three articles: the series' article, a character list and the series creator's article. A navbox is redundant for so few articles. treelo radda 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails my "rule of five" as it only has four links (each individual character redirects). Not yet enough content for a template, although it would be nice to see this show become a big enough hit to warrant separate articles for each character! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely unnecessary in the current state. Four unique links, and another five to characters which all reside on the same page. All these links are easily visible in the main article; which is not excessively large. MattieTK 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Repeating the above reasoning, overkill and unnecessary. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I posted on both templates I will expand them next week.

I'm also working on expanding the chowder articles.

I suggest you delay this a bit so you se what can I come up with.

  • Unless you're planning to expand the articles regarding Chowder in terms of how many there then there's still no reason for the infobox. Also, if you have ideas it'd be best to share them on a talkpage first instead of working on them alone. treelo radda 18:25, 12 January 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:TOE-foot 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. Ruslik (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TOE-foot (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

See WT:PHYS#Odd template. Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 12:58, 11 January 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:District data of Japan 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 subst and delete. I'm judging that the amount of text in this template is small enough that substing and deleting won't cause GFDL problems. If anyone wants it for user space, I'm happy to undelete it for that purpose, just let me know. delldot ∇. 20:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:District data of Japan (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Ok, there was sort of a discussion here over one of the subparts but I guess I should start at the top. To an average reader reading one of the district pages, to update the population, density and total area statistics (for example, at Aichi District, Aichi), one would have to look at the Aichi article, realize that it is a link to Template:District data of Japan here, realize that requires a link to Template:District data of Japan/figure without having any documentation at all to work off, realize that goes to Template:Area of Japan/Aichi again without documentation, and try to sort through the entire code (which is in Japanese), all just to change the population, the district size, and the total area. That's absurd; it's bad enough trying to help new users figure out infoboxes and other work, this is over the top complicated. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:05, 11 January 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:LIVE 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 G11 by User:Stephen. JPG-GR (talk) 07:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template represents a conflict of interest (created by User:Radiohog and links to radiohog.com), provides information that likely violates WP:NOT#DIR (providing song name, artist, and lyrics for the song "currently" playing on a particular radio station), and as pointed out at WT:WPRS#Radiohog template created by Radiohog isn't even accurate. No encyclopedic value. JPG-GR (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clear COI issues, and as I noted in the WPRS discussion, not even correct information given out by this provider. Nate • (chatter) 09:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a spam link added to dozens of radio station articles by a single-purpose account whose very first edit was to create this template. - Dravecky (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete conflict of interest, spamming, and I fail to see how it's usable in an encyclopedia like wikipedia. User:MrRadioGuy What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (from RadioHog): I see how you think this may simply be spam but this site clearly has a positive use. It shows info relevant to the stations that isn't, normally, readily available. Even though it is a site optimized for mobile devices it also doubles as a clean interface for computer users on all browsers. By clean I mean that the interface is easy to use and there are NO ads whatsoever. When an end user wants to see what is playing on a radio station they regularly have to go to the radio station's website, which are usually packed with ads and hard to navigate. RadioHog pulls data from various sources and format it in the best way possible. I hope that you may reconsider your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohog (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G11 Thanks for plugging your site, but no, I haven't reconsidered. All this does is spam a link to your site. Plenty of radio sites exist, but is there any reason to link to any? I don't see it. You might want to read WP:EL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read the External Linking guidelines and really the only thing I see that could have been considered wrong is Conflict of Interest which I now see how that could have been avoided. After reading the external linking guidelines, RadioHog does not fall under any of the topics/categories that have been recommended Not to link to (under "Links normally to be avoided"). I do see now that it was wrong to post links straight to the page instead of having it first discussed in the article's talk page, but I see no reason for having the template deleted because of this. People find that Radiohog is useful because of not having to navigate ad-crammed, hard to find, pages of the radio station itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohog (talk • contribs) 20:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is that the link does nothing but promote a site, with no real context. It adds nothing to the article except for another way to get to the site – and isn't that basically advertising? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but in the end there is no monetary gain for anyone and can only help users find more data/information about the station and the music it plays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohog (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. "Help users find more data/information about the station" isn't very far from "blatant promotion". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is "blatant promotion" related to simply helping people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohog (talk • contribs) 22:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you're just plastering the link all over the place, and that's called spamming. Also, please sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I don't think we will be able to change each others minds and should leave this decision up to whoever deals with this kind of thing. Thank you for weighing in. Radiohog (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
(de-indent) This is Wikipedia where everything evolves by consensus—we are the people who deal with this kind of thing. - Dravecky (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have a clear conflict of interest, but the major reason I found problems with this template was that it had wrong information. Re-read the post on WPRS where I brought this up. If you're going to create a tool like this, you need to have some common sense to realize that no, WLS (AM) or KCBS (AM) don't play music, and neither do the sports radio stations which somehow show up on this tool, and those need to be filtered out. But really, nobody is going to Wikipedia to find out what's playing on the radio. They're going to Google search with a direct line from the lyrics, they go to the station website to the 'now playing' banner, the web stream is showing what's playing, or they're checking their Radio Data System display if it's available. This template is unfortunately useless to our needs, and cannot easily be implemented without stepping on someone's toes (the radio stations, record labels, YES.com, etc.). Nate • (chatter) 05:27, 12 January 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:WOTM 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. hmwithτ 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template is no longer used or needed, replaced with an infobox. TheAE talk/sign 02:05, 11 January 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 Greek Dimos 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 no consensus to delete. Arguments for keeping are difficulty of deleting, ease of using a more specific template, possible difficulties with the standard one, and people aren't seeing a strong reason to. Arguments for deleting include standardization, and rebuttals against some of the keep reasons. I'm swayed by the standardization arguments but I'm seeing too much opposition to deletion to close this as delete. It looks like consensus could be reached if adequate changes were made to the settlement infobox, so perhaps this discussion could be carried on on the template's talk page and brought back here after improvements (appearance, whatever parameters are missing). delldot ∇. 05:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Greek Dimos (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

redundant, and similar, to {{Infobox Settlement}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Unless there's substantially more discussion about replacing all of the city infobox templates with {{Infobox settlement}} (good luck with {{Infobox Australian Place}} and {{Infobox Place Ireland}}), I don't see how this Greece-specific template is particularly redundant or worthy of deletion. Some of the template's parameters, including {{{periph}}} and {{{licence}}}, are non-redundant; many parameters also incorporate information specific to Greece. The infobox itself is used on more than 400 articles, including Athens. That said, if there were more substantial discussion advocating the standardisation of city infobox templates, I'd probably support it. Nevertheless, without greater discussion I don't see why one particular city infobox template needs to be deleted, especially one with at least some non-redundancy and widespread use on relevant articles. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other similar templates have already been deleted and merged into {{Infobox settlement}}. {{{periph}}} and {{{licence}}} are redundant to {{Infobox settlement}}'s more generic {{{subdivision_type}}} and {{{subdivision_name}}}. Comments about Australian, Irish and similar templates seem to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There have also been similar discussions that have not resulted in a consensus to delete or merge, and those TfDs that did reach such a consensus didn't have anything like this kind of discussion. I do sympathise with your ongoing efforts to minimise redundancy and to advocate standardisation. Nevertheless, not all redundancies are necessarily bad. Country-specific templates can actually be beneficial, simplifying the process for editors wanting to add country-specific information without needing to worry about a whole lot of non-relevant parameters or parameters that would have to be manually specified (it probably wouldn't make a difference for experienced users of the Infobox settlement template, but not everyone falls into that category): personally, I think that a simplified, country-specifc template could be an additional benefit rather than a detrimental redundancy. By the way, if you want to delete this template as "redundant", it stands to reason that we would have to delete every other city infobox template for the exact same (if brief) reason: that requires more substantial discussion, and I suspect you'll get it if you try to start a TfD for the more high-profile templates (that's why I "wished you good luck" in my previous post). Overall though, I just don't see any particular need to delete the template. What you call "redundant", others may consider "usefully specific" (which is probably why we have XfD processes, perhaps :). – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep redundant templates, the fact that some TfDs have failed for other reasons is not a reason for this one to fail; nor to make the deletion of other templates a prerequisite for this one. If editors of articles are concerned that {{Infobox Settlement}} has too many parameters not relevant for a Greek Dimos, there's nothing to sotp someone from creating a more specific, copy-n-paste blank of that template, on a "Project Greece" page, with only the frequently-used paramaters present. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't see the need for all of theses separate infobox types for different countries' settlements, so I would probably support the deletion, but only if the extra parameters where added to the infobox that will replace it. The fact that there is a similar infobox is not enough, it should be able to handle the same information as the one it replaces. If this cannot happen because it would be too complicated etc, there is no harm in keeping the Greek dimos infobox. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak and redundant on what grounds? There is no wiki guideline or policy that states all infobox must conform to Infobox Settlement. Plus atleast this infobox is used and maintainted unlike so of the other ones across wikipedia. This Infobox can't be singled out unless all the other infoboxes are singled out as well. El Greco(talk) 17:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was weak because with some additional fields on the settlements infobox, we wouldn't need this one. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't questioning you, I was questioning the user who proposed the TfD. El Greco(talk) 18:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox Settlement}} is well maintained: indeed, one of the primary regions for deleting redundant templates such as {{Infobox Greek Dimos}}, in favour of {{Infobox settlement}}, is that it reduces the number of templates which need to be maintained, increasing the likelihood that the templates used in articles are robust. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that, but are you planning on making the settlement's infobox compatible? WP Greece is perfectly capable of maintaining this infobox if it means that the appropriate fields are preserved. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But Andy, this template is well maintained and has never had a problem being maintained. It has conformed to the changes and comments requested and required on its talk page and usage. You can't argue that this infobox isn't up to date in terms of it's capabilities. El Greco(talk) 23:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the other hand, it isn't necessarily benefiting from new functionality in Infobox Settlement, which has many more eyes on it. It doesn't make much sense to keep two templates doing essentially the same task without a really good reason. I've been poking around this template and it looks to be a loose clone of Infobox Settlement with most of the features ripped out. It would make much more sense to generalize whatever extra features this template has and introduce them to Infobox Settlement. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whoa, whoa, whoa........this Infobox was never a rip off of Settlement if you read the talk page it clearly states: This infobox uses features from {{Infobox City}}, {{Infobox_German_Location}}, and {{French_commune}}. Nowhere doesn it say its a rip off Settlement (even though City is now Settlement). I think the only thing I borrowed from City were what fields to include. Over 90% of this template is based on the German and French Infoboxes. El Greco(talk) 23:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The easiest thing to do would probably be to keep it, but if someone really wants to delete it, they can add to the settlements infobox what is missing and then update all articles with the Dimos infobox, making sure that they look generally the same before and after the switch. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I wasn't accusing anyone of anything; my point is simply that the infobox is redundant. I've placed the two side by side in my userspace and I don't see a significant difference: User:Mackensen/Temp. Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above statements.--Michael X the White (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, so long as Infobox Settlement is made compatible. Now, could the keep folks please state what functionality would need to be reproduced? Mackensen (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: see User:Mackensen/Temp for two infoboxes side by side. Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more we standarise the best I think. If the one on the left looks more neat this is a good reason to change the generic template and not keep both. (I think the only "neat" thing is the color bar somewhere in the middle). I am pro deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea that's the main thing with the settlement's infobox. It's sort of boring and elementary looking. The Greek one has more interest and organization with the color I feel. While converting, we should start a discussion about how to improve the looks of the settlements box. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert and Delete. I have worked on both infoboxes but I prefer to have one standard infobox. I made some adjustments to the User:Mackensen/Temp comparisons. I would have added the names of the seven districts to the infobox settlement box but I couldn't find their names in the Athens article. —MJCdetroit (yak) 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why there is no color on the infobox? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why haven't all the other infoboxes been nominated as well like {{Infobox French commune}}, {{Infobox Australian Place}}, {{Infobox Place Ireland}}, and {{Infobox German location}}? And don't give me Other Stuff exists either, because you know it's pertinent to the discussion since as you say, "...I prefer to have one standard infobox" and as Andy says, "redundant, and similar, to {{Infobox Settlement}}". Those too are redundant and similar to Settlement. So you can't single out this template and not single out the other ones as well. El Greco(talk) 00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this one was just found while general editing, not that they were singling it out. I feel really strongly about the color in the infobox, blue like Greece, no thats not why, but it makes it more interesting that the generic settlements infobox. After thinking about it also, I feel like keeping this infobox will allow it to be easier put into use. The instructions will be relevant to Greek cities and settlements and people won't have to sort through all of this extra code that is irrelevant to Greek cities. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:The parameters of this infobox are substantial for the definition of a demos and a city for reasons related to topography, geography, administration - and even cultural reasons - in Greece. - Sthenel (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me one parameter that it's not supported by the generic one? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The generic one is plain and boring, if WP Greece can handle this one as they have been, why not keep it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT is not a strong argument. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't help it if the one to replace it is ugly. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that tthe generic templates needs stylist improvements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe infobox itself is used on more than 400 articles, including Athens as stated above.-- Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep different countries will have different requirements. This does not stop us though to make the look and feel same so that the non-involved editor has no problems using the bread and butter parameters. Agathoclea (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it seems that all the requirements for the Greek case are covered from the generic template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:27, 24 January 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_11&oldid=1138693459"