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) 04:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:R to existing article (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:R to existing article with the same content (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I found this as an incorrect redirect to ((R)), which was causing a lot of pages to be added to a references related error category. This template was appearently created only a week ago by User:Topbanana. I do not see any usefull purpose to this template, since it is obvious that a redirect is a redirect to an existing article. No discussion seems to be linking to this template, leading to the conclusion that it was an unlucky concoction of its creator, who has been changing at lot of redirects (according to his contribution history). Debresser (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree, seems very redundant and pointless template - its a redirect, of course its to an existing article unless its not in which case it gets deleted anyway. :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see why "existing" is part of the name, either it's an R in NS:0 to an article, a dab page, a soft-redirect or a hard-redirect, if it R's to a redlink, it would get deleted, since the majority of redirects in NS:0 R to an article, it'd be excessive to tag things with it (unlike say R's to NS:0 redirects) 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain. It's a meaningless classification template, I'd agree. However, over 40 redirects link to it from what seem like a wide range of editors. It must be a common enough brain-fart when creating a redifect that it's worth redirecting to something more useful. - TB (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not to a references template... causing an error message on each of the redirects. :) Debresser (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think that something more usefull is needed. 40 out of all redirects to articles is not much. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added ((R to existing article with the same content)) today. I agree that two days have gone by, but it is obvious that it should go the same way. Was created by the same person on the same day and points to the same references template causing the same error message. Debresser (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. The naming of the second reflects what I assume the first was intended to mean. But it is generally assumed that the target of a redirect is an existing article with related subject matter. Where redirect templates help is in giving a more specific relationship. For example, ((R from alternative name)) tells me that the redirect and target are identical, just with a different name, while ((CharR to list entry)) tells me that the redirect is a specific character and the target is a character list. The nominated templates don't provide any useful clarification. --RL0919 (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2010 (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.

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) 04:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disney Villains (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The template is mainly used to link characters in the Disney Villains franchise. However, most of the articles in the template belong to original characters created in fairy tales or novels (i.e Queen (Snow White), Captain Hook or Claude Frollo). Only Pete (Disney character) and Maleficent originated in Disney. Since the articles on the Queen, Hook, Frollo, etc. are about characters that originated and appear in more media than Disney, a template labeling them as Disney is not appropiate. A complete list of characters in the franchise already exists in the franchise's article. Other links include two television specials that were aired decades before the creation of the franchise, a film-episode of a TV series and a video game (the video game being the one true merchandise of the franchise linked in the template). --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed, there are only two actual original Disney villains and this template seems unhelpful for navigating "related" characters when such relation is tertiary and minor. Even then, Maleficent is only partially a Disney creation, based on the evil fairy from the original fairy tale, just with a name and usual Disnification. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the stated reasons. This is analogous to creating a nav template for "places where Disney stories take place" and putting it on India, England, Louisiana, China, Africa, Hawai'i, etc: the subjects are bigger than this association. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For some of the characters, it could be argued that Disney is the main reason the character is notable, but many of these are adaptations from stories (Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, etc.) that were quite popular before Disney ever got to them. So to simply have been adapted by Disney is not a significant relationship among the characters that would make a navbox helpful: someone reading about a traditional fairy tale character is probably not interested in an unrelated character from a 20th-century novel just because the same company decided to make unrelated movies of the source material. --RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2010 (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.

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) 04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The external link this template generated failed WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked."

Most of the articles it linked were very out of date or didn't exist. I have taken the liberty of removing the template from pages on the basis of it essentially being a spam link failing ELNO, now all that is left is this unused template. Jeni ^(talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unused as of this point, and as noted, completely fails WP:EL. As such, a template encouraging linking to it is inappropriate and non-beneficial to articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's pretty useless having it, and keeping it would be pointless. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 09:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unused and likely to fail WP:EL. --RL0919 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (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.

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 Withdrawn by nominator. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geographic Location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Presents a over simplified view of geographic details i.e has no support for town x which is north north west of centre town y also doesn't give a real context of the towns surroundings i.e how big the town to the west is. Information better presented in the the article or using a map. Gnevin (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn nom per WP:Snow Gnevin (talk) 09:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The template is a simplified geographic surroundings table with links to the respective communities or geographic features. Many communities lack maps, and there are extremely few that employ maps with wikilinks. Easy to implement, easy to understand, sometime misused or overused, still I fail to see a valid reason for deletion. On second thought, speedy keep. --Qyd (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have ((Coord)) for communities lacking maps and communities with them. It does a far better job that this template ever could Gnevin (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You wouldn't believe how many people wanted to delete ((coord)) at one point, mainly because they didn't liked it. However, coord and this template serve different purposes altogether. Again, coord does not display wikilinks to surrounding communities (at least not directly in the wikipedia page). --Qyd (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This template seems to be sensibly used in articles about US States, but rather poorly used in articles about settlements, especially UK ones. Perhaps some form of warning or deprecation may be in order, though I wouldn't know how to go about it. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep / speedy keep. This template gives a view of and gives links to neigboring places and is therfore extremely useful to navigate to them (something you can't do with the Coord template!!!). It is used extensively and consistently for municipalities (showing surrounding municipalities) in Ontario and Quebec in Canada. I am continuously updating, correcting, and adding these templates to municipalities. If any are poorly used, we'll get around to fixing it. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this template is very useful on a variety of articles. Kyle1278 18:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Very useful in neighbourhood articles. I would change my mind if something was proposed that was better, but I don't know of one. Making maps is more work, and requires some graphical skills. Alaney2k (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Echoing the comments made by Alaney2k. This template is used extensively and is very useful in describing a location relative to adjacent neighbourhoods. --Drm310 (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Well used, and looks a hell of a lot more pleasing to the eye than the other similar templates. Jeni ^(talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Good for consistency, and geographic wikilinking. The guidelines on how to write about UK settlements suggest using this template, so many articles include it. Grim²³★ 21:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - it is very useful for places like Metro Detroit where settlement lines are very meticulate. Jacob S. ^grafitti 21:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep: A well used informative template giving view of neighboring counties. South Bay (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I'm very surprised this template is being proposed for deletion. The template is a great help in finding information quickly about a group of neighbouring settlements and its use should be strongly encouraged. Jan1nad, you can see a good example of it being used in the UK in Norfolk, e.g. see Dereham. OldSpot61 (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Great for use for groups of related articles. Shannon^talk _contribs 03:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. A well-established and developed template that helps to clearly illustrate surroundings to the reader. (Expecting "north north west" resolution from a text-based element is unrealistic and not a viable rationale for deletion.) If we had the financial resources to commission tens of thousands of customized maps and then create image maps for each one to allow click-through, then there might be an argument for replacing this template. In the interim, however, this suits our needs. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. IIRC, its original primary purpose is a navigation template linking the articles of the subject's adjacent settlements, not a detailed map. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2010 (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.