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 Keep, but modify to make it clear that its use on Wikipedia is only allowed under the fair use policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CopyrightedFairUse-DPRK (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I brought this up at the Village Pump as well. This template appears to specify a license for content that is available for use but only noncommercial, which is a license incompatible with Wikipedia (would be like a cc-by-sa-nc). As such, it seems to be redundant, should be deleted and all instances of its use ought to be either replaced with a traditional fair use template, or else if the file is replaceable by a free one that would convey the same information, then it ought to be deleted as invalid fair use. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Since it appears that Wikipedia has permission to use such images, we can use this template like we do ((Non-free with NC)). Of course, it should be changed to remind the user that a valid fair use rationale is still required. Noncommercial permissions are useful: it makes it easier to use fairly, because there's guaranteed to be no commercial damage to the copyright holder. Nyttend (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this is non-free, which it is, we still need a way to say that it is freer than a completely non-free image. And we should certainly always use a comparable non-commercial or no-derivatives image in preference to a not-free-at-all one. I disagree with Nyttend on the need for a rationale. Or rather, I disagree that we should need the same sort of rationale, complying with all of the NFCC, in the same way that we do for a completely non-free image. But that's a discussion for another day. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Modify as if fair-use - While I don't think this template needs to necessarily be deleted, it is important to bring up that this is in effect a significant change in Wikipedia policy in regards to non-commercial use images. As to if this is the proper forum for that discussion, I can't say. In the context of Wikipedia, it is under fair-use rationale that these images are being used, not because of the 501(c)3 non-profit status of the Wikimedia Foundation which shouldn't be a legitimate rationale here. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be amendable to revising it to fair use and requiring a rationale. Since the current "free for noncommercial uses" license isn't compatible with Wikipedia we do need to specify this somehow, and requiring a fair-use rationale seems appropriate. Otherwise, people will assume it is free, and otherwise, we would be able to use cc-by-nc licenses here (and this is basically the same as that). - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:12, 4 October 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 Merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with ((Infobox diocese)) (note lowercase D). Template should be redirected or just switched with AWB. I'm happy to do the latter. Selket ^Talk 13:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a merge, but possibly the other way. ((Infobox Diocese)) is the more substantial of the two and has considerably more uses. PC78 (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with PC78. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 5 October 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 and replace with ((cn)). Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The template was already discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 July 30. However, one important aspect was then not taken into account. First, the reason for the previous deletion discussion is till valid, the website is still unavailable. However, even if we cuold find another website for the same information, the source would still be unreliable. The Toward Civil Society Center (which gave its name to the template) is an organisation with no reliable sources about it, so no indication of how notable or trustworthy it is. While it exists and its director is a part-time professor[1], it just has received no attention at all[2],[3],[4],[5]. Even if we could somehow revive the link, which seems improbable, I don't think it would be wise to include it anyway. Fram (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I checked on the wayback machine http://web.archive.org/web/*/mcdmerkez.org/* which did not have any relevant pages, so it looks like the data is going to be unrecoverable. Might be an idea to change link to ((cn)).--Salix (talk): 08:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or replace with ((cn)) per Salix. —Half Price 20:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in some form. Agree that the link is probably gone for good but dead links do not necessarily mean the source was originally faulty. Assuming good faith on the part of the editor who used it on thousands of articles about Azerbaijan municipalities, and with no solid evidence that the source is unreliable, providing some explanation of where these population figures came from might be justifiable unless/until a better source is found. That way readers can judge how much credence to give these figures. Station1 (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need evidence that a source is (or was) reliable, not evidence that a source is unreliable. Lack of evidence that a source is reliable is sufficient reason not to use it. Fram (talk) 10:01, 1 October 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 Merge, and it looks like it has already been merged. Can be userfied upon request. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Hayward attractions (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Its redundant to the superior Template:Hayward, California template, which i have fixed up to include any of the significant articles from the attractions template. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

• Merge - I actually think the organization by type is more useful. Or the template could do both type and location, using a grid. That might be the best option. --Bsherr (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was planning to (i.e. i AM going to) reorganize the ordinary city template by type and not region, esp. since im not aware that hayward has highly distinctive neighborhoods that are separately notable. location is really not needed for this city, i think. thanks for reminding me. if people want a grid, I cant do grids, all i can do is substitute phrases in the current template. If people think the types in the Attractions template are good, ill probably just use them. My idea would be: Landmarks, Parks, Education, Business, People, Transportation, and Other, im not sure of order yet. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completed the edits to Template:Hayward, California. I think it incorporates the best of the two templates.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good. I'll keep my vote merge should there be more work to do. --Bsherr (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made some sort of error, and the category:city templates is showing up in some articles ive added this template to. i dont know why, but i bet its something im just not familiar with. if someone !voting here can look at this: Agapius Honcharenko. maybe people cant be in these templates?(ok, i fixed it)76.245.47.184 (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The template was substituted when it should have been transcluded. I've fixed it. If you like, take a look and let me know on my talk page if you have any further questions. --Bsherr (talk) 05:38, 30 September 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 speedy closed. This is TfD; you want room 12A. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rename to ((help me)) as proper grammar usage. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've put ((db-move)) on the destination. (Though I don't really understand the purpose of this and other similar recent renames) I can't imagine this is controversial. Let's close as uncontroversial move once this is resolved. If I'm wrong and anyone opposes, I'll be the first to undo it. --Bsherr (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I don't think there's any reason to give the status quo any preference. Between the two, the name with the space is clearer. --Bsherr (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see the purpose. We have numerous templates that do not use "proper grammar" (refimprove, schoolblock, reflist, etc). They are not article titles, why should they have correct grammar? Redirect ((help me)) to ((helpme)) if you feel inclined. Killiondude (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that redirect already exists, so it's really just a matter of which is a redirect of which, if that's a matter at all. I know there's been recent effort to add the space when documenting templates like ((hang on)), ((edit protected)), and ((shared IP)), to name a few. Perhaps it makes it clearer to those unfamiliar. So, Killiondude, very sorry to call you out, but someone had to be first; do you want to just go along with it, or will it be a full discussion over this? --Bsherr (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I choose the full discussion route. Killiondude (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS: Shared IP is actually titled as SharedIP. :-) Killiondude (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, I was mistaken. It was Template:Shared IP edu that was recently renamed to add spaces. --Bsherr (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Killiondude. New users have enough problems spelling "((helpme))".   — Jeff G.  ツ 07:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above. That's actually the present state. --Bsherr (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• So... one already redirects to the other. What exactly is the point of this? → ROUX ₪ 07:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in writing documentation and guidelines, it's "more proper" to use the actual name, rather than a redirect. So I guess that's the point. --Bsherr (talk) 07:50, 28 September 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. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant with new, standardized, and well-documented Template:Uw-joke1. And the Austin Powers reference is a bit dated by now. Apparently disused, as was tagged for speedy deletion for seven days, and substitutions would have carried the speedy deletion template. Only reviewing administrator objected. Bsherr (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—if the intent is to stop people from inserting jokes into articles, I don't think this template sends the right message. –Grondemar 23:55, 30 September 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 No consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pokemon directory (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

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

Propose merging Template:Pokemon directory with Template:Pokémon.
Cut out the 100-200, etc. lists and this fits neatly into the Pokémon template with ease. In fact, there is already a Pokémon species part of the template, making this template a bit redundant already. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - I sort of agree with your points, I guess, but having it separate would be nice. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 23:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Presumably the two are separate for size reasons. Nevertheless, if they're always used together on articles then a merge would be sensible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I support merging these template. The Pokemon species template is redundant and fancruft. Yonskii (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Gotta catch'em all. --Bsherr (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To expand, at Blake's request, I believe it would be more efficient to consolidate the species template into the main template using a collapsible box, thus maintaining the size of the main template, but providing the expanded information of the species template on demand. I doubt there is any instance where one template would be relevent and the other not, so a merge makes sense. Therefore, I propose that we are obliged to contain all of the templates in one--we've gotta catch'em all. --Bsherr (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - OK, if Blake wants separate templates just for the species pages, I have no objection. --Bsherr (talk) 07:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Meowth, that's right! Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 08:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are you people not giving any discussion? This isn't just some template that popped up yesterday and is getting speedied. It has been here, being used for years. It has just gotten a little smaller, so now it MAY not be needed. Either actually give a good reason to merge or don't say anything. You are just saying "Short pointless annoying messages"(SPAM). _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 12:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you're right. My comment was only a little better than saying the outcome of my position would be "nice". --Bsherr (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; it's good to have easy access to the lists, and this doesn't even need to be part of the main Pokémon template. Especially now that several new Pokémon have been added in the past few days. What's wrong with having more than one template for an entire media franchise? Tezero (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's redundant. What's the reason not to combine them? --Bsherr (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even without the lists included, the individual articles are too great in number to fit comfortably on the main template. The main template is far too large - the best idea is to remove the redundant content from that one and keep this one. So I oppose. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would using a collapse for this in the merged template address your concern? --Bsherr (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here, take a look at what I've done at Template:Pokémon/sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks acceptable, though I'd like an auto-collapse to be available for species articles, so that the focus is on the species in the template. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, could you clarify that for me? I'm not sure I follow. --Bsherr (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • As in - when you're on, say, Pikachu, it only shows related species articles, while everything else is collapsed, allowing for the most relevant articles to be immediately visible. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Which species would be related on, say, Pikachu? This'll help me gain a point of reference.--Bsherr (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reason the species appear on both templates is because the species are relevant to other articles, but other articles arent relevant to the species. Thus, the species links appear on ALL articles, but the rest of the articles links do not appear on species articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 00:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:04, 28 September 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 Keep all. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Template:Refref2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This isn't a welcome, warning, badge or notifier: it's a complete manual which is redundant to just pointing someone at the actual documentation page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is a better help page. -— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• They contain essentially the same information, so I fail to see how one can be better than the other. They can simply be used differently. It is not a help page: it is a help template that can be posted to user and article talk pages to focus attention on this vital activity much more potently than sending someone off to another page. We should have more help templates, not get rid of one. Ty 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having multiple documents which say more or less the same thing not only increases the burden of maintenance but increases user confusion if they're out of sync. Indeed, you authored both, which makes it double confusing that you consider maintaining two copies of the same thing in two different namespaces to be worth your time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I consider that anything that will help to improve the standard of referencing is worth time. I'm surprised you don't. It's easy enough for them to be "in synch" by simply copying across. Besides which there is more than one permissible approach to referencing anyway. You seem somewhat confused. Ty 01:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do we need two copies of the same thing? Why not just one copy which contains the features of both? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep It has also proven to be very helpful with new editors, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is good too...Modernist (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is a proper help page in the correct namespace. There is absolutely no need to have a duplicate of this content in a template to get dumped on people's user pages. Just link them to the help page. I'd be alright with this being properly formatted into a welcome / user notice type template if it's genuinely necessary to have a template to link people to a manual, but not with this amorphous wad of text which doesn't resemble any other template in either format or purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep No reason whatsoever to delete and a very strong reason to keep - namely that it is used to help editors, especially new ones. WP:REFB is useful also, but sometimes it seems preferable to make something more obvious and easier to access for those who obviously have difficulty negotiating wikipedia's complexity. Referencing is one of the most vital activities, especially with WP:BLP issues, and anything that improves this must be a good thing. It is not a welcome notice, but it can be useful to supply it along with a welcome notice sometimes. The fact that it may not resemble other things on Wikipedia is neither here nor there. The only thing that matters is whether it is a net benefit to the project, and it clearly is. Ty 22:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a misuse of templatespace and a duplication of existing content. That's two good reasons to delete. WP:USEFUL, presented without addressing the reasons given for deletion, is no argument at all. I can't see what advantage this has over Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, which is in the proper namespace for help documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not a misuse of template space to have a template. That is what template space is for. I don't see any valid reason given in the nom for deletion. You say what it isn't, but you don't address the pertinent point that it benefits the project by being able to bring the guidance to the (usually new) editor, rather than expecting the editor to go somewhere to find it. You seem very rigid in your view of what parts of wikipedia are suitable for what tasks, but I'm not aware of anything beyond your own opinion that validates that stance. There is always room for innovation, if it provides a net benefit to the project. That point is the one that is most important of all, but you apply what you imagine to be rules over that. Ty 01:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't a template: it's a bunch of help documentation. It doesn't resemble anything else in templatespace. It is baffling that you started two separate documents in two different namespaces for the same purpose. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but only if redesigned. Potentially useful if trimmed to just a summary of salient points with a link to the proper help page. As it is I don't consider it acceptable to spam someone's talk page with this amount of information, even if it is collapsed. It's also counterproductive to maintain such a substantial duplication of the actual help page, and as Chris says, it's not what templatespace is for. PC78 (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We also have ((Refref)) and ((Refref2)). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 04:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those will be next on the list. None of the three are even categorised as help documentation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider them added. --Bsherr (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Yes, it's a legit use of the template space. Yes, it's helpful for new users. But here's the problem. This template, which is substituted, substantially increases the size (in capacity) of the talk pages to which it is added, when it would be just as easy and helpful to link the user to the help page. It's an inefficient use of resources. So there's the reason to delete. (Now, I agree with PC78 that it could be redesigned to summarize and link instead of reproduce the contents of the help page, but that would bear no likeness to the current templates.) Could a proponent address whether linking would suffice? --Bsherr (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've used both on differing occasions to aid new users and I find both useful...Modernist (talk) 11:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already said that above. You haven't said why you find both useful, or what difference there is between them. This isn't a vote. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not voting I am discussing, depending upon who I am communicating with I have used both the template and the page link, as I said they are both important and should be kept...Modernist (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Modernist. I get that, but this template with the entire guideline uses a ton more capacity. Is there a reason designing a template with a summary and a link to the guideline wouldn't suffice? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Until that particular template is designed, tested and usable - these two work fine...Modernist (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Template:Refstart/sandbox has that template now, designed, tested, and usable. --Bsherr (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • • • Your proposed template needs to be rewritten so the editor does not have to click two non-essential links to finally get to the third, which is the one that matters. Apart from that, it can be useful. It would be good to have the choice of the existing template, your new template and simply linking to WP:REFB. Then whatever is judged appropriate in the circumstances can be used. Sometimes (mostly new) editors seem to need the information put in front of them directly, and they get lost very quickly when clicking round: that is when Template:Refstart can be particularly useful. Ty 04:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • How about now? But Tyrenius, the point of the template in the sandbox is to replace to existing resource-intensive refstart template. With it reordered to put the guide first, does this address your concern about new users getting lost? They just have to click the link. --Bsherr (talk) 01:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I disagree with the sandbox template replacing the refstart template, which I find very useful on certain occasions for editors who seem to need such information put in front of them. I have no problem with your new template being an additional resource to provide more choice. Ty 03:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Could you help me understand when linking to the policy is insufficient? Such is rather fundamental to Wikipedia. --Bsherr (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's truly necessary to place all this text onto someone's talk page (and I still personally find this highly inappropriate), why not just substitute (or better still, transclude) the Wikipedia page? As stated above, it is conterproductive to have to maintain the same text in two different places, and it only invites confusion if the two pages fall out of sync. PC78 (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep refref and refref2. I was surprised tonight when I used ((Refref))in response to a helpme request to see the deletion notification. As the creator of that template and ((Refref2)), I should have been notified of this discussion. Putting that aside, this discussion is entirely focused on Refstart, a different kind of template than these others (which were added mid-discussion). They are used for a different purpose, and the considerations for their deletion are not the same. These templates should not have been lumped in and there is not a single post above addressing them. Refstart is not only massive in size, but contains a massive duplication of content (I am not falling either way on that template, nor saying that that duplication is necessarily a problem, but that template does need to be distinguished from these others). The Refref templates are neither duplicative nor massive. They are not "a complete manual" and there is no similar visual reference guide anywhere. The Refref templates are ((Help desk templates)), geared toward insertion at the helpdesk, at the new contributor's help desk, for responding to ((helpme)) and for like uses, where, by contrast, the large-scale content of Refstart would not be a good fit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuhghettaboutit, though I do take your assurance for it, it's not otherwise clear that they are help desk templates. They're listed on Template:Help desk templates, but they're not demonstrated on that page. That page itself should be included in or a subpage of WP:UTM, not a separate page in the template namespace; this would have prevented us from locating this page and identifying the help desk templates. Critically, these templates are not in Category:Help desk templates. And lastly, the templates do not have documentation. That being said, I don't mind addressing these templates separately from refstart since they have a different use. But the discussion concerning refstart is nonetheless applicable to these templates, though perhaps less so than refstart. Of course, you know that if you want to monitor templates, you can always add them to your watchlist. Because the templates were added subsequent to the start of the discussion, I mistakenly overlooked the notifications. --Bsherr (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those of us who are regulars at the help desk know where to look if we don't know them by heart, i.e., Wikipedia:Help desk/How to answer and the aforementioned overarching help desk template, where these templates (many of which I created) are featured and are used regularly (especially ((Astray)) and ((Creation))). In any event, that they weren't displayed at the template page has been remedied, and I have added documentation for both. This is a good thing, thanks for the nudge, but the substance of their use is what's important. You say that "the discussion concerning refstart is nonetheless applicable to these templates", yet the grounds of the nomination, and the discussion that has followed, has not touched on any issue applicable to these templates unless you can make a case that they too massively duplicate existing content. I don't see how the case for that can be supported. Accordingly, I do not see what relevance this discussion has to these templates other than the superficial connection that these and refstart both regard citations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I mean by that is I think they're fallible to the same argument that they provide nothing that cannot be accomplished better by instead providing a brief summary with links to the relevant instructions. Less so than refstart, but "nonetheless". Once this TfD is done, I'll join in to help with fixing up the help desk templates page. Your work so far is really a great improvement. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 23:16, 18 October 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 Merge Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Eon Footer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Job is done better by ((geological eon)). This is a duplication in fact. Check Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_6#Template:Phanerozoic_Footer for a similar template that was deleted. Magioladitis (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ((geological eon)); the two templates are so similar, that there's no reason for them both to exist. --ais523 21:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this 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. JPG-GR (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

A somewhat specialized template which basically allows for appending more text to the end of a "catmore/catmain" note. If this sort of functionality is desired, it would seem it could be added to ((catmore)). If it doesn't have a broad use, there is always ((rellink)) for special situations. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and use more. This template has only existed for two weeks. I suggest leaving it until the functionality exists in ((catmore)), then deciding whether to migrate anything. But I think having a template whose use identifies where existing templates aren't providing enough information might be useful. Over time, the list pages using it would help identify what new functionality should be added to ((catmore)).  ◉ ghoti 05:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  A tracking category could be added to ((catmore)), should such functionality be added. This would allow for transclusions that use an "extra text" parameter to be tracked, if this additional feature is desired. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unused. In what situation would it be used? --Bsherr (talk) 05:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an example, see here. I had removed it while executing the merger of other catmore templates (catmore1/catmore2). Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. In that example, it looks like information better placed on the talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per nom. This functionality can simply be added to existing templates. PC78 (talk) 07:06, 28 September 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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template variation doesn't seem to further the purpose of Template:SharedIP. While some variations of the SharedIP template may be useful, unlimited variations wastes time in that the user must identify which SharedIP template to use, when doing so in regard to this template serves no purpose. Identifying the owner of an IP as a business would not prompt a user to treat the shared IP any differently (relative to a nonprofit organization, or a residence). The differences in language between this template and the more general shared IP template are not significant, and add no value. Specifically regarding shared IP addresses owned by private entities, I am very concerned that identifying the entity owning the IP in this way is an unnecessary invasion of the anonymous user's privacy. (Unlike schools, governments, etc., many private entities are small and without notariety.) Although this information is public (and may and should be called upon as necessary for our purposes), it is unnecessary to publicize it. I propose that the template be substituted with Template:SharedIP and then deleted, or in the alternative, redirected. Bsherr (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This would also empty Category:Shared IP addresses from corporations and businesses, right? Does that need addressed separately? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be addressed here, I believe. If the category is empty due to the deletion of this template, it would then be speedily deleted. I advance the same arguments about the category as I do the template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Okay, so then do we delete Template:SharedIPEDU, Template:SharedIPGOV, Template:SharedIPMIL, Template:SharedIPPublic, Template:MobileIP, Template:ISP, etc? Of all of those, the only one I can see possibly furthering Template:SharedIP (per nom, anyway) is Template:SharedIPGOV (because GOV IPs are considered sensitive). There is no more reason to have a Template:SharedIPEDU then Template:SharedIPCORP. Many of these have been around for quite sometime, and although I myself once made a similar proposal to merge all with Template:SharedIP, there was no support for that movement. Furthermore, I dispute the suggestion that SharedIPCORP be merged because companies are less notable than schools or governments or have less users considering companies like HCA which have one proxy to represent hundreds of physical locations, and schools like Sea Gate Elementary School (notice the redlink) in Naples, Florida that only have one or two user editing within their network and of course lacks an article, yet that institution should be marked with SharedIPEDU because it is shared by 726 students + the faculty. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi PCHS. I think you misunderstand me. I am not agruing that companies are less notable than schools. I am arguing that, because the vast majority of companies have fewer than twenty employees, labeling anonymous contributors as being from such a company invades their privacy (it's gotta be one of the twenty), in a way that it does not for most schools (in the example you give, one of 726 students). That's all. But that's really not the primary argument here (maybe I was off-topic to advance it). What's important is that identifying a shared IP as a corporation does not currently serve any functional purpose, unless there is one that you can identify. You asked whether we then proceed to delete other shared IP templates, but that's not at issue here; see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. I'm pleased to discuss this template with you, but could you explain the use of identifying a shared IP as a company? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 00:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to fight here, but I must unfortunately disagree with you. The existance of this template does nothing to invade privacy beyond what the use of Template:SharedIP would do if used on such IP, nor does it imply that such IPs should be flagged any more than the existance of the more general Template:SharedIP. One could similarily argue that flagging small private schools with about 50 students, or even one room schoolhouses with about ten students, with the Template:SharedIPEDU is an invasion of privacy. I made the template for use for categorization purposes and it was inspired by Template:SharedIPEDU. If you're saying that such categorization is not needed, then you must agree that such categorization with schools is not needed either because in absense of a special template for businesses, a special template for schools just outright assumes bad faith. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 16:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, please consider the privacy argument out of scope, then. (I've crossed it out. I'll address it on the talk pages of the relevant templates.) I am indeed saying that the categorization of shared IPs as businesses is not needed. SharedIPEDU is not at issue here, and to discuss it is not consistent with WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. If you can explain to me how disucssing SharedIPEDU is indeed consistent with those guidelines, I'm delighted to discuss it. In the mean time, can you address specifically why the categorization of shared IPs as businesses is needed, without resorting to referencing SharedIPEDU? --Bsherr (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING, but in this case, the Template:SharedIPCORP was inspired by Template:SharedIPEDU, which was already discussed for merging with Template:SharedIP. I'm arguing that Template:SharedIPCORP is equally useful, and overall, I can't see that you really have any rationale to delete it beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, and your support of the other templates seems to support that hypothesis. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:WEDONTNEEDIT is a guideline against saying something is unnecessary without more. I refer you, please, to my nomination rationale, in which I explained why it's unnecessary. With all due respect, what inspired the template is irrelevant. What's relevant is only the template itself. Again, please PCHS, just explain, how is it useful? --Bsherr (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The community has found it useful to have templates for specific types of institutions for quite some time: schools, businesses, public terminals, government institutions, ISPs, mobile IPs, military IPs, etc. Personally, it's an issue I'm neutral on, and I agree with your points to a certain extent, but only if the others (especially Template:SharedIPEDU) could also be discussed under the same rationale. I'm aware that WP:OTHERSUFF isn't a rationale to keep, but I propose that the other templates be discussed as well. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • You know I'm definitely open to discussing the other templates when they're properly within scope. (When and if we discuss EDU, for example, I'll advance arguments specific to that template.) But the purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the community thinks this particular template is useful. The proof of your assertion will be bourne out here, right? --Bsherr (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, basically, my rationale for keeping is for categorization. Nothing more. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that, but why is the categorization of businesses useful? That's why I'm proposing deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Based on your note on my talk page, do you want the categorization just for the purpose of identifying an IP as being owned by a particular company? If so, that's fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with the purposes of SharedIP. It ought to be a user box. --Bsherr (talk) 18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm thinking along the lines of uniformity, categorizing businesses as we do other types of IPs. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's useful just as it is to categorize anything. Most of the shared IPs belong to businesses, government agencies, educational institutions, and ISPs. I consider this one to be a piece of the puzzle. Of course, you can argue that the categorization of shared IPs in general is useless if you'd like, but this discussion only involves one piece of the puzzle. It's like if we were put high schools in each of the 50 states into a sub category but then decided to delete Category:High schools in California because it wasn't useful to categorize them. I urge you to review WP:WEDONTNEEDIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a content category. This category does not further the encyclopedia, and it makes it more complicated to identify shared IPs with templates. But in the spirit of compromise, if it's truly just about the category, why not replace the entire template with a transclusion of SharedIP plus the category tag? Then we can close this and go over to CfD to discuss the merits of the category. Would that work? --Bsherr (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • IF the same were done with SharedIPEDU (especially that one because that one assumes bad faith more than any), SharedIPPublic, ISP, and MobileIP (why did we ever even have that one; wasn't ISP sufficient?). The problem is, I can tell you it isn't going to happen with some of the others that have been here forever, so I think this one should be kept for uniformity.
              • Once again, WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ALLORNOTHING. If you want to do the same with the others, nominate them!! --Bsherr (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • BTW, I did some reading at Wikipedia:Categorization, and this seems to be in a big gray area. It's a form of user page categorization, and policy on user page categorization isn't well defined. I will note that a category contatining Shared IPs in general will be large and for this reason it may be useful to break down the category into subcategories for businesses, schools, government agencies, public terminals, and ISPs. MobileIP might as well be merged with ISP IMO. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not a user page category, because it doesn't categorize user pages, it categorizes user talk pages. It's a project category. --Bsherr (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Policy regarding user talk page categories are defined even less. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Proposal This is going no where. Why don't we collapse all of this and see what the rest of the community decides? I'm not saying I don't agree with you (or that I do agree with you), but I'd like to see what the rest of the community has to say. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Summary + One More Point Consider this from WP:SIP: If the IP address belongs to anything that might be closely related to the above,(a list of major government institutions) or a major corporation, for example Microsoft, Sun, etc. it may be a good idea to notify the committee. What I don't quite understand is why the person who has nominated the template for deletion supports Template:SharedIPGOV, but does not support this one, which, even considering WP:OTHERSTUFF, leads me to believe this is mostly WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IMO, deletion should not be considered until if and when a larger discussion regarding shared templates in general takes place. But that's just my opinion. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now written an essay's worth of valid reasoning for its deletion. You're telling me that you've read all of it, and you think my entire justification reduces to "I don't like it"? --Bsherr (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that it's just a matter of IDONTLIKEIT because, with all due respect, why do you oppose this template whereas you're okay with other templates. I'm aware of essays like WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it's still just strange. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• PCHS has not responded to any of my inquiries asking why the template, compared to the plain Shared IP template, is worth keeping. The existing SharedIPCORP template doesn't even mention SIP. It needlessly complicates the labeling of IPs, and serves no more useful a purpose than a specific template for shared IP addresses of corporations with red logos, or that manufacture chewing gum. I would just point out that it seems, as this nomination is perhaps near closing, that the only one who cares about this template enough to argue for keeping it is its author, who has provided no reason for keeping it other than to arbitrarily preserve this useless categorization. --Bsherr (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I continue to to maintain that this template serves more purpose than templates like Template:SharedIPEDU, whose main purpose is WP:ABF whereas SharedIPCORP is useful because blocks major corporations' IPs should be reported to the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee and of course for the COI reasons below. I also would like to stress the fact that it will be likely extremely difficult to get rid of established templates like SharedIPEDU and having this one at leasts provides a balance so that we're not only singling the EDU IPs out. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly rename. There is an important purpose in having a message box to identify an IP as belonging to a corporation: when a user at that IP persists in editing articles with which they appear to have a conflict of interest -- for example, [User talk:209.242.95.101]], an IP address belonging to Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal which persists in editing that article and others related to it. It's useful to have a message box to notify other editors of the IP's conflict of interest, which is not necessarily immediately apparent. I realize that it muddies the water to also make it a "shared IP" template and that it may make sense to rename this template or build a new one specifically to address potential COI issues. But I think it's important to recognize this additional function that the template serves. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. So you want to rename and convert this template into a COI template for all businesses? I could go along with that. I think the best way to do it would be to create a separate Corp COI template, then replace the contents of this template with transclusions of SharedIP and the Corp COI template, then convert all transclusions of this template to substitutions, and then delete this template. The result would be that every page with this template would instead have SharedIP and the Corp COI template. I'd be fine with that as a consensus. --Bsherr (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have created ((IP COI notice)) -- contributions welcome. Does it seem like ((SharedIP)) plus ((IP COI notice)) are a good replacement for this template? Tim Pierce (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Works for me. I think the idea of a COI template like this is going to need some future discussion, but it doesn't preclude the action here. --Bsherr (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll go ahead and replace ((SharedIPCORP)) with ((IP COI notice)) and ((SharedIP)) then, and I think we can go ahead and close this discussion if there are no further objections. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be better to wait for this TfD to close before making any changes. --Bsherr (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I'll wait. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If I had known this template existed, I would've used it myself. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean keep the template as is, or do you mean keep but substitute with the two other templates? --Bsherr (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the wording, I would assume he means as it exists. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I meant as is. (And I'm a women, by the way!) --I dream of horses (T) @ 15:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator - Just want to call your attention to the "edit, substitute, delete" option that Twp and I have discussed above, since it may not be clear from the !votes. --Bsherr (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would allow this thread to continue a little while longer to possibly establish more consenus either way. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Something to consider This is from Template talk:Shared IP edu: This template was considered for deletion on 2008-12-14. The result of the discussion was snowball keep. Notice the discussion at [6]. Notice how, ironically, it was me that nominated it along with some other templates. I made the same arguement as Bsherr. The only reason this doesn't similarily get snowballed is because it is a newer template. It was decided then that it is useful to have templates like this one. User:Gladys j cotez specifically suggested that more templates be created. This is why we should not yet delete this template; there has been a total of four people comment on this issue and only two support deletion. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:06, 7 October 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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Super League Greece (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This is just two templates put together. When used in many articles it doesn't make sense. For instance, if used at the bottom of an article for a club currently playing in Super League, why should there also be a template for list of seasons? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because like every other League, it has a current season and this template states the teams competing in this current season, while the other one, this one Template:Super_League_Greece_seasons, links to all the League's seasons... Haven't seen you complaining about these two templates: Template:Serie_A_teamlist and Template:Serie_A_seasons. You could merge them in one, like this one: Template:Premier_League, instead of just asking one to be deleted... Heracletus (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Heracletus Aris1983 (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. The Serie A templates make sense. The teamlist template should be used on club pages, and the season list template on the Serie A article, plus the individual season articles. That Premier League template is probably a bit much though. Needs to be thinned. There are lots of things you don't see me complaining about, that doesn't mean that they're correct or not. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should first read what WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is all about before you use it as an argument or counter-argument. The Serie A templates are both used in most italian teams' articles. And, if you find their rationale valid, what is the deal with the greek league templates, the greek league templates are much the same as the italian league ones... Also, i think most people would understand that calling the premier league's template just too much is a stinky argument; that's like the most established league around... You can read the first two paragraphs from here WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS#Deletion_of_articles, so that you at least know what you're talking about?Heracletus (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a valid argument but it's totally reasonless to propose for example the article about Europe for deletion, when you don't have any problem with the articles Asia, Africa etc. Since you are so sensitive about this issue and it bothers you when a template combines the other two, why didn't you ask Template:Ligue 1, Template:Serie A, Template:Fußball-Bundesliga to be deleted too? When a template is widely used, it's a little weird to demand deletion in one particular case. You should propose the deletion of all these templates in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football I guess. - Sthenel (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I haven't seen every template. Saw this one, didn't see the point in it. I'm not at all sensitive about this, so please don't resort to thinly veiled personal attacks. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attack. I've just described what sounds strange to me here. We should avoid any kind of discrimination and since we've noticed that there are other templates like this, we should talk about them being deleted. - Sthenel (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I guess the whole issue of these large templates needs a more general discussion than would be covered here. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:06, 28 September 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 Replace with Template:Infobox settlement and delete. Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Syria Governorate (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant to Template:Infobox governorate (settlement). Dr. Blofeld 20:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree it's redundant. Instead of deleting it, why not simply convert it to a wrapper for ((Infobox settlement))? --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It can easily be substituted and then deleted. It would be different if it was used in hundreds of articles but it isn't.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this one. There is so little in this template, that it would be easier to just replace it, rather than try to refactor it and create a proper wrapper. This is different from other templates which have lots of regional specific information. I agree that wrappers should be considered as a compromise, but in this case I don't think it's the best option. If you want me to perform the conversion, just ping me, it wouldn't take more than about 10 minutes to complete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 07:02, 7 October 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 No consensus Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy disambiguation (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Recently created. Only 6 transclusions. I think the general ((disamb)) is just fine. Categorisation is much better done by categories and not by templates Magioladitis (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Standard ((disamb)) is enough. Too few transclusions. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 15:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The categorization of the resultant page is different between ((Taxonomy disambiguation)) and ((disamb)), which is one useful distinction ("Categorisation is much better done by categories and not by templates" is ridiculous). You might even like to read the doc page for ((disamb)), where several sub-forms of ((disamb)) are listed. Also when did "I don't know of a use for it, and I don't think it's used enough" become an objective policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I could see a use for this template. See Stylidium mitrasacmoides, Stylidium androsaceum, Cosmiza longeciliata, Aranella fimbriata, and Polypompholyx laciniata. And those are just the one's I've created! And we do have ((Species Latin name disambiguation)) and ((Plant common name)). Rkitko ^(talk) 21:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Does this fall under WP:SETINDEX? If so, I reckon it's appropriate. Nevertheless (and this is slightly off-tangent), we're not doing a good enough job of categorising these: several of the templates listed at Template:Callsigndis/doc#See also aren't on Category:Disambiguation message boxes currently. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert into a set-index template, vis-a-vis ((shipindex)) 76.66.200.95 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andy Dingley, some utility with the pages being placed in Category:Taxonomy disambiguation pages which the template does. Not quite sure on the set-index take Limnophila which disambigs a plant and an insect, are those in the same set? --Salix (talk): 14:35, 29 September 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.