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. Clear consensus to keep. Wider discussion about template standardisation and organistation is perhaps needed (WT:SOCK?) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deprecated template and rarely used anywhere. Suggest a redirect to ((Blocked user)). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest redirecting to ((sockblock)) instead. PhilKnight (talk) 19:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Timotheus Canens. PhilKnight (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How about ((sockpuppeteer|blocked|evidence=Foo)) which would link the relevant case. As number of links is small it could quite easily be replaces and the template removed entirely. --Salix (talk): 14:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - As of now, Salix's proposal looks best to me. ((sockpuppeteer)) is the right one, but it does not include the block period as this template does. The two should be merged. --Bsherr (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Timotheus Canens. --Bsherr (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting - There are three different redirect suggestions and one merge suggestion here. Relisting here to gain consensus on which suggestion should be followed. Dana boomer (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wait, what? This is a talk page template intended as a block message, similar to ((sockblock)), but for sockmasters rather than sockpuppets. Redirecting to ((sockblock)) makes no sense. And it is not rarely used either. Finally, I'd appreciate it if someone could notify, you know, WT:SPI when nominating a sock-related template. T. Canens (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about merging with ((sockpuppeteer))? --Bsherr (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, because ((sockpuppeteer)) is for tagging the user page - it's for identifying the user as a sockpuppeteer; this one is directed to the user informing them of the block. T. Canens (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is the user page tagged if the sanction is a temporary block? --Bsherr (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not often, though it depends on the circumstances. T. Canens (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the info, Timotheus. We don't have the template on WP:UTM. Are there other user talk sockpuppetry templates we may be missing there? --Bsherr (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, for sock-related, there's ((sockblock)). T. Canens (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Eesh. Has there been any thought to organizing the names? SockmasterProven is a user talk message, but Sockmaster redirects to Sockpuppeteer, which is for user pages, and Sockblock, despite the name, is only for sockpuppets. What a mess. --Bsherr (talk) 06:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You forgot that ((SockpuppetProven)) redirects to ((Blockedsockpuppet)), which is for...userpages. T. Canens (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Haha. Ahhrggh! --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Then there's Template:SockBlock and Template:Sockblock. --Bsherr (talk) 21:42, 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ga'Hoole 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

All of the links on this template are already included on Template:Ga'Hoole. There is no reason to duplicate the links on a separate template and add a section full of unlinked text. Neelix (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The unlinked text does nothing to aid navigation, otherwise it's just a duplicate of the existing template. PC78 (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete except add a link to the characters, please. That's the one difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrStrangelove64 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 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 Userfy. Although not appropriate for sockpuppet userpages (I removed all transclusions) content could be seen/used as humorous so moved to creator's user space. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think there is a need for this template, nor does it seem very appropriate.  - EdoDodo ^talk 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as inappropriate. Goes against the spirit of basic respect (even for socks, vandals, and those too immature or incompetent to edit well) underlying WP, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, WP:DENY, and DNFTT. On top of which, it doesn't seem to help us any. Kill it now. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hahah. Delete. --Bsherr (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Shouldn't this be nominated at MfD? It's a userbox in disguise, IIRC MfD handles those even if they happen to be in template-space. The editors who best know about userbox keep/delete criteria (and I'm not one of them) would be more likely to know about what to do with the template than TFD regulars. --ais523 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think it meets the definition of a user box per WP:User boxes, because it's not about the user; rather, it's someone else who has tagged a user page because of a process executed on that user. I think it stays here on TfD. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still looks like a userbox to me. If people are tagging other people's userpages with it, that's a problem in itself, but I'm not sure it's inherently the fault of the template. --ais523 21:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I hear that. I don't think it strictly meets the definition, but to the extent that it is one, I think it's fine to WP:IAR and consider it here. I'm not sure that MfD has any greater expertise than we do here on it, and we've already begun discussing it. --Bsherr (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or userfy) for the lulz. Obviously, this shouldn't be used for actual sockpuppet taggings; some humorous content is commonly acceptable outside of the main namespace (for example, Wikipedia:Rouge admin.) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:16, 12 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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Sindh jurisdiction (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

A crude copy of the Infobox Indian jurisdiction template, so far used only once. It gives the false impression that Sindh is part of India. Sindh articles would be better served by using Infobox settlement. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There used to exist a seperate 'Pakistan' infobox concerning such articles. However, it was later deleted as redundant to the more effective Infobox settlement. This template should be deleted as articles concerning Sindh are no different. Mar4d (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 6 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. WOSlinker (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As currently formatted this template does not provide any genuine encyclopedic content, rather it poses a question to the reader in a manner that seems both unhelpful and unprofessional. The "problem" should be discussed properly in the article text, and if it is necessary to direct the reader to a related list of unsolved problems then this should be done with a ((see also)) hatnote or similar. PC78 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unencyclopedic, looks like it belongs on a newsmagazine article or something. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually feel that this should be reformatted as a proper sidebar. These are long-standing, fairly well deployed, and at one point at least were accessible directly from the main page IIRC. I think that "unsolved problems in science" is a reasonably well-defined group for a nav template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a ((unsolved problems)) navtemplate. PC78 (talk) 18:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the same thing, even remotely, because the "unsolved problems" template seems to be used only in lists of unsolved problems. It's not used in the middle of an article at the point where an unsolved problem appears. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rather than butting in, why not read the context in which that comment was made? PC78 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. Indeed. In that case, this acts much like a portal link, and as it isn't currently used like one it's inappropriate. TBH I would rather that we didn't have the navbox and just used sidebars, but for now the navboxes should suffice rather than this nonstandard template. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Essentially this is like an infobox for unsolved scientific problems. I consider it very useful. —bender235 (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it's not an infobox at all, nor a proper sidebar. It's a random, nonstandard insert. There's already a navbox, so we shouldn't need two different templates for this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 15:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, it's a bit unprofessional. Instead it's personal, which I find endearing. I think WP needs to have that personal touch sometimes - in a tasteful and helpful manner, which I think this qualifies. I think the template is very helpful: both including knowledge about the topic but clearly separating it from the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.45.60 (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should be restricted to Portalspace. Or Outline articles. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I must disagree; I think it is helpful (it's helped me find my way to some very interesting pages while I was browsing - ways that categories likely wouldn't have). And yes it is unorthodox but I don't find it necessarily unprofessional (I would be glad to introduce the template to a society of important people!). In any case asking a question is a completely legitimate exercise if it is clearly meant to show that the question is unanswered: it is less clumsy and more attention-grabbing to say "Unanswered question: is the universe expanding?" than to say "Unanswered problem: whether or not the universe is expanding" (or worse, footnote without any graphics or font change: "Category:Unanswered problems in Physics"). Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Change to Jeopardy - It should be posed as a open ended statement rather then a question, though jeopardy isn't quite so open ended, so something similar... Also what is this "professional" non-sense? Set the standard for what "professional" is and don't worry what others are doing. --Mature Related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.245.101 (talk) 20:29, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think it's a nice touch. --jmenkus ^[T] 21:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep useful entry point. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - it seems like a useful way of highlighting "the article describes what we know now, but there are some important questions here that are the subject of current research", in a way that a navbox at the bottom of the page doesn't. In any case, it seems to be used in quite a few articles, which suggests that their editors feel that it makes a positive contribution to those articles. Perhaps it would be better to try removing the template from a few articles that use it, and see what the response is. Djr32 (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(An aside - if this discussion is going to go on for long, could someone fix it so that the TfD notification doesn't screw up the template's appearance in articles. Though having said that, I only realised that there was a TfD because the template in Quantum mechanics was screwed up! Djr32 (talk))

• Weak keep. There has long been consensus that visual cues are helpful for elucidating content in Wikipedia, and there is a reasonable case to be made that this template does serve such a purpose. I'm not completely convinced that it is necessarily the best way to go about drawing attention to unsolved problems, but obviously some readers and editors have found the template useful and helpful. None of the above arguments for deletion seem to be very convincing (there is an unsolved problems footer mentioned above as well, but one clearly intended to serve a different purpose). Absent any more compelling reason to delete, I vote to keep it. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely keep. I was just looking at the article titled perfect number. The question of whether there are any odd perfect numbers was tagged with this template. The question of whether there are infinitely many perfect numbers was not, so I so tagged it. This template is not for whole articles about unsolved problems, nor for articles that are lists of unsolved problems, but rather it's for points within articles where unsolved problems are mentioned. Those are worth highlighting. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The question method of presentation for an open problem is a valid choice, and makes sense in certain contexts. Blanket deletion of this option, with accompanying visual cue, would remove value from the encyclopedia. Ray^Talk 03:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unsolved problems provides an interesting and useful index through the material on Wikipedia, making the content more accessible and educational. If the problem is with the formatting of the template, this could be changed, but I wouldn't like to see it go away. Gyro Copter (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Makes Wikipedia more of a user-friendly encyclopædia and less of a 3,434,232-page paper/DOS encyclopædia from AD 1000. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I just ran into it, and it added nothing to the article I was reading but random confusion. Huw Powell (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would be better expressed as prose in the article content rather than a box on the side. I have no idea why someone thought we needed a box on the side for this. --Nat682 (talk) 05:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As mentioned above, the template adds to Wikipedia. As for the 'not professional' argument I completely disagree: this notice feels like one of those "did you know" or "extra information" boxes that you see when reading a textbook. Remember that Wikipedia is not paper and does not need to adhere to standard encyclopedic format. Also note that I said "like a textbook". These boxes are still informative to the reader, not instructional, so there is nothing really preventing the existence of templates like these. --Stux (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The template gives consistency to pages on unsolved problems, and adds to the visual variety of what might otherwise be unappetizing pages of text. 129.186.253.15 (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It could be better formatted, as recommended above. But as long as it's only used in truly unsolved problems, I don't see a problem with it. The biggest risk I see is people misusing it for things like evolution and global warming, but I see no evidence of that currently. -W0lfie (talk) 19:48, 9 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 You may be right (or wrong) but TFD isn't the venue. Keep Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British Isles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deletion reason number 4 - template violates a policy such as NPOV. This template is called British Isles. It is itended as a navigation template linking all articles related to British Isles. After this discussion, thanks to a small number of editors who completely misunderstand WP:NPOV and want to apply it to the British Isles naming dispute (itself a wholly disputed article), to mean that readers can be presented with a different world view depending on the page they are reading, the template has been changed from the standard format - presenting the title simply as British Isles on all articles where the template is used, it now has some gobbledygook implementation where it has three or four different apparent names if it being used on an article where the title is 'offensive', and in those cases, the notional parent article is then relegated to the body of the template. This is a clear violation of NPOV - it is a complete and utter fantasy that the way NPOV is achieved is by changing content in this manner. If the template cannot be presented in a uniform manner that is of use to both readers and editors, who rightly expect all navigation templates to follow this simple format, then it should not exist at all. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree - with the nomination sentiment, however feel that deletion solves nothing, so for the time being I am not going to !vote on this. I have kept out of matters relating to British Isles over the last few weeks, but it is an inescapable fact that to the vast majority of the English speaking world the archipelago is called the "British Isles". It is unfortunate that an extremely small number of people take offence because they fell that calling it that some how implies that the island of Ireland somehow "belongs" to the United Kingdom, but that does not excuse the amount of disruption to WP, the amount of admin time taken up on this dispute that only barely exists. I freely concede that there are a number of cases where well meaning editors have used British Isles when referring to either GB or the UK with out understanding their mistake and it is right and proper that these be fixed. We are all meant to be here to build a encyclopaedia, and this sort of issue really brings WP into disrepute. Codf1977 (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree The template was changed slightly following the discussion linked to above but not in the way described. The ability to change the heading of the template on certain pages has been a feature of the template since its first use in 2006 (12 December 2006). It is an unusual feature but one that has worked well for the past four years on a contentious subject and is in no way a violation of NPOV. Compare its appearance on Great Britain and Ireland for example. Calling for the template to be deleted is utterly OTT. --RA (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Prove it. Show me exactly where this sort of screwing around with templates and presenting different world views in different articles is "in no way a violation of NPOV". Prove it using a policy wording or comparable precedent, don't waste any more time rehashing the same points as was done in that discussion, which have absolutely nothing to do with navigation templates. I want specific proof you know what you are talking about in this specific case. You've been asked repeatedly to do that, you've even been invited to prove your interpretation was correct by consulting with Jimbo, and you've completely refused to do anything of the sort. And this recent change was not a small change, the previous implementation simply pipelinked 'Britain and Ireland' in the title to British Isles. While that is completely innaccurate, it is nowhere near as bad as what has followed. The fact that it being like that went unnoticed for years is evidence of absolutely nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree I love the way some people consider using anything other than BI as a POV. Proof it. Show me exactly where this sort of screwing around with templates and presenting different world views in different articles is "a violation of NPOV". Bjmullan (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What was supposed to be the substance of this rationale? You haven't made any sense at all as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dido Mick dido. Bjmullan (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you know the sense behind my nomination, you just do not want to accept it, which is your right, if a little misguided, and certainly not backed by anything of substance or by policy, unless some evidence arrives soon. Your rationale by contrast really is just incomprehensible, I have not one single idea what you are attempting to say, and can only assume it will be ignored as an invalid justavote. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing you should assume Mick is good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and go somewhere else - I don't see any reason to destroy a fine template over a disagreement on what it should be named. You all have to settle on a naming convention, a task that has proved impossible so far but which I hope, like peace in the Middle East and independence from fossil fuels, will be achieved sometime shortly after my lifetime. Meanwhile, you're disturbing the peace here. Find a talk page and fight there. (My Goode's World Atlas says British Isles. Ethnocentric bastards.) --Bsherr (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a valid geographic region, and archipelago. Renaming templates does not occur at TFD. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Codf1977's non-!voting rationale. The template is called "British Isles" and my belief is that that name should be the name used. I believe the controversial parameter that prompted this should be used to append alternative names, not hide the template name to appease editors' sensibilities. "British Isles - also called 'Britain and Ireland'" (or similar alternatives) seems to me to be a perfectly workable solution, and it's unfortunate that neither "side" seem prepared to compromise. However deletion is not the answer. TFOWR 08:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mick - help me out here understanding what you are suggesting. You're saying that you disagree with the ability to "rename" the template, so why delete it? Why not argue for removing the ability, or changing the ability as per TFWOR above - and if that's already happened, simply accept consensus. Your making a case for deletion seem connected with the ability to rename the article, but that doesn't mean the template isn't of value. --HighKing (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A naming dispute is no reason to delete the entire very useful template. --Joowwww (talk) 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For the benefit for those that missed it, the reason for deletion is that the template violates NPOV. This is not a request to rename it, it is a request to delete it. And if you click on the provided link, violating NPOV is very much a valid reason to delete a template. A template that violates NPOV is not 'useful' in the slightest, unless of course, it meets someone's personal POV. MickMacNee (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but if the extent of the POV is just the name of the template, why not just rename it? Why must it be deleted if it can be adjusted by less drastic measures? --Bsherr (talk) 00:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeking a rename. The displayed title of the template is being changed in certain places where it is used, to reflect different world views based on what article you are reading, contrary to NPOV. If this if removed and the template is changed to use just the standard and perfectly normal implementaion used by every other template out there, then deletion won't be necessary. If it doesn't though, it still patently violates NPOV, which is a clear justification for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do the variable titles violate NPOV? --Bsherr (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And why can't the template just be edited to eliminate the variable title? --Bsherr (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it presents a different POV of the term for readers, based on what article the template is placed on. The theory behind this is the entirely flawed assumption that readers of one POV read one set of articles, and vice versa, and NPOV exists to ensure readers are only presented with 'their' POV on 'their' articles. This is of course absolute garbage - Wikipedia's NPOV policy is there to ensure that it presents the same view, the neutral view, irrespective of what article you are reading. This view changing implementation is an example of Wikipedia taking a side in the dispute, rather than neutrally documenting the dispute. This is of course a fundemental violation of NPOV.
        • Due to the inability of one side of the dispute to realise their understanding of NPOV is flawed, and their complete unwillingess and inability to have their view checked or reinforced by outside, neutral, input, from the community. I made the suggestion that if their view of NPOV was so right, then Jimbo would have no problem agreeing with it. The response to that was incredible tbh. In the face of such craziness, there's no option left but to delete the template, because it fails NPOV, and cannot be fixed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, Jimbo is not a one man WP:CONSENSUS. I'm still having trouble understanding how a dispute over the neutrality of the template gets us to deletion as the only remedy. Why not just delete the name of the template until the matter is resolved, for example? It'll look stupid, but it's better than deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Absolutely not. I can think of not one single neutrality dispute where Jimbo's interpretation of it has not been right. He effectively wrote the policy, so he should know what it is all about. As for just not having a name, yes, that does sound completely ridiculous as a solution. Deletion is the only alternative when you get to the situation outlined on the talk page, people making it up as they go along, and implementing 'solutions' that violate core policies. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Current count is two editors want it deleted and six want it kept. Maybe this should be closed as totally pointless. Bjmullan (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you should read WP:NOTAVOTE and get a clue. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The arguments for deletion are not related to Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the nomination seems pointless to me. There is no way that the template (other than the title) violates NPOV, and unless there is some agreement that the concept is inherently POV, that is not sufficient reason to delete. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How are they not related? Are you saying NPOV allows this sort of differential world view presentation? If so, please prove it, because as far as I know, it cannot, and does not. This is just Wikipedia basics. And because of that, this is very much a valid deletion rationale. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep- only just noticed this, of course the template should not be deleted, a compromise now exists which has solved the naming issues. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a basic violation of NPOV. No 'compromise' that violates core policies is ever acceptable. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and oppose renaming – British Isles is the name of the relevant article and the name most often used in English. A link to British Isles naming dispute is at the top of the navbox, which provides the POVs of both sides to readers. If the navbox is to be renamed, then so should the main article, but I would strongly oppose any renaming. None of my opinions are related to my nationality. McLerristarr / Mclay1 03:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You've got this completely wrong. I am not wanting to rename the template and I do not object to its current name. Quite the opposite, the issue is that it is NOT being called British Isles in some places where it is used. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete template I can't see any point in the existence of an arbitrary and artificial template that contains Ireland, Guernsey, and Cornish. We don't have templates yoking Switzerland and Denmark together. When British Isles naming disputes occur, proponents of the term "British Isles" claim it's a "valid geographical term" but in other cases of multiple countries being considered as a named group, the name of one country is not used as the umbrella term. The terms "Scandinavia" and "Nordic Countries" are unlike calling the area "the Swedish Peninsula" after the biggest country. This template should be deleted because it is unnecessary, arbitrary, and causes offense. Alternatively, it could be divested of its Irish content and used as a British template. --O'Dea (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, we do have a template yoking Switzerland and Denmark together, called Template:Europe. They happen to share the common geographical feature, a continent, like the UK and Ireland happen to share the same geographical feature, an archipelago. Denying the name does not deny the existence of the thing, and if it exists, it's welcome to an article and a template, regardless of what it's called. --Bsherr (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm pretty sure that if the coding of the Europe template were tweaked to not say 'Europe' on every single article it is used on, but to use some other fringe term to suit some particular countries, then there would most definitely be an NPOV objection. It's the same situation here, except the option to have it say the same thing is seemingly impossible here, so deletion is the only thing left, and is more than valid. And to use your terms, the alternate title in use on some articles does actually deny the existence of parts of the BI which the template links together. 03:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You may be sure, but if Template:Europe were indeed changed to produce "Switzerland's Neighbors" or "Greater Brussels", depending on placement, then what I hope would happen is that the template would get fixed, not deleted. We don't delete articles for fixable defects; even an article without sources can survive an AfD if it is seen that refs are available. Adding the refs, since they exist, is addressing the problem, and obviates the need for deletion. The philosophy is that fixable things shouldn't be deleted as the first response (COPYVIO and defamatory BLP stuff excepted); they should be fixed. This TfD is inappropriate, in my view, as the template is useful (if occasionally misused), and I believe we should keep it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What other well-known name is there for that archipelago off the coasts of France & Norway? (Yeah, I know there's an entire cottage industry dedicated to abolishing the use of "British Isles" on Wikipedia. However if we rid Wikipedia of that label, what do we call it? "The Islands of Beer, Whiskey & Cider"?) -- llywrch (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As above, you appear to have completely misunderstood this nomination. It is requested to delete the template precisely because it's coding has been changed so that it is not being called British Isles in certain articles. It is not me who wants this template to be known or displayed as anything else at all, other than it's current name of British Isles. MickMacNee (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What I understand is that there exists on Wikipedia a fringe group who doesn't like that "British Isles" is often used to include Ireland. And this nomination for deletion is arguably being disruptive to make a point. Unless you can present an alternative & well-known name for this archipelago which meets your "NPOV" standards, you are rattling a lot of cages best left alone. -- llywrch (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And for the second time, you have completely misunderstood the nomination. I want it to remain as British Isles, and be called British Isles everywhere it is used, which it has been altered not to do so, in violation of NPOV. I've got absolutely no idea why you think that constitues disruption, and want me to come up with some alternate name to British Isles. So put your "NPOV" scare quotes away, and read the rationale again, and the talk page discussion which led to the change which led to this deletion nomination. You ahve got the wrong end fo the stick completely. MickMacNee (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Regardless of what the various peoples of the islands believe they should be called, or which islands should logically be linked, they ARE viewed as the British Isles by the vast majority of humans on earth. the link to the naming dispute gives it near perfect NPOV to my reading. This is an extremely encyclopedic grouping of islands. I dont know how Jimbo sees this yet, but i would argue against him if he were to suggest deletion of this template due to a naming dispute. If the template's variable naming is a problem, that specific problem should be addressed, perhaps at the sites where it has a different name, or a discussion with a different purpose here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That discussion has been had, and the result was what you see here now: a very basic and very obvious violation of NPOV. Why people are pretending this is not really an issue, or is not a core part of the template, or that violating NPOV is not really a criteria for deletion, is beyond me. The template has a different title and arrangement depending on what page it is on. You couldn't get a more screamingly obvious violation of NPOV for a template that supposedly deals with one sensibly grouped geographic area, than if you coded it so that it displayed in green white and orange colours when used on Irish articles, and red white and blue when on British ones. Yes, the template would not need to be deleted if it didn't do this, but it does do it, and that is not going to change if the same people who made that alteration do not have a complete and utter reversal in their opinions as to how NPOV on Wikipedia actually works. MickMacNee (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep & make changes to the Template, if most disagree with its current makeup. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. It's uncontroversial to call the British Isles just that in most contexts. It is not uncontroversial to do so in an Ireland context, so alternative wording is used in that situation. That's exactly the same situation as with any other template that has WP:ENGVAR options to make it usable on pages of all variants of English. Hans Adler 21:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely not. You are comparing the difference between spelling color and colour, with issues of NPOV. These are completely and utterly incompatible, and ENGVAR is totally irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How long will this discussion be keep open? This really is a pointless and a total waste of time. Please can someone close this. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:46, 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 Delete. Recommend similar discussions for ((Infobox Survivor contestant)) and ((Project Runway contestant)) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Amazing Race contestant (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

((Infobox person)) is a much better template for these people. This infobox gives hardly any information, and is used in fewer than 10 articles. Check Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_15 for a similar discussion. Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I get that some of these people are notable for appearing on a reality TV show, but we don't need such overly specific infoboxes for each and every show, filled with trivial details such as who a person was teamed up with. We should also consider ((Infobox Survivor contestant)) and ((Project Runway contestant)) on the same basis. PC78 (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, most Amazing Race contestants with articles are otherwise notable (mostly pageant winners, a couple of Survivor/Big Brother winners, Harlem Globetrotters, etc). The vast majority of them do not have any articles here. (Not that I'm saying keep it, I'm just saying, most if not all of them have articles for reasons other than TAR. In fact, that's a big argument for not having the template.) --Golbez (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don't see any reason to delete. Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It looks like all the transclusions already have an infobox ("pageant winner" or "person"), which makes most of the information presented by this template redundant. I suggest moving anything that can be moved to a "person" or "pageant winner" template, and then delete this one. Of course, these other templates won't have all the fields, but things like "partner" and "finish" in the Amazing race can be put in prose form in the corresponding Amazing Race section in the article, so no information is lost. After all, not everything has to be in the infobox. Trivia like "partner" and "finish" are not defining traits of an individual. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having separate templates for individual shows is overkill. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:53, 10 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.