< April 21	April 23 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SpongeBob SquarePants characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template lists characters of SpongeBob SquarePants. However, these characters are already linked on the main template, ((SpongeBob SquarePants)). — AMK152^{(Talk • Contributions • Send message)} 22:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't create it for no reason and it has a better background colour. --98E 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is already linked. As for background color 98E, be bold and change it on ((SpngeBob Squarepants)) perhaps. Jmlk17 22:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For video games they separate the characters template from the series template, but I'm against that movement because that makes navigation harder and the main SpongeBob template isn't so large. Some colours you may change it to according to Image:SpongeBob Square.PNG: the color of the letters (#fff200), which isn't an improvement, or the color of SpongeBob (#f9f370), which is better on the eyes, or the default when you don't specify any color. –Pomte 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Just use main one. - hmwithtalk 07:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per hmwith. ~ Magnus animum _{(aka Steptrip)} 00:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Countries and territories bordering the Indian Ocean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template just clutters the bottom of country articles. The Indian Ocean article should be sufficient to provide a list of bordering countries. — Shiva0x007 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Weak Keep Yes, it could just be potential clutter, but at the same time, it adds a level of geographic authority. Jmlk17 21:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All these countries aren't so inextricably linked by the ocean that a reader shall find it of navigational benefit to browse between each pair of them. –Pomte 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Edit conflict'd delete - this is a way to group countries that, while useful in some cases, does not work as a navigational tool. Gracenotes^T § 22:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep -- considering the section of the globe involved, the ability to see what else is connected without going through an unnecessary navigation via an intermediary page like Indian Ocean is a useful tool that ought be allowed to the discretion of the editors writing those articles. Picking that information out of a big page is not all that simple, and this is organized to enhance the understanding of the associations by region and continent. This is an excellent use of a template, and if it weren't used it would be one thing, but this has good use and transclusion. This kind of decision is the perview of the editors of the articles not this body. If the editors on those pages have put and kept it there, I don't see we should be telling them they're wrong. Note that many are small, relatively unheard of corners of the world, so having such a connections template from them to better know geography makes sense, and giving an extra link to them in contrast gives no harm and could educate the curious from the better known places. Lastly, I don't buy at all the noms contention these collapsed templates needlessly clutter a page bottom. That's frankly part of wikipedia's look see and feel and can't be duplicated by the competition, so don't gripe about a virtue. This is right up the right alley per WP:Btw! Besides, the only people looking down that low on a page are looking for nav templates or categories. T'is way below refs and see also's last I looked at an article organization in MOS. // FrankB 04:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a country/territory isn't a guide to surrounding geography. Immediately adjacent areas are of course relevant and thus appropriately linked in the lead paragraph or elsewhere. The creator (User:Akanemoto) was the one who transcluded this in all those articles on November 2. Is there evidence that the editors necessarily support it? Maybe they just think it is Wikipedia convention, seeing how it's used in all the other country articles so their country of interest shouldn't miss out. Anyone seeking to learn more of exotic places can find List of countries. You say that some of them are small and relatively unheard of, so they're not directly relevant at all. A reader expects to find navigation tools at the bottom, yes, but seeing the bottom of Kuwait it's the most minor of the bunch, detracting from the others. Sharing the wide border of an ocean is a lot more arbitrary than belonging to the same pact or land region. –Pomte 05:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete -- Not again. This is the same user who created (already deleted) sea templates. Having navigational template is nice, but imagine a country who has a lot of sea/ocean borders. Take for instance, Indonesia. Do you want to see half of the page at the bottom fill with templates of countries and territories bordering with Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, Timor Sea, etc. The only thing that the template is appropriate to be placed is in Indian Ocean article. — Indon (reply) — 09:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This template is factual and is for geographical navigation within Wikipedia's articles. --Effer^AKS 02:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have geographical templates all over the place. There's nothing wrong with this one. YechielMan 19:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per comments by YechielMan Booksworm Talk to me! 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but modify, it seems a sensible and useful tool. I'm not sure, though, about having all the Persian Gulf states (especially since we don't have the Red Sea states), and we definitely need to be less repetitious — no need to list the Keeling Islands three times :-) Nyttend 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Elves of Krynn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template isn't used anywhere (to my knowledge). Even if it was, it is at best a navigation template. However, the five links which have information on Wikipedia are all contained in one article, and the others do not have any information on Wikipedia, nor should they, as I am familiar with most of them and are likely non notable. So this template is essentially useless. There was a similar deletion discussion for the template Dwarves of Krynn, which resulted in deletion. — DoomsDay349 17:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too many deadlinks and not used? Delete it. Jmlk17 21:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Speaker of the Stars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Accompanying article was deleted a while back, dunno why I didn't get to this template. Without an article to go with it, should be deleted. — DoomsDay349 17:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree: no page, no template. Should have been done awhile ago. Jmlk17 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Should be automatic. - hmwithtalk 07:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The only Template CSD is for divisive and inflammatory templates, so we have to go through the TFD process. DoomsDay349 20:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not much point in keeping. --Infrangible 00:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 03:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is already ((lang-ka)), and this template is not currently used. Also request delete Template:Kat and Template:Geo since they're redirect links.--✉ Hello World! 12:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unneeded, unused, and unnecessary. Jmlk17 21:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is no need for this template. -Mschel 00:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant to ((lang-ka)). —dima/talk/ 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-Old regime Iraq (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template claims that we accept anything before the US invaded them is PD. While this is the case with certain countries (most likely the US), Wikipedia:Copyrights#Afghanistan.2C_Bhutan.2C_Ethiopia.2C_Iran.2C_Iraq.2C_Nepal.2C_San_Marino.2C_Yemen says we should respect their copyright. Used on a very few images. Kotepho 08:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete It's not a good template in its current form, but perhaps a re-write without the 2003 date would make it a better template. Jmlk17 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep As per what's said before, I'd rather it stay up and have someone tackle the necessary changes. matt91486 05:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rewrite. - hmwithtalk 07:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The photos tagged with the template are obviously free for us to use and of important historical value in a number of articles. The legalism of the rationale for deletion is silly. Who seriously believes that legislation in Bhutan, a country that until recently banned televisions, has anything to do with our use of images released by the Iraqi government before 2003 on the Internet? And yes, we are primarily concerned with U.S. law. Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, not Bhutan, Yemen, or San Marino. 172 | Talk 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but shorten the details, maybe. Booksworm Talk to me! 11:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:University of California, Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete This template was an experiment by another user to re-create a template that already existed, but which he did not know about. I have worked with that user to improve the pre-existing template (here: Template:UC Davis) up to the standards he was trying for in the template up for deletion, and now his original experiment is redundant and should be deleted. It does not link to anything and is merely floating uselessly in Wikispace. — Dynaflow 07:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete No use, was copied from a better existing template, and as Dynaflow said, is just floating in Wikispace. Get rid of it. Jmlk17 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete- Same as Jmlk17. - hmwithtalk 07:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Per all above comments. -Mschel 01:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect Doppelganger2 to other. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Doppelganger-other (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template is redundant to ((Doppelganger2)). Doppelganger2 seems to be more widely used. — Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a second look and it seems that the "other" is used more often than "2". Perhaps my nomination should be flipped around. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 05:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - It looks like the functionality and operation is the same so redirect ((Doppelganger2)) to ((Doppelganger-other)) which was created first. Adambro 12:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Agree with Adambro. - hmwithtalk 07:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Serbia city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Speedy Delete. This is basically a recreation and change of name of Template:Infobox City Serbia4 which is up for deletion on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#April_17. This template is used on 4 articles which can be standardized to Infobox City. Changing the name to avoid deletion isn't a solution and we shouldn't create more specialized templates when the standard templates look and function just as well, if not better. MJCdetroit 03:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and Speedy Delete Just an attempt to elude the deletion attempt MJCdetroit pointed out. Jmlk17 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Is there a strong reason for the background color? –Pomte 22:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - WP:CSD#G4, it should seem.</s Gracenotes^T § 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as merely obsolete, from what I can gather. My apologies for the confusion... Gracenotes^T § 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold on. Template:Infobox City Serbia4 is still not deleted, so CSD G4 does not apply. However, I fail to see a consensus to apply Template:Infobox city instead. Heck, even Paris uses a country-specific infobox. In my opinion, Infobox city is too general for country-specific needs: for example the left-column links go to nebulous pages such as Subdivision instead of [[Subdivisions of (({country))}]]. If you can show me that Infobox city can provide the same functionality, I'll convert the templates on 4 using pages myself. Duja► 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, the other one wasn't deleted? I must have misread something somewhere. Thank you for pointing this out. Gracenotes^T § 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox city is designed to be very very flexible and to accommodate all country-specific needs. As for your example, you just have to link to the page that you want. If you wanted to display "District" but link to the article "Districts of Country X" the code would look something like this:

|subdivision_type =Country
|subdivision_name = [[Somewhereia]]
|subdivision_type1 = [[Districts of Somewhereia|District]]
|subdivision_name1 = Example District

Notice that they are linked only if the user wants them to be linked. —MJCdetroit 16:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum: I should have looked at your user contribs first, it looks like you figured it out for Novi Sad.—MJCdetroit 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :-). OK, I'll go ahead and convert the Infoboxes for other three cities. If anything, I hope that it will settle the Serbian city infoboxes issue for good -- at a time, the 4 cities had 3 different infoboxes, and Serbs (as usual) could not agree whose is the nicer one ;-). Ergo, delete when the job is done. Duja► 08:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.