< September 7	September 9 >

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 no consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Visitor attractions in New York City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm considering withdrawing the nominations in order to work outside the formal TfD process to re-work these 2 templates. I think they're salvageable, if WP:V can be satisfactorily addressed. Wl219 05:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to a template like this, but my question on its talk page (regarding whether the listed attractions are popular based on visitorship or tourism revenue or whatnot) was never answered. So this is a procedural TfD to generate consensus on whether to keep or force a rewrite (WP:V, WP:RS) or delete (WP:NOT#INFO). — Wl219 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didnt see the comment on the talk page, but I've responded with more information about ranking the attractions by mentions on various top ten lists. If you have a better suggestion for how to build the list, feel free to edit. I'm interested if there is additional consensus on this topic as well. dm 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating Paris, since it seems to have similar problems.

Template:Visitor attractions in Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Weak delete, the template is not indiscriminate, since it has scope, but the scope (described on the talk page) is not intuitive or clearly defined. This category seems to be better for the sort of purpose this template attempts to serve. That said, the template is not harmful or bad in any way, so this opinion of mine is tentative to further discussion. Gracenotes^T § 02:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I created it so I'm biased... If people want to delete, it, whatever, but I would hope for more consensus....dm 06:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because there are hundreds and hundreds of visitors attractions in New York City and there is no way to determine which ones qualify as "popular" and are suitable for the template. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dmadeo posted some of the criteria he used at Template talk:Visitor attractions in New York City, to which I've replied. Essentially the only top attractions list used which I think passes WP:RS muster is the one put out by MSNBC/Forbes. Wl219 18:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Malcolm (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete, awkwardly defined, somewhat overly promotional, not really necessary. Like Gracenotes, I think the category does a better job overall. On the plus side, this is small and fairly unobtrusive. On the minus, its very smallness, when NYC has so many attractions makes it seem biased and subjective, even if it's not really. Also, its smallness severely limits its usefulness. But of course, if it's based on reliable sources, well, there are lots and lots of those, which also means that it has the potential to grow dramatically, and become intrusive and distracting. It's not terrible--I'd even call it a good attempt--but I just don't think it's good enough for Wikipedia. Xtifr _tälk 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've updated the template based on Wl219's suggestions dm 23:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, the Category mentioned above is specific to buildings identified by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commision as a New York City Landmark. The latest list of those includes more than 1200 buildings and 79 historic districts. You'll note I've been updated the NRHP entries for many of them dm 00:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Cant determine which landmarks qualify as popular" is not a good reason to delete this template. Editors can be bold and include all attractions (if necessary, discuss on talk page). See similar template such as Template:San Francisco Attractions or Template:Oakland Attractions. Chris! _{my talk} 02:47, 14 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Keihan Electric Railway Keishin Line (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Keihan Keishin Line already exists for the same purpose. — Sushiya 23:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, redundant to the second template, which has more links! *Cremepuff222* 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I created it cause I couldnt find the first template, sorry about that --Dex1337 12:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that this nom has now crossed WP:CSD G7, so speedy delete. Slambo (Speak) 10:54, 10 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. This navagation template is a bit pointless, as all of the articles link to one another anyway. It is too brief, too small and not needed. — Dalejenkins | 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, agreed. There's no need to use a template for this. An infobox would be a better choice. *Cremepuff222* 00:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is every need to use this template. I hardly see how an infobox is a better choice at all. Infoboxes for television shows as minor as this one are listed for deletion all the time because there are hardly any use for them. Sebi _[talk] 03:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this is far better than an eponymous category, and likewise better than an infobox (both of which I would argue to delete if they existed). This is for some TV show, right? Anyway, navboxes are generally preferred for this type of content. And while there's not a lot of material here, I think there's probably enough (if barely) to justify the use of a navbox. Articles usually have a wide variety of links of varying relevance. I think that navboxes at the bottom of the article highlighting the most relevant links are fairly useful in many cases (as long as there aren't too many on a given article). Xtifr _tälk 11:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dalejenkins (talk · contribs). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er...I voted delete. Dalejenkins | 19:38, 14 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Without consensus or discussion at WikiProject Comics, template created that links to an outside open wiki in violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples ("Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources.")

Consensus was against a similar template (see here), which had an additional WP:COI concern but was rejected for open-wiki policy as well (see admin discussion at User talk:JamieHari#DC Database link at Batman. --Tenebrae 14:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not too sure what WP:RSEX has to do with this template, since it's cleary intended for use in the external links section of an article, and not with regard to references. Assuming that links to this site are valid and not regarded as linkspam, then I don't really see a problem in having a template for this purpose. PC78 14:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't believe Wikipedia should be linking to notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, non-encyclopedic, outside comic-book wikis. WikiProject Comics has enough work trying to keep its own Wikipedia entries at an encyclopedic tone with authoritative references. But as in any fan-driven pop-culture topic, there is obsessiveness, rumor-mongering and a tendency to turn wikis into fan sites of highly questionable accuracy. There is no reason to direct our users to such open wikis.

• • Additionally, regarding these being external links, they were the only references at all in many articles — and in any case, Wikipedia:External links says open wikis are to be avoided except in very narrow circumstances that would certainly require consensus agreement among editors.--Tenebrae 15:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:RSEX has nothing to do with this. Those links are useful for potential fans looking for more details on the subjects, which Wikipedia doesn't necessarily offer, per What Wikipedia is not. A simple link like this would avoid and confine fancruft to that wiki alone. Tenebrae seemed adamand in having as much as ELs deleted based on a partial rule. The whole thing goes:

Wikis, including Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation are not regarded as reliable sources. However, wikis are excellent places to locate primary and secondary sources.

Notice the bold part. It clearly says that other wikis are "excellent places" to find primary and secondary sources. Therefore, ELs like these are not used as sources, and thus do not violate Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Examples.

Moreover, his tone in "I don't believe Wikipedia should be linking to notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, non-encyclopedic, outside comic-book wikis" totally goes against WP:NPOV. His calling this Wiki "notoriously inaccurate and unreliable" makes his request biased. If this POV were widely consensual, then there wouldn't be ELs templates such as Template:Sww or Template:Memoryalpha. --217.129.169.136 16:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are the user who asked for this template, so you are not a disinterested party. Second, you misrepresent or misinterpret. "Excellent places to find primary and secondary sources" means they can help you find authoritative sources — nowhere does it say to link to open wikis.

As for those two you mention, WP:EL clearly states we are to avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Whether the wiki in question meets that high criteria is an open question — one that needs to be decided by consensus at WikiProject Comics, not unilaterally. --Tenebrae 16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This was not intended to be used for references, and is in fact particularly ill-formatted for references. It is intended to provide "further reading" links to a niche-topic wiki. Let's allow the reader to judge how reliable other wikis are. I'm well aware of the problem of linkspam. I made the template because this particular Wiki is fairly well established with 3,000 pages and 200,000 registered users, and links to it were already pretty common in DCAU-type articles, so we might as well unify the syntax. If you want a blanket statement "DCAUW links are banned from comics articles", establish that first, then delete the template. Don't use a TfD procedure to solve a comics content dispute. —dgies^t_c 17:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

**Note: The above editor's comment needs to be taken in the context that he is so disruptive on Wikipedia, evidently using multiple accounts, that he was blocked here on Revision as of 07:22, 8 September 2007. --Tenebrae 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, he's an administrator. --217.129.169.136 15:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Admins can be disruptive and be blocked like any other editor. And the fact that one behaves in a disruptive way speaks to one's credibility and judgment. --Tenebrae 16:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are humans, every human can be disruptive. Also, bringing up someone's history, regardless of them being editors or admins, to undermine their opinion on an unrelated and non sequitur argument is unwarranted and counterproductive. --217.129.169.136 16:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A speaker's credibility is so important to rendering judgment on something that it's a longstanding cornerstone of the judicial system. If it's important in such a major, history-changing arena as that, it's certainly important in some relatively minor editorial issue as this.--Tenebrae 00:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked? I've never been blocked. There was a single-use harassment account created which left a spurious block message on my talk page. Please don't believe everything you read. —dgies^t_c 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At User:Dgies' request, I have struck my original statement. He tells me the block that was on his page was not a real block, but a forgery. I regret the good-faith error and would be game to remove the thread beginning with the struck portion down to here. --Tenebrae 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeating comments made in a related discussion elsewhere:

Looking at the second guideline that Tenebrae cites, WP:EL, a few points are salient:

• Links normally to be avoided:
  • Point 2, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms 'factually inaccurate material' or 'unverifiable research'", does look like we should be applying the standards that Wiki has when adding ELs. In that case, if the page in the DCAU wiki, DCU wiki, or MU wiki does read as fan-synth, it fails the criteria for inclusion as an EL. Note that this would have to be on a page by page basis.
  • Point 13, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", which seems to be the crux of the argument. It would be nice if the guideline spelled out the thresholds better, but it looks like this can be taken two ways: is the wiki, as a whole stable and supported by a lot of hands, or is the particular article page. I think both should be looked at, but the specific page is paramount. If a page has a history, and since it's a wiki we should be able to see this, of either contentious editing or just one or a very, very few editors providing the text, it becomes suspect.
• Restrictions point 1 is also important. If there is a question, any question, about the linked wiki's use of non-free images, it should be avoided until it is shown that it has a clear copyright/trademark policy.

Given that each page in the target wiki is going to need to be judged on its own merits under these points, it does not make sense to create a template to facilitate easy spam linking. Additionally, even if a template is ultimately agreed on, since it is an open wiki, only the direct link to the relevant page is justified, not a link to the from of the wiki.

Delete the template and allow for the inclusions normally. - J Greb 19:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #13 states we should avoid "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." So even for an external link the inclusion of this across a wide range of entries (which a template is designed to facilitate) would require a consensus decision from the Comics Project that the wiki is considered stable and has enough editors. If we had that consensus then I'd be happy to vote keep for this but until that happens it has to be delete. We should take this to the project talk page after the TfD closes. (Emperor 19:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • To address the question of what open wikis are acceptable I've started a discussion on the Comics Project talk page here. (Emperor 17:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • I have changed my vote - we have discussed the DC Animated Universe Wiki and reached a consensus decision that it satisfies the specific external links guideline [1]. Templating the links allows us to keep an eye on the links and make sure the ones added conform to general WP:EL guidelines. (Emperor 11:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Note: Consensus came in today against a template for a similar Marvel site, here. Having this template would be inconsistent, at the least.      I think J Greb and Emperor make incisive and thoughtful points. In the absence of any other reference, and if a particular page of that outside open wiki is arguably encyclopedic, one might make a case for including it as an EL on a case-by-case basis. But we need to ask: Is that the best EL available? In most cases, from what I can read there, that wiki simply restates what's already here, or less. It's be more salient and direct to link to the original sources used to write those wiki entries.--Tenebrae 01:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"that wiki simply restates what's already here" Again, biased. Can you exemplify? Did you bother to check the ELs you so quicly removed? That wiki's entries are written in an in-universe perspective, much like Wookieepedia. You're not gonna tell me that's against Wikipedia EL rules. Also, I merely asked for the template because there were already links to some articles here; I only posted a couple. That wiki offers detail that Wikipedia doesn't per Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. Catwoman, Derek Powers, Darkseid. Compare those with the ones here. "It's be more salient and direct to link to the original sources used to write those wiki entries." What sources? The sources for that wiki are the shows... How can you "link to the original sources used to write those wiki entries" when they are based on episodes? Also, that Marvel site is not "similar". That wiki is about comics, this one is about animated series. Wikipedia has plenty of details on comics, not on those cartoons. Don't generalize. Judge this on a case-by-case basis. --217.129.169.136 09:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The above editor is the one who unilaterally added the template link to an open wiki for which there is no consensus, and is similar to a Marvel wiki that consensus disallowed. First, I would like to know if he contributes to or is connected to this outside open wiki. Second, WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided states the policy against linking to open wikis except in narrow, consensus-agreed-upon circumstances. This editor cannot, personally, by herself, decide that any particular outside open wiki meets the high criteria stated. --Tenebrae 15:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't "all these links without consensus". The links were there, I merely replaced them with the template. Get your facts straight before making accusations. My only mistake was requesting the template, and for that I apologized. I found that wiki via a link on Wikipedia. There I found more good guides and added a few ELs here. I think that qualifies as good faith. Then I saw how many other articles here had already links to that site. I didn't add them all. --217.129.169.136 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, they were added without any discussion of whether that open wiki even meets the narrow criteria. I have corrected the above to remove my erroneous statement that you added the links themselves, but rather linked the template across several pages.--Tenebrae 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should really read WP:GF. I was trying to improve the articles. Maybe instead of removing first and asking second, you could have explained this on a talk page first before going on a rampage to remove links that were there before.

Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same.

I understand you're trying to uphold Wikipedia's policies, but you could have asked yourself "Were those links harmful in any way? Were they disrupting the article/site? Or were they providing more insight to the respective topics?" I can't speak for every link, but I'm pretty sure the links I added (not the template) were pretty detailed... I already acknowledged I jumped the gun with the template, but you still think you did the right thing by removing those ELs based on a rule that says links to open wikis should be avoided. You acted like it said they "must be excluded". If someone put them there, don't you think they found them useful and others could benefit from them? Isn't that the cornerstone of WP:GF, one of the pillars of Wikipedia? This whole argument seems to be directed more towards the credibility of ELs to open wikis then the real issue at hands... 217.129.169.136 16:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the good faith policies and I never accused anyone of not acting in good faith. I'm not sure why you would bring that up except to cast an unwarranted aspersion on my action.

"If someone put them there, don't you think they found them useful...?" is not an argument. People put up links to all sorts of sites. Everyone who adds a link thinks it's useful. As for "should be avoided," it means simply what it says: Open wikis should be avoided.

Your final sentence is troublesome in that it, like your unwarranted WP:GF claim, seeks to divert attention from the very specific issues to make, again, an accusation about some larger, hidden agenda that simply does not exist. Please don't do that. --Tenebrae 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was not "unwarranted." You acted like you assumed bad faith. You probably didn't, but actions speak louder than words. Again, just because it says they should be avoided, it doesn't mean you should remove them once you see them... --217.129.169.136 16:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making personal accusations. I am not responsible for your misinterpretations.

Open-wiki links are to be avoided. One does not avoid something by creating a template for them. You took action unilaterally over links that appear to violate policy, and in any event are certainly are not to be linked to without consensus. --Tenebrae 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per dgies. Let's use some common sense here, rather than rule-lawyer what the policy WP:EL actually says (and there's WP:IAR anyway): having taken a look, the DC AU wiki looks like a reasonably comprehensive resource of the fancruft stuff not well suited for the Wikipedia, but suitable for finding more information for the fans interested readers. We righteously don't consider DC AUW a WP:RS, but I find an external link to it entirely reasonable. We do also have ((imdb)), which is not a WP:RS either, don't we? The template merely helps standardization of the links. Duja► 08:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't imply that your way is "common sense" and other people's views are not. That's a rhetorical device politicians may use, but it has no place here.

Whatever the merits of this fan-wiki, it's not comparable to IMDb, which has a vetting process that can take a week or more for the editors to approve a change. These third-party wikis have no such vetting.

In any event, the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Wikis seems to be leaning toward having the DC AUW be approved as an External link, but on a page-by-page basis. Please see. Thanks. --Tenebrae 14:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Since this site doesn't appear to be regarded as linkspam, and articles are going to be linking to it anyway, then there'e really no harm in having this template for that purpose. PC78 16:03, 12 September 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 no consensus. — Malcolm (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ontario King's Highways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These articles now all use template:infobox road, which includes a link to list of Ontario provincial highways and browsing links to the previous and next routes. It should also be noted that the template does not include all King's Highways; the 400-series highways are also in that system. If they were added, each of those articles would have two templates at the bottom. — NE2 13:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm no longer arguing for deletion, nor am I arguing for keeping. --NE2 01:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All of the US ones have been deleted, as well as the ON one. --Rschen7754 (T C) 21:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as this person is vandalising this article, and several others (such as Template:Roads in Ontario Cities and Template:Roads in Nova Scotia Cities). If you want to get technical, ALL highways in ontario are legally called "Kings Highways", which makes the deletion of Template:ONThighways questionable. This nomination is being made in bad faith. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is being made in good faith. Please do not make bad-faith accusations. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would you ever know?  Smcafirst | Chat  at 21:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:AGF, and I also believe what NE2 does regarding the template. Does this mean that I am acting out of bad faith as well? --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and [2] master son^{T - C} 00:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comment I agree that these are redundant to a link leading to a list article on ((Infobox road)).See my comments below. To RingtailedFox, please stop, assume that NE2 is trying to help, quit assuming good-faith edits are vandalism, and possibly take a break. —O (说 • 喝) 00:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Navigational boxes much more appropriate for article navigation than 2+1 link in an infobox. But do cleanup this template (cross-space links at bottom). --Qyd 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. per Qyd and RingtailedFox. I think the 2+1 infobox links are very confusing, and "hard" to jump from one highway link to another (say I want to get from Highway 2 to Highway 148, it will take me ages to do that, since I have to visit every single consecutive pages in order to get there. What NE2 had objected earlier with my opinion above is that you can use the List of Ontario provincial highways for navigation. Personally, I think the list is messy, and with the mixed-in introduction of each highway type (i.e. King's Highway, 400-series, etc.), it is not easy to find. This is particular serious for new users to get around. And again, what is the use of having templates when you can substitute it with lists? You might as well delete all templates.  Smcafirst | Chat  at 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can just click the number 2 in the URL bar, backspace over it, and type 148...—Scott5114↗ 23:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• After thinking about it, I have no problem with taking only the simple list, adding on the other King's Highways (400-series), removing former highways and the clutter at the bottom, and sticking it on all but the 400-series articles. This would be three lines of relatively small text. Other templates, like "roads in X region", should not be on the King's Highway articles though; the only one would be this template. And the secondary and tertiary boxes do need to go - secondary because it's huge, and tertiary because there are so few. --NE2 23:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly it definitely looks much smaller now, so maybe I can do the same with the Quebec one.--JForget 01:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly large browsing templates need to go. —Scott5114↗ 23:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not really a reason to delete this one; it would be smaller than Template:ADHS, which was kept, after my proposed changes. --NE2 23:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - some form of consensus must be found for how Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads is going to handle the entire article tree structure. The nominated template has considerable overlap with Template:Ontario numbered highways. I believe a no consensus here, should precipitate a strong urge for the WP:WPCR to begin a discussion on structure and templates.
• "ALL highways in ontario are legally called "Kings Highways" " No, not true. Queen Elizabeth Way & Macdonald-Cartier Freeway have never been legally refered to as Kings Highways. The Legality you might be refering too would be the the legal phrase "King's highway" used to denote hiways collectivly, aka "roadspace" or Crown land Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 10:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The QEW is a King's Highway: [3] Since the MTO rarely uses the term, there is no other definition than the legal one. --NE2 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "Cite" you found says exactly what I said... it consistently refers collectivly to areas (usually between 2 known points, one of which your search hit on). So why is "King's highway" being used as a Title? especially "Since the MTO rarely uses the term"? Now try a search for "the Kings's highway Queen Elizabeth Way" as a Title. It does not exist. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the MTO does use the term in their traffic counts:

        The King’s Highways

        • Queen Elizabeth Way (Q.E.W.)
        • Highway 2 to Highway 148
        • The 400 series (Highway 400 to Highway 427)

      • There is no "Kings's Highway Queen Elizabeth Way", because that's not the style used. For other highways, something is needed before the number, but "Queen Elizabeth Way" is a full name. It's pretty clear that whenever the MTO or legislature talks about King's Highways, they are including the QEW. --NE2 11:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not the "style used" because it is not a Title [4] according to the Highway Traffic Act. It is an Honorific applied collectivly, applicable to the secondary highways and tertiary roads, noting the areas ownership belongs to the Crown. It is equal to saying "The Crown land located at lot 2, gore 1, Amabel township". The term "King's highway" could be applied to an empty field, once it has been aquired by the Crown and prior to construction of a sideroad. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your link is broken. Can you please give evidence that King's Highway has your meaning? I showed that the MTO uses it for the "primary" highways, including the QEW. --NE2 15:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ search for "includes the secondary highways and tertiary roads designated under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act" (apolagies for the previous broken link) Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that's a special definition for that act; is there anywhere else that a secondary highway or tertiary road is called a King's Highway? --NE2 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • That source is THE difinitive source. The source you just read is the definition as per the law of the land. Anyone else using it differently, is using it (I am sorry to say) wrongly. It is not a Title given to 'a closed group' of roadways. It legally denotes roads, collectivly, under the ownership of the Crown. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus has been formed already at WT:CRWP... --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What consensus? --NE2 22:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Speedy Keep The infobox browser and the template are very much different thus the template makes it more easy to navigate if you want to move from Hwy 7 to Hwy 402 or Hwy 69 for example. Removing the template would a more difficult navigation throughout the different highways easpecially for provinces that have a large number of provincialy (state)-maintained roads such as Ontario, Quebec and also various US states like California, Florida and Texas. The infobox browser is also very useful too especially for updates/improvements to the infobox. So both ways can be used.--JForget 18:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both ways are redundant. Furthermore, what section in Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies to this nomination? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The browsing system works fine for the United States. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In no way does this help editors more than infobox browsing. I'd like to know exactly how many times editors !voting keep here have actually used the template to jump 200 articles at a time. If that number is above one per year, I'd be shocked and would have doubts about how legit the comment is. For those who absolutely insist that the ability to jump multiple articles is necessary, there is (1) a link to the highway list in the infobox and (2) you can manually change the URL if you're really impatient. The comments that the template is easier to use than a list is garbage: both are organized in the same manner. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 22:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume that everybody has your logic system. I use navigational boxes all the time, so feel free to be shocked. Labeling other editor's remarks as garbage borders incivility. Articles are written for readers, not editors. Asking readers to modify the url as a mean of navigation is absolutely not realistic. --Qyd 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. Or they could just type it into the search box and hit Go. Or go to the list and pick the highway. It's not difficult. —Scott5114↗ 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant to ((Infobox road)) links and browsing. These types of navigational templates are overly large. If the editors of these templates care about keeping them organised, then how about exerting more effort in keeping the lists organised? Templates only supplement articles, not templates being the base list of things. —O (说 • 喝) 00:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone keeps saying it's overly large, but that's not true. It's two lines on my screen, now that I've removed the clutter, and at most four or so on smaller ones. On the other hand, Template:ADHS is three, and Template:Interstates is nine. --NE2 01:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:O: relax, friend. I am assuming that he's trying to help, but how is deleting productive and well-used and popular pages helping anyone other than disrupting things, and creating the "red link farms" that he wanted to be rid of in the first place? To User:Scott5114: they could also click [hide], and it would go away as well. it's not that difficult, as you say. To User:Rschen7754, you're not acting in bad faith, but you're encouraging someone who is.

I don't see what the big fuss is regarding these templates. First we had one single template, and that was deleted. Then, we thought "okay, so perhaps it was too big or could be better-used with different highway categories in different templates each". Nope. Apparently, having more templates is even worse. I use those templates and their links all the time, and so do other wikipedians. I don't understand why everyone hates templates so much. If people are complaining about the size issue, then why isn't Template:Interstates constantly being nominated for deletion?

Again with the comparison to Template:Infobox road. The two are nothing alike. Could someone please explain to me how they feel that they are they related? I believe they are not one and the same, but completely different. Infobox road tells the basic information of the road. these templates simply list the highways in the provincial network, extending the lists that they also belong with.

One final note here, I'm not trying to be incivil. if i come off that way, i'm sorry. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 19:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are referring to the browse feature of ((infobox road)). I would imagine ((Interstates)) hasn't been nominated due to the fact that browse feature is by state and interstates are a national network. I am not familiar with Canadian highways, but is there a national system of roads? A template for those would seem acceptable to me. I don't see the usefulness of a template for the provincial roads though. The browse feature allows you to go through all of them in numeric order, all intersecting highways are linked in the infobox. I guess the only thing it wouldn't let you do is randomly go from article to article, but then again I don't see why that is useful. Even if you wanted to do so, you could just go to the list article and randomly jump from article to article. Thus, I say Delete. --Holderca1 20:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The templates are extra clutter. WP:FA will never accept them. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think objecting to the presence of the template would be a "non-actionable" objection, if it's used on the entire system. --NE2 15:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no national numbered network, but there is the Trans-Canada Highway, with its branches, Yellowhead Highway and Crowsnest Highway. Together, these are more of an equivalent to the US Routes network. The provinces handle numbering schemes, but the four western provinces simply synchronized their numbers (1 and 16)... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 13:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also confused as to why none of those objecting to this being deleted spoke at WT:WPCR#Bottom-of-article_navigational_boxes where this was being discussed prior to nomination. --Holderca1 14:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qyd did. --NE2 15:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't speak up becuase no one told me a discussion was going on. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's on the project talk page of a project you are member of. I would think this deletion discussion would be harder to find out about than a discussion held there. --Holderca1 11:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I tried to clean up the article Tree, it ended quickly and quietly. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:54, 14 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Daelim Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Isu Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:On-Media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All red link farms with no more than two blue links each. Articles in each set are already interlinked, while the red links are all listed in each of the main articles. These templates serve no meaningful navigation purpose. PC78 13:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not enough articles to merit templates. No prejudice to future creation if compliant articles appear. Deiz talk 15:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per Deiz. No use in a template that links to one article! *Cremepuff222* 00:59, 9 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greek Vases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

It's big in often very small articles (for example Kleophon Painter) but brings nearly nothing. There are only some Key words. But Key words are not enough for such a big theme. What it helps me, if I can see all kind of vase shapes, if I reading an article about a painter? And painters - that's the main problem. Here are 4 painters and one group of painters listed. Of some 100s. Why these 5? Why not the Nessos painter? The Achilles peinter? Euphronios? Kleitias? Brygos painter? Psiax? Oltos? Onesimos? Why only attic painters and not one korinthian or underitalic? There are also some technics missing. But if we would create a correct Template, it would be so big, it would'nt be to handel. The Template is an unmotivatet attempt. But nothing mor then a failed attempt. So please delete. This is'nt a quater of qhat would be necessarily. But on the other hand - nobody could want such a mega-tmplate. — Marcus Cyron 09:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, just divide it into smaller sub-templates if you really think it's an issue. :) *Cremepuff222* 01:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I made this edit. The comment was being transcluded onto every page that the template was on. *Cremepuff222* 01:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sont know why?! Marcus Cyron 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Template is an unmotivatet attempt. But nothing mor then a failed attempt. Huh? Twospoonfuls 10:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...and nothing more tha a failed... - I'm not a native speaker. Marcus Cyron 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unmotivatet is not a word found in English, if you're going to bust any more administrative moves may I recommend you get out of the habit of machine translating your own text. Twospoonfuls 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but possibly edit down a bit. Mostly, this looks like a content dispute more than like an actual argument for deletion. I agree that the painters section looks fairly problematic, but otherwise, this looks like a fairly standard and useful nav template. Xtifr _tälk 12:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, that many of the articles are stubs is a problem with the catagory not the template. That it is somewhat limited in the choice of what is represented is true of any navagational tool: the map is not the territory, who ever thought it was? Why aren't there more painters? I agree there should be with the caveat that some 98% of them are total mediocraties not worth recording in detail. Perhaps a better criterion would be only those painters who have had monographs published on them should be included. Twospoonfuls 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ^{El Greco (talk · contribs)} 19:02, 15 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template becoming overly large an unwieldy. Recommendation is to convert to Category:Fare collection systems directly and do away with the template.. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. A category would be much more fit than a template this size. *Cremepuff222* 01:07, 9 September 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. — Malcolm (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was created in 2005, when WP:AFD was known as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion; since then, deletion discussions have moved significantly away from being votes.

There are essentially two issues with the template. First, it's self-contradicting: it insists that we value reasoned debate yet also states that certain arguments may be given less weight merely due to the age of an account. Second, I think the template goes against current consensus. Admins should not give less weight to the suggestions of new users; they should give less weight to the suggestions of suspected or confirmed trolls, sockpuppets, and meatpuppets. Most sockpuppets are new users, but not all new users are sockpuppets. Arguments should be evaluated on their merits (i.e. their basis in policy and general consensus).

I can understand that the template may have been useful at one time, but it is no longer needed. Delete. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I currently see the main utility of this template to hint to unregistered users to get an account. But there is another template for just that. It does seem redundant and perhaps even problematic. Concur with delete. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree that it is no longer needed. I used to come across it quite a bit, but not anymore. *Cremepuff222* 01:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator's statement. No longer of use now, and completely contradictory to the newer version of AfD. Sebi _[talk] 03:12, 9 September 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.